Is homosexuality natural? (read op before you bash)

[Zottistan]

There were no blueprints for humanity. All of our evolution was random and pretty interesting.

There needs to be at least SOME blueprints. Everything about us was planned for survival... except for male nipples and male stimulants in the prostate (Forgot the name, I'll be honest.)

What about how soft and squishy and weak and awkwardly shaped and easily killed we are?

There was no plan.

I don't follow.

Inheritance and shit.

You can still have inheritance without marriage.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

There needs to be at least SOME blueprints. Everything about us was planned for survival... except for male nipples and male stimulants in the prostate (Forgot the name, I'll be honest.)

I will never understand sex-negative people and their antagonism of their own bodies.

Also, penile orgasms are also prostate-centered. And people of testicular corporeality without breast tissue would mean some people of ovarian corporeality would lack it.

[Imperializt Russia]

There is no intent in biology. It was not originally intended for anything.

So legs aren't intended for walking? Running? Alright. Mind blown. I'll be using my arms now.

Well if you look at a whale's flipper, it's quite evident it wasn't "designed" as a flipper. It's the remnant of an arm that's adapted to a new purpose.
Much like our arms.

Bipeds aren't very common as species go (discounting birds). Being a bipedal land animal allows you quite good agility and has eventually allowed us and other creatures to use tools (some quadrupeds can use tools, it's worth pointing out - really, our arms are just slightly more dexterous "front legs", since that's what many creature's front legs are), at the cost of relatively rapid movement.

[Risottia]

I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be able to marry, not at all. I believe it is their civil right to take whoever they love into a compassionate relationship that may lead to marriage if they wish. I believe people should be able to do in the bedroom what they wish as long as it is with two consenting Human Adults.
Moving on. Is it natural though?

In this context, "non-natural" stands for "not artificially constructed by humans through any means including social ones", I guess.
Hm. There are homosexual non-human animals, including non-primates and even non-mammals.
Non-human animals aren't much in the way of building artificial constructs.
So, yeah, homosexuality can be natural.
Humans are animals.
Hence homosexuality in humans can be natural.

Now, this does not imply that EVERY human homosexual was born with that sexual preference, or that external factor, including eventually social ones, cannot have an influence over an individual's preferences - also because preferences can and do change and the sexual preference is a rather continuous spectrum, not a discrete one.

Still, who giveth a fuck about it being natural or not? As with any kind of sex, it's legitimate and nothing to be ashamed of if it's between consenting adults.

1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.

So obviously the vast majority of people self identify as being straight.

This has absolutely no relevance within the issue of homosexuality being natural or not.
It would be like saying "the vast majority of people have dark hair, hence ginger hair isn't natural".

[Zottistan]

Legs are better at walking and running than arms, but nobody decided "and they'll have these things for running and these things for picking stuff up". It just happened.

They have an intended use though. Nature ultimately decided legs would be better for survival, so a lot of creatures got them. This doesn't mean everything got legs.

Nature didn't "decide" anything. Nature isn't capable of deciding. It's not conscious.

[Ifreann]

Is that so? 'Cos my understanding was that he knocked up a Jewish woman once upon a time.

Then you have misunderstood slightly

Or maybe I've got it right and Christians are all wrong. Maybe I'm the second Jesus.

[Imperializt Russia]

Inheritance and shit.

You can still have inheritance without marriage.

Marriage and family lineage thereof is very easy to track and verify.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Inheritance and shit.

You can still have inheritance without marriage.

Not automatically. Marriage is important because people who were once unrelated start to be counted as part of family and household.

[Dakini]

Is that a bad thing, really?

Only reason I'd get married.

The only tax benefits are when one partner earns significantly more than the other.

...there are a whole list of other rights and privileges that come with being married.

[Ifreann]

Only reason I'd get married.

The only tax benefits are when one partner earns significantly more than the other.

...there are a whole list of other rights and privileges that come with being married.

Over 1,000 in the US.

[Zottistan]

You can still have inheritance without marriage.

Not automatically. Marriage is important because people who were once unrelated start to be counted as part of family and household.

This can all be arranged beforehand, though. And any property not accounted for by a will can be left with the state and sold off.

Very off-topic.

[Norstal]

Why? Why use "natural" in anything else than "happens in the nature"?

And its probably not harmful given it's not bred out of the genepool.

There is no gene for being gay, it's a chemical imbalance and many argue it to be a bit associated with a psychological disorder that can occur in all species which is why it is not limited to humans.

The DSM, which lists what is a disorder and is not a disorder, does not list homosexuality as a disorder. It did, at one point, but they removed it. So I want to know who the scientists you're quoting here.

Even if it is a disorder, it's natural. Much like being a genius or having red hair. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it's unnatural. The word you're looking for is "normal."

[Zottistan]

Then you have misunderstood slightly

Or maybe I've got it right and Christians are all wrong. Maybe I'm the second Jesus.

Maybe you're the first.

[Ifreann]

Or maybe I've got it right and Christians are all wrong. Maybe I'm the second Jesus.

Maybe you're the first.

I'm not Jewish, though.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Not automatically. Marriage is important because people who were once unrelated start to be counted as part of family and household.

This can all be arranged beforehand, though. And any property not accounted for by a will can be left with the state and sold off.

Very off-topic.

Yeah, no. The concept of marriage adding relatives to your line is very important in several legislative codes. It is a strong part of Roman law as applied in my country.

[Norstal]

Maybe you're the first.

I'm not Jewish, though.

It makes sense for an Irish to be Jesus though. Their blood would already be alcoholic.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not automatically. Marriage is important because people who were once unrelated start to be counted as part of family and household.

This can all be arranged beforehand, though. And any property not accounted for by a will can be left with the state and sold off.

What if a person leaves no will? It's just sold off?
Or it goes to one of the few direct relatives who hoards it from other descendants and relations who have every reasonable right to receive some of it (with the convenience of marriage to directly tie them to the family)?

[Zottistan]

This can all be arranged beforehand, though. And any property not accounted for by a will can be left with the state and sold off.

Very off-topic.

Yeah, no. The concept of marriage adding relatives to your line is very important in several legislative codes. It is a strong part of Roman law as applied in my country.

Yeah, I know it fits into the current systems, but that could be changed. The fact that marriage being an important part of law is not a good enough reason for having marriage as an important part of law.

[Zottistan]

This can all be arranged beforehand, though. And any property not accounted for by a will can be left with the state and sold off.

What if a person leaves no will? It's just sold off?
Or it goes to one of the few direct relatives who hoards it from other descendants and relations who have every reasonable right to receive some of it (with the convenience of marriage to directly tie them to the family)?

Just sold off, I'd imagine.

Why should they have rights to something the owner of the property evidently didn't want them to have?

I'm going to stop now because of the off-topicness of this. I shouldn't have brought it up.

[Lordieth]

I find it interesting how your OP reaches the complete opposite conclusion of mine, even though we both tackle the same question; viewtopic.php?f=20&t=322537

You need to provide sources for your claims that homosexuality is biologically unnatural.

Homosexuality may help us bond.

[Imperializt Russia]

What if a person leaves no will? It's just sold off?
Or it goes to one of the few direct relatives who hoards it from other descendants and relations who have every reasonable right to receive some of it (with the convenience of marriage to directly tie them to the family)?

Just sold off, I'd imagine.

Why should they have rights to something the owner of the property evidently didn't want them to have?

I'm going to stop now because of the off-topicness of this. I shouldn't have brought it up.

In fairness, the original topic has been well and truly settled.

If a person fails to leave a will, that's not "evidently did not want them to inherit". Nor is it suddenly forfeit to the state. And I say that as a massive statist.

Then again, I know people who believe inheritance to be literally evil.

[Norstal]

What if a person leaves no will? It's just sold off?
Or it goes to one of the few direct relatives who hoards it from other descendants and relations who have every reasonable right to receive some of it (with the convenience of marriage to directly tie them to the family)?

Just sold off, I'd imagine.

Why should they have rights to something the owner of the property evidently didn't want them to have?

I'm going to stop now because of the off-topicness of this. I shouldn't have brought it up.

Right. It's their choice if they just died suddenly due to a disease or an accident and not made a will.

Yes it is off-topic so this is the only time I'll comment on this.

[Zottistan]

Just sold off, I'd imagine.

Why should they have rights to something the owner of the property evidently didn't want them to have?

I'm going to stop now because of the off-topicness of this. I shouldn't have brought it up.

In fairness, the original topic has been well and truly settled.

If a person fails to leave a will, that's not "evidently did not want them to inherit". Nor is it suddenly forfeit to the state. And I say that as a massive statist.

It's evident that they didn't care enough to leave a will. And why shouldn't it be forfeit to the state?

Just sold off, I'd imagine.

Why should they have rights to something the owner of the property evidently didn't want them to have?

I'm going to stop now because of the off-topicness of this. I shouldn't have brought it up.

Right. It's their choice if they just died suddenly due to a disease or an accident and not made a will.

Yes it is off-topic so this is the only time I'll comment on this.

No reason not to make a will just because your life isn't in immediate danger.

[The Conez Imperium]

I find it interesting how your OP reaches the complete opposite conclusion of mine, even though we both tackle the same question; viewtopic.php?f=20&t=322537

You need to provide sources for your claims that homosexuality is biologically unnatural.

Homosexuality may help us bond.

I've heard that theory before, however it needs to be clear in defining the difference between homosexuality and sexual activity between 2 of the same sex.

[Martean]

Does it happen in nature?

Then it's completely natural, the end