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

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Hetrosexuality = Normal, healthy, the ideal sexuality.

remember this:

As long as:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm not questioning the morality of homosexuality here, just from a biological viewpoint i'm saying.

remains your point in this thread it'll stay open, but moving an inch towards discrimination of any sexuality including the sexuality the OP is referring to will have the thread locked up faster than Lady Hamilton's virtue.

??

You're coming real close to having this thread locked. What i'm getting from you in this thread is that you believe homosexuality is a negative, unideal sexuality that you think is wrong.

Your last post is on the edge of being discriminating, with the simple statement that Heterosexuality is the normal, ideal sexuality and that Homosexuality is not normal and not ideal.

For whom, and for what is Homosexuality not ideal? Answer these two things for me as you left them a little vague in your last post.




Also,

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You missed the entire point. We are not communicating.

this is because IMHO you're not on topic at all, you continue to stray off topic and ramble on about the inner workings of words and the proper and improper usage of language. Find a way to relate this to the topic of this thread or your posts will be deleted as spam. The point Maeni was making is that not everyone considers homosexuality unideal or irregular or abnormal because they can see that a homosexual person can be a happy, intelligent, strong, resourceful, versatile, adaptive, excessively mature, or polite person that leads a life filled with all the same things as a Heterosexual person with the only difference being that they choose to have sexual intercourse with the same sex.

IMO what i think you're doing is trying to buffer the idea of your username by posting in such a way that makes it seem as though you have a great and expansive knowledge and that you want to prove it. Nothing here to prove but that you can Lucid Dream or would like to learn how my friend.

I've been reading the posts on this board.
Quite frankly, I'm disgusted at the attitudes some people have. And although I'm not a mod and can't give orders, I say give it a rest. You know who you are. Get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're all making an error common to discussions of evolution, applying a narrow, simplistic caricature of "survival of the fittest," little different from creationists arguing that the origin of species requires organisms with half a wing. As several people have mentioned, we do not by any stretch know that homosexuality is evolutionarily counterproductive, and studies suggest a variety of means by which homosexuals make their communities more adaptive and/or promote the propagation of their own genome via siblings and close relations.

Finally, thank you!

MementoMori, I'm trying to be careful here to stay within the rules, but i'm not exactly sure how i'm breaking them. If I made a post claiming that in my opinion, diabetes was a negative thing from a biological point of view, would the thread get locked for discriminating against diabetics?

Indeed, the whole point of this thread was to try to see why many people don't think like myself, it turns out quite a few agree with me exactly.

I simply state that I believe, from a biological point of view homosexuality is a biological flaw, like diabetes or albinism. But yet i get accused of critisism when someone who states "Albinism is a biological flaw" wouldn't be critisised. I'm still not critisising the MORALITY of homosexuality, just from a biological viewpoint. Demara I think you mean me lol, if so why are you disgusted by my attitudes? If not sorry to bother you.

The issue, Thatperson, is that homosexuality is nothing like diabetes, albinism, cancer, or anything else that would cause a person to live a significantly shorter life if ignored. You speak of biological flaws as if there is some master plan. Something is only a 'flaw' if it has a subjective adverse affect on a person's well being. Cancer will kill you. Diabetes if left untreated/regulated will kill you. Even albinism which can be somewhat benign makes you much more susceptible to skin disease, and vision problems. Homosexuality only causes distress to a person's well being in terms of the social stigma it carries. There are no biological adverse effects of homosexuality. Therefore it cannot be called a flaw in any way similar to any of the examples that you are trying to compare it to.

Calling it a biological defect or flaw is a hidden moral judgment, because it really isn't a biological flaw and so your reason for arguing that it is could only stem from trying to rationalize your own personal moral objections to homosexual behavior.

Calling it a biological defect or flaw is a hidden moral judgment, because it really isn't a biological flaw and so your reason for arguing that it is could only stem from trying to rationalize your own personal moral objections to homosexual behavior.

Hidden moral judgement, seriously?

Anyway, you've ignored the sugar point, I suppose I worded it poorly but what my point was is this.
Humans developed reward/motivation systems to encourage beneficial activities. Things such as eating give us pleasure, if it didn't we wouldn't have searched for food, we would have just waited for some to come along. When this motivation for food evolved, the group of animals (this was probably a very very early development) evolved to be rewarded by food, they dominated. Thus we are all decended from that first group of fish who had the advantage of being motivated to eat. This is why sex is so enjoyable.

While the group of fish that didn't have a motivation for eating probably lead an normal life with their mediocre food, they clearly had a disadvantage which is why the other group dominated.

Except there are no known cases of any organism not desiring food because of a genetic abnormality. That is a strawman argument.

If, for the sake of argument, a person's genes affected their behavior in such a way that they did not desire sugar, or gained no pleasure from it, and they were able to lead a happy and healthy life because sugar is not a necessary dietary component then this would be a beneficial adaptation, and not a flaw.