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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy

This is considered an eating disorder yet most Geophagists live a normal healthly life.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy

This is considered an eating disorder yet most Geophagists live a normal healthly life.

You didn't read your own link. Geophagy is not an eating disorder, and is "widespread among animals in the wild, as well as in human societies."

It is related to an eating disorder called Pica which is an appetite for substances which are largely non-nutritive. Pica can be extremely hazardous to one's health. I got this all from the first paragraph.

After reading the rest of the wiki article, I found that geophagy is not only not detrimental to the individual, but is beneficial, and is common throughout most life on this planet. Do you really want to use this as an example? If you think homosexuality is similar to geophagy, then you have effectively proven yourself wrong on every level of your argument.

You seem to be unable to distinguish a medical abnormailty, from something which is harmful to an individual during his/her lifetime.

I'm gonna try one more approach. You say that homosexuality/Asexuality is not a flaw because the homosexuals involved live happy fulfilling lifes, with no physical/emotional/mental health issues, therefore it is not a flaw. But humans are hardwired to desire certain things, food, warmth, the opposite sex just to name a few. If someone doesn't desire these things then it's fine, they're happy to live without them, but if they don't then it's still a flaw. They Should desire these thing (I don't mean moral should), if they don't then something has gone wrong somewhere, however benign it may be.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

You seem to be unable to distinguish a medical abnormailty, from something which is harmful to an individual during his/her lifetime.

I'm gonna try one more approach. You say that homosexuality/Asexuality is not a flaw because the homosexuals involved live happy fulfilling lifes, with no physical/emotional/mental health issues, therefore it is not a flaw. But humans are hardwired to desire certain things, food, warmth, the opposite sex just to name a few. If someone doesn't desire these things then it's fine, they're happy to live without them, but if they don't then it's still a flaw. They Should desire these thing (I don't mean moral should), if they don't then something has gone wrong somewhere, however benign it may be.

There is no "should" unless you are trying to talk about ethics or morals. There is no should in biology or any other science, there is only what is. In evolution, there is only what is successful and what is not. If an early primate stands up instead of walking on all fours like his father, has something "gone wrong"?

What you are trying to say with this entire thread is that "what is abnormal is flawed and bad". Homosexuality may very well be abnormal, although its really hard to say because the social stigma keeps many people in the closet about their sexuality. Abnormal =/= flawed genetically, biologically, or even morally.

Originally Posted by Maeni

It just is as it is. It's not the way it was "intended" (assuming that Nature has intentions :p)

This is the crux of the argument. The OP is grasping at what is the "intended" nature of a human being. Either there is no intended nature (of nature) or it is necessarily beyond your grasp.

Ok it all starts well

Homosexuality may very well be abnormal

it actually now appears we've agreed all this time, does it not?

anyway you then say

although its really hard to say because the social stigma keeps many people in the closet about their sexuality

well it still wouldn't change anything, unless you meant abnormal in a statistically sense. If so then are you suggesting that possibly over 50% of the planet are gay? I've most probably gone down the wrong road there.

Lets say that some event wipes out all but 100 humans, split into 2 groups. Group A is made up of 50 gay people Group B is made up of 50 people with a range of inheritable genetic malfunctions. eventually after several hundre generations, the descendants of Group B will dominate the world and group A will become extinct in about 60-70 years. I'd say that was a pretty big flaw/disadvantage.

Thatperson,

1. Are masturbators abnormal?
2. Are abstinent people abnormal?
3. Are heterosexuals who use birth control abnormal?

I think you ignored my earlier post. Please respond to this one. If the Christian right can't give consistent answers to those questions, I think they need to drop it about homosexualilty.

1. No (and lol at the hand joke)
2. No, well it depends why they are abstaining, if they are abstaining out of choise then no, if they abstain because they have zero sexual desire then yes.
3. No

Actually, if there were only 100 people left on the planet, they wouldn't section themselves off into two groups. If for some reason they were forced to split, (crazy discriminating tectonic plate split) the homosexuals would still produce. They would rewrite the social contract so that people could have loving and/or sexual relationships with the same gender and still also have sex with the opposite gender for the purpose of having children. You forget that sexual desire only exists to promote the more simple desire to reproduce, which is still very strong even without the desire to have sex with the opposite gender.

Not only that, but if the population of the planet is 50-50 hetero/homo then there is an extremely good chance that the population of group B will be 50-50 hetero/homo after 60-70 generations, since after 60-70 years, many of the first generation will still be alive anyway. Also, if it is only group B that has 'genetic malfunctions' (other than homosexuality, of course ) then group A will most definitely dominate in the long run.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

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.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

I agree. I think we should be careful about locking these kind of threads too fast. Even if the underlying tone and motive is one of a moral judgement, I think we should try and keep these discussions open and alive. Discussions like this is how we can come to understandings.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If someone doesn't desire these things then it's fine, they're happy to live without them, but if they don't then it's still a flaw. They Should desire these thing (I don't mean moral should), if they don't then something has gone wrong somewhere, however benign it may be.

Still a flaw by what standard? If this isn't a moral judgement what are you basing this off of?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

You seem to be unable to distinguish a medical abnormailty, from something which is harmful to an individual during his/her lifetime.

