Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

Is homosexuality a choice or a result of nature?

Topic locked
Random avatar


Gender: None specified
Points: 800
Reviews: 4
Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:49 pm
View Likes
flyawayforever says...



Homosexuality is completely natural. You are looking at it from a point of view that the end goal is to reproduce. Also being gay is a phycological thing that is not a choice.




User avatar
106 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 1386
Reviews: 106
Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:11 am
View Likes
Funkymomo says...



I agree with you, but this is a debate forum and you should support your opinions with facts.
Light one candle instead of cursing the darkness.




User avatar
7 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 1029
Reviews: 7
Mon Feb 21, 2011 5:34 am
View Likes
MuffinMunch says...



I only read the original post and then the first few sentences of the next one. I want to have gone to bed an hour ago, but I just couldn't resist. So I guess I'll be repeating stuff, but in this debate, that will always happen eventually. Sorry. *cracks knuckles*

"Preferences." No. I assume you're straight. If there are no women around, will you settle for a guy? I prefer cheesecake, but if there's regular cake available I'll gladly partake.

here's a good argument: If homosexuality is natural then why can't the two same sex's who are sexually attracted to each other reproduce? It's quite confusing, it almost clears up the fact that homosexuality just doesn't work.


It's not like gay people (and supporters of homosexuality/bisexuality) say homosexuality (assume I'm referring to the entire LGBT community/way of being when I say "homosexuality") is a good alternative to a traditional sexual/romantic/familial relationship. It's about what you like. What's it supposed to work at, anyway? What is heterosexuality for? What's that working at? Reproducing? Because I can assure you that people in this day and age are not getting married to ensure the survival of the human race and/or their genes. They do it for love (or, in the case of physical relationships, because they feel like having sex).
It's not like the two lesbians fooling out in one of them's bedroom think they're doing something effective or efficient. They're doing what it feels good to do for them. They're doing the same thing any heterosexual couple using birth control is doing.

What's hard to understand? It's just a difference in what you like. It's not like if steak is your favorite food I marvel over how that's possible. (I don't like red meat much.) And it's not like you're the default way and they're some other way and you're wondering how they got that way -- you two are different ways. That's like wondering how black people got black (or how white people got white I think would actually be more accurate but let's ignore the whole evolution out-of-Africa thing, since that's irrelevant and this whole other debate).

"Natural." I still don't get what you mean. Here's my answer to what I think you're saying: Yes, it's natural. It isn't a result of a surgery or injection. It isn't done to you. You just are. It's like saying heterosexuality is natural. For the straight person, who was born straight, heterosexuality is natural. For the gay person, who's been gay their whole life, homosexuality is natural.

If you mean, like, God-wishes-it-unto-thee natural, like if-he-wanted-us-to-fly-he'd-have-given-us-wings (your "good argument" about how a man and a man can't reproduce so of course it "doesn't work") natural, then no, it's not. It's also unnatural for us to swim. And farm. And planes are unnatural, and plastic is unnatural, and democracy is unnatural, and life-saving surgery is unnatural, and the Olympics are unnatural. Oh, and I also think you answered your own question, anyway:
If homosexuality is natural then why can't the two same sex's who are sexually attracted to each other reproduce?
They're not attracted to each other because they chose to. They are. Naturally.

I wanted to go to bed but this topic just won't let me do it.

AuroraOrodel:
I was very intrigued when this happened, and it kind of involved a debate I was having with a gay friend at the time. We are both writers, and he was saying he was disappointed by the lack of openly gay characters in fiction. My stance was that if your character isn't gay, then he/she just isn't and you shouldn't force the character to be gay just for the sake of diversity. This is why I find the "Dumbledore is gay" thing so interesting. It was never once mentioned in the story because it didn't matter to the story or to who he was and what he had to do. His being gay was a minor facet of his character, so minor it didn't even warrant mention in the narrative. This is the attitude I think people should have about sexuality in the real world as well. Defining yourself or others just by sexuality is diminishing. It's the same as defining a person only by their skin color or their heritage or their religion. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. If two women or two men are attracted to each other and you aren't one of them, why do you care? It's not your business. It doesn't involve you and never will. It's been going on since the dawn of humanity and the world hasn't ended. Though maybe we should consult the Mayan Calendar for their predictions on the gay agenda to end the world... :smt002

