Arguments against homosexuality being natrual

[nostradumbass]

Not sure what you mean by "natural". If you mean naturally occurring, then sure, but so is attraction to underage people. Even when people cite animals having gay sex, they don't have it exclusively, they just hump anything that's around.

 

[Dr J]

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.

By canine dominance standards, prison rape would be considered natural.

 

[Madmick]

This is the dumbest shit I've read in a while.

Cognitive skills developed thru evolution and are as natural as opposable thumbs.

The evolution of our cognitive skills may be natural. Selfishness in the application of ability is natural.

Reasoning itself is by definition unnatural. It defines the concept itself. "Unnatural" isn't a concept that occurs in nature. The only place it exists is in a self-aware framework, and only the self-aware can defy their instincts. To deny that the exercise of reason is unnatural is to deny that the concept of "unnatural" is valid; in which case this conversation concerning homosexuality is moot.

 

[Prutfis]

Not sure what you mean by "natural". If you mean naturally occurring, then sure, but so is attraction to underage people. Even when people cite animals having gay sex, they don't have it exclusively, they just hump anything that's around.

Penguin gay couples m8 for life. They will even try to hatch a rock or steal an egg.

 

[freaky]

It's all in your mind. I really want to know what causes gayness. In the 60s they think it's a mental illness. Now it's widely accepted that it's natural.

I still think it's mental, but whether it's an "illness" that be cured, is another matter. Just like our taste bud, why do some prefer black coffee vs a ton of sugar in it? Or why do some like to eat Durian while others puke at the thought of it? It's really all mental and preference.

There are also gay animals. Or bi-sexual animals. I've also witnessed incest animals. I really want someone to study this further. But the backlash from the libs might be too much for the study to begin. It's not homophobic or anything. I just want to know why some are "born" a certain way. Are they really born gay or were there some kind of environment factor?

I've taken psychology and there are 3 things that affect a person. I forgot what they were specifically, but it goes something like this.
1) you're born with it
2) it can be changed/altered by your environment/experience- living situation, neighborhood, etc
3) It can be changed/altered by your peers/human interaction- Parenting, peers, experiences, etc

Conditioning. You can condition someone to be just about anything. So to answer TS, it can be both. You can be born with it, maybe some kind of chemical imbalance during development or whatever that turned you gay. Or you were conditioned to be gay. Maybe too many fat ugly unattractive girls like Amy Schumer and too many hot studs like Sage Northcutt or Ryan Gosling, that made you think you're gay. Maybe you also have enabling parents who tell you it's normal to be gay. It's fine if you think Sage is more attractive than Amy Schumer.

Super easy to condition little kids. Too many libtards trying to be "friends" than actual parents. That's why you see more and more gay people nowadays. Half of them aren't even real gays. They were most likely conditioned to be gay. Maybe they were raped or whatever. Maybe their parents were enabling. Girls have cooties etc. All boys hated girls in the beginning. Maybe you have idiot parents who thought their kids were gay and started conditioning him that gay is cool and normal.

Depends on your perspective, it can be normal. Some are born with it while others are conditioned. But then again, there are also people born with 2 heads and multiple legs. I guess that is also normal. I think only a very small percentage are born gay. Most gayness are conditioned. Especially, transgenders. Thoughts?

 

[WiolentOne]

The evolution of our cognitive skills may be natural. Selfishness in the application of ability is natural.

Reasoning itself is by definition unnatural. It defines the concept itself. "Unnatural" isn't a concept that occurs in nature. The only place it exists is in a self-aware framework, and only the self-aware can defy their instincts. To deny that the exercise of reason is unnatural is to deny that the concept of "unnatural" is valid; in which case this conversation concerning homosexuality is moot.

This is probably the worst case of pseudointellectualism that I've read in the WR. It's an absolutely horrendous attempt to save face by doubling down on stupid.

I sincerely suggest you look up the definitions of the words you used.

 

[lilelvis]

Shit smells bad....

 

[Seano]

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

How so? How would you be "sexual" at all without a reproductive system?

 

[Falsedawn]

How so? How would you be "sexual" at all without a reproductive system?

If I said "Shitting is unnatural because you have nerve endings in your ass, so that means you're supposed to stick something up there", would you agree?

