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

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.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Taosaur, 40 years? actually it's only been 19 (well, 20 years on Monday) http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/546

As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality" [2].

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal

Originally Posted by universal mind

is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?

bwahahahahahaha!

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.

Well, that's the way it is for all things, isn't it?
Anything, anything at all that is unique about your personality, would be a "flaw"; some fuck-up in your brain. An abnormality.

Again, it doesn't mean it's wrong, or that it can't be ideal. It just is as it is. It's not the way it was "intended" (assuming that Nature has intentions :p)

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

Thanks for answering, but what are your reasons for those answers? Your premise regarding homosexuality is about lack of reproduction.

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?

Why is it a malfunction? Some like blonde hair, some like brown. Some like short people, some like tall. Some like blue eyes, some like brown. Some people like the opposite sex, some like the same sex. It's just what they like. It's their own preferences, and if 51% of people were gay would that make straight people an abnormality?

Just 'cause i'm 14, it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen.

Originally Posted by Zezarict

Just 'cause i'm 14, it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen.

I'm sorry what was that, i wasn't listening.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I'm sorry what was that, i wasn't listening.

ha ha, stay on topic...

Originally Posted by Zezarict

ha ha, stay on topic...

I was trying but you spoke so low, lol jk

I've stated this before, IMO if it can exist at all it's normal. Because to me anything that occurs in the universe is natural because it has produced itself as a part of existence.

So Homosexuality is just another thing that occurred in the universe and their are no laws in the universe that i know of that say Homosexuality shouldn't exist....

thatperson, you're presuming that you or we humans know the intentions of nature (according to you nature has intentions for humans) and that we fully understand whatever plan there is. There is a thing called change and it occurs quite often in this universe. Nothing is certain and nothing lasts forever that we know of except for energy... So just because we started off straight doesn't mean we'll end that way or should end that way. We also started off with organs we didn't need. We also started off shorter, lived less years than we do now, and many other things but over time we've changed. Whose to say Homosexuality isn't a part of the "plan" or "schematics" you're speaking of? you can't honestly claim that you know the true underlying scheme of the human existence and what we're "supposed to do and be" can you?

Sex is supposed to feel good, that is why we have sensitive sexual bits that feel good when touched. It doesn't matter if a man or woman is touching you in sexual ways, it feels the same regardless. There is no logical reason why a person wouldn't feel the same pleasure weather a man or woman was touching them.

If you blind folded a straight man and had another man with soft hands rub him, he would probably react the same way as if a woman did it. And a gay man would probably react in the same way in both situations. Because there is no real way to tell the difference.

Clearly nothing is broken when gay people receive pleasure from their own gender touching them. Its just natural. If a person says they don't want children, then I am going to assume they just don't like children. We are not animals. There is nothing wrong with not wanting children. So I wouldn't say anyone is lacking just because they don't want children. In a case where they do not want children there is no difference between being gay or straight. It is simply a preference.

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 Alric

Sex is supposed to feel good, that is why we have sensitive sexual bits that feel good when touched. It doesn't matter if a man or woman is touching you in sexual ways, it feels the same regardless. There is no logical reason why a person wouldn't feel the same pleasure weather a man or woman was touching them.

If you blind folded a straight man and had another man with soft hands rub him, he would probably react the same way as if a woman did it. And a gay man would probably react in the same way in both situations. Because there is no real way to tell the difference.

Clearly nothing is broken when gay people receive pleasure from their own gender touching them. Its just natural. If a person says they don't want children, then I am going to assume they just don't like children. We are not animals. There is nothing wrong with not wanting children. So I wouldn't say anyone is lacking just because they don't want children. In a case where they do not want children there is no difference between being gay or straight. It is simply a preference.

There is more to being gay than getting touched by somebody of the same sex, just saying.