I completely agree with you. It's like people assume that if it isn't specified that a character is gay (or black, for that matter, in anything but, like, urban fiction) it's assumed that the character is what's more accepted. A straight, white guy. (Although I do partially agree with your friend. Characters like Dumbledore are very few, where their sex- and love lives play no part whatsoever in their roles. And then they have a love interest, and they are straight, unless the book is actually about homosexuality. (Most of the time, I mean, of course.))


Flemzo, I believe that the Bible is completely correct. I was just saying that the Bible can't not have incorrect parts in it. Otherwise lives wouldn't be changed!


What? It's completely correct but not without incorrect parts? You said completely correct.

com·plete
   /kəmˈplit/ [kuhm-pleet]
–adjective

thorough; entire; total; undivided, uncompromised, or unmodified: a complete victory; a complete mess.


I can't make it simpler or that. Make up your mind, or phrase it in a way that makes sense, because that there is illogical.


Homosexuality is NOT natural, it's just disgusting if you ask me. I mean, look at all the diseases spread because of it? Normal sex has the same, but that's because people do it with more than one person. Whether you do it with one person or not, when you're a homosexual, it will spread disease and that will eventually result in great sickness and death. Similar to smoking.

What's disgusting? You opened this thread by saying we will discuss the physical and emotional part of the relationship. Okay, so, what's disgusting about passionate love a lesbian feels for another woman? And, anyway, what IS disgusting about the physical part? I actually do think anal sex is a little disgusting. (About to get fifth-grader graphic.) Not because that's not where the penis is "supposed" to go but because that's where the poop is. I have yet to raise a baby, and am thus still very disgusted with poop. What's disgusting about the physical event in which a man's lips touch another man's lips? What takes away that disgustingness about a pair of those lips being exchanged for a woman's?

And what gay diseases are you talking about? I don't even know where to start about this. It's just so basically wrong, and Surreal already pointed out all the obvious that goes right in this paragraph anyway. So you know what I'm talking about.
More from surreal:
It happens in nature, ergo it's natural.

When I read this, I had my hands in the air and shouted, "Oh my god, EXACTLY!"

And I thought Christians weren't supposed to judge. Isn't that what God's for? But God is love. Hmmm.

God gave us choice: follow Him or not. Obviously He would be a dictator if He forced us to follow Him, but He's not like that.

The choice you're referring to is that we're physically able to disobey him, right? Because he punishes us if we don't obey him: Hell. Dictators don't physically tie strings to our wrists and force us to bow down, either -- they punish us for not doing what they said. Now, I never thought of the Christian God as a dictator -- more of a kid with a magnifying glass and an anthill -- but by your logic, he totally is. :)


Well, it may be a sin in god's eyes, but that's just god's opinion.

Hippie, I want to give you a kiss on the cheek. I think this is the best thing I've read on here all night, and I've done that obnoxious clapping-even-though-you're-alone-in-the-room thing at least six times.


[But then it’s a conscious choice that an individual makes so I can try to respect your decisions. So if your gay go ahead and be gay it's a free world. But natural I don’t think so.

I keep forgetting to mention this. Your sexual orientation is not a choice you make. You, lil-mizkitty1, I assume you're straight. Did you choose to do that? Do you consciously decide every attraction you feel? I made this point to a girl once in my Psychology class (whom I think is stupid, but not just because of her views on homosexuality, but because a) she constantly contradicts herself, doesn't think before she speaks and b) because she answers reasoning and moral tests as if she were a 5-year-old). She said yes, she did. This is physically impossible. You do not choose who you like, or even who you are sexually attracted to. (So, naturally (lol, word choice), your sexual orientation.)(I just realized it sounds like I'm lecturing you on your answer, even though you haven't answered me. I'm not, just so you know. I'm just making a point.)

