Homosexuality is not a natural occurance. It must be out of the ordinary if it is ordinary to be attracted to the opposite sex. Sorry, I joined this discussion late. If some of this has already been said, then suck it. Deal with it.

You're right. I've heard people tell me that they didn't choose to be gay. It's different in every person. You can't just blame it on your environment, because that would be illogical. You have different environments. If you are subjected to homosexuals for even 50 percent of the day, you can't blame it on your environment because you have an equal chance of being straight. There are definitely influences and I think that's where most of it comes from.


Well, according to Uronacid's argument, his morals come from the Bible. It is his faith. You are probably an atheist. You don't believe there is a God. He does. If you aren't an atheist then correct me. Please. But your morals come from your own reasoning, and his comes from the guidance( THE BIBLE) that was given to Christians. Don't say that the Bible has nothing to do with it. God made woman from man, and through the lines it continued that way until people rebels against God's word. It is biological and, if you want, evolutionary necessary for man and women together to procreate. It is just logical.

We live in an individualistic society, where people want to be their own. People choose who they are. THEY CHOOSE! They choose between right and wrong and how they choose to live their lives.

Natural
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

By definition, Homosexuality is natural. It exists in and from nature.
This is supported by the over 450 different species of animals found to exhibit homosexuality in the wild, in the lab, and in zoos.



False analogy. Even if I were to concede the point and admit that Homosexuality is indeed "out of the ordinary," that would not mean that homosexuality is not natural. Nor would it mean that homosexuality is wrong, or a choice. Also, it seems largely meaningless to even discuss the "ordinary" in the way you have implimented it. In the same logic, I could declare that being a male is "out of the ordinary," as there are more women then men. The ordinary is really of not much concern to this debate.



I don't care that much that it has already been said, I care that no one has yet to recognize that it has been refuted several times. I suggest you go back a few pages and start reading. Much of what you have already said has been refuted. If you wish to state it again, I suggest you concern yourself with those refutations before you continue.



This is a mess of a paragraph. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems like you have a gross misinterpretation of nuture as applied to enviromental influence, and logic as a whole. Try again?




Uhhhhm. Irrelevant?
And, just silly.



The Bible has nothing to do with it. This is a debate. As this is not a debate on scripture, the Bible has no real place in this thread. By including text as evidence all you are doing is creating a useless collection of logical fallacies. Just a bunch of arguments from authority ad nauseam. They aren't conclusive, they aren't substantiated, and they can not be reasonably justified. If you think you are going to win this debate by using the Bible as your main source of information, you are sorely mistaken.

Let's hear some actual arguments, please.



You really like to talk about logic, but it comes off as if you know nothing of the science of logic. On-going-procreation is not threatened by homosexuality, and biology is highly diverse. Procreation is seriously not an issue here.




That's one perspective of our society, I do not exactly agree, not to say that I entirely disagree. However, it seems highly irrelevant, once again. People do make choices, but not every part of a human being can be choosen. No one can will their skin color. No one can will away an in-born disease. Not everything is of choice. My argument is that sexual orientation is one of these things. No one can will their sexual preferences. They are not of choice.

Jumping in a bit late here but I agree with Uronacid for the most part. Homosexuality, as I see it, is not genetic and is wrong. I base my belife on a very basic idea. If all animals of one species were homosexual what would happen to that species? Probably the same thing that happened to the dodo bird.

Now assume that homosexuality IS a choice, dismissing for a moment the idea that it might be genetic. I don't see how it could be a "natural" choice. Jim Jones chose to start a cult and kill all his followers with grape koolaid. Was it a genetic trait that made him insane? Or was it a choice? Was that choice "natural"? I don't know you tell me. Simply because we have multiple choices it does not make all of our choices "natural" merely an available opion. Haveing a choice between being a heterosexual and being a homosexual does not make both choices "normal" by default. Jim jone's followers had a choice, drink the darn kool-aid or don't. If you ask me, I sure as hell wouldn't drink the koolaid. Grape kool-aid is just plain gross to begin with.

Now lets say that homosexuality IS genetic. Would it then be "natural"? Is cancer "natural"? Cancer is genetic. If cancer was a choice would the choice to actualy have cancer be "natural"? Being that a males biological orientatin is undoubtedly designed to work in conjuction with its female counterpart. Would not homosexuality therefore be a genetic defect? And if so should one embrace it? Or would the person who inherited cancer from her mother get radiation therepy to stop it from spreading. I don't know you tell me.

I use things such as cancer and acts such as those comitted by jim jones because most of this debate has been defended by beliefs on both sides. However who are you to say such actions are wrong if you are to condem someone elses belifes based on your own? Who are you to say what he did was wrong? You dont have that right but you assume you do. That same assumtion is the assumption I am useing to defend my belife. Homosexuality is a choice and is wrong. If you would drink that koolaid then fine by me, Thats also why I am a big fan of natural selection.

