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

i'm open minded. the former mayor (of tempe) was homosexual.

I'd agree with alric that it is a fettish/paraphilia.

Some people seem to class mechanophilia as abnormal yet homosexuality as normal. you can't seperate the two. They are both Fettishes/paraphilias in the same boat.

I also happen to think that a fetish, paraphilia and sexual orientation are much the same. At least, there's not much difference. Or they're all just small parts of the big boat called "Sexuality".

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are addressing more than one topic. However, the assumption that there is no ideal for man to strive for is more destructive than what ever has happenend to date.

Many people, in their naivete, claim that there is no such thing as an 'ideal' being quite incapable of referring to a synonym 'standard.'

They use to use leeches to 'cure' people, would anyone think that simply taking the attitude "oh, just let them die" would have led to medicine today?

For someone who talk in a way like you, that was definitely a change. Now you're saying that if people left homosexuality alone, it'd be the same thing if they had just left all diseases alone.
Definitely not. The difference is, probbaly, that if a person has a lethal disease, he's going to go to his doctor and ask how to get rid of it.
With homosexuality, it's the other way around.

The ideal isn't the same for all people. Everyone has a different ideal. And obviously, people naturally pursue this ideal. But they're not, never, ever going to puruse other people's ideals.

I tend to think of fetishes as an extension of a sexuality. Homosexuality actually IS a sexuality.

Yeah, I agree. I guess I shouldn't have put fetish in there. But look at this definition of the word "Paraphilia":

- any sexual deviation, which is considered abnormal in some societies or which may prevent or hinder one's ability to receive reciprocal love

60 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental defect, some kind of disease. It was on the list of paraphilias. But now, it has been removed.
But judging by that definition, it could definitely still be called a paraphilia. If we take apart the word, it's pretty easy.

Para means "other", "outside" or something to that effect, and Philia comes from the word Philos which means "love".
So, I'm guessing that's something like "Different sexuality". Why the fuck does this word even exist? And even then, why does it have such negative connotations?

Originally Posted by Maeni

I also happen to think that a fetish, paraphilia and sexual orientation are much the same. At least, there's not much difference. Or they're all just small parts of the big boat called "Sexuality".



For someone who talk in a way like you, that was definitely a change. Now you're saying that if people left homosexuality alone, it'd be the same thing if they had just left all diseases alone.
Definitely not. The difference is, probbaly, that if a person has a lethal disease, he's going to go to his doctor and ask how to get rid of it.
With homosexuality, it's the other way around.

The ideal isn't the same for all people. Everyone has a different ideal. And obviously, people naturally pursue this ideal. But they're not, never, ever going to puruse other people's ideals.

A wise man once said that we learn by experience, everything. One of the ways in which to engage in false discourse is to use words in a non-conventional manner, i.e. which means it is not language at all. For example, is there such a thing as other peoples's ideals? That is about as intelligent as a history of 'Euclidean' Geometry. Is it holy because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is holy?

Mystics use false modifiers.

Is it possible to have a convention, a standard, an ideal, of the non-conventionalizable (there that word is again), the non-standardizable (oops), the non-idealizable (double oops!). Who else is in YOUR head?

Originally Posted by Maeni

Yeah, I agree. I guess I shouldn't have put fetish in there. But look at this definition of the word "Paraphilia":

- any sexual deviation, which is considered abnormal in some societies or which may prevent or hinder one's ability to receive reciprocal love

60 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental defect, some kind of disease. It was on the list of paraphilias. But now, it has been removed.
But judging by that definition, it could definitely still be called a paraphilia. If we take apart the word, it's pretty easy.

Para means "other", "outside" or something to that effect, and Philia comes from the word Philos which means "love".
So, I'm guessing that's something like "Different sexuality". Why the fuck does this word even exist? And even then, why does it have such negative connotations?