In fact, if we all chose who were attracted to, there would be no such thing as sexual orientation. Your orientation is who you can be attracted to. If you're only ever attracted to someone you decide to be attracted to, you have no orientation. (Or you're bi, depending on the way you look at it.)

I just tried to find the article to link it to you guys, but apparently it's not available on the Internet. There's a whole Discover article about how desire is decided by all these different processes. Well, that article is where I'm getting this ("this" being that it's controlled by all these processes yadda yadda etc.) from. I see no point in writing some of it it out, since there's no reason for you to believe me, anyway, but if anyone wants me to, ask...
"Like on the inside, I'm made of clouds and floating eyes, green apples, and slowly rising men in bowler hats."




User avatar
66 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 2092
Reviews: 66
Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:53 am
View Likes
Matthew says...



lol! I haven't been on yws for AGES and this debate is still going???!!! lol! it's been like... years! haha :)
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they face one another, drew their swords and shot each other!




Random avatar


Gender: Female
Points: 10067
Reviews: 152
Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:24 am
View Likes
McMourning says...



I believe that homosexuality is natural. We are born heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. Some animals reproduce asexually, but there are also asexual humans--humans who are not attracted to others of either sex.

If I'm not mistaken, there are some animals that can/do change their gender in times of need in order to reproduce. But, there are also animals who are homosexual and cannot reproduce. My neighbor has two female labs. They hump each other. (I have also seen male dogs go after each other, but that may be because of a different reason, like how a man might rape another man to feel in control.)

I'm pretty sure that there was a documentary (with John Barrowman) about the genetics of homosexuality. Since it is genetic, then it is natural.
"One voice can be stronger than a thousand voices, " Captain Kathryn Janeway




User avatar
114 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 8806
Reviews: 114
Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:39 pm
View Likes
Razcoon says...



Matthew wrote:A yes, the human body was designed to eat meat. Where in the world did you get that from???

Actually, this isn't true. The human body was not designed to eat meat.

As for homosexuality...it is natural. It wasn't a choice for me, believe it or not. I simply like both sexes. And I'm Quaker, which is a form of Christianity. I'm in a heterosexual relationship, but I still know I like girls, and it's not a choice for me. Bisexuality and homosexuality make life harder. Why would we choose that for ourselves? It isn't worth it.

For you people who think it's disgusting, you love who you love. Period. God loves everyone...something no one seems to realize is that the bible was written by man, not God. It constantly contradicts itself, and was written a long, long time ago.

I second Nate one hundred percent on all he said. MuffinMunch too.
Ideas don't stay in heads very long because they don't like solitary confinement.




User avatar
66 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 2092
Reviews: 66
Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:48 am
View Likes
Matthew says...



If the human body wasn't designed to eat meat, we wouldn't be able to cope eating it. It does good for our bodies in proper proportions, it's the same with vegetables. In fact, too much of anything will do you harm.
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they face one another, drew their swords and shot each other!




User avatar
66 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 2092
Reviews: 66
Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:30 am
View Likes
Matthew says...



Homosexuality is a choice.

Of all the homosexuals I know, what has caused them to become homosexual is the environment they are in, and the social status they obtain throughout their early life. Genetic and biological evidence is still unclear, I have asked many of my science teachers and biologists this. Charles Darwin himself said it is 'hidden in darkness'. As for the science teachers... well I've never found in my human bio class the curriculum teaching us anything other than male and female reproductive systems. And that these systems work together to produce children. Offspring. I have never had the experience of the curriculum teaching me the 'homosexual reproductive system', or the 'homosexual genetic system'.