If you chose to drink poison and die fine with me your choice but dont expect me to care or cry at your funeral. If you chose to be gay fine by me just don't expect me to think its ok or ask me to believe "you had no choice"

P.S. The fact that it occurs in nature does not rule it to be ok by default. conjoined twins happen in nature. That is not natural. The fact that basic instincts of any given species are maintain life functions, obtain sustinance and procreate as proven by your "scientists" who do "studies" on various "things". Nowhere in there is "be homosexual". Why? because its not natural. Studies show that bees when subjected to other male bees wich have been sprayed with feremones show homosexual activities. When they sprayed they queen bee with testosterone. know what happened? Poor queen bee didn't get any action, consiquently the hive died out. This is natural? I don't know, do scientists go around spraying various random guys that make other guys attracted to them?

Saying that previous arguements are invalid because they are based on a religious belife yet you are baseing your arguement on something as failable as modern science. Jeez how DID you get SO smart? Little bit of info for you, your "scientists" were the same guys saying that cigarettes were safe and that the world was flat. Oh scientists, you all knowing gods on earth!

Welcome to the thin end of the wedge. Slippery slope fallacy.



False analogy. Sexual preference and orientation are not equivalent to the above.




Cancer is indeed natural, however it is abnormal. Either way, false analogy.



Wow. In no way did you even come close to supporting that proposition.
This was worse than citing biblical scripture as evidence.
Nothing you just said moves to prove that homosexuality is a choice.
This was all meaingless, Jesus f**king Christ.
I'm going to be sick.

1. Ooo Glad you disproven my opinion with that astounding rebutel. because you know if all humans were homosexual we surely wouldn't become extinct. Heck no techno.

2. Sexual preference? Sexual orientation? Hmm odd I thought I was directly addressing the fact you use the literal terminology of the word "natural" to disprove a point yet use a less analytical form when trying to prove yours. Double entendre! Eep!

False analogy? Oh thats a good point how did you come up with that? Zounds. Or rather direct comparison to making a choice in which you have your own assumption of the correct or incorrect answer. much like sexual preference and orientation. if you can read where I stated "assume", you should probably look that word up.

3. Ooo another false analogy. Jeesh you drive a hard arguement youngun! Once again I address your mixed up terminology. assosiating natural with normal then stateing that something natural is abormal. Hmm who has an issue wth logic? P.S. Logic is a fallacy in itself. A man made concept which holds no ground in any arguement ever. Sure its dandy in middle school but grow up. krass disregaurd doesnt hold its weight.

4. Jeez who woulda thought? Did I say I was seeking to prove it was a choice? I don't really recall typeing that the pourpose of my post was to prove that. I do recall stating it was my belief. I merely stated my opinion, and made it clear right off the bat that is was infact my opinion, and brought valid evidence that most of your defence is bullcrap. Someone wasn't paying much attention in debate club eh?

How irrelevant is this point to the actual debate? As if every human being is going to become homosexual, and even if, how, in anyway, does this hypothetical relate to this debate, and in what situation should we take it seriously?

As I said before, slippery slope.



I don't know exactly what you are refering to. I have been using "natural" consistently insofar as I know. At least, consistently to mean that it occurs in nature and from it.

In no way am I trying to say that natural means "right." I'm not trying to build a moral argument, not exactly interested. Although, I have added refutations for several ethical propositions that have been made.

Also, so my position is known: I believe that homosexuality is a natural occurance and not a choice.



The false analogy was in comparing sexual preference to the cult choice of drinking kool-aid. Even given the assumption it seemed largely meaningless to me, care to enlighten?



Normal may have been a poor choice of words at times, but my points still stand. Not to mention, I don't believe I ever came off as to show that anything that is natural is inherently normal. If so, I withdraw that accordingly. Cancer, either way, is indeed a natural occurance, but an abnormal part of cell function. Normality is contextual, and I'll make note to avoid speaking about it, as it doesn't really effect my position. Also, were you not trying to compare cancer with sexual preference?



Uhhhh? Logic does indeed hold grounds. Unless you want to propose that A is non-A at the same time?




Uhhh, state your beliefs somewhere else. This is a debate. Not a spot for you to make numerous unsubstantiated claims, and not even pretend to justify them. It's rather needless. Also, if you want to participate, let's deal with the facts (or something close), please.

To answer your first question, Directly to matters at hand, you are correct it has not to do with directly proving homosexuality is a choice. However "logicaly" in order to create a plausable assumption about something you can't just say, "well not everyone in the world would be homosexual" and have to assume that they could, as logicaly it is a possibility. small though it may be and in so if the whole human populace were to become homosexual we would in fact die out as a species (technology aside). Which is but one reason amoung many why I feel it is wrong. If the entire populace were heterosexual we would continue repoplulating just fine. More or less as i orignaly stated its a very basic and simple idea, if an entire species cannot survive with it then it cannot be good for the species.

