Arguments against homosexuality being natrual

[Burning Hammer]

'Ello my fellow bottomfeeders of the War Room. We are all delinquents and assholes and we constantly argue about silly things. I do notice that we generally make assumptions predicated on little data. So, I propose a question because I openly make an assumption that homosexuality is natural, logically it is a way to curb the massive population boost that is incredibly effected the entire planet in such a relatively short period of time.

Is there anything refuting the nature of homosexuality? I'm googling, and not finding anything worth while to support the counter argument. I am hoping someone could challenge my belief/education on the matter.

 

[TheTimeIsNotNow]

The reproductive system

 

[Falsedawn]

The reproductive system

That would make sense if every homosexual didn't also have a reproductive system.

 

[Quipling]

The reproductive system

At best this shows that homosexuality has no direct reproductive purpose.

 

[SammyPops]

The reproductive system

But blowies are fine thought right, you know b/c that does not lead to babies?

 

[Madmick]

Who gives a shit about "natural", anyway?

We're humans. We threw "natural" out with the bathwater eons ago. Reason steamrolled it.

 

[Burning Hammer]

I'm thinking more along the lines of brain waves, genetic differences etc.

But blowies are fine thought right, you know b/c that does not lead to babies?

Pleasure is something that isn't unique but is capitalized by humans in sexuality.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Who gives a shit about "natural", anyway?

We're humans. We threw "natural" out with the bathwater eons ago. Reason steamrolled it.

This is an argument that I already thought about. We can argue about the actual definition of natural, but I don't want to deter from the question. Also, something can be reasonable, that doesn't make it right.

 

[ripskater]

It's unhealthy physically and mentally.

We are not designed anatomically for homosexuality.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

This is an argument that I already thought about. We can argue about the actual definition of natural, but I don't want to deter from the question. Also, something can be reasonable, that doesn't make it right.

Probably better to demonstrate the usefulness of the question before we worry about answering it.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Probably better to demonstrate the usefulness of the question before we worry about answering it.

My own curiosity.

 

[Madmick]

This is an argument that I already thought about. We can argue about the actual definition of natural, but I don't want to deter from the question. Also, something can be reasonable, that doesn't make it right.

Reason is the precise mechanism by which we determine whether or not something is moral. Applying reason is expressly unnatural. This is the crux of my point.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

My own curiosity.

That's disingenuous.

For the record I can think of one possible way an appeal to nature could inform a moral position on homosexuality, but it's probably full of holes and probably not what you came up with.

 

[Quipling]

It's unhealthy physically and mentally.

We are not designed anatomically for homosexuality.

Also pants.

 

[dontsnitch]

That's disingenuous.

For the record I can think of one possible way an appeal to nature could inform a moral position on homosexuality, but it's probably full of holes.

I'd be more curious to hear how people arrive at their moral positions.

 

[Pwent]

its an evolutionary disadvantage to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite

even beyond the actual act of conception, we are a pair bonding species and our children do best with both parents. kids with one parent experience higher levels of stress and health issues

"The evidence from the few published studies concerning the physical health of children in one-parent families, suggests that these children have both a higher rate of hospitalization and a higher consulting rate with their general practitioner than two-parent children. There is also an indication that children in one-parent families suffer more health problems in the home than children in two-parent families."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1960275/

more evidence of pair bonding is the brain chemistry that happens during intercourse (oxytocin, dopamine etc.) to bond, plus shorter sexual intercourse sessions, so that we can have sex more often in a relationship and the fact that women still want to have sex outside of ovulation


im sure that homosexuality occurs """naturally""" but it is an evolutionary flaw, even if they force themselves to bear children with the opposite sex

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Homosexuality occurs "naturally," i.e. throughout the animal kingdom through "natural" processes like an individual's biology and environment, so yes it's "natural.

Have you ever seen a male dog mount another male dog? Guess what, that wasn't because of LGBTQ+ propaganda.

 

[Joe_Armstrong]

I saw a docu with the guy who plays an immortal on Torchwood.
Who is gay. He said he has 4 brothers and he is the 5th.
It's like nature takes care of the gene pool.

 

[TrippleOG]

But the Greeks did it.

 

[Burning Hammer]

That's disingenuous.

For the record I can think of one possible way an appeal to nature could inform a moral position on homosexuality, but it's probably full of holes and probably not what you came up with.

I disagree it's disingenuous, but then again I'm not obligated to agree with you on that premise.

I do agree it's probably full of holes. That's why I am more or less asking for empirical data. We have it on trans, we even have psychological evaluations. Homosexuality seems to get a pass. So why is it so difficult to get answers?