Thread: Homosexuality, how can it not be considered an abnormality?

Well, answer me this one simple question, what kinds of things do not acquire their judgment of use from their own designed functionality? That is the whole of the question. And no, I do not consider it very bright when one judges the right or wrong expression of almost everything in their life based on a things designed function, but abandons it with very bad arguments. Something other at work here than truth.

Which of the environmental acquisition systems of the human body were designed not to sustain and promote the life of the body, but where designed-- well--- for anything an empty head can imagine?

And even more to the point--since when did the functionality or disfunctionality of one environmental acquisition system determine the right or wrong expression of another? The human mind or the procreative system, which of those two determine the right and wrongness of the answer?????

I suppose you never understood the fact that what is true is independent of both gods and men.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Why do they have to be human?

Call me old fashioned, but raping animals and getting intimate with objects just doesn't seem right.

That's not a great argument. A conservative dude could say the same about homosexuals and a dude who fucks bicycles would say that you're close-minded and have no business deciding what he can and can't do in his... garage...

You said Love not rape, anyway,

"getting intimate with objects just doesn't seem right. "
Says who? It's not harming anyone. Homosexuality 'just doesn't seem right' to many.

I don't see how you can differentiate homosexuality with object intimacy Try it

EDIT: Exactly, what spartiate said. That.

Looks like it time to get intimate with a microwave oven. So many people seem to use it to just dry their hair. .

Being in love with an inanimate object is not sane-- being in love with someone of the same species, whatever gender, is fine. By having sex with animals, you are causing confusion and harm to the animal.

You said Love not rape, anyway,

An animal can not give consent to sex.

I know an animal cannot, you said love not sex. Anyway.

Ok but what about sexual desire alone, what's the diference between having sexual desire for someone of the same sex and having sexual desire for a car?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Lseadragon, when I said asexuality what I meant was, the thing wikipedia calls "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)". And on the article it does say So Asexuality (or HSDD) is considered a sexual dysfunction but homosexuality is not? Double standards?

As you seem to know the difference could you please clarify for me the difference between HSDD and Asexuality? They seem identical to me :S


EDIT: Oh Dear. Upon further reading it appears that the Asexual lobby are trying to get HSDD removed as a disorder.

It's the same as the difference between being anorexic, and not liking the foods that most people like.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I know an animal cannot, you said love not sex. Anyway.

Oh please, are you saying that someone who is madly in love with their cat and other animals isn't going to try it on one time or another? Yeah, thats totally what homosexuals do. Fall in love with someone of the same sex, then just not have sex-- because its that easy. >_>

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I know an animal cannot, you said love not sex. Anyway.

Ok but what about sexual desire alone, what's the diference between having sexual desire for someone of the same sex and having sexual desire for a car?

The difference is the cause, the effect, the purpose, the object of attraction and how far it deviates from average sexual desire. That isn't to say that every desire of the same kind has the same cause or effect, but there may be a correlation between desire and cause or desire and effect. It doesn't mean there is a malfunction.
I don't understand what is so difficult to grasp. We cannot say with absolute certainty that something is a malfunction without knowing the cause, effect and purpose of it. You are trying to say that homosexuality is a malfunction when you don't know what causes it, we don't know the effects of it, we don't know the purpose of it and you base your verdict on a widely disputed theory of evolution. In my opinion you don't have enough grounds to say objectively that it is an evolutionary malfunction and people aren't ignorant for disagreeing with you.

We homo-folk are mutants and we will take over.

Offtopic: Your signature is cute.

Ontopic: Orly

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Lseadragon, when I said asexuality what I meant was, the thing wikipedia calls "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)".

Oh, you did? Maybe you should read the article on Asexuality too, and see where it differs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

And on the article it does say "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), is considered as a sexual dysfunction and is listed under the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders of the DSM-IV."

You seem to be continually equating HSDD with Asexuality. They're not entirely the same thing. Taken from the same article:

For this to be regarded as a disorder, it must cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulties.