The second part I am refering to the previous page. You stated "And, if so, how is heterosexuality (as a choice) any more natural (or "normal") than homosexuality (as a choice)." and even just in your last post you stated that cancer is abnormal. cancer is a genetic abnormality. If being homosexual is genetic it is indeed a genetic abnormality. This can be reasoned with the above, if all members of the human race had the homosexual gene we would not survive as a race. Homosexuality as a choice then could not be abnormal and remain a normal choice. in which case your rebuttle to that arguement is debunked.

As for te third part I don't mind enlightening you at all thats what debates are for! :D I am simply stating if being "gay" was a choice, making an assumption that it is bear with me, and saying it wouldn't be wrong if it were is like saying those kids were wrong for drinking that koolaid. Its merely based on how you feel and as we all know in debates it doesn't matter what you feel only what you can prove. There is no right or wrong that can rationaly be disputed merely right and wrongs that one side or the other can be persuaded into believing. (being that there is no set values on right and wrong logic can't really pervail in a logical debate...ironic eh?)

The next part, indeed as I can tell you often have a poor choice of words and in a debate thats not a plus. Indeed I agree with you that normality is completely contextual, I too will avoid speaking of "normal" terms. And yes I do compare cancer to homosexuality in the case that it should be genetic. cancer is an abnormal cellular structure, if homosexuality is in your genes then it to must be cause by an abnormal celular structure of some sort and as stated above if it were genetic then it would seem that it would be a genetic abnormality. So yes I did copare a genetic abnormality to a genetic abnormality. And i said i wouldn't use "normal" terms or logic anymore :/ you know, unless you want to propose abnormal cellular growth is non abnormal growth at the same tim. ;D

The next part..meh already covered that.

And for the last part and i quote "Also, so my position is known: I believe that homosexuality is a natural occurance and not a choice"

And I will also quote

"Uhhh, state your beliefs somewhere else. This is a debate. Not a spot for you to make numerous unsubstantiated claims, and not even pretend to justify them. It's rather needless. Also, if you want to participate, let's deal with the facts (or something close), please." And the statement you were refering to stands firm.

En garde.

Agreed for all practical purposes.



I'm not saying that homosexuality is exactly genetic. And, cancer is not always genetic anyways. But, your point given the naturality of choices, given that sexual preference were a choice, is duely noted and agreed upon. Still, my rebuttle is accumulative, and that is simply a single peice of it. My argument as whole still stands.



That's entirely agreed upon.



Hey, your ideas were far from clear in your first post, so I wouldn't be talking. Either way, I don't think that my choice of words are commonly and specifically poor.



You're still using logic, that is nearly unavoidable.
Ontop of that, for the most part I agree here.
I think some confusion has been created, but I plan to clear that up now:
I did not intend to present "normal" as synonymous with "natural" within this debate. In relation, I do not intend to concern myself with normality, because I believe it has no effect on my argument, as I had stated before.




I substantiated my claims in numerous previous posts (they have yet to be dealt with). I was simply restating so that you could be aware of it, so as to not be mistaken. As you did not mention my previous argument, which was built to substantiate and justify my stance, I did not feel the need to further it. It still stands.

Ok then, and I'm sorry if I'm asknig you to repeat yourself but thirteen pages is more then im willing to read through at 5:30 am :/, you had stated that your stand is that homosexuality is not a choice but a natural occurance and you have also stated that it is not entirely genetic. I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that homosexuality is a cumulative of both genetics and outside influence? or just that in some cases it is genetic and in others its choice? Maybe my brain is just farting out from lack of sleep and if I've misinterpretated what you said then correct me and my appologies.

One's stance on the origin of homosexuality does not have to be between two clear-cut choices (genetics or choice). Just because Nate said that it isn't entirely genetic doesn't mean he thinks it's a choice either, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I don't think it's entirely genetic and I definitely don't think it's a choice, but rather, luck of the draw with hormonal imbalances during puberty, which makes perfect sense when you think about the time when you started being attracted to people of the opposite sex...which would mean it's not implanted in your DNA, but rather, just kind of random as to who ends up being gay and who doesn't. Plenty of children exhibit homosexual behavior, but may or may not turn out to be homosexual, so telling me that many children seem like they're going to be gay really doesn't change my stance on the topic. I kissed my best friends on the cheek all the time when I was a kid and they were girls, because I loved my best friends and my mom told me that when you love people, you kiss them. I took it literally. I am very much straight.

my therory is that they are born that way, you cant just all of a sudden go WOOP IM GAY

I'm not gay, but I do think many are born gay. I have several gay friends. Some, I guess obviously do it out of rebellion - but, for the majority - yes... born that way. Who would actually choose the hardships & unacceptance - of being gay if they did not have to.

i believe no. i believe that people choose to be gay. yes people can be born with traits of the opposite sex, like for example a guy with a girly pitch voice. but again i say people are not born gay. why? well... if someone was born gay then noone can't have a choice to be gay or not. know what I mean? like if someone was born gay and they want to be straight, they can't because they are born gay. also... homosexuality is not natural. man and women are ment to be together therefore the human mind is set to be attracted to the opposite sex. so in conclusion, being gay is a choice.