I'm gonna try one more approach. You say that homosexuality/Asexuality is not a flaw because the homosexuals involved live happy fulfilling lifes, with no physical/emotional/mental health issues, therefore it is not a flaw. But humans are hardwired to desire certain things, food, warmth, the opposite sex just to name a few. If someone doesn't desire these things then it's fine, they're happy to live without them, but if they don't then it's still a flaw. They Should desire these thing (I don't mean moral should), if they don't then something has gone wrong somewhere, however benign it may be.

Don't you see that this whole debate is basically meaningless. You say humans are hardwired... with that statement, as I've said before you create a subjective, an artificial concept which is just that, a concept. You then defend that concept which is based on other concepts and so on. Nobody is right here, it's all just another world view one can take. The important discussion should be which point of view is correct to take in a moral, rational society. If you want to debate solely whose concept is better, than that is as good as a debate between a Muslim and a Christian on whose god is true. It's all relative and most likely a futile discussion, like fighting over a favourite colour.

You say that humans are hardwired to be heterosexual... Well they obviously aren't, since homosexuals are humans and they are not hardwired that way...

You say they should desire the opposite sex... why? Is there some sort of universal law that says that? No. They are perfectly natural in every sense. Their brains are OK... why? Because if we live in the universe science describes, than that happened naturally for actual causal reasons. The same causal reasons that make paedophiles or heterosexuals.

Nobody is taking away your right to think of them as flawed. But you should also know that nobody also gave you the "right" or ability to bend the universe to your world view. (Unless this is your dream and you are god.)

So the moral of the story is:

Are homosexuals flawed? In a certain biological sense, yes, but only due to the norms, purpose and characterizations "we" usually perceive and project onto the world. And this is as far as I go.

Do they have to be flawed (meaning, do we have to consider them flawed), no they don't. So why bring it up? The only people, usually - so you don't accuse me of accusing you of homophobia - are the ones who hate them. So unless you have some emotional motivation (or rational, if you have some eugenics idea to help human evolution) then I don't see any kind of reason one should consider them flawed.

It doesn't matter if a man or woman is touching you in sexual ways, it feels the same regardless.

I don't really think i'd enjoy a man touching me in sexual ways

Anyway, I think most people here are in agreement with me, including yourself

Are homosexuals flawed? In a certain biological sense, yes

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I understand that there is no objective "Should" nor does 'nature have a plan'. But most people agree that humans Should have 2 kidneys, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, yet quite a few disagree that people 'should' be homosexual from the same point of view.

Now, I know that cause and effect cuases some people to be born with 1 kidney or that horseshoe kidney thing, but surely you can see where i'm coming from when I say people should be born with 2 kidneys.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I understand that there is no objective "Should" nor does 'nature have a plan'. But most people agree that humans Should have 2 kidneys, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, yet quite a few disagree that people 'should' be homosexual from the same point of view.

Now, I know that cause and effect cuases some people to be born with 1 kidney or that horseshoe kidney thing, but surely you can see where i'm coming from when I say people should be born with 2 kidneys.

I think that one should think for himself and not think what "most people think".

Do I think people should have 2 kidneys? No. They just usually do.
Do I want people to have 2 kidneys? Yes. Because at least we know they work relatively well and I don't want people to suffer.

You suddenly connect an objective IS to a SHOULD and from there anything that doesn't conform to the SHOULD may be considered a flaw.

Usually people are heterosexual...therefore people should be heterosexual or it would be a flaw. There are homosexual therefore they are flawed. The flaw part is an opinion! That's all I keep saying. I keep saying that arguing opinions is meaningless and no amount of kidney abnormality analogies will help, because those are opinions too!

You said most people agree that we should have 2 kidneys or shouldn't have fucked up kidneys. Of course they don't! To have a fucked up part of your body is BAD, it HURTS, cancer HURTS, homosexuality does not. If it hurts you, than that's your problem not theirs. It's not the cancers problem if it hurts you, it's yours. So I see no reason to rid homosexuals of their integrity by labeling them as invalids by some pseudo-scientific characterization. I don't see Christians or Muslims or miners or gardeners as flawed. They are what they are. And some person X's opinion on their state of "flawedness" is ultimately meaningless to reality or a pragmatic point of view.

SUMMARY: So one last time. A flaw is something labeled as bad or malfunctioning. For something to be malfunctioning it has to have standard function which the universe doesn't provide (there is no ideal human or sexuality). The only thing, in your existence, who can provide ideal images and standard function perceptions are thinking entities - humans. The only reason to label a broken chair as malfunctioning is if you accept the function of a chair like most of humanity does. The only reason we label cancer or screwed up kidneys as flawed is because we all accept their standard function and have a motivational and rational reasons to keep them in working order.

The only reason to label homosexuality as flawed is if you accept the standard function of humans is heterosexual... and the rational reason is?...? Does it hurt them? Well we hurt them with our intolerance, but that may just be our malfunction of tolerance... Is our society and culture based on procreation? But if it is, do we give all opponents and outcasts the label "flawed", should we? ( and put them in camps for thinking differently)...All I really got from you is "most people think... something should..." and the way I see that is as baseless assertions. I never said you can't have them. But I don't think we can really argue something if it's ultimately baseless. I apologize if you gave an intricate reason, but if the last post is the basis of your thought, then I stand by this response.