Most asexuals are fine with their sexuality, and often HSDD occurs within the context of a relationship or a single couple, or as a temporary thing; again not like asexuals.

So Asexuality (or HSDD) is considered a sexual dysfunction but homosexuality is not? Double standards?

Homosexuality was listed as a disorder up till about 1970. It's a matter of cultural recognition; there was no asexual community until the advent of the internet.

As you seem to know the difference could you please clarify for me the difference between HSDD and Asexuality? They seem identical to me :S

As above.

EDIT: Oh Dear. Upon further reading it appears that the Asexual lobby are trying to get HSDD removed as a disorder.

Removing it would be a bad idea, I'll give you that; asexuals do not have any sort of monopoly on HSDD. For some people who previously had higher levels of sexual desire it is a disorder, and one which needs treatment. I hope it's redefined to exclude those who've had it lifelong, and are going to treatment because they feel something's wrong with that due to sexualised cultural messages.

I mean. It is not biologically beneficial. But it's good in every other way. The world doesn't need any more kids.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm sure most would consider beastiality or mechanophilia as abnormalities but why not homosexuality?

Beastiality and mechanophilia are not abnormalities, they are sexual fetishes. If you want to say being gay is a sexual fetish, then sure I would agree to that. It would actually fit very well into that category.

Some people like to be tied up, some people like being spanked, some people like having sex with the same gender. Some fetishes are obviously more extreme than others, some are pretty mild.

I wouldn't call having a fetish an abnormally, since they are so common, and since they usually don't cause any harm to anyone. A gay person is perfectly capable of having sex with the opposite gender and having children. So in that area, you can't really call it abnormal.

Anyone can dabble a little in a fetish, which might explain why people may be curious about that sort of thing. People who enjoy it but don't focus on it, would be bisexual, and people who are deeply into the fetish would be gay.

Any way, its just preference. Most gay people are not sicken by the idea of straight sex. A lot of gay people have had children. Just because you prefer gay sex, doesn't mean you have never had straight sex in your life, or never will.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

In many cases masturbation is abnormal, especially when you have one of a couple who masturbates while the other is sexed starved. However, I think it is a bit of a weak minded response to equate the augmentation of a thing with its defeat. But, weak minded comparisons are in vogue in some corners of the intelectual world. We eat ice cream too--but that does not mean we don't live on steak.

However, every male should know, that if they do not, under certain circumstances they could be injuring themselves--or create an emotional state that leads to some very bad judgments.

However, I have never known that the fact that one must eat to survive, automatically makes everything eatable. Don't make no sense to this fool.

you dont have to reproduce to survive, so Im not sure how eating ice cream equates with not eating anything to survive.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well, answer me this one simple question, what kinds of things do not acquire their judgment of use from their own designed functionality? That is the whole of the question. And no, I do not consider it very bright when one judges the right or wrong expression of almost everything in their life based on a things designed function, but abandons it with very bad arguments. Something other at work here than truth.

Which of the environmental acquisition systems of the human body were designed not to sustain and promote the life of the body, but where designed-- well--- for anything an empty head can imagine?

And even more to the point--since when did the functionality or disfunctionality of one environmental acquisition system determine the right or wrong expression of another? The human mind or the procreative system, which of those two determine the right and wrongness of the answer?????

I suppose you never understood the fact that what is true is independent of both gods and men.

Oh now I get it. You misunderstood me. I wasn't making a moral judgement at all.

My point was that "why would it be considered a biological abnormality more than the opposobal
thumb if homosexuality can be perfectly explained by evolution?" We were concentrating on these
factors, so of course this is not how I operate or judge, if ever, in less secluded domains of my life,
especially not while working scientifically or searching for truth independent of both gods and men.

You are being quite melodramatic.

I'm neither arguing from authority on this matter nor do I particularly care, since as it was pointed
out here sereval times - the biological functions don't determine our moral thinking in our society
anyway. Besides, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, as long noone is being opressed.

