Is homosexuality unnatural?

Seems you oughta ask the guy what in the hell he is talking about.

Anything that happens in nature...is natural?

And homosexuality happens in nature.

Tell him to go online and do a search for "bonobo."

Your friend doesn't like homosexuality because it's unnatural, and "homosexuality" is contrasted to heterosexuality, which is defined as "natural." "Homosexuality," therefore, is, by your friend's definition, unnatural. In effect, then, your friend doesn't like homosexuality because it's homosexuality. That's a bootstrapping argument.

A while back a friend of mine tried to convince me being gay is a "choice". I wrote a thread on it http://able2know.org/topic/70969-1

Whenever someone gives me that "it is a choice" bit...I gotta wonder.

There is no way I am going to be turned on sexually by a man (well, maybe George Clooney, but I understand he doesn't count,)

So I don't know where that stuff comes from!

Agreed Frank. If I was in a gym locker with dozens of beautiful naked women you can rest assured I would be at the gym every day. Guys just don't do it for me. My friend who insisted it's a choice is obviously aroused by men and he has been holding this back for decades. For him it WAS a choice. For most men it's not.

The 'urge' of homosexuality is no more a choice than being hungry. The act of it is as much a choice as eating is (though admittedly asbtinence from the former won't kill you)

OK, if your friend was well versed, what he may have meant by "natural" was the following definition: "established by moral certainty or conviction" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural

By that definition, should it be his judgment that homosexuality is inherently wrong, than he is correct in his assessment.

Should the above be the case, then the question may become; is he entitled to his moral viewpoint and the implications such a viewpoint holds, as per his actions (if any) in limiting another freedoms?

Understand, that like it or no, moral assessments and the implications of such actions, are not only made every day by the courts of the land, but enforced by such as well.

edit: limiting another's freedoms?

I am not suggesting I agree with the viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong in some fashion, in fact I say live and let live. However I say live and let live as per public nudity also, and it is immoral / against the law.

There is certainly nothing wrong with homosexuality, and I think, with very few exceptions, nobody who is gay intentionally chose to be homosexual. People who are gay are born gay and there is nothing insidious or objectionable or anything to criticize about that than there is to make value judgments about that any more than we make value judgments about those born with a certain color of eyes or certain facial features or of a certain race. In that sense, homosexuality is quite natural.

Then again is homosexuality the way people are SUPPOSED to be or is it a deviance from normal? That is a valid question according to some experts as there is no known gene pool for it. How many gay people would choose homosexuality if they had a choice? I think many probably would, but I have gay friends who say that no, they would not choose that and in fact tried to be heterosexual. They came to realize that was something they could not choose and they have accepted who they are and are quite content along with being terrific people. But as a former secretary/assistant once told me, she would not wish it on anybody. She tried to be straight and even married a guy. But it was not to be for her and she finally accepted who she was--the divorce was amicable and they remained friends. She's one of my favorite people.

If homosexuality IS a deviance--I honestly don't know--then there is possibly a 'cure' out there somewhere just as we hope to find cures for juvenile diabetes or other anomalies that people are born with. I have no problem with research toward that end.

Knowing how happy and self assured most of my gay friends are, though, I wonder how many would avail themselves of such a 'cure' if it was made available to them?

I think it may be a deviance...in some form of that word...just as being left-handed is a deviance.

The majority of people are right-handed...and the majority of the people are sexually attracted to opposite sex partners.

I cannot conceive of a "cure" for it....but I suspect more homosexuals would opt for a cure than might be thought at first blush. They do go through unnecessary and inappropriate hell at the hands of people who simply are unthinking on this issue.

Too bad all that.

I do wonder thought...if a "cure" for heterosexuality were developed...would heterosexuals opt for it? Most guys would get a hell of a lot more sex if they could include other uber-horny guys in their pool of possible partners!!!

My lefthanded kid would certainly accept a 'cure' for that as it is an inconvenience in a righthanded world. And she is so ambidextrous that it is less of an inconvenience for her than it is for some. But she (and I) would strenuously oppose trying to force somebody to change their natural hand preference as we have both seen people suffer to no good end in such attempts. For the same reason, we oppose trying to force somebody who is gay to be straight.

I can't imagine any righthanded people choosing to be left handed if that was the choice, however. As for whether any heterosexual people would choose to be gay? Probably some would, especially if relationships in the heterosexual world aren't working out so well for them and they think the gay lifestyle would be more accommodating and easier.

A comedian I saw on tv last night (don't know his name) had a bit about this. This isn't word for word, but:

Christians talk about homosexuality being unnatural. So I ask... Where in the Bible do yu find that? Is it between parting the Red Sea and a dead person floating up into the sky? Or, closer to the virgin birth?... Cause those things don't seem very "natural" to me.

LOL!

I have a brother who is left handed...and not at all ambidextrous. He would probably give anything to be right handed...just so sitting at a table filled with the entire family would not be the occasion of much elbow jostling, swearing and such! (We go out of our way to accomodate his left-handedness.)

Homosexuals get lots more sex than heterosexuals. If I could ever have gotten turned on by a guy...there were times in my life where it would have been a blessing. Luckily...there is not as much hatred directed toward (what shall I call it)...self love. Yeah, that does it..."self love."

Gotta get throught those lean times when you are young.

You say that 'the most' we could say about it is a chemical imbalance? I doubt you were actually trying to be bigoted, but that's how that comment comes across... who's to say it's an *im*balance and never provided a selective benefit to one's genes? Who's to say that a brain that makes you find men more desirable than women is a 'bad' thing? That is essentially what your friend is attempting to do: cite a vague idea of natural selection and an appeal to nature.

First, the appeal to nature is fallacious and easy to point out to your coworker, as they are almost certainly inconsistent on using it. They likely sit in a nice, comfortable office and do novel things that don't further their chances of copulation *all the time*. Take away their video games because they're 'unnatural' and he might realize the hypocrisy in his reasoning.

Actually, that's all you need. I won't list a second reason . Your friend is literally thinking that sex for having babies = good and natural, sex not for having babies = bad and unnatural and is of course only applying this in the context of homosexuality and not any of his own activities or other views. We can only hope that he doesn't have other latent fears or rationales behind his homophobia and will come around once he learns of this.

Sorry for posting so late!

my boyfriend (yes, i'm a homo) and i have had several conversations on this. he makes the argument that there really is no such thing as a "chemical imbalance." (he's boarded in internal and pediatric medicines, just for reference) not too terribly long ago, i saw an article referencing a study in which researchers found that homosexuality seemed dependent on brain symmetry. it seems the brains of straight males and gay females are symmetric whereas gay males and straight females have asymmetric right and left hemispheres. there hasn't been found any genetic reason for this and it was hypothesized that it is more likely caused by the hormones a developing child is subjected to in the womb. so the argument could be made the child is "born gay" but also that it is the mother's fault - be it something she ate, smoked or shot-up.

either way, i for one know i did not choose this. mark (the boyfriend) spent several years of his life trying not to be gay. after a while, he realized it wasn't all fire and brimstone and got over that. so i'm convinced it is "natural".

i think people say it's "unnatural" because they can't find anything inherently "wrong" with homosexuality but they have a need to hate it. i think it's an invention where they lack other ammunition/rationale.

No it isn't. As Frank Apisa and yourself have noted, it happens in nature, and therefore is natural. Perhaps one way to make your friend get your point is by asking him, "and so what if it was?" Nature is peppered with sexual practices that I'm sure he wouldn't endorse.

To start with generalities ...

• Rape is natural. (It happens all over the animal kingdom.)
  
• Harems are natural. (Ditto.)
  
• Virgin births are a dime a dozen in nature. There are animal species whose members sometimes reproduce sexually, and at other times basically clone themselves. There's really no good reason for Christians to make such a big deal about the one human who allegedly pulled it off. Repeat, allegedly.
  

... and if these examples aren't enough for your friend to get it, give him a copy of Olivia Judson's Sex Advice for All Creation. It's a kaleidoscope of sexual practices that happen in nature, all for good reasons of evolutionary fitness. For example ...

• Remember bees, that staple of Victorian morality tales? It is natural for bee gentlemen to drop dead on the spot after copulation, leaving their testicle inside the bee queen of their heart.
  
• The male Golden Potto in Gaboon has its penis covered with gigantic spines, so as to better stimulate his sex partner. So that's natural.
  
• The female Praying Mantis bites her lover's head off during copulation; headless males copulate with even greater intensity than those who manage to keep their head on. The phrase "giving head" never sounded the same to me after I'd read that.
  

... and I'm not even on page 50 of Judson's 300 page book. Nature, in short, is full of perversions that make homosexuals blush. Wouldn't it be nice if homosexuality was unnatural -- if homosexuals injected some much-needed civilization into the vile and bizarre natural mating game?