Humans have always had a desire for labeling everything. Not much we can do about it

Originally Posted by Marvo

Humans have always had a desire for labeling everything. Not much we can do about it

Yeap. I suppose so. But couldn't they at least get the labels right? xD

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

A wise man once said that we learn by experience, everything. One of the ways in which to engage in false discourse is to use words in a non-conventional manner, i.e. which means it is not language at all. For example, is there such a thing as other peoples's ideals? That is about as intelligent as a history of 'Euclidean' Geometry. Is it holy because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is holy?

Mystics use false modifiers.

Is it possible to have a convention, a standard, an ideal, of the non-conventionalizable (there that word is again), the non-standardizable (oops), the non-idealizable (double oops!). Who else is in YOUR head?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm sorry o_ O

Except that I definitely agree with the fact that using words wrong is really bad. This is happening to so many words when it comes to sexuality. Just look at the word "pedophile" and "pedophilia". Pretty much everyone who uses that word has no idea what it really means.
And maybe I used the word "ideal" wrong, for that I am sorry. I guess what I thought of was "perfect". Some people think that one thing is the ideal (perfect), and others think something else. Hitler, for example, seemed to think that blonde, blue-eyed, tall people were the perfect men (ideal). In the same way, you can say that Heterosexuality is the ideal (the perfect, the non-flawed, the state in which you want to be).

But guess what? Not everyone is Hitler, and not everyone is You. So yes, there is a thing like other people's ideals.
# conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence; embodying an ideal
# the idea of something that is perfect; something that one hopes to attain

EDIT: hint: perfection is relative

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'd agree with alric that it is a fettish/paraphilia.

Some people seem to class mechanophilia as abnormal yet homosexuality as normal. you can't seperate the two. They are both Fettishes/paraphilias in the same boat.

You can separate them quite easily because, to borrow from Maeni's post, homosexuality does not "prevent or hinder one's ability to receive reciprocal love" and it's considered less abnormal all the time. Moreover, the prevalence of dysfunction and mental illness occurring in conjunction with homosexuality subsides as the stigma is reduced. In other words, homosexuality is not the homosexual's mental affliction; you are.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Yeap. I suppose so. But couldn't they at least get the labels right? xD



I'm sorry, but I really don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm sorry o_ O

Except that I definitely agree with the fact that using words wrong is really bad. This is happening to so many words when it comes to sexuality. Just look at the word "pedophile" and "pedophilia". Pretty much everyone who uses that word has no idea what it really means.
And maybe I used the word "ideal" wrong, for that I am sorry. I guess what I thought of was "perfect". Some people think that one thing is the ideal (perfect), and others think something else. Hitler, for example, seemed to think that blonde, blue-eyed, tall people were the perfect men (ideal). In the same way, you can say that Heterosexuality is the ideal (the perfect, the non-flawed, the state in which you want to be).

But guess what? Not everyone is Hitler, and not everyone is You. So yes, there is a thing like other people's ideals.
# conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence; embodying an ideal
# the idea of something that is perfect; something that one hopes to attain

EDIT: hint: perfection is relative

Yes, you have missed the mark by a few solar systems. I posted the works of Plato in audio-book format, because, if really desires to work at using language correctly, and be aware of speaking non-sense, they would attend to a master--something I am not. The only grammar system using the two-element metaphysics was Euclid's Elements, it was never developed formally for common grammars, however, Plato exampled it. And, each of the outlines of his dialogs is based on a principle of grammar. See the outline, and one will start to understand. The Two-Element metaphysics is based on a living organisms biology--and all the principles of logic are abstracted accordingly.

I have been working on it for common grammar, but, well, single parent, full time job, etc., etc., and, greatest of all, it is difficult to get things exactly right when it has never been done before.

Suffice it to say, if grammar had been developed along the principles used by Plato, Einstein would never have made it out of the patent office.

ill just go play gta.

Hetrosexuality = Normal, healthy, the ideal sexuality.

Homosexuality = Abnormal, Biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.
Mechanophilia = Abnormal, biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.
Asexuality = Abnormal, biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.

Yeah, pretty much can't disagree with any of that.
But what's the point? Does things have to be normal? Is it negative if things aren't normal? Is it even remotely negative if things aren't normal?
Biologically defective. That's not entirely true. I'd say that all of those you mentioned are able to reproduce. But they don't. Because they choose not to.

And heterosexuality being the ideal sexuality? Maybe for you. However, if you don't like women and don't want to have children, ever, then obviously anything else than heterosexuality would be the ideal.

You missed the entire point. We are not communicating.

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.

Well, actually homosexuality isn't ideal. Not because of what it involves, but because of the discrimination it brings with it..


Just thought I'd throw that in there. But I agree, MM.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Hetrosexuality = Normal, healthy, the ideal sexuality.

Homosexuality = Abnormal, Biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.
Mechanophilia = Abnormal, biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.
Asexuality = Abnormal, biologically defective. But something that people can lead a happy, functioning life with.

Well, those are some pretty broad terms, i.e. you haven't actually said anything, but let's break them down anyway. Heterosexuality: normal? Sure, it definitely falls within norms in most communities. Healthy? Well, no. Rather, sex preference has no bearing on one's physical health, emotional health, or the health of one's relationships. There's certainly no shortage of unhealthy, heterosexual relationships. Ideal? As in, would utopia be composed entirely of heterosexuals? Perhaps, but they would no doubt have homosexuals slaving away in grainy, black-and-white power plants underground.

Homosexuality: abnormal? Well, that depends on where and when you live, but as most human societies, certainly including North America and Britain, have norms governing homosexual behavior--where it should be engaged in, how openly, during what stage(s) of life, and by people of what class or vocation--no, in most human societies homosexuality is not entirely abnormal, but governed by widely recognized and accepted norms. Homosexuality definitely does not transgress the norms of large Western cities. Biologically defective? It's been demonstrated copiously in this thread that homosexuality does not universally prevent even homosexual individuals from reproducing, and may actually promote the propagation of their genetic material via siblings and close kin, as well as improving the adaptability of communities. In what realm of biology other than reproduction and evolution does sex preference have any relevance whatsoever?

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.

Don't automatically assume Demara was speaking of you.

Also, from the way you posted that last post regarding homosexuality, it was a little vague about the part of it being biologically abnormal or unideal biologically.
What i'm trying to keep from happening is you offending anyone on this forum who may be homosexual or have family that is. That would be insulting and disrespecting another member, and discriminating against them.

No you wouldn't get into trouble for stating diabetes is biologically abnormal, because that's from a medical and biological standpoint, nor is it a moral thing.

Homosexuality is a completely different subject and must be discussed in a clear and concise way so that everyone can clearly understand that you're not questioning it's morality but looking at it from a biological standpoint. And that's what my last post was regarding, that you need to make yourself very clear on the subject with each post as does anyone else posting on the subject. I'm sorry if it seemed as though i was attacking you on the subject, i'm simply trying to make sure no member feels insulted, disrespected, or discriminated against regarding their sexual activity which is something the law and this forum protect against.

Though as long as you continue to discuss this from the point of view that you don't care about the morals of it and you just want to know if others think it's unideal biologically (which teeters on the edge as some may take it as you think they shouldn't be homosexual because they're causing problems or working against our race biologically) then it should be fine.

MementoMori, what you're saying could easily be misunderstood as you saying "Being a homosexual is a choice". I know that's not what you mean, but you might want to reword that

thank you for catching that Marvo, i've corrected that error, and indeed didn't mean that.

I would be insulted by someone repeatedly declaring my sexuality pathological and refusing to provide support for this position beyond disparaging analogies, nor responding to contradictory evidence. The only evidence anyone has offered for the "biological flaw" position is, "sounds 'bout right." Sorry, when science and medicine have been in agreement for forty years that your position is false, your gut feeling won't cut it.

I wouldn't consider that behavior to transgress the rules, however, unless it struck me as 1) intended to insult or 2) intended to test the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Otherwise he's just making clear his way of thinking, which gives us the opportunity to point out why this still all-too-common way of thinking is both rationally flawed and corrosive to society.