Why don't you explain to me then why it should be considered an abnormality? I don't even know your stance.

And please, dial down the sophistitalk a few noches. Unless you're not able to.

One does not need to reproduce to survive?

Well, I always imagined that since the human mind attains to its function by how well it can plan and execute those plans into the future. Most people cannot see past their own immediate consciousness.

Biological function does not determine moral code? Then A does not equal A. No wonder people have never understood the Platonic dialogs.

Relation to self is inadmissible.

An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism..

Why even Christ said it, as he, himself was a metaphor, "so that we might have life and have it more abundantly."

I am going to say the same thing, 7 times, you have demonstated your inability to keep up, but I will demonstrate a stammering.

1. We learn by experience.
2. Perception determines conception, conception determines will.
3. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are One.
4. An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.
5. A = A.
6. Relation to self is inadmissible.
7. Truth.

Plato called it the ability to see the simili in multis ,contemporary psychology calls it effecting human behavior based upon abstracted principles. However, a very long time ago, it was written that someone who men call Satan, or The Beast, or The Spirit of Truth (all the same), would come at a time when Lucid Dreaming would reappear. Men call him good one time, and bad another, not able to judge. That is how it should be in evolution. What principle do you suppose he would be well versed in? If man is to learn judgment, what principle must become the foundation of his psychology?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Thank you. This is all i'm on about. i'm just wondering why some people don't understand this.

Because the reality we describe with science doesn't know purpose. It's objective... cause and effect. The only people who project purpose is, well people. So biologically speaking it's an abnormality as long as we project an end goal/purpose to the organism. So we say "living things reporduce/strive towards reproduction" or whatever and only then we can say, "homosexual organisms are abnormal because they don't reproduce". The whole statement labeling something, in this case homosexuality, as abnormal, lies on the foundational premise that "organisms should reproduce". But in reality there is no way to detect the "should", It's just a way of categorising things. Saying an actual should exists is what Intelligent Design is all about. In reality all we know about the universe is what happens. And what also happens is homosexuality, therefore, I claim there is no inherent abnormality and neither is there in bestiality or cutting your spleen out with a spoon. Therefore everything that happens is natural.

If people are going to judge actions and persons based on some "biological ought", then they should be fair about it. I'm pretty sure we'd find thousands if not millions of things that are (or more importantly can be percieved as) "abnormal" when putting it beside some biological purpose scale.

In my opinion, homosexuality shouldn't be regarded as some sort of intrinsic, objective malfunction, unless you are some sort of an Intelligent design proponent, or unless you think the purpose created by natural selection and evolution should be upheld as some law, moral or otherwise. So in my opinion, scientifically speaking homosexuality is not unnatural or a malfunction. If we categorise these molecular machines, macro and microscopic, as alive and generalize certain key characteristics, then whose "fault" is it, if some of these organisms don't fit into the categories? A homosexual is only malfunctioning when put beside a set norm for living systems which is reproduction, but who said that it should be judged only by that? As others pointed out, there are ways it can also be seen as an evolutionary "success" instead of a flaw.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I am going to say the same thing, 7 times, you have demonstated your inability to keep up, but I will demonstrate a stammering.

You're not making it easy to keep up. I can only imagine, how that monk must have felt.

Look, one of the basics of communciation is that your signals need to also get somewhere,
in order to be understood. That is why we usually have the ability to adjust the way we
are communicating to the level of our partner so it will be successful rather then redundant.

One does not need to reproduce to survive?

where have I said that?

Well, I always imagined that since the human mind attains to its function by how well it can plan and execute those plans into the future. Most people cannot see past their own immediate consciousness.

So you have always imagined that.
What are you referring to - that one does not need to reproduce to survive?
And how well it can plan and execute "those plans". What plans? What are "those"?

Lots of people cannot see past their own consciousness at all, failing to recognize the mind of others.

