Homosexuality is natural

Le duh

girl/girl we will watch that and enjoy it. male/male female/female animal we would laugh. guy/guy we would go on religious hate crimes, WTF is wrong with people

Trackstaff, Apparent immaturity? Who is the one going on about having sex with the lady 'till she was dry like some thirteen-year-old bragging to his buddies about his imagined sex in a locker-room. Furthermore, if you are trying to tell us that you now need drugs to perform the act, I don't think that anyone feels a need to know that or cares. You missed my orginal point entirely--not that that's a surprise--that a great many well-adjusted, straight, married people don't see marriage and sexuality the way that you do at all. Not only that, the husbands I know wouldn't be talking about their wives disrespectfully by saying that they had sex with the lady 'til she was dry either.

NO ON PROP 8 in California!

jahbini, you are mostly right about the "natural" thing- most people who claim homosexuality is unnatural are NOT talking about mother nature but father god. However they need to understand that this IS nature, and nature has a large variety of behavior to be seen, so it's a lost argument.

J_Jammer, I think you are misunderstanding this whole argument. Killing IS "natural", violence IS "natural" and I don't think anyone is claiming it's not. As I said before, human acceptance of behavior is society is not based around what other animals do, and this article doesn't necessarily suggest that, it is SIMPLY a response to people who claim homosexuality is unnatural.

Meanwhile, humans are probably the most "unnatural" animal ever. Medical intervention, technology, taking care of our sick and elderly...we defy nature ALL THE TIME.

I disagree. I find his comments banal and obvious in most instances and quite conservative in others. I'm actually quite struck by the argument that killing is automatically injected into the discussion as if it has anything to do with the topic. Moreover, that one behavior is not recognized unless all the other innate and basic instincts are taken into consideration. I am no expert on psychology, but this seems to be an important and incredibly erroneous flaw in the argument above. Basic instincts and social behaviors are not equated so. No, I am not impressed, but did feel the need to point that out.

J_Jammer, and PoisonTheMonkey:

Hi. May I add another perspective to the "natural" argument.

The view that homosexuality is not "natural" may have nothing to do with "mother nature" and her realm, but rather what "God the Father" is supposed to have written in the Bible (So what if God didn't actually write it, the people who did were "inspired by the true word" when they wrote those stories, LOL)

If you take "natural" as "what it says in the Old Testament, especially when convenient" then you are fighting an uphill battle. And pointing to those penguins may just make "God Fearing Greg" go out and kill those kommie penguins for Krist!

J_Jammer, I have always found that your point of view is original, intelligent, well though out and valid, as well as misunderstood. I think the ancient Greeks wrote plays about that sort of thing: Usually those plays did not end happily.

PoisonTheMonkey, thanks for this post and the light it shows on a flawed argument. And is poisoning monkeys a natural thing to do???

RCS... Been there, done that. Had sex with the lady `till she was dry, and without drugs. Your immaturity is apparent.

Trackstaff, So I suppose from this that we should assume that you and your ilk only have sex to procreate. That would make you sort of like Mayflies who swarm to the surface of the water, mate and die. That makes you very different from the straight married couples whom I know, most of whom have sex for fun.

The definition of homosexuality is explained by nature itself.

The design of the genitals and the purpose for which they are designed. To continue the human species.

The day that all homosexuals behave as hetosexuals, I`ll surrender my opinion to their case.

LOL.

Hi Soleil10. We meet again.

I find it hilarious that you'd call your own argument poor. Considering you are the one who argued to me that homosexuality is not natural, and I just proved that it is (not that it matters, natural does not equal bad or good).

By the way, keep your religion out of this please. It's smelling up the place.

Though not as bad as your opinion that being a single parent should be illegal is. Phew!

2 of the tenant of secular humanism is that man is God and animals are equivalent to man

Animals do not have a spirit and a conscience as we do

Poison you are trying so hard to justify homosexuality by using animals to justify it

That is a very poor argument.

You have to admit though, those monkeys are damn cute.

I think it would be a more interesting discussion if it were about how humans are much more adept at "offending" each other than animals are to themselves. Unless they are trying to eat one another, I'm quite sure they don't take as much delight and go to such lengths in making each other suffer mentally emotionally and physically as much as humans do and that is something I hope we can all agree we can learn from them.

Because using animals for one thing and then denying it for others is logical fallacy.

Poison-
This was the first topic I ever got on television on Current :), my source was Sciam!

@ J_Jammer, I think you are missing the point here. Animals have a variety of weird behavior and as humans, we do too. Proclaiming that homosexuality is natural is not to say EVERY behavior we see in the animal kingdom is acceptable in society, but to refute those who claim it's "unnatural" (which is a lot of people.) If that is not your argument, why worry?

Acceptance is beyond the rest of nature- humans are the ones who label and judge and deem things "right" or "wrong".

It is a naturally occurring phenomena. To all those debating that things that happen in nature aren't natural, IT HAS HAPPENED WITHOUT HUMAN INTERFERENCE.

And really....no one wants to be the same but they surely do get offended when they are called unnatural. It's kind of silly.

I don't care what people have to say about me or to me...it's my decision if it harms me. Of course there are those strong occasions where what was said is unnecessary, but those are rare.

Stating someone is unnatural should just be like water on a duck's back. Be glad you're not like those who claim to be natural. I sure the hell would be.

Depends on the definition of natural. Do animals point at humans to prove what is natural?

Homosexuality does not create life. I think that is the point that people who are against homosexuality are trying to make when stating it is "unnatural."

I know what you are doing....that's why I stated what I said in my first post. The argument is flawed because then people could kill people and claim animals do it.

And everyone forces their morals on everyone else. Just some accept it as ok when they agree.

J: Again, please listen to what I'm saying.

Homophobes argue that homosexuality is bad because it isn't natural.

I've argued that it is irrelevant since nearly everything we do is unnatural. Further, I am proving that it is in fact a natural thing. That alone doesn't make homosexuality right (anyone with a brain can tell there's nothing sinful about it), all I am doing is destroying yet another homophobe argument that doesn't make sense.

Because it's fun. ;)

I dislike the use of animals to prove human behavior.

I can kill another human and point to animal behavior and be right....based on thinking Animals dictate human rights.

Right. No other conclusions in human behavior or medical advances for that matter have resulted from studies with animals. LMAO!
People have done everything on the above list and the male species of hippo do kill their newborns as I have recently seen on Natgeo. In fact, the logic is flawed ie. "they don't have abortions" yet "they eat their young". Either they are prolife or they are not?! And the list goes on......

Actually, J_Jammer, I am not the one making this argument.

The fact is that opponents of the right of homosexuals to marry say that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's unnatural.

Not only is it irrelevant (see my other post), it is untrue, as I have just proven.

I am not saying it is okay because it's natural, but that the argument that it isn't natural is untrue.

I understand what is being stated and the law shouldn't be so blind to people's wants....but using nature isn't good proof.

Because animals:
eat their young
slaughter other animals
eat other animals
beat up other animals to mate
don't have abortions
they clean themselves with their tongue
the way some females are treated would make some feminist fume if we followed their lead.
the list goes on.

Using them as proof that it's ok opens the door to other things that animals do that is natural for them but would be wrong for humans to take part in via the social wonder we live in.

Legally there is nothing wrong with what people want and via history it should come about in homosexual's favor....but animals are not the way.