Homosexuality, how can it not be considered an abnormality?

**Bonsay** · 05-15-2010 11:23 AM

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.

**Baron Samedi** · 05-15-2010 11:55 AM

This original argument is so silly, but I can't look away from this thread!

**Samael** · 05-15-2010 11:57 AM

This original argument is so silly, but I can't look away from this thread!

I'm trying really, really hard not to get involved in the discussion. Because it will only make me really, really angry.

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 02:08 PM

If 100% of the population were hetrosexual, that would be fine.
If 100% of the population were homosexual, then we'd have a bit of a problem.

Surely if homosexuality wasn't a flaw there wouldn't be a problem if 100% were homosexual, but there is.

Just to clarify I think a species becoming extint is as bad for a species (or as close to objectivly bad as you can get)

**Xaqaria** · 05-15-2010 04:47 PM

You keep arguing from the standpoint that it is impossible for homosexual people to reproduce; it is not. If 100% of the population were homosexual then family structures would just be different. Maybe the typical family unit would have 4 parents instead of two, two gay men and two gay women and they would have children and raise them all together. If it happened with today's technology then artificial insemination would most likely become the preferred way to create a child. Life would go on, just about the same as it does now. Desiring sex with the opposite gender is not the driving force behind propagation of our species, and humanity would continue just fine without it.

You also seem to ignore the fact that homosexuality does not necessarily mean only men and men, and only women and women. Bisexuality is arguably just as common as either homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter. In a population in which 100% of the individuals enjoyed sexual intercourse with the same gender, many of them would probably still enjoy sex with the opposite gender as well.

All of your contrived straw man arguments are easily shot down with just a little bit of an understanding of the real complexity of sexuality. Your view of the subject is so simple, so black and white that these arguments only make sense from your very limited perspective.

In some backwards cartoon world in which anyone who was homosexual was somehow barred from reproducing, it would be the social contract that was at fault and not their homosexuality. Perhaps our view of one man and one woman to a family is the real flaw that you are grasping for.

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 04:57 PM

Thatperson, I think we were getting to the bottom of your idea, but you dodged again.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

Well?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If 100% of the population were hetrosexual, that would be fine.
If 100% of the population were homosexual, then we'd have a bit of a problem.

If 100% of the population were abstinent, we would have a problem. If 100% of the population used effective birth control, we'd have a problem. Do you see what I am getting at here? Please clear this up.

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 06:12 PM

1. I don't see why you asked, in what way do you see masturbation as deviating from the standard. We don't have genes that make us avoid masturbation, if we did then it would be abnormal, but seeing as masturbation does not go against what our genes tell us we should be then no,

2. Abstainers, last time i gave a sort of unsure answer, they may be socially abnormal, I wouldn't say they are, but that would be another discussion. Medically/biologically however, no they are not abnormal, they maintain a sexual desire (in most cases) but CHOOSE to abstain, homosexuals do not CHOOSE to be gay but abstainers do. That's what seperates the two

3. Again no, the three things you listed (Masturbation, abstention, use of birth control) are all choices, and thus they are not medical abnormailities, you may argue that it's socially abnormal but as I said that's another discussion.

EDIT: I was going to make a point that bisexuality is 'normal' but i 'll discuss this later.

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Thatperson

1. I don't see why you asked, in what way do you see masturbation as deviating from the standard. We don't have genes that make us avoid masturbation, if we did then it would be abnormal, but seeing as masturbation does not go against what our genes tell us we should be then no,

Recall what you said earlier today. You made the same point before that also.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If 100% of the population were hetrosexual, that would be fine.
If 100% of the population were homosexual, then we'd have a bit of a problem.

Surely if homosexuality wasn't a flaw there wouldn't be a problem if 100% were homosexual, but there is.

Just to clarify I think a species becoming extint is as bad for a species (or as close to objectivly bad as you can get)

You call homosexuality a "flaw" and an "abnormality" on the basis that it is sexual behavior that cannot result in reproduction. Well, so is masturbation.

What do you mean "we" have genes that make us avoid homosexuality? Obviously that is not the case for everybody. If it were, we would not even be having this discussion.

If everybody were abstinent, we would go extinct. If everybody used effective birth control, we would go extinct. Why are those not abnormalities? That question is not limited to medical abnormalities.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

2. Abstainers, last time i gave a sort of unsure answer, they may be socially abnormal, I wouldn't say they are, but that would be another discussion. Medically/biologically however, no they are not abnormal, they maintain a sexual desire (in most cases) but CHOOSE to abstain, homosexuals do not CHOOSE to be gay but abstainers do. That's what seperates the two

You talked about homosexuality as an abnormality on the basis that it is sexual behavior that does not result in reproduction. And you just said that abstinence is not even a social abnormality? Why not, according to you? Abstinent people do not reproduce.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

3. Again no, the three things you listed (Masturbation, abstention, use of birth control) are all choices, and thus they are not medical abnormailities, you may argue that it's socially abnormal but as I said that's another discussion.

You are using the word "medical". I guess I missed when you started using that word. Are people who have had vasectomies or tubal ligations medically abnormal? What about women who have been through menopause? They can't reproduce even if they have sex.

You seem to be singling out homosexuality. All of your arguments that homosexuality is abnormal apply to things that you do not call abnormal. Why is that?

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 07:16 PM

You call homosexuality a "flaw" and an "abnormality" on the basis that it is sexual behavior that cannot result in reproduction. Well, so is masturbation.

No, