Homosexual relations, natural or not?

I think we can all agree that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is an observable part of nature; therefore natural.

But since this thread is now arguing more about whether it's right or wrong, I'd like to make a couple observations that I'm surprised haven't been posted yet. (I really hope this doesn't re-open a can of worms...)

1 - The Greek culture that existed in Jesus' day viewed homosexuality as a higher form of love than heterosexual love. This is because it was a commitment of marital love with no possibility for biological children.

2 - Who causes greater harm? The two men living happily married together, or the husband and wife who argue and fight and scream in front of their scared children? It's not so much about gender - as long as the children have signifigant role models of both genders - as it is about love.

3- While Jesus was teaching, some teachers of the law caught a woman in the act of adultery. (Side question - where was the other offending party? Some suggest it was a setup just to trap Jesus.) The Law at the time required she be stoned to death for her adultery. Jesus said, "let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone." Think about that. Even if you don't believe Jesus is God, wouldn't it be fair to say that God is at least as loving as Jesus? If Jesus called for love when everyone else called for death, shouldn't we be able to conclude that Jesus would call for love and not condemnation for homosexuals? And shouldn't we conclude that God's response to homosexuality is love? Jesus didn't condemn. Jesus didn't quote the Law or argue the Law. He simply pointed to love as the best response. (By the way, the teachers of the Law gave up and left at Jesus' response.)

I am a Christian, but I disagree with much of what is practiced in the Western Church today. I'm not homosexual, and I don't like homosexuality - but it's wrong to say I condemn homosexuals. I'm quite fond of my homosexual friends. Even though I don't understand it, and don't like it, I won't condemn them. My personal preferences do not dictate morality.

Can we have peace now?

I'd still be interested in discussing homosexuality - I admit I know little about the stresses, stigmas, etc that are placed on homosexuals - but I don't wish to sacrifice peace to discuss this further.
 
I'll throw this out there to those of you who are curious.

I am homosexual. If you have any questions about what it is like for me, how I feel about it, ect. Ask away. You won't offend me with a question, so no need to hold back :)
 
Cool! :) I'm going to assume we have peace on this front now (or that it's being dealt with in mediation).

How are things different for homosexuals? How specifically different does society treat you? What negative stigmas are forced on you? Do you feel left out or persecuted in any ways? How does it make you feel that it would be "okay" for a guy and a girl to hold hands walking down the street, but it would be frowned on to see a guy and a guy holding hands? Or kissing!

If you're wondering if I grew up under a rock, I did. There were zero people in my community who would say that homosexuality was okay, let alone admit to being one!
 
Ok
Indigo:

My arguement in this thread wasn't about homosexuality so much as language: if you call everything that happens in nature 'Natural' then the word loses all meaning. So if you are going to use the word 'natural' as a descriptive word, there must be some time when the word 'unnatural' is used. Putting asside whether it is helpful/logical/etc to apply the word, would you consider it offensive for you yourself to describe homosexual sex as 'unnatural?'
 
Milon said:
Cool! :) I'm going to assume we have peace on this front now (or that it's being dealt with in mediation).

How are things different for homosexuals? How specifically different does society treat you? What negative stigmas are forced on you? Do you feel left out or persecuted in any ways? How does it make you feel that it would be "okay" for a guy and a girl to hold hands walking down the street, but it would be frowned on to see a guy and a guy holding hands? Or kissing!

If you're wondering if I grew up under a rock, I did. There were zero people in my community who would say that homosexuality was okay, let alone admit to being one!
Click to expand...

The main difference is (for ease of speaking I will talk about males) we are attracted to other men. Socieity hasn't treated me any different. I am lucky in that respect, in that I have not encountered alot of adversity. I am unaware of any negitive stigmas forced on me, except mabye people expecting me to be overly feminine. While I am a little more feminne then most guys, I am not really. I have fleeting "flamer" moments, but they are quite rare. I actually can understand why soceity would see a guy/guy holding hands down the street upsetting, but I don't agree with it. There shouldnt be a difference. I would be lying though if I said I don't do a double take if I see it, but that is because it is uncommon. As far as kissing, I don't particular care for intimint kissing in public. But all the same, i dont think it should be viewed any different from hetero couple kissing.

Flavus Aquila said:
Ok
Indigo:

My arguement in this thread wasn't about homosexuality so much as language: if you call everything that happens in nature 'Natural' then the word loses all meaning. So if you are going to use the word 'natural' as a descriptive word, there must be some time when the word 'unnatural' is used. Putting asside whether it is helpful/logical/etc to apply the word, would you consider it offensive for you yourself to describe homosexual sex as 'unnatural?'
Click to expand...

First of all, that is an argument of semantics, and once you get to know me, you will learn that I HATE semantics! It is annoying, useless, boring, and frusterating as hell, GAH! I cant stand semantics...

I get mad when someone says it is unnatural, because to me that implys that it isnt right. I feel this way, natrually. I.E. I didn't will it.
 
IndigoSensor said:
I'll throw this out there to those of you who are curious.

I am homosexual. If you have any questions about what it is like for me, how I feel about it, ect. Ask away. You won't offend me with a question, so no need to hold back :)
Click to expand...

Two questions:

Is there anything you dislike about same sex relations/relationships or that repels you?

Is there anything you dislike about opposite sex relations/relationships or that repels you?
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Two questions:

Is there anything you dislike about same sex relations/relationships or that repels you?

Is there anything you dislike about opposite sex relations/relationships or that repels you?
Click to expand...

Not really to either. I tend to not like the stereotypes about them, but stereotypes are based on small nuggets of truth. But in a nutshell, no.
 
Flavus, good question!
EDIT: I mean the one questioning the definition of "natural". Apparently I'm a slow typer now. ;)

IS, according to this page, Lawrencium is a synthetic rare-earth metal, appearance unknown. Since it's only created in the laboratory, does that make it unnatural? You wouldn't find it elsewhere in the universe.

Also, many "health food" products claim to be "all natural." This supposedly means that there was no DNA modifications and no harsh pesticides were used in raising the ingredients. (I say supposedly because there's a certain amount of greyness and marketing hype involved.)

Semantecs are annoying, but necessary. I know you didn't choose to be homosexual, but would Nature consider it "natural"? I mean, there's no chance of offspring in a strictly homosexual relationship. (Not unless you start messing with stem cells, etc - and is that natural?)

I'm really not trying to annoy, but the definition of natural that we're using is important.

IS - it's funny that you say society expects gays to be more feminine. I'm not gay, but as per the male/female brain test, I'm right in the middle. I thought I would have been even more feminine-brained than that! I'm not really making a point here; just making fun of stereotypes! :)
 
Last edited:
Milon said:
Flavus, good question!
EDIT: I mean the one questioning the definition of "natural". Apparently I'm a slow typer now. ;)

IS, according to this page, Lawrencium is a synthetic rare-earth metal, appearance unknown. Since it's only created in the laboratory, does that make it unnatural? You wouldn't find it elsewhere in the universe.

Also, many "health food" products claim to be "all natural." This supposedly means that there was no DNA modifications and no harsh pesticides were used in raising the ingredients. (I say supposedly because there's a certain amount of greyness and marketing hype involved.)

Semantecs are annoying, but necessary. I know you didn't choose to be homosexual, but would Nature consider it "natural"? I mean, there's no chance of offspring in a strictly homosexual relationship. (Not unless you start messing with stem cells, etc - and is that natural?)

I'm really not trying to annoy, but the definition of natural that we're using is important.

IS - it's funny that you say society expects gays to be more feminine. I'm not gay, but as per the male/female brain test, I'm right in the middle. I thought I would have been even more feminine-brained than that! I'm not really making a point here; just making fun of stereotypes! :)
Click to expand...

Ok, little known fact, supernova's, the big bang, stuff to that effect, could have created elements all the way up to 150 and beyond (stuff that we have even created), facenating stuff!

That aside, I guess i would call it unnatrual, because we had to make it.

I am 50/50 with the brain thing too, haha.

blarg, semantics... I really don't want to debate the meaning of natural. I know what it means for me.
 
Milon said:
Flavus, good question!
EDIT: I mean the one questioning the definition of "natural". Apparently I'm a slow typer now. ;)

IS, according to this page, Lawrencium is a synthetic rare-earth metal, appearance unknown. Since it's only created in the laboratory, does that make it unnatural? You wouldn't find it elsewhere in the universe.

Also, many "health food" products claim to be "all natural." This supposedly means that there was no DNA modifications and no harsh pesticides were used in raising the ingredients. (I say supposedly because there's a certain amount of greyness and marketing hype involved.)

Semantecs are annoying, but necessary. I know you didn't choose to be homosexual, but would Nature consider it "natural"? I mean, there's no chance of offspring in a strictly homosexual relationship. (Not unless you start messing with stem cells, etc - and is that natural?)

I'm really not trying to annoy, but the definition of natural that we're using is important.

IS - it's funny that you say society expects gays to be more feminine. I'm not gay, but as per the male/female brain test, I'm right in the middle. I thought I would have been even more feminine-brained than that! I'm not really making a point here; just making fun of stereotypes! :)
Click to expand...

I take it only the first two paragraphs are to me -

I guess Lawrencium is not naturally occuring - but is it unnatural? I guess the fact that the protons and neutrons can adhere and support electron orbitals, without anything contradictory to how atoms are structured, means that it is natural. It would be different, if (sci-fi) it could only exist with the introduction of a synthetic subatomic particle.

As for the food example - I guess that synthetic proteins wouldn't be natural, but would they be unnatural food? As long as they could still nourish and worked with our metabolism, I guess that I wouldn't call them unnatural. But if there were made the ultimate junk food, which tasted great and went down like fillet-mignon, but gave no nutrition whatsoever - I'd call that seriously unnatural. Because of the contradiction - if it looked and tasted like food, but didn't actually nourish at all.
 
IndigoSensor said:
blarg, semantics... I really don't want to debate the meaning of natural. I know what it means for me.
Click to expand...

Okay, don't debate. Just please enlighten me what it means for you. If you don't mind.

Flavus Aquila said:
I take it only the first two paragraphs are to me -

I guess Lawrencium is not naturally occuring - but is it unnatural? I guess the fact that the protons and neutrons can adhere and support electron orbitals, without anything contradictory to how atoms are structured, means that it is natural. It would be different, if (sci-fi) it could only exist with the introduction of a synthetic subatomic particle.

As for the food example - I guess that synthetic proteins wouldn't be natural, but would they be unnatural food? As long as they could still nourish and worked with our metabolism, I guess that I wouldn't call them unnatural. But if there were made the ultimate junk food, which tasted great and went down like fillet-mignon, but gave no nutrition whatsoever - I'd call that seriously unnatural. Because of the contradiction - if it looked and tasted like food, but didn't actually nourish at all.
Click to expand...

Actually I just meant you'd raised a good question. Everything else was for everyone. ;)

In the first example, you would call it unnatural because of the source. (By the way, we can't really create synthetic subatomic particles any more than we can create synthetic elements - we're just working with the framework of possibilities that's already there.)

In the second example, you would call it unnatural because of properties it has. This is why I'm saying we need to know which definition of natural we're using. I think I know which one, I'm just being picky now 'cause I'm having fun with this line of thinking. Having realized that, I'll quit being picky now. :)
 
I actually can't define natural and unnatural, because it is case by case for me. I am too intuitive, and as a result I have a horrible time putting my ideas into words.
 
Oooh, just had an interesting thought.

Adam and Eve would consider it unnatural to wear clothes (unless you live in Canada!), Darwin (I'm guessing) would consider homosexuality to be unnatural as there's almost no physical/generational advantage, "uncivilized" tribes would consider working in a cubicle to be unnatural... There's lots of things we call natural that others would not.

What if, on some level, we unconsciously define 'natural' as that which we are comfortable with, or used to?

If 'natural' is that which we are used to, then 'natural' is only helpful when everyone has had broad life experiences. Otherwise we'll end up arguing if it's right or not. (Okay, that was really obvious, but it was a little light bulb for me so I thought I'd share it anyway.)
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Ok
Indigo:

My arguement in this thread wasn't about homosexuality so much as language: if you call everything that happens in nature 'Natural' then the word loses all meaning. So if you are going to use the word 'natural' as a descriptive word, there must be some time when the word 'unnatural' is used. Putting asside whether it is helpful/logical/etc to apply the word, would you consider it offensive for you yourself to describe homosexual sex as 'unnatural?'
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll chime in here too (I, too, am homosexual, so I think I can answer these questions just as well). I personally don't mind calling homosexuality unnatural, because in today's society, it really doesn't change anything. (Here I'm calling natural the actions that are instinctual to us, or what has been "taught" to us by evolution) Almost everything we do is unnatural (here anything that doesn'tfit the previous definition). We shave, we where clothes made of polyester, we drive cars, we tame animals. So how is homosexuality different? I know a lot of people deffine right and wrong by nautre, but I don't, and I will happily call myself unnatural because I don't define my ethics by it.
 
I think homosexual relations are more natural than a helluva lot of other things we do to ourselves. Honestly, it's been around a lot longer, it's seen in nature, and it's a type of love. That's pretty natural, as far as I'm concerned. Cars, many societal expectations, most foods....those are more unnatural than that.

Really, my homosexual friends are often more open and understanding than my heterosexual friends....which might be why I have a lot of homosexual friends ;) There's nothing unnatural about that.
 
VindurNótt said:
Ok, I'll chime in here too (I, too, am homosexual, so I think I can answer these questions just as well). I personally don't mind calling homosexuality unnatural, because in today's society, it really doesn't change anything. (Here I'm calling natural the actions that are instinctual to us, or what has been "taught" to us by evolution) Almost everything we do is unnatural (here anything that doesn'tfit the previous definition). We shave, we where clothes made of polyester, we drive cars, we tame animals. So how is homosexuality different? I know a lot of people deffine right and wrong by nautre, but I don't, and I will happily call myself unnatural because I don't define my ethics by it.
Click to expand...

Good answer! :)
 
Who cares, really... is drinking soda natural? Is getting a blowjob natural?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top