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

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.

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 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

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

One does not need to reproduce to survive?

Im assuming the rest is you and dajo's argument, so....no, one does not? many people live their whole lives without having kids even in straight marriages.

when the side you are arguing with puts the point across that

Cancer is natural

and

Cancer is neither good nor bad

You just give up.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I know that technically cancer is 'natural' due to cause and effect, and I know good and bad do not have objective meanings.

But you know sometimes you've just gotta stop being a smart alec, and live in the real world for a second, where people consider cancer a bad thing and unatural thing.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

But you know sometimes you've just gotta stop being a smart alec, and live in the real world for a second

Yeah I'm sure that's what a lot of people said when they thought the world was flat. It's not about what people consider, it's about how likely things are to be true based on evidence. I hate to judge you based on this but you seem biased towards ignorance. People tend to think cancer is a bad but natural thing because it causes the suffering of individuals and suffering is something we are hard pressed to will upon ourselves. Similarly many people think homosexuality is bad because they are irrationally disgusted by homosexual activity, and unnatural because they are unable to explain it. And as you know, disgusting doesn't exist in an objective sense (and you began this debate with talk of some psychological or biological malfunction causing homosexuality, which is objective and scientific). and being unable to explain something because of mental limits doesn't make that thing inexplicable.

A soul chooses to incarnate as gay to increase human kind's overall spiritual enlightement.

LOL. The discussion actually did need to be lightened up a bit. Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

when the side you are arguing with puts the point across that


and


You just give up.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I know that technically cancer is 'natural' due to cause and effect, and I know good and bad do not have objective meanings.

But you know sometimes you've just gotta stop being a smart alec, and live in the real world for a second, where people consider cancer a bad thing and unatural thing.

Alright, lets take a step into the real world, where cancer and homosexuality share nothing in common except the fact that they are both features of biological life.

Your "cancer is bad and abnormal and homosexuality is abnormal too and therefore bad" is the weakest strawman argument anyone could possibly come up with, and you are right to give up.

When I say cancer is neither good or bad, I am talking biologically, not morally or whatever other standard that people base their opinions of it on, just like you were claiming to be doing in the OP. Disease, cancer, viruses are all part of evolution. They don't hurt species, and often times aid them to adapt more quickly. What you don't seem to be getting is that when talking in terms of biological evolution, individuals do not matter. Individuals getting cancer, being reckless and falling off a cliff not reproducing because they've taken a vow of celibacy or not reproducing because they are homosexuals do not have any real effect on the evolution of the species at all, for good or ill.

Let me just make this last point clear, if you claim that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals rarely reproduce, then whatever influences people to become priests is also bad because priests rarely reproduce.