Muktomona DEBATE:Is Homosexuality Unnatural?

Compiled by

Ashok Deb

Here in the below post Mr. Akbar Hussain abhors Homosexuality as it is against the natural laws of  Human Progeny


Dear Mr.Rabi,
I appreciate your efforts to promote homosexuality but Like me there are
many who considers the practice as abnormal. This is not a movement to
establish any social value rather it’s a fantasy to do something to attract
attention. We believe in natural laws to sustain the human race. Not
anything which will help extinct us
. It’s not a matter of hatred or
persecution to certain people,in the past or now, for their personal
behaviour.It’s a matter of decency and acceptance by an overwhemling
majority. We respect and proud
of the fact that you can open up your mind in this forum although many of us
do not agree with you. This abnormality is nothing new in the human race and
nobody tried to make any issue out of it,but what happened now? I find it
totally unacceptable when a gay/lesbian person wants to adopt a child. You
are working against nature but love to enjoy the fruit of a natural union
between a man and woman.It’s contradictory to the so called spirit of
Please don’t be mad at me.If you have a logical argument
please come forward.I hope our friends in this forum will forward theirs

Akbar Hussain

In reply Avik provides certain scintific findings which considers Homosexuality as an Natural Human atribute and the author also starts to question the morality involved in approval of artificial progneration methods

Dear Mr. Akbar:
I used to think just as you (Homosexuality is unnatural) 6/7 years
ago, but I have changed my mind after lot of reading and studying
recently. Sometimes the word “unnatural” is used wrongly. For
example, 50 or 100 years ago in our country it was commonly thought
that women should stay in home, only men would work. It was thought
as natural in our country, cause we were habituated with that. Even
Tagore once said, “Jemon korei dekho, Prokriti bole diccheey Bairer
Kaaj meyera korte paarbe na…” ( Ref. Roma bai er boktrita
upolokkhe). But look at current situation, women are
working “naturally” with men. In Singapore, I even see women are
working in many sectors (photocopying, driving bus, cleaning etc.)
more effectively compared to men (There are studies which say women
are better driver, as they are more careful:)). So, definition of
natural/unnatural may change. Again, take the examples of cloning,
surrogate mother, test tube baby – how much “natural” are those
concepts in traditional sense? But people are getting habituated
with those stuff day by day. Most importantly, many couples are getting
benefited by these “unnatural” technology.

Again, homosexuality is not as “unnatural” as you think. Homosexual
activity and homosexual relationships can be found throughout
nature – in dogs, cows, lions, dolphins, whales, fruit flies,
monkeys etc. Here are some links:,4057,5114041%255E13762,00.html


Most of today’s researchers are pretty convinced that homosexuality
is more biological, though there are some cases where psychological
and social factors play dominant role. Previously doctors treated
homosexuality as diseases, and they tried to cure those “patients”
by medicine. But it did not help much. For example, Dr. Kinsey and
his co-workers for many years attempted to find patients who had
been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality during therapy,
and were surprised that they could not find one whose sexual
orientation had been changed (Ref. Being Homosexual, Richard Isay).
Indeed, if the reason of homosexuality lies in biological root, very
less you can do with medicine. You may want to check a very tragic
experience of one MM member:


Homosexuality has no longer been seen as “mental disorder” or
disease now. Researchers accept that their sexual orientation is
“different” and it is completely natural. In fact in 1973 the
American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new
research by removing the term ‘homosexuality’ from the official
manual that list all mental and emotional disorders. In 1975 the
American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting
this action. Both associations urge all mental health professionals
to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still
associate with homosexual orientation.

Lastly, I would focus an important point (not fingerpointing :). Most of our
hatred towards
gays and lesbians come from our religious upbringing in our
childhood. Very few people can overcome this barrier in their later
stage. Believe me, I know some gays and lesbians…they are just as
normal as you and me, even sometimes more gentle!
Hope the information would be helpful to give you a second

ght ….
Tapan Rabi stresses on Mr Akbar Hussain to refer the latest medical findings and research work over the phenomnon of Homosexuality,rather drawing his own conclusions from his prejudiced religious upbringing.The latest medical findings have been compiled excellently by Himal Sagor which has been accepted in Muktomona Publication.I have provided them under  IS HOMOSEXUALITY A MENTAL DISORDER debate topic.




Dear Mr Akbar Hussain
I must start thanking you for taking the time to write again. I think you can go
through the messages and articles on gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual,
transgender, queer and like-minded issues so far published in Mukto-Mona. Each
one has reference(s) and are highlighting the reality of the fact in objective
way. I also sent you the World Health Organization website for sexuality and
human rights.
As a researcher we highly value epistemological approach and as a qualitative
researcher we look into ethnography, anthropology and different other
methodological approaches.
I would highly appreciate you if you can evaluate the
aforementioned messages and articles in a pedantic way.
Best wishes
Tapan Rabi
Aparthib gives a neutral and logical view about the evolutionary instincts inside the human mind that naturally drives them to abhor Homosexuality