One homosexual came to my school to promote his organisation 'school's out', for gays, lesbians, and anyone 'unsure' about their sexuality. He said that 83% of all homosexuals decide they are gay around the age of 12 to 15. Now where did I here that old saying that the teenage years are the toughest, most confusing, when your brain is 'all over the place'? Hmm must have been the older community and the scientists... anyway. What he said confirmed to me that it's a decision. Practically, scientific evidence is too unclear.

Emotional stress and pressure, social status, and the environment are all factors to decisions people make.. including what 'way' they go. One gay guy I know at school said to me he dated girls first and enjoyed it, his mother never had a fall out with him but his father was never there for him. He never had that male role model and figure there to direct him. Parents are a big factor. They are the role models from the start.

Interaction with homosexuals is also another factor. Harry, who is the guy I was talking about before, said he always did hang out with gays. He started to find he hung out with them more than anyone. And then, bang, he was gay. One morning he woke up, and thought, I like guys! The influence and the semi-pressure from the gays he hung out with brought him to conclusion he liked guys. To back this up, I've always found I become like the people I hang around.

It's a brain thing. After the influence of the brain function of others, your own brain starts to reproduce those same brain tracks within your cells. Habit forms, etc. It happens in many areas of everyday life. The brain is the hardware of the human personality.

The brain operates electro-chemically. While the brain produces words for speaking at approximately 250 words a minute it operates ideas at a rate of some 1250 words a minute. Those ideas are recieved through experience, the environment, learning, and the personality traits of other people (external sources). The brain is recieving sensory information froma ll over the body at the electric speed. Most of this happens unconsciously. We tend not ot become aware of it until a reaction catches our attention.
For example: within each of us there is a 'love map'. Stimuli trigger that map. You won't know how you got your love map, just that is has been triggered. (perhaps by that lovely lad there george?) This love map is built. It was never just there. Sexual attraction towards the other sex was built in the womb, the brain track that is stimulated towards the same sex is built.
Neuro-chemical patterns are reacting to stimuli producing impulses and reactions constantly. Brain cells don't touch. They transmit signals to one another across a synapse (gap) by chemicals. The brain cells live in a jelly called acetylcholine (ACH) which is the medium through which signals must pass in order to communicate. ACH locks in patterns of brain cimmunication. Once learned they become a 'track', for either 'good' or 'evil'. Basically, whatever way you want to live.

As for genetic proof, I find none.
Your mother was born with more than a lifetime supply of eggs and ova. Alternating between right and left ovaries one was released each month throughout her childbearing years. Every one of her ovum was programmed to produce a baby girl. Every egg carried an X chromosome. Your father had testes capable of producihng an average 300 mil. sperm every day in his peak fertility years. The sperm are about evenly divided between a vote for baby girls (X chrom.) or baby boys (Y chrom.). I assume you know the deal with how if there is too xx there will be a girl, and xy will be a boy. At the beginning, to the 10th week, you would assume the baby is a girl. The external genitals and the internal reproductive system develop along the female model, in the early stages for a boy. The y chrom. will begin to make its demands around the 6th week. By the 9th, the mother's male hormones, her androgens are released to begin the transformation of the genital organs. Etc, etc.
The point is, sexual attraction from birth towards the same sex is not programmed into the body. Sexual attraction is programmed toward the opposite sex. To bring a practical aspect into it.. if nature is about survival, why would some begin gay and not be able to reproduce with the same sex? Wouldn't those genes within that gay person be there to carry on to the female so a new huiman being is produced? It has to be a decision afterwards.
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they face one another, drew their swords and shot each other!




User avatar
163 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 4747
Reviews: 163
Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:10 am
View Likes
Kit says...



Homosexual people can have kids. They can adopt, they can use a sperm donor, they can be foster parents. Besides which are people deemed useful and natural only by their ability to procreate? Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?

