> Dear Comrades!
>
> The main point of discussion is:
> Is it a problem to be tacked as a problem or is it to be treated as a
> natural endowment. For example, freek babies, or two bodies of two
> individuals joined together--should that be treated as a natural
> occurring or an aberration? If it is natural then there is no point in
> doing surgeries for separating the two bodies. If it is a problem,
> then surgeries are justified.
You are using the word "natural" in an odd sense. Siamese twins are natural in the sense that it is an event that occurs in nature. Nevertless, there may be a reason to separate the babies: that they will grow up in a world that is not organized around siamese twins and, for that reason, they will be able to have a more "normal" life if they are separate. Not all natural things are desirable; nor is this a black and white area. For example, hermaphrodites may decide that they do not want to choose one sex over the other.
>
> In the natural habitat, when sexual deprivation is not enfoced upon
> animals, are there same sex cohabitions?
Every piece of research I'm aware of has discovered that about 8%-12% of animal populations prefer same sex relationships under any circumstances -- in other words, some of it is hard wired.
Then, of course, there are also things like prisons, where same-sex relationships are enforced by circumstance.
And then, there are cultural/social circumstances where same-sex relationships are preferred because women are so devalued that it is not possible to have any kind of reciprocity with them and therefore sex isn't as pleasurable as it could be. (Pleasure shared is pleasure doubled....) Societies like Afghanistan where, as I mentioned before "Women are for babies and men are for pleasure."
So, yes, homosexuality may increase as a result of historically distorted relations between the sexes.
>
> Fashion is another nonsense that is connected with the affair. The
> fashion has driven the youths here so silly that they no more know
> where to tie their trousers. They all publicly display now their naked
> back, nearly up to their anuses.
> Is that as well to be passed as natural--freedom of choice.
Fashion is often about power. If the west is perceived to be powerful, then one gains power/status by behaving in a "western" fashion. If that includes homosexuality, then one might ape that "fashion." If freedom matters, then you should not bewail the absence of heroes and idols; the absence of good role models however is a loss which is unavoidable in a "me-first" society in which men are set at eachother's throates.