It is useful to view the issue of homosexuality from an evolutionary
angle. Any statement I make should be understood to be appended with
an implicit “as hardwired by evolution” even if I do not do such
an explicit appending.
The debate in the above two messages seems to me more on semantics
about what is or not unnatural. First of all unless one defines
clearly what is (un)natural, saying something is (un)natural is
merely an affirmation of one’s personal taste, so neither view is
more valid than the other.
But if we take an evolutionary approach,
one thing is clear, homosexuality does not favour propagation of
genes and thus is not evolutionarily stable. Evolutionary force
instills a negative instinct against any trait that does not favour
propagation of genes and thus survival of the species.
It is no
surprise that majority of humans view (more precisely hardwired by
evolution to view) homosexuality as unnatural. So if we take the
evolutionary criterion (i.e what is favourable to gene propagation)
for some act as being natural then homosexuality is certainly
unnatural. Of course if one arbitarily defines some act as natural
if at least one or more instances of such act is observed in nature
then no act will ever be unnatural, because there is no act which
has not been observed at least once to be truly called unnatural.
So that will be trivial and useless definition of natural, because
an act has to happen in the first place to be called an act anyway.
The fact that homosexuality is viwed as unnatural is because human
species will become extinct if all heterosexuals became homosexuals.
Human species will not become instinct if all homosexual became
heterosexual. There is an inherent assymmetry here. The fact that
there are some homosexuals in some species does not alter this hard
fact. Neither does the personal taste of whether homosexuality is
natural or unnatural change this hard fact.

Now to the social side of this debate. An important point to note
is that viewing something as unnatural does not automatically imply
intolerance towards it
. So if someone views homosexuality as
unnatural, that does not automatically imply an intolerance towards
homosexuals. As a result of cultural evolution (which is ultimately
guided by biological evolution) humans are capable of tolerating
traits that they view as unnatural. Here tolerance means believing
that the same fundamental rights apply regardless of sexual
preferences. But tolerance does not mean GRANTING equal social
priviledges. It is the mixing up or confusing “Accepatance of
fundamental rights” with “Granting of Social Priviledges” that
cause the lingering debate on homosexuality and also in religious
debates on banning/allowing religious garbs in private schools
for example. How to distinguish rights from priviledges? A simple
criterion is that acess to any social service/benefit that in
principle does not have an inherent trait(e.g gender/sexual
preference/color..) requirements are fundamental rights
. For
example uniform code for attending schools, getting jobs, right
to believe in any faith, right to move freely in public places
and access to public facilities. Access to fundamental rights means
the rights cannot be denied solely on the basis of any traits.
Some rights may require a competitive basis based on competence to
be enjoyed (e.g job, admission to a prestigious school), others are
automatic (access to public facilities,like libraries etc).
Priviledges on the other hand those benefits that are specifically
targeted towards those with certain traits. For example access to
certain restaurants are for shirted people only. Now the clincher.
Marriage certificates (not marriage) are priviledges that were
adopted for heterosexual couples. So it is considered a priviledge
for heterosexuals only. Yes, that may seem unfair to homosexuals.
Well some of the priviledges granted to females (like free
admissions/drinks in bars or some clubs) may seem unfair to many
males also, but they have to live with it, or for that matter some
faith based priviledges are granted to followers of faith A, which
followers of faith B are not entitled to, or vice versa.
The priviledge of a marriage certificate is rooted in evolutionary
reasons. Humans are wired by evolution to promote acts that are
favourable to the survival of human species, like institutional
marriage between opposite sexes, which is universal among all races.
The reason institutional marriage ceritifcates were not adopted for
homosexuals is because that is not evolutionarily adaptive.
Homosexuals can marry in their own way, no matter with what
lavishness, fanfare or extravaganza, in a church or anywhere, the
tolerant heterosexuals will not have any problem with that. It is
only the homosexuals’ political demand for same priviledge as
heterosexuals (e.g marriage certificates) that those tolerant
heterosexuals object to (as hardwired by evolution). That is
because heterosexual institutional marriage was specifically
designed (as an evolutionary adaptation) to promote survival of
human species, a comparable imperative does not exist for
homosexual institutional marriage with priviledges.
It is not
the ACT of marriage between homosexuals, but the claim to the
priviledges that come with a marriage certificate that is the bone
of contention here. I wish to remind the readers that my entire
writeup is basically describing the way things are and the
evolutionary basis for why things are the way they are. I am not
taking a political stand here in one way or the other.

Having said all that one thing should be beyond debate, which is
that regardless of how one views homosexuality, that view should
not lead to acts of hatred towards homosexuals. Most heterosexuals
who view homosexuality as unnatural do not have hatred for
homosexuals. One cannot help or control how one feels inside
towards certain acts. That feeling cannot be rationalized away as
it is part of an instinct instilled by evolution.
What can be
controlled/prevented (by self through rationalization or by
others through enactment of laws) are, HATEFUL ACTS (including
discrimination). Hatred implies an intent to commit harm and deny
the fundamental rights, and as I argued above, one can view
homosexuality as unnatural yet not harbor such hatred. It is only
some extremists who harbor hatred and/or commit hateful acts. It
seems clear to me that the author of message

the view of a heterosexual without any hatred. But certainly he
can speak for himself.
– Aparthib




Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis of Homosexual Issues

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s