As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

All this evidence flies in the face of the standard modern attempts to attribute sexuality purely to genetics. It may be more accurate to view is a social phenomena, rather than a product of individual genetics/choice.

Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.
I think a case could be made that while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

So while homosexuality might in the grander scheme of things be natural as a social phenomena; in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.