- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 2,615
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
To be fair here, one can rationalize just about anything to themselves after the fact, especially if there's nothing they can do to really change it.
What else is a person going to do? Wallowing in self pity simply isn't productive way to live one's life.
That's the beauty of the human spirit. We can overcome and adapt to such forms of adversity.
However, that being said, I think it's kind of hard to argue that "adversity" of this sort is intrinsically valuable or useful. It simply makes things more complicated than they have to be and causes unnecessary problems.
If everyone could be born "normal," I'd say that it'd be better if they were.
Did this about normal a few years ago, and decided it was time to try again. Was a fun and interesting thread at the time, so hopefully this will be as well. Two simple questions. Is Homosexuality "normal", and is homosexuality "natural"? If you would, please include your reasoning.
Poll will allow multiple choices, pick a choice for the "normal" question and for the "natural" question. Poll will be up in a couple minutes.
I view homosexuality as closer to the latter. I wouldn't want to be homosexual, but I think that homosexuals who are content with their orientation are genuinely so. That they aren't just "making the best out of a ****ty hand". In which case I don't view homosexuality as something that ought to be prevented any more than being a woman ought to be prevented.
I think the determining factor is not whether a condition is "normal" but whether it's a condition that's inherently bad. I agree that homosexuality is not "normal", but I don't agree that the experience of being homosexual necessarily be bad, even though it's not the way I would want to be.
Should statistical frequency alone warrant any insinuation of something untoward, where there is no conscious intent, malice or adverse effect, we must condemn congenital disability for being similarly infrequent. As to nature, you'd be hard-pressed to conclude that orientation could be anomalous, in the face of what amounts to a culturally and historically ubiquitous feature of sexuality. Had sexuality been defined less by imperatives than a vacuum of ideals, morality might have been relevant, and it could have been merely a preference, pursued on a whim.Did this about normal a few years ago, and decided it was time to try again. Was a fun and interesting thread at the time, so hopefully this will be as well. Two simple questions. Is Homosexuality "normal", and is homosexuality "natural"? If you would, please include your reasoning.
Poll will allow multiple choices, pick a choice for the "normal" question and for the "natural" question. Poll will be up in a couple minutes.
The only issue I'd raise here is that being born as either a woman or a man is the natural order of our species. Conditions like homosexuality don't express themselves in that manner.
This may not be exactly along the line of what you were saying but it made me think. Maybe, given all that we are learning about internal and external genders and such, maybe we don't have hetero and homosexuality per se'. We are male attracted or female attracted and that attraction is based off of how we view others. So regardless of whether "jenny" who was born physically male is or feels female, if a female attracted person can't see them as female then they won't be attracted. Sorry, not trying to derail, but maybe this is fodder for another thread?
I think homosexuality is normal when one of them wears a dress. Then its not gay. As for women, its normal, natural and beautiful. In the minds of most men, all women are only a few drinks away from being bi.
It's unnatural.
No clue what "normak" is?
I don't care if it's normal or natural because they aren't hurting anybody.
Possibly. However, that would depend to a great extent upon how much of the science of attraction is "physical" as opposed to "mental."I strongly suspect that physical attraction is ultimately the stronger element at play, simply because reproduction tends to be the "end game" of human sexual activity.
Though... If we are being honest here, I will admit that dealing with gay men can be a bit strange at times, simply because many of them tend to have rather decidedly "feminine" aspects to their interpersonal style. That can be somewhat off-putting. :lol:
............:
It doesn't matter "why" a person may or may not seek out sexual activity in a heterosexual context. It still results in reproductive outcomes in the vast majority of circumstances, regardless of whether a person intends for it to do so or not, simply because that is the nature of the act.
The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversationHomosexuality subverts this to no productive end.
The "goal" is the survival and propagation of one's species. Individuals with adaptations which are best suited to that goal survive, thrive, reproduce, and therefore pass such adaptations on to the next generation..
So whatAt best, homosexuality would appear to be a recessive trait, which essentially "piggy backs" onto some combination of genes possessed by the homosexual individual's parents. At worst, it might very well be a birth defect caused by something going wrong during gestation (a fetus of one developmental sex being exposed to an overabundance of opposite sex hormones while still in the womb, for instance).
who described it as a "useful" adaptation?Either way, describing it as being a "useful" adaptation is a bit of a stretch
That's a sticky mess isn't it. As long as an "abnormal" behavior isn't hurtful to anyone who is non-consenting, why should we care.That depends. What kind of behaviors are we talking about here?
10 Surprising Health Benefits of SexWhich is?
lol. seriously? Based on what?Yes.
Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.I see no intrinsic value in "diversity" which cannot be shown to serve a useful purpose. In this case, it only causes unnecessary problems and personal hardship.
You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.How are you going to "judge" the way you were born after the fact?
It's a bit late in the game for complaint at that point. :lol
I have to question the reproduction bit unless it is so subconscious that it overrides the knowledge that one is sterile and cannot reproduce. Add to that overriding the knowledge that a woman use to once be physically a man.
