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

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.