^ Since when do you have a choice in the matter anyway? Could you be gay?

i dont think so. i think its how theyre raised when theyre really little. maybe they grow into it?

In my opinon I don't think people were born gay, its just depends on the persons environment.

^ Explain.

ooooh my bad for example your the only boy in your family filled with girls, and you somehow get attacted to boys. If you community is mostly homosexual. How your were raise.. somthing like that

But plenty of people are raised that way and are straight, or, a guy is raised in a house of guys, but turns out gay.

i don't think it's how you're raised; it is a matter of who you hang out with or what you see on television or just whatever your environment throws in your face.

really, do you think God would purposely create a gay person if he did not intend it to be that way?

women and men go together. not men and men.

i'm not gay, so i wouldn't know, but i am just assuming.

What if God didn't create them at all?

Sometimes I think people aren't even capable of entertaining such an idea.

My apologies ahead of time for any and all typos; it's rather dark in here, making it difficult to see the keyboard for posititoning.



Neither of those examples parallel the matter at hand at all, though. Cancer is not a choice, no, but the reason that you aren't going to embrace it is not that it's unnatural, but rather because it's harmful. Homosexuality is not. It isn't going to spread, but even if it were to, it wouldn't need to be "cured," because it's not a disease. Do kindly enlighten me on what harm actually comes of it. Again, Jim Jones's choices are irrelevant, because that actually harmed people.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about people caring whether you cry at their funeral. Who needs the sympathy of narrow minded bitches? But more importantly, "choosing" to be gay is in no way like choosing to drink poison. Being gay cannot kill you. It cannot kill anyone. Why, pray tell, do you expect people to not make the choices in their life that would make them the happiest (especially if no harm is done to anyone)?


Homosexuality can be genetic, while a person still has a choice whether or not to embrace it.

And no, it is still not cancerous.


In conclusion? That was utterly inconclusive.

Umm You Cannot be born Gay.....Becoming Gay is from environment factors such as the environment you are surrownded by, Media portrayal, The Internet, the magazines and books we read...During your adolecent stage you develope your identity and the path you chose with sexuality some people choose to be Gay others don't its a matter of choice not something your born with.
Becoming Gay is also influenced by you upbrinings such as if you parents support Homosexuality and if they don't obviously if they don't than chances are your not going to choose the option of being GAY...but if your parents find there is nothing wrong with it than thats going to influence your decision of choosing to be gay.

Choosing to be Gay Is influenced by you surrowndings and your personal choices not something that your born with.

What about those people who come from very religious families, but turn out to be gay?

The New Testament also emphasized resurrection, which led to belief in personal immortality. Survival beyond the grave no longer was associated with bearing children.

Different sexual lifestyles entered the new covenant with God. Sexual abstinence and celibate communities became common expressions of Christian living.

In the Act of the Apostles, 8:26-39, we see the first time the Holy Spirit recruits members to the new covenant from the sexual outcasts of Israel. The Spirit leads Philip to encounter the Ethiopian eunuch, who is baptized into the Christian community. The Lucan author of this account is showing how the Holy Spirit formed the first Christian community. He emphasizes the fact that outcasts were included in the new covenant with God. First he tells of including the Samaritans. Then the Ethiopian eunuch was welcomed to the covenant.

The New Testament was written in Greek. At the time, Hebrew, Greek, and the translation between them used the term eunuch two ways: literally, meaning the castrated; and symbolically, meaning those who do not marry and/or bear children.

Jesus was the first to recognize sexual outcasts as worthy of God's kingdom. He and his disciples were discussing marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:12 when he said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." [footnote 7]

This quote from Matthew is the closest biblical reference we have to our current understanding that homosexuality is a psychological identity, rather than just physical acts. For Christ to have known this in biblical times is a testament to his inspired understanding.

Jesus brought a new covenant with God, not only to the children of Israel but to all mankind. It is a covenant of loving your neighbor as yourself, and raising a joyful noise unto the Lord. The communities established by his disciples, who knew and quoted him, accepted all the outcasts of Israel and understood the Genesis account of sex as the gift of companionship as well as procreation.

This fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah. In Isaiah 56: 2-8, the eunuch is predicted to inherit a special place in the house of the Lord and the sons of strangers are predicted to take hold of the Lord's covenant. Verse 7 predicts: "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

did jesus or any of his diciphles speak or write greek?