http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-homosexuality-should-be.html

Don’t you think that after decades of social conditioning to have those born as males but converted to females shortly after birth to be attracted to males and yet have all of them to remain attracted to females nonetheless is conclusive evidence that nurture has got nothing to do with sexuality?

I mean how much more can you influence a male to be attracted to another male?

I realised I wasn’t able to construct a proper argument, so I decided against publishing. I also need more information on the exact way the study was carried out as well. Being too presumptuous isn’t a good idea.

It’s a problem with the theme. I cannot do line breaks myself either. I might change the theme when I do an upgrade of my blog engine in a couple of weeks.

Your link provides a good justification for homosexuality being something that’s “natural”. I do believe that nature has a role to play but I think I need more evidence to believe that environmental conditioning has NO role to play. Ultimately though, as Han has pointed out, it doesn’t matter whether I agree that homosexuality is natural or not. Natural or otherwise, it doesn’t justify treating a fellow human being differently. I don’t believe that a beggar, a roadsweeper, a black, a Christian, a handicapped, a cabinet minister or a millionaire should have different rights. It is this spirit I am applying when I argue against a repeal of 377A, which I think is extremely discriminatory as it targets not just homosexuals, but MALE homosexuals.

Actually all i was trying to do was rebutt aaron’s statement “I don’t think that homosexuality is all that natural.”.

I repeat again that this is not intended to be used as an argument to repeal S377A. No where in my earlier comment did I mention using “homosexual is natural” as an argument to repeal S377A.

You all are probably reading too much into it

Besides, I do realise that a trait being natural has nothing to do with the legality of an act. Otherwise everyone ought to be allowed to run on the streets naked! (We are born without clothes)

The reason why I tired to highlight the point that homosexuality is natural is only to take away some of the social stigma attached to them for being “unnatural weirdos” as well as the repulsion that some have for them.

Once again, i repeat that I’m not using this to argue for the abolishment of S377A.

Han, ‘I must be stupid’:

If I may attempt to paraphrase, both of you are in support of the repeal of section 377A, and both of you do acknowledge each other’s point of view except that the emphasis is a little different.

Now let me argue my own interpretation of events.

‘I must be stupid’, in using the argument that homosexuality is natural, is in effect saying that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality is and should be accorded equal protection, insofar as the decriminalization of homosexual consenting activity is concerned. This is very similar to Han’s path of directly according homosexual activity equal non-criminalization.

Both arguments can be refuted in the ways the two of you have already extensively explored in these comments. In beginning with the premise that homosexuality is natural, ‘I must be stupid’ opens his argument to attack from the side which says that homosexuality is not natural. It is time-consuming and restricted to those with academic access probably both biological and sociological knowledge to do a full literature review of whether homosexuality is natural or not. This may perhaps be what Han means when he says that he does not have the expertise to fully discuss whether homosexuality is natural or not, and yet can declare with full certainty that it is very susceptible to attack. Admittedly, for the person who has never encountered gay people and wonders if they will turn him/her gay or some such ridiculous thing, the idea that homosexuality is natural takes care of that particular fear. This line of argument is easy to relate to.

In beginning with the premise that homosexuals should be accorded equal protection, which is the final concluding statement of ‘I must be stupid’’s argument, Han argues a more complex concept of social justice and the coercive power of government. One can consider something to be vastly immoral, but that is not sufficient reason to make that something universally punishable by force in the highest public spheres i.e. government and judiciary. It is the misuse of the coercive power of government and judiciary that is the key point of this argument. That is essentially what Han is arguing. This line of argument isn’t as easy to relate to as the first, but I personally would agree with it more. I am straight, and began in this area of gay rights not knowing anything at all, whether gayness was ‘contagious’, or whether it was ‘natural’ or a ‘lifestyle’, that kind of thing. It took me some time to get past those factors and begin to consider the intrinsic humanity of our gay people as not just gays, but people. I have been considering the argument about human rights and about coercive power of government for some years now, but I did not begin that way.

Both your arguments have truth and merit in them, but in different ways.

If I may attempt to paraphrase, both of you are in support of the repeal of section 377A, and both of you do acknowledge each other’s point of view except that the emphasis is a little different.

Now let me argue my own interpretation of events.

‘I must be stupid’, in using the argument that homosexuality is natural, is in effect saying that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality is and should be accorded equal protection, insofar as the decriminalization of homosexual consenting activity is concerned. This is very similar to Han’s path of directly according homosexual activity equal non-criminalization.

Both arguments can be refuted in the ways the two of you have already extensively explored in these comments. In beginning with the premise that homosexuality is natural, ‘I must be stupid’ opens his argument to attack from the side which says that homosexuality is not natural. It is time-consuming and restricted to those with academic access probably both biological and sociological knowledge to do a full literature review of whether homosexuality is natural or not. This may perhaps be what Han means when he says that he does not have the expertise to fully discuss whether homosexuality is natural or not, and yet can declare with full certainty that it is very susceptible to attack. Admittedly, for the person who has never encountered gay people and wonders if they will turn him/her gay or some such ridiculous thing, the idea that homosexuality is natural takes care of that particular fear. This line of argument is easy to relate to.

In beginning with the premise that homosexuals should be accorded equal protection, which is the final concluding statement of ‘I must be stupid’’s argument, Han argues a more complex concept of social justice and the coercive power of government. One can consider something to be vastly immoral, but that is not sufficient reason to make that something universally punishable by force in the highest public spheres i.e. government and judiciary. It is the misuse of the coercive power of government and judiciary that is the key point of this argument. That is essentially what Han is arguing. This line of argument isn’t as easy to relate to as the first, but I personally would agree with it more. I am straight, and began in this area of gay rights not knowing anything at all, whether gayness was ‘contagious’, or whether it was ‘natural’ or a ‘lifestyle’, that kind of thing. It took me some time to get past those factors and begin to consider the intrinsic humanity of our gay people as not just gays, but people. I have been considering the argument about human rights and about coercive power of government for some years now, but I did not begin that way.

Both your arguments have truth and merit in them, but in different ways.