Biological function does not determine moral code? Then A does not equal A. No wonder people have never understood the Platonic dialogs.

I never said that our cognitive functions are not determined by our biology.

That doesn't change the fact that you can discuss biological benefit and moral
superiority seperated from each other as it was asked for in the OP.

Relation to self is inadmissible.

Care to elaborate?

An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism..

I never disagreed with this. If I decrypted correctly.

1. We learn by experience.
2. Perception determines conception, conception determines will.
3. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are One.
4. An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of the organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.
5. A = A.
6. Relation to self is inadmissible.
7. Truth.

Plato called it the ability to see the simili in multis ,contemporary psychology calls it effecting human behavior based upon abstracted principles. However, a very long time ago, it was written that someone who men call Satan, or The Beast, or The Spirit of Truth (all the same), would come at a time when Lucid Dreaming would reappear. Men call him good one time, and bad another, not able to judge. That is how it should be in evolution. What principle do you suppose he would be well versed in? If man is to learn judgment, what principle must become the foundation of his psychology?

I don't even disagree with this.

You have been making giant leaps in assumption over my intent and content of matter.
Did you even read the content I provided?

Judgment evolves in the frame of ones experience. One should at least be fundamentally aware of this.
But you are derailing this thread, you are still discussion judgement, while I haven't said anything about it.

Please use quotes to directly adress any points. It's very difficult for me to know what you are
talking about if you are just adressing my entire posts with statements that are all over the place.

Maybe it's also crucial to know, how you think homosexuality originates.

Generalize your question and it comes to "How does dysfunction originate." You flatter me.

I am very well aware of the psychological reactions and expressions of it to the logic that defends a position. However, I cannot mature your mind, no matter how many questions you ask. Keep Lucid Dreaming, and, ask these questions as you enter state.

Haha, fine. How does dysfunction originate? And why does it remain in the pool?

Originally Posted by Philosopher

I am very well aware of the psychological reactions and expressions of it to the logic that defends a position. However, I cannot mature your mind, no matter how many questions you ask. Keep Lucid Dreaming, and, ask these questions as you enter state.

You do not know me, as I do not know you.

You can't just adress a simple argument and use it as basis for deducting my maturity of mind.

I asked the questions trying to make points, you never really adress them though.

But no worries, your mind too will mature and learn. Keep it up

Every study I have seen on this particular topic, does not find the fault in the reproductive system, but in the brain, the mind. Sometimes it is the result of overpopulation, like in deer. However, a dysfunction of the mind is still a dysfunction. The human mind is being developed to master the environment, I call it a change in evolution--instead of adapting to the environment, we adapt the environment to us. Some day when we come unto our own, we may be able to do this. At this point in our development we are between two worlds.

All of my work does not target what was, nor what is, but what will be.

Oh, as far as why dysfunction remains in the gene pool, I am sure you have studied genetics and know that transcription errors are simply a fact of biology. However, even a typo does not indicate the intentions of an author. In a way, we might consider ourselves, all of us, just bad copies of a good idea.

Post Script: Some people have a difficult time stiching the steps of an argument together.

Homosexuality is not a reproductive disorder, it is a mental disorder. Since the mind is responsible for human behavior, it equates to a behavioral disorder.

That was a post I could follow well and know what you are getting at. Thanks.

A quick search of homosexuality and mental disorder do show correlations.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ract/56/10/883

As for the dysfunction in the pool - I do know that errors are fact. But In a way you could
argue that any mutation or spontaneous approximation is a dysfunction at first - just those
that suit the environment better will more likely occur more often.

I'm not saying that redundant or inferior genes have no chance of survival, but rather that
homosexuality might have earned its place in the evolutionary order for a reason - not much
different from any other mutations. Abnormal just seems off to me, but in a way it is even an
abnormality that we have developed complicated mental processes.

I did not, however, consider the data about the brain disorder. I'll take it into consideration.

As far as I could tell, there is still some controversy about the origination of homosexuality.