I find this whole debate frustrating, because it is a diversion from true social justice. There are so many bigger issues in the world that Christians could be using this money and energy to pursue, and the thing is, people believing homosexuality is wrong isn't going to change the fact that there are homosexual people, it does nothing. Domestic violence and honest to goodness child abuse are the real threat to families. If everyone used the time they would normally spend getting riled up about other people's sex lives to write letters for Amnesty International, or volunteer, it would be a more Jesus-friendly world.
Princess of Parataxis, Mistress of Manichean McGuffins




User avatar
38 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 1573
Reviews: 38
Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:13 am
View Likes
ChocolateMoonLight says...



I think homosexuality is natural and yeah it's a choice too... It's true that if you are homosexual, you were born that way. But then again, it's all about the choices you make. These are choices that define you, they can be right or wrong either way they are yours.

I live in a country, that is still enveloped with orthodox beliefs. Many people here consider it a disease, something that's not true, is it? They claim to be modern but many of them are still under the shackles of the so called "tradition". I don't hate them but this is what they chose.

I hear about it everyday, see it on new channels;harassing the people who according to them are polluting our culture and tradition. But it's something they were born with, they can't change it. You were born a certain way and you can't change it, can you?

Now we come to the reproduction issue- they are so many normal couples who can't conceive; some problems are natural while other are developed later. We just need to accept what we have and stop contradicting what's natural.

McMourning wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there are some animals that can/do change their gender in times of need in order to reproduce. But, there are also animals who are homosexual and cannot reproduce. My neighbor has two female labs. They hump each other. (I have also seen male dogs go after each other, but that may be because of a different reason, like how a man might rape another man to feel in control.)


Kit wrote:
Homosexual people can have kids. They can adopt, they can use a sperm donor, they can be foster parents. Besides which are people deemed useful and natural only by their ability to procreate? Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?


I second these thoughts hundred percent, because either this is how it is. You can't contest nature. And I totally agree with MuffinMunch and whoever said as she quoted- I'm really DISGUSTED with that person, I mean what are you talking about and what diseases?! This all is just so surreal, the way you are born is just great and someone else is born a certain way then that becomes disgusting?
Homosexuality is NOT natural, it's just disgusting if you ask me. I mean, look at all the diseases spread because of it? Normal sex has the same, but that's because people do it with more than one person. Whether you do it with one person or not, when you're a homosexual, it will spread disease and that will eventually result in great sickness and death. Similar to smoking.
Spoiler! :
Checkout the different shades of sunset...
topic84708.html


Need a review??? Click here! http://www.youngwriterssociety.com/topic87443.html#p913699%20URL%20Review%20Bar...




User avatar
81 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 1263
Reviews: 81
Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:53 am
View Likes
Pigeon says...



It's an interesting question: Is homosexuality natural.

Based on the overwhelming number of religious arguments, and the phrasing of the question, I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you asked it because of this verse:

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.


If so, you're missing a key point. The word natural did not have the same meaning then as it does now. It meant 'contrary to the norm' or 'not thought well of'. So, basically what that verse means is that homosexuality (if we make the assumption that that is what the verse really is about) is not experienced by a majority (true) and not thought well of by society (true).

Paul's point in that passage was to highlight the differences between the Jews and the Gentiles, and to tell them that those differences don't matter. He then explains, at length, that we should not judge based on these differences.


As for answering the question; Yes. Homosexuality is natural. More than enough proof has been provided in previous posts by others. The Biblical arguments that it is unnatural are irrelevant. The question asks if it is natural, not if it is morally right (according to whose morals, anyway?).
Reader, what are you doing?





User avatar
64 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 1922
Reviews: 64
Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:38 pm
View Likes
shadowraiki says...



I will say that homosexuality is a choice. A lot of people are saying it is natural, but get this:

Being lactose intolerant is natural. Humans have "naturally selected" themselves so that those people who were unable to eat cheese and drink milk died early in the course of mankind. Now-a-days, we consider people who are lactose intolerant "different" as if they have some medical condition when really it is us who are "different".