 

[Seano]

If I said "Shitting is unnatural because you have nerve endings in your ass, so that means you're supposed to stick something up there", would you agree?

What the fuck?

 

[WiolentOne]

What the fuck?

He made a fool of himself - like always - so now he's trying to save face with nonsense.

 

[Wally Brando]

'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.

There are none /thread

 

[Falsedawn]

What the fuck?

That's exactly the response I had. You're getting the logic now.

 

[jimbob27]

This is the one conversation where liberals all the sudden hate science.


I don't give a shit if you're gay or not but to deny that it goes against everything of the scientific nature of your existence is silly.

We are animals and our whole existence is based on reproduction...that's why you get a little chubby without even realizing why at a young age....its why a woman ovulates..i5s why they become horny when they're most susceptible to being pregnant.

we are a designed to fuck and make babies..

Again. If you like the same sex. More power to you.

Having non-reproductive individuals hanging around has been proven to be beneficial across nature for a myriad of different reasons. That's why women don't just drop dead the moment they reach the menopause. As long somebody is a productive member of society, they can benefit the population without reproducing themselves.

 

[all caps]

'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.

Agree with it being natural as well as a natural population control. Which makes things scary as... these countries that think killing gays is what they're supposed to do. How do we argue that? What if their mindstate is that of "we are stuck on an island. We have X amount of food. Y does nlt contribute to Z. Y has to go"

Slippery slope. Glad I'm not the one making these decisions, playing god.

 

[TheGreatA]

Having non-reproductive individuals hanging around has been proven to be beneficial across nature for a myriad of different reasons. That's why women don't just drop dead the moment they reach the menopause. As long somebody is a productive member of society, they can benefit the population without reproducing themselves.

A homosexual can be a productive member of a society, much like a man who tosses all of his trash onto the streets can be a productive member of a society.

But we should be able to acknowledge that if the majority of men were homosexuals, or if the majority of men dumped their garbage on the streets, the world would be a more miserable place than it is now. Homosexuality is not a positive attribute in a society, never will be. Individually, people can think of it in whatever way they want to, to make them feel good about themselves, but collectively, we cannot afford to enable homosexuality beyond a certain point.

 

[grimballer]

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

But they are still able to reproduce if they want.

If every hs was sterile, then sure you can make an augment that it's "normal", however physically they can procreate, therefore their problem is mental.

Sure you can say hs is the natural outcome of overpopulation, but then the same can be said for pedophilia n bestiality

 

[grimballer]

Penguin gay couples m8 for life. They will even try to hatch a rock or steal an egg.

Animals will also eat their own feces... Just cause animals do it doesn't mean they're not screwed up

 

[Burning Hammer]

I assume you got that from the other thread going on right now...


Natural is the improper descriptor for a conversation about sexual behavior. Anything that happens in nature is natural. It's that simple. Anything that's man-made isn't natural.

Short list of natural things...

Dogs, trees, water, dirt, rape, murder, love, homosexuality, horses

Short list of unnatural things....

Cars, cell phones, International Space Station, Polonium

What people who call homosexuality unnatural are really looking for is the term "immoral". They are trying to say it's immoral because their bible tells them it is and they think it's yucky. Only then can we have an honest discussion about homosexuality and society.

I am not arguing morality, I've already stated that within trans people there are those physically born with a fucked up chromosome set but are "normal." There are also people who's brains function differently. I want to know if there is any empirical evidence to support the same for homosexuality because self identification and sexual preference seem to be different, don't you think?

 

[djacobox372]

People that argue that it must be unnatural due to evolutionary reasons are not considering that humans are social animals that live in large family groups--your genes are shared by your group members so if the group is healthier your genes will have a better chance to survive even if you don't have any kids yourself.

It could just be that groups with gay people were a little more effective at survival overall than those without. Too many gay men didn't matter much because you only need one breeding male to knock up a whole bunch of women, and too many gay women didn't matter much because I doubt ancient woman had much of a choice over who had sex with them or not.

One interesting theory relates to statistical fact that a subsequent boy children are far more likely to be gay than their older brothers. The theory is that too many breeding men in a group is redundant is will likely only lead to competition and conflict, so theirs a biologic mechanism that "thins the hetro herd" when too many males are born.