Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Kanzler]

I'm wondering here, when talking about homosexuality are we talking about the love aspect or the sexual intercourse? Is one side more natural than the other or are they treated the same? For the religious among us, the bible only condemns the sexual intercourse as far as I'm aware, but says nothing about loving. So, technically speaking, as long as you only had sex with the opposite gender, you could love whomever you liked.

I would argue that homosexual intercourse is more natural than homosexual love because there appear to be more cases in animals of pure intercourse rather than love and affection.

Right, but I think it's generally agreed that animals don't love and have affection for each other in the way humans do, so it's not really the homosexuality bit that makes homosexual "love" less natural in animals.

Romantic love is intertwined with lust, and that's the context we're using here. You could say that the love between father and son and mother and daughter is a "homosexual" love, but nobody ever says that because "homosexual love" is understood to be homosexual romantic love.

 

[Sun]

If homosexuality is unnatural, then this must be edited with Photoshop. Lol Dibs on fake mane.

Spoiler:

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...a-safari-park-ignoring-pregnant-lioness.html\

Joking aside, animals that exhibit homosexual behavior has been documented in over 1500 species. You know what's unnatural? Humans discriminating the homosexuals.

 

[Midnight shadow]

Right, but I think it's generally agreed that animals don't love and have affection for each other in the way humans do, so it's not really the homosexuality bit that makes homosexual "love" less natural in animals.

Romantic love is intertwined with lust, and that's the context we're using here. You could say that the love between father and son and mother and daughter is a "homosexual" love, but nobody ever says that because "homosexual love" is understood to be homosexual romantic love.

Depends on the species. Some species only stay paired for the act of mating and raising the young (and sometimes not even as long as that), while other species will pair up for life. That's the problem with comparing humans to other animals when deciding what was natural or not, since there is such a huge diversity of behaviours in the animal kingdom. For example, when seahorses reproduce it's the male that carries and gives birth, rather than the female. Now imagine if that happened to humans and suddenly homosexuality doesn't seem all that weird.

 

[Kanzler]

Depends on the species. Some species only stay paired for the act of mating and raising the young (and sometimes not even as long as that), while other species will pair up for life. That's the problem with comparing humans to other animals when deciding what was natural or not, since there is such a huge diversity of behaviours in the animal kingdom. For example, when seahorses reproduce it's the male that carries and gives birth, rather than the female. Now imagine if that happened to humans and suddenly homosexuality doesn't seem all that weird.

How does this affect the idea that other animals do not engage in social behaviours as complex as ours? If you have a dog, does it love you with the same complexity as you love it? What I'm saying is that your assertion that homosexual intercourse is more natural than homosexual love can easily be explained by the fact that "love" isn't something that animals do. In the non-human world, yeah intercourse in general is more "natural" than love to begin with.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I'm wondering here, when talking about homosexuality are we talking about the love aspect or the sexual intercourse? Is one side more natural than the other or are they treated the same? For the religious among us, the bible only condemns the sexual intercourse as far as I'm aware, but says nothing about loving. So, technically speaking, as long as you only had sex with the opposite gender, you could love whomever you liked.

I would argue that homosexual intercourse is more natural than homosexual love because there appear to be more cases in animals of pure intercourse rather than love and affection.

Morkula debunked the information about sexual intercourse between homosexuality being a sin two pages ago.

 

[gimmepie]

Morkula debunked the information about sexual intercourse between homosexuality being a sin two pages ago.

I don't think he was suggesting it was a sin. He was pondering the degree of how natural homosexual love is compared to homosexual intercourse.

 

[Midnight shadow]

Morkula debunked the information about sexual intercourse between homosexuality being a sin two pages ago.

Gimmepie is right. I was wondering if anyone believes that homosexual love is any more or less natural than homosexual intercourse.

 

[Kanzler]

Gimmepie is right. I was wondering if anyone believes that homosexual love is any more or less natural than homosexual intercourse.

I think at this point we're comparing apples and oranges. When people say homosexuality is natural, they appeal to the fact that it occurs in animals. Most people would say that love is something we don't see in nature. So love to begin with is not "natural" in the sense that people appeal to when they're talking about homosexuality.

 

[Midnight shadow]

I think at this point we're comparing apples and oranges. When people say homosexuality is natural, they appeal to the fact that it occurs in animals. Most people would say that love is something we don't see in nature. So love to begin with is not "natural" in the sense that people appeal to when they're talking about homosexuality.

Really? I would beg to differ on that:

https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-couples-in-love/

Contrary to popular belief not all animals are driven purely by instinct. Like I said before, there are some animal species that stay paired for life, which I'm sure they wouldn't do out of pure instinct. A lot of people try and distance themselves from animals by saying things like "animals don't love like we do" but it simply isn't true. Sure the signs are harder to recognise but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[Kanzler]

Really? I would beg to differ on that:

https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-couples-in-love/

Contrary to popular belief not all animals are driven purely by instinct. Like I said before, there are some animal species that stay paired for life, which I'm sure they wouldn't do out of pure instinct. A lot of people try and distance themselves from animals by saying things like "animals don't love like we do" but it simply isn't true. Sure the signs are harder to recognise but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

I don't know, why couldn't you say that it's just a mating instinct that causes animals to pair up for life? Just because they stay together for a long time doesn't mean it can be explained by love, heck, humans are capable of staying together without loving too. Saying that animals love too implies that they experience emotions in complex social interactions like we do, using symbolism and appealing to abstract ideals, and I think that's a stretch. If it's simply isn't true that animals can't love like humans, then it should be quite simply demonstrated that it isn't true.

And sex in general is more common than love. We have sex in relationships and sex out of relationships. I'd wager that more people are having sex than are in relationships (not to mention all the people having sex with other people outside of a relationship). Many animals reproduce sexually, but a fraction of them form extended pair bonding - hetero or homosexual.

So that homosexual sex is more "natural" than homosexual love can be explained by the fact that sex is more common than love, since sex can exist without love and - let's be real here - romantic love often comes with sex. I'm not buying the assertion that homosexual love is less "natural" than homosexual sex.

 

[RegalSin]

Most of the people who are buying into non-heterosexual are from families that are better off.

 

[Midnight shadow]

Most of the people who are buying into non-heterosexual are from families that are better off.

I don't follow. Care to elaborate on that point?

 

[RegalSin]

Non-heterosexual's and activities was more then accepted back in the 1960's when it started to show it's true colors. Even the 1950's. It was a problem of when your children would pass it on and was advertised and created more non-heterosexuals. It was so terrible of the bashing that people got married to not look non-heterosexual to there elderly family members.

In fact due to anti-non-heterosexual media activity. Such as bashing jobs and career choices. It created a culture where children would use peer pressure and push ideas of non-heterosexual activity on people. Even parents would do the same thing. In fact the negativity is so strong it affected people into video-games as well. This has nothing to do with bullying but bad parenting.

Non-heterosexual activity is marketed and is not a choice. Theater/media itself is created to manipulate the masses into doing something they though they would never do at all. It is like a vice versa thing. You think you know yourself but then you ask "Why am I doing this". Take the rebels of various nations. Some people were just happy at home running up and down, and then because of a few words turned into some kind of crazy maniacs. That is part of marketing.

The same could be said for peaceful people. Your walking up and down taking photographs and then ten or even thirty years later everybody thinks your a pervert ( which is another original term for non-heterosexual. So do not be fooled by it's double meaning. See "home-alone 2" ) or a violent sex starved predator, or even an Alien or something. Things that were innocent becomes non-tolerable behavior.

However with non-heterosexual activity they keep saying it is normal and okay. The bigger problem is not the lesser non-heterosexuals but when people in power abuse there powers for there own gain. The media shows you these harmless non-heterosexual types but they never show you the supremacists or the lobbyists, or even and lawyers in the background who are non-heterosexuals. They do not show the millionaires who are non-heterosexual.

They show you the poor people and the innocent people instead. Point being is that it is marketed and to make matters worst with "Fathers knows best" households we have non-heterosexuals ( irregardless of genders living among the family ). Archie Bunker ( which I am pretty sure we have tons of in our families. )

The bigger problem is the division of people in gentile communities. Where you could be a big man and carry a gun and talk big. Compared to women who freely play around with each other. Then there is the submissive wife and dominant husband to other scenarios. It is that insane of a world but the reality is that non-heterosexual activity is a byproduct of a successful home.

It is like something went wrong in the mixture when two people got together. Maybe the husband was a son of spinster and the mother was a daughter of a penny pincher.

Point being is that non-heterosexual activities are marketed for the higher gain of preventing "Soylent Greens" from occurring. It is used to keep population of the non-Europeans AKA the 23% of the United States compared to the European/White population of 77%. It is used to slow people down ( among other things ) from progressing into what they truly are or truly is.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

That was a rather confusing read, so correct me if I'm wrong, but are you telling me that you believe that the media/government are subliminally encouraging us or manipulating us into homosexuality as a means of population control? Because that is most certainly what it reads like.

 

[RegalSin]

In terms of this debate yes. Look let me tell you how it works.

1. We want a law passed AKA We want to sell a product even if it is good or bad

2. We need voters

3. We hire marketeers, Lobbyists, and other highly regarded worshiped people like celebrities.

4. They make it happen by various means including...........

5. By manipulating the media ( anything you could think of that sits in front of you, shapes, colors, )

6. To persuade public opinion.

7. The people start talking

8. Some people start mimicking.

9. Eventually people get inspired to repeat the process. Just like shampooing your hair.

10. Fail or win the virus ( motion ) is set in place

11. It might be dormant but the idea is there. Eventually that idea might be acted out at some point.

12. Maybe you accidentally kiss a person of the same gender. You mimic something you see in media.

You do something that is actually a part of that need or want.

12. Boom a law/bill goes to office. The idea/Virus/seed is in place.

13. People have different levels of the idea. The media amasses until it is real enough.

14. Boom now we have a full blown law that is nice and legal. Nobody can do anything to stop it, because it is too powerful and too strong.

15. However the reversal occurs. People are now willing to lose there lives for that idea. The two ideas now clash.

16. However people want peace so they make an exception. However the idea( like any virus ) grows and grows in that peace. Like a cloud with water in a dry deserted land. The idea over-takes the people without knowning.

17. More laws and bills get passed. More idolizing of celebrities occur. More media with more suggestive content. It is all legal because of our rights. 18. So now we have non-heterosexuals all over the place slowly wiping out everything that is heterosexual.

Bottom line is that they want less people who are freed men ( and I mean men because that is what matters in the end ). They want men to become girls or have traits of women. They also want to keep enough people alive and reproducing because without people you have nobody to rule over.

It is all part of a biological breeding program. A program to make slaves of our futuristic offspring we might never know or never meet. Create the perfect slave. Free but at the same time not free.

Think of it like this. You know roaches and rats. Some people wish they could just get rid of them ASAP. Sometimes we use poison but nowadays we have radio-wave devices that works like a shark radar. We can manipulate the Roaches into not breeding. We CAN SEND A MESSAGE and SEPARATE THE SEXES from the roaches and make it look positive.

I am not saying that people with non-heterosexual preferences are wrong. I am saying promoting the generation ( generating ) of more non-heterosexuals is wrong. We need to just not say anything about the subject at all. No stereotypes ( like the ones we see in theater ), no characters added by focus groups. Just clean media not featuring anything related to the subject. No jokes and no gags.

If the bs we had from before our grand parents might be put inside of looney-bins and our parents behind bars. Luckly this is not China pushing mothers not to give birth.

 

[Exodrake]

Honestly, the word "unnatural" is ridiculous. Everything that exists is nature because it is bound by the laws of nature; it's literally impossible to have "un-nature".

 

[Midnight shadow]

Snip.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Can you give any examples of this actually occuring? The closest I can come to is the inclusion of stereotypically gay men in tv shows like The Simpsons and Will And Grace, but these were added to appeal to people who were already gay, not to try and convert hetrosexuals to being gay.

 

[for him.]

In terms of this debate yes. Look let me tell you how it works.

SNIP

What? Did you try to make a conspiracy theory out of homosexuality? Here are a few things I am going to throw in your direction.

1) The LGBT movement did start to begin in the 1960s, but it doesn't mean we were more accepted. LGBT+ identified people were seen as sexual deviants and as people with mental disorders. (And homosexual activity was still a crime back then too....)

2) Why would people want to mimic being in an oppressed minority? And why would the media advertise that? There has got to be more than "population control" as a reason to convince people to be part of an oppressed minority.

3) The prevalence of LGBT stereotypes happens mostly because of ignorance.

4) Not sure how idolizing of celebrities relate to this at all.

5) If the media was trying to convince people to "become homosexual," then why do we have the bury your gays trope? How would manipulating people to identify as LGBT+ work if the most prevalent association of being LGBT+ is unhappiness and premature violent/saddening death?

6) And you are implying that LGBT+ identified people shouldn't be in media at all, but only all the straight, cis-gendered people should be portrayed in the media. That's not only unrealistic, but with your logic, you are also implying that the media would promote the "heterosexual agenda," which begs the question why the "homosexual agenda" is bad and why the "heterosexual agenda" is good? Because at this point you are rating sexualities and I find that problematic.

 

[Kanzler]

What? Did you try to make a conspiracy theory out of homosexuality? Here are a few things I am going to throw in your direction.

1) The LGBT movement did start to begin in the 1960s, but it doesn't mean we were more accepted. LGBT+ identified people were seen as sexual deviants and as people with mental disorders. (And homosexual activity was still a crime back then too....)

2) Why would people want to mimic being in an oppressed minority? And why would the media advertise that? There has got to be more than "population control" as a reason to convince people to be part of an oppressed minority.

3) The prevalence of LGBT stereotypes happens mostly because of ignorance.

4) Not sure how idolizing of celebrities relate to this at all.

5) If the media was trying to convince people to "become homosexual," then why do we have the bury your gays trope? How would manipulating people to identify as LGBT+ work if the most prevalent association of being LGBT+ is unhappiness and premature violent/saddening death?

6) And you are implying that LGBT+ identified people shouldn't be in media at all, but only all the straight, cis-gendered people should be portrayed in the media. That's not only unrealistic, but with your logic, you are also implying that the media would promote the "heterosexual agenda," which begs the question why the "homosexual agenda" is bad and why the "heterosexual agenda" is good? Because at this point you are rating sexualities and I find that problematic.

Yeah, I didn't know you could go full-on tin-foil hat on homosexuality, but apparently it has been done. I must say it is a very original variation on the now age-old fear of the "homosexual agenda".

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

So, the extremely conservative media of places like the US and Australia, who are known to be very much anti-LGBT+, are simultaneously pushing the conservative agenda and the mythical "gay agenda"? Nothing contradictory there at all.