It is true that homosexuals can not reproduce. This arguement goes that the point of life is to reproduce, thus hetereo-sexual is the way to go. That is why we were given genitals. However, we were also given free will by the same ?divine power?/brain to make choices.

That is my arguement, though I noticed that I can't remember a time when I "Loved someone" so perhaps I was born asexual. Though I have other thoughts on that :P . Mostly due to a broken empathy meter.
If words are just letters put together, why do we decide on what they mean?

I step away from the grammar to review the story.

I don't do poetry.




User avatar
66 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 2092
Reviews: 66
Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:43 pm
View Likes
Matthew says...



Homosexual people can have kids. They can adopt, they can use a sperm donor, they can be foster parents. Besides which are people deemed useful and natural only by their ability to procreate? Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?


Homosexuals, yes, can have kids but not in the given way through sexual intercourse. If you think back a few thousands years, they did not have sperm donors etc. They cannot reproduce, and that's the point. As for being deemed natural or useful, by the decision they make, they leave nature's way of 'keeping the line going', and have decided to share love with the same sex. I never said they are not 'useful' because of their ability to create, it's just like I said, they have recreated sexual attraction in their brains.

I think homosexuality is natural and yeah it's a choice too... It's true that if you are homosexual, you were born that way. But then again, it's all about the choices you make. These are choices that define you, they can be right or wrong either way they are yours.


Firstly, I would to see the hard evidence that homosexuals are born that way. As for me, I have found none. You also seem to contradict yourself here... if they do choose, like you say, then how come it's a choice if they are born that way... as you have said they are? You are right that the choices you make define you. Birth seems not to these days for some. The point is it does not start at birth. It is impossible. Correct me with evidence.

If so, you're missing a key point. The word natural did not have the same meaning then as it does now. It meant 'contrary to the norm' or 'not thought well of'. So, basically what that verse means is that homosexuality (if we make the assumption that that is what the verse really is about) is not experienced by a majority (true) and not thought well of by society (true).


Where did you find that out? I've studied the Bible before, quite excessively, and have found no such translation. The word natural is what God has created, what He has produced. Homosexuality exchanges that for the 'unnatural'.
αφύσικος is the Greek word for 'unnatural'. The definition is in my Greek and Latin translation book: "adj. abnormal, freakish, absonant, constrained, uncanny, unearthly, unnatural".

Being lactose intolerant is natural. Humans have "naturally selected" themselves so that those people who were unable to eat cheese and drink milk died early in the course of mankind. Now-a-days, we consider people who are lactose intolerant "different" as if they have some medical condition when really it is us who are "different".

It is true that homosexuals can not reproduce. This arguement goes that the point of life is to reproduce, thus hetereo-sexual is the way to go. That is why we were given genitals. However, we were also given free will by the same ?divine power?/brain to make choices.


Agreed!
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they face one another, drew their swords and shot each other!




User avatar
36 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 13373
Reviews: 36
Tue Aug 09, 2011 11:56 pm
View Likes
tr3x says...



Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice. Current scientific theories believe that everyone has this internal 'switch' of sorts that determines who they are attracted to. It is not clear whether it is purely genetic variance that flips this switch, and many people believe that environmental factors also play a part in determining whether you are homosexual or not. We don't know if it starts at birth, we don't know if it is developed, but we do know that it is natural and unchangeable. Whatever the cause, it is an established fact that being gay can't be cured.

They cannot reproduce, and that's the point. As for being deemed natural or useful, by the decision they make, they leave nature's way of 'keeping the line going', and have decided to share love with the same sex. I never said they are not 'useful' because of their ability to create, it's just like I said, they have recreated sexual attraction in their brains.

Now we've got that out of the way, no homosexuals cannot produce together. However there are hundreds of other reasons as to why homosexuality could have started. Possibly population control, or to promote social cohesion.
This article in New Scientist explains some of the reasons. In any case, the purpose of life isn't solely to reproduce.