I dated a MtF who even pre-op hit my every sense as woman. We have one MtF in our local D/s group who is pre-op but registers rather neutral to me and another who claims to be MtF (the demeanor and the word of others in other groups makes me wonder) that hits male on my radar. Of course all of this has to do with the physical (well maybe not all of it) and is why I say that one's attraction would be based upon how the other is perceived. If one truly perceives a MtF as female and is attracted to female, then it's all good.
Kinsey's "research" is considered to be about as credible these days as that of Sigmund Freud (which is to say, not at all).
His methodology was questionable at best, and actively biased at worst.
Nevertheless, both he and Freud were able to address certain phenomena that none of their colleagues ever came up with a better explanation for.
Although any research has elements that can be fairly criticized, to pretend that either Freud or Kinsey is universally reviled is a gross distortion.
This would basically seem to be the case from everything I've read. On a purely instinctual level, human beings tend to be overwhelmingly "attracted" to clear indicators of fertility in the opposite sex, and our bodies even seem to be adapted in such a way as to flaunt them.
Men are usually drawn to wide, curvy hips and supple breasts and buttocks, all of which indicate either very high levels of estrogen, greater ease of childbirth, or more extensive fat stores which could be utilized in pregnancy. Likewise, women tend to be drawn towards signs of high testosterone which also indicate virility.
This seems to be true of homosexual attraction to a large extent as well (either that, or they go for a member of the same sex who displays strong tendencies towards the opposite gender's form and mannerisms). It simply happens to be the case that the person experiencing the attraction is of the same sex.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversation
The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversation
Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.
So what
lol. seriously? Based on what?
Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.
You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.
Why do I have the feeling that you're not around many gays?
Feel free to tell what I said that I was intrinsically wrong.
Its not *intrinsically* wrong, its just wrong. More words don't make you smarter or make you seem smarter.
Gays have many flavors and attractions. Your perception of what attracts men to men is based on stereotypes - probably from movies made from 60s or 70s. I see you're in the south so its not surprising that your ideas are bass ackward. Spend some time in a real city and if you're as smart as you think you are you'll lose the superficial and wrong ideas of many things. But quite honestly, I don't think you have the *intrinsic* ability to do so.
Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?
For that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
I'm not suggesting anything even half that extreme here.
If by this you mean if you have sex enough someone is gonna end up pregnant then yeah, probably, but that does not support your assertion that sex for purposes other than procreation is not useful.All heterosexual sex ultimately feeds into the purposes of reproduction regardless of whether we are aware of the fact, or even actively fight against it, or not. It is simply the nature of the act.
You're right it does not exist for that purpose or any other. It just exists.Sex doesn't exist to occupy some hedonistic niche.
No it doesn't. That's your belief in god talking not logic, reason or science.It exists to propagate the species
this only makes sense if there is intelligent design. Sex happens to have evolved in a way that feels good and happens to occasionally result in pregnancy neither of those were premeditated or engineered so that a desired outcome would arriveThe fact that it "feels good" is simply nature's way of incentivizing us into seeking it out, and ensuring that couples engage in it regularly enough to ensure pregnancy.
Our biology is not sentient.Okay, so if we don't have sex, and don't reproduce, we die off and go extinct. :shrug:
The fact that we haven't yet would certainly seem to indicate that our biology at least has a vested interest in driving us to ensure the species' survival.
-not to me. There is no "should". The most you can say is that in the very specific area of sexual development it does not function or develop the way the majority doIt would seem to indicate that homosexual orientation is the result of something not functioning in the way it should on either some genetic or developmental level.
A better question is why would you want to? It's self serving Gath. All it accomplishes is making you more comfortable with the world you are surrounded by. If the person "afflicted" with the "condition" of homosexuality has no discomfort with it and it does not inhibit their ability to fully evolve and enjoy a productive life it is very likely they would not choose to change it. Even the suggestion of the necessity to do so implies that there is something inadequate about that person living the version of themselves they were born as. How cruel of anyone to impose that on someone who's life.What would be the harm in correcting or preventing such a thing, if we had the power to do so?
I am not as compelled to qualify things in the same deeply restricted way that you are and I don't believe that I ever "admitted" such a thingBy your own admission, it's not like it serves any useful purpose
Just because I defend it doesn't mean I practice itThe fact that you have repeatedly defended casual sex and promiscuity, perhaps? Hell, Op! I've even seen you defend bisexuality for the purposes of "experimentation" before. :lol
No, there is no reason it should be. Things really don't need a reason to exist. They just do.Is there any reason it should be?
My assumption is that you are referring to things like vaccinations?? Apples and oranges dude.Plenty of preventative medical procures are imposed upon children simply because their parents view it as being for the "greater good." How would this be any different?.
Not one for subtleties are you Gath? I never suggested any such thingFor that matter, weren't you the one who argued that it was better to abort children rather than allow them to grow up poor?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?