Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Yoshikko]

Granted, the thread could have been titled better, but I see nothing wrong in this type of thread. Many heterosexual people don't understand homosexuals which is why homophobia even exists (fear of the unknown often leads to anger and rejection). So, as a gay man, I come into this thread with the mindset to educate people so they can better understand homosexuality and not fear it, rather than me trying to defend my sexual orientation. These sorts of things should be talked about in order for us to understand one another and live peacefully.

it's up to you how you feel, that's up to everyone personally. straight people are not little kids that need a thread where they can rant about how homosexuality is unnatural and how gay people are going to hell (page 4, i think?) to understand. there is nothing to understand. that is the whole point like it's treated like this weird thing that we need to make straight people ~comprehend~ and it's completely wrong.

creating a thread like this makes me assume that such homophobic opinions are welcome here or that they're just as valid as the other side which is absolute bullcrap. why is there given room to say homosexuality is unnatural? what good does that?? it's homophobia and i stand by that, ppl can scream opinion all they want but that is what it is.

 

[Midnight shadow]

it's up to you how you feel, that's up to everyone personally. straight people are not little kids that need a thread where they can rant about how homosexuality is unnatural and how gay people are going to hell (page 4, i think?) to understand. there is nothing to understand. that is the whole point like it's treated like this weird thing that we need to make straight people ~comprehend~ and it's completely wrong.

creating a thread like this makes me assume that such homophobic opinions are welcome here or that they're just as valid as the other side which is absolute bullcrap. why is there given room to say homosexuality is unnatural? what good does that?? it's homophobia and i stand by that, ppl can scream opinion all they want but that is what it is.

No offence but I think you are taking this a bit too personally. I wasn't aware that an adult is expected to know and understand everything in this world, because I certainly don't know everything. That is why we have forums in the first place, to share knowledge and discuss topics of interest.

I've read through this entire thread and the only homophobia has come from one person, who sounded like a religious fanatic who just spouts out bible passages as a basis for his argument. I know from experience not to listen or try to talk to those kinds of people because they never listen. That one person doesn't reflect the feelings of the community in general and as you can see, the majority of the people who wrote on this thread were defending gay people against that one fanatical person.

Nobody is forcing you to take part in this thread, and you shouldn't feel the need to defend yourself for your sexual orientation. If talking about homosexuality affects you so much then just ignore this thread and move on. All the OP did was ask a simple question, with nothing implied either way. Like I said they could have worded the question better and actually put more in their first post than just the question, but I see no homophobic intent in it what-so-ever.

 

[Her]

creating a thread like this makes me assume that such homophobic opinions are welcome here or that they're just as valid as the other side which is absolute bullcrap. why is there given room to say homosexuality is unnatural? what good does that?? it's homophobia and i stand by that, ppl can scream opinion all they want but that is what it is.

Variation and opposing views are part of what makes a debate. Even though homophobia is an increasingly uncommon view (in the Western world at least), people still hold that view and so it is going to be a point of contention for many. If they want to express their views in a debate section on a Pokémon forum, so be it. It's hardly Parliament - nothing here is binding. People who do not hold that view are going to challenge it. That's what this section is for.

Not to mention that, well, this neutral thread was made by A Gay.

 

[gimmepie]

Might be worth noting that the OP is a gay man himself (I think).

Anyway, I will not censor threads because they have the potential to go sour, this is the place for deep and serious discussion and censorship like that has no place here. Still, if you have an issue with things brought up here; talk to myself, Nah or a member of higher staff, don't use the thread to rant about said thread's existence because that's going off-topic.

Besides that, this was not a thread for straight people to rant about homosexuality. It was a place to discuss it in a natural context and a chance for people to become further educated. That's all, I am asking all further posters to remain true to the context of the thread and remain on topic.

 

[Nah]

The fact that homophobia still exists in the world means that these kinds of threads need to exist. Not talking about a major problem has never made it any better, and that's exactly why I allow threads that may bring up topics or opinions that some people may find disgusting. I agree that it's kind of fucked up that some people are still homophobic but welcome to the world.

 

[oocyst]

I agree with Yoshikko on this... I really don't think anyone who says all gay people go to hell/homosexuality needs to be stomped out will change their mind because of a thread on this forum, and it's really insensitive to gay people (like me) to have people discuss your personal life as if it's some abstract concept that is approachable in a scientific way. Why does it even matter? This thread is really painful to read and not just because of the opposing views. That's all I have to say.

 

[Her]

It matters because it's still a hotly debated question today...? Many people talk about this on a daily basis, particularly when we leave the relatively LGBT-friendly confines of the Western world.
A discussion being rather frank about sexual theory isn't insensitive , it's just that - a discussion. Coming into a rather old thread and trying to dismiss everything that's been said, based on your own uncomfortability, is more than a little crude.

 

[Nakuzami]

. . . And it's threads like this that are the reason I avoid coming into the Round Table.

There's plenty of other ways to discuss homosexuality or broach such topics without starting off with a question that, in its very nature and wording, breeds a negative bias.

But, to answer the thread's initial question, no, I don't believe it to be unnatural, for so many reasons, including points already made like how it exists in hundreds of animal species, and much more. And I think anyone that would argue against it is both unworthy of my respect and my time.

 

[Kanzler]

There's plenty of other ways to discuss homosexuality or broach such topics without starting off with a question that, in its very nature and wording, breeds a negative bias.

A strong idea will shine through despite the bias under which it has been framed. If homosexuality is so natural, then it should stand justified despite being questioned with a negative bias. It appears that the consensus in this thread is that it is indeed natural. If homosexuality is something that must be talked about with a positive bias, then perhaps it's not as justified as we think it is.

 

[Nakuzami]

A good question is posed with neither a negative nor positive bias. It should be posed without bias, so as not to promote any such idea to either end.

I never said anything about a positive bias, about it being necessary or otherwise. Trying to poke holes in what someone else has said by inferring something based on what is absent is a weak basis for any argument, so I suggest avoiding that.

 

[Kanzler]

A good question is posed with neither a negative nor positive bias. It should be posed without bias, so as not to promote any such idea to either end.

I never said anything about a positive bias, about it being necessary or otherwise. Trying to poke holes in what someone else has said by inferring something based on what is absent is a weak basis for any argument, so I suggest avoiding that.

I didn't mean to argue against you personally and poke holes in your argument for the sake of, I was making the point that a "strong" concept will stand even given a negative bias, so if anything, this further supports the idea that homosexuality is "natural" (on topic). I further make the point that there is no harm done from the formulation of the question because a critical discussion was derived from what might be a biased question.

Ultimately most statements, especially those that involve value judgements, include some amount of bias. On the relationship between homosexuality and naturalness, the question could alternatively have been posed as "is homosexuality natural?" or "is homosexuality natural or unnatural?" Based on your last post, you might prefer the latter of the two alternatives as being the least biased.

However, this thread was begun with an Oxford-style proposition with a sharply framed question. I think a degree of bias is tolerable because, this being a discussion and debate forum, the bias can be questioned. From my understanding, the OP is himself homosexual and resides in an Anglo-saxon country where this style of debate question is quite normal and where the inherent bias is taken into account in the debate itself.

It would be a problem if a strongly biased question undermined the likelihood that the issue could be examined critically, but thank goodness that we have some level of critical thinking and initiative in this forum. I think it's clear in this forum that bias does not necessarily, and rarely too, undermine the quality of discussion (in fact a sharply framed question often incites discussion) that can be had and for that reason OP's question is as good as the rest of them out there.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

No. It's been proven that even some animals like penguins seek the same sex, It's the same with humans. Personally, I'm not gay and I'd never switch teams because I'm attracted to females but I also have gay friends. They know I'm straight and I know they're gay so we have no problems and we respect eachother no matter what. The only time I'd have a problem with a gay person is if I told him I wasn't gay and he tried to hit on me, (which has never happened), but what would you expect someone to do? So no, it's normal if you swing that way. Why should people care anyways? Don't we as humans have the freedom to live how we please? I thought all men/women were created equal?? If humanity can't get over something this simple then we'll never thrive as a species.

 

[Nakuzami]

snip

That is true. Bias is difficult to erase from any statement, but it can be greatly lessened. And yes, of course a viable argument can be formulated in response to a biased question, but that's not the problem with such questions.

And I'm well aware of nathan being gay, but "I'm gay and can ask things in this manner" isn't a justification, it's merely an excuse to exempt the one posing the question from blame of being insensitive to a topic.

I don't believe that a biased question hampers one's abilities to posture an articulate rebuttal—quite the opposite, in fact. Polarizing topics spark debate, and polarizing topics presented with a biased view ignite opinions. I'm certain that nathan's intention was to simply generate discussion, be it for the purpose of boosting activity or for the amusement of seeing what sorts of responses come in. But, personally, I don't approve of such manners of starting debate, assuming one wants serious feedback. It's a very political way of presenting a topic, such as asking a candidate a pointed question on a specific subject; it will get them on the track that the one asking the question wants, but that track is often narrow, limited in scope, and quite honestly a trap. When a question is pointed in such a way, it provides stamina to those that agree with the implied bias and paints those that disagree with it in a certain light.

As I said, it's political, and politics become tiring after a while.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm closing this thread. You're not here to debate the validity of the topic. This has gone on long enough.

 

[gimmepie]

Alright, having talked it around a bit, I'm willing to reopen this thread. This will be the last time I do it though. Please, do not argue the validity of the question, only discuss the topic itself.

 

[Yoshikko]

ok ill use this opportunity to respond in a safe and on-topic way now

unnatural in this debate is pretty much synonymous with SIN/BADNESS so no it's not unnatural, if you feel that way then i have bad news for you. actually i'd even say homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality

 

[gimmepie]

actually i'd even say homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality

This has me curious. What makes you say this?

 

[Kanzler]

ok ill use this opportunity to respond in a safe and on-topic way now

unnatural in this debate is pretty much synonymous with SIN/BADNESS so no it's not unnatural, if you feel that way then i have bad news for you. actually i'd even say homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality

Well, on pages 4 and 5 there was a discussion about whether the reproductive consequences of homosexuality made it any more natural or unnatural, so "unnatural" hasn't been pretty much synonymous with sin/badness.

 

[pastelspectre]

I do not think it is unnatural. I apologize if you do. I am bisexual myself so I do like girls, also boys. I do not see anything wrong with it. I think it's natural.

 

[Midnight shadow]

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.