Now to answer your original question. Do we know that it is natural? Yes we do. Clearly and definitively, beyond all doubt, it is natural. How do we know this? Because, and pay attention 'cause this part is important, Not a single species of animal has been discovered that does not exhibit some form of homosexual behavior. From bonobo monkeys, to bison, to giraffes, to lizards, every species has gay members. If you've ever owned multiple hamsters, or rabbits of the same gender, you will have seen this first hand. :wink: This, once again, is fact, and you can't argue with this.

So, to recap:
-We don't know for sure what causes homosexuality.
-We do know that it is natural because it is found everywhere in nature.
-We know it cannot be changed. Attempts to do so leave a person emotionally scarred and asexual.

That just about answers this thread. If you want to know if it is moral or not according to your religion/beliefs, make another thread.
A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
- Terry Pratchett

Si non confectus, non recifiat - If it ain't broken, don't fix it.




User avatar
81 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 1263
Reviews: 81
Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:37 am
View Likes
Pigeon says...



If so, you're missing a key point. The word natural did not have the same meaning then as it does now. It meant 'contrary to the norm' or 'not thought well of'. So, basically what that verse means is that homosexuality (if we make the assumption that that is what the verse really is about) is not experienced by a majority (true) and not thought well of by society (true).


Where did you find that out? I've studied the Bible before, quite excessively, and have found no such translation. The word natural is what God has created, what He has produced. Homosexuality exchanges that for the 'unnatural'.
αφύσικος is the Greek word for 'unnatural'. The definition is in my Greek and Latin translation book: "adj. abnormal, freakish, absonant, constrained, uncanny, unearthly, unnatural".


Whoops, sorry, forgot about the needing to provide evidence here. I got that definition of 'natural' as used by Paul from the documentary For The Bible Tells Me So. Which I would recommend everyone watch if they can. I'm pretty sure I've read it elsewhere too but I'm afraid I can't remember where exactly. I did just find this, however:

“The ‘nature’ in this passage is the Greek word ‘phusis’ which means personal nature or disposition. It’s the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in 1 Corinthians 11:14, ‘Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?’ where Paul is probably using ‘phusis’ to mean custom or tradition.

“The word ‘against’ in ‘that which is against nature’ is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is ‘para,’ which means not ‘against’ but ‘in excess of.’ (It’s translated as ‘more than’ in the preceding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning ‘in opposition to’ is ‘kata.’) The very same phrase, ‘para phusis,’ is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, ‘And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.’

“What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one’s desires in excess of what is fitting to one’s nature.
“In the case of the men, the plain meaning is a reference to heterosexuals giving up intercourse with the opposite sex and turning in perverseness to homosexual lust and behavior. The passage says nothing about people whose orientation is homosexual and who therefore are in no wise perverting their nature as they perceive it.

- http://gaysdas.net/index.php?option=com ... s&Itemid=3



I would also like to point out one of Kit's points, which no one answered:
Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?



Matthew, you said:
Firstly, I would to see the hard evidence that homosexuals are born that way. As for me, I have found none. You also seem to contradict yourself here... if they do choose, like you say, then how come it's a choice if they are born that way... as you have said they are? You are right that the choices you make define you. Birth seems not to these days for some. The point is it does not start at birth. It is impossible. Correct me with evidence.


Firstly, plenty of people have provided evidence throughout this debate, which you have repeatedly ignored. But here is some more:

The American Psychological Association states “most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.”5


Now before you point out that this is not absolute proof let me say - research is ongoing. Science is not instantaneous. Just because there is no absolute proof at this very moment doesn't mean something isn't true. MOST scientists say climate change exists, so people believe it. MOST scientists and psychologists say that homosexuality is not a choice, so we believe them. Also "There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality." You said "it does not start at birth. It is impossible." The consensus of scientific thought is against you.

You keep demanding evidence, and it has consistently been provided. Surely the onus is now on you to disprove that homosexuality is natural, if you refuse to acknowledge the proof that it is.
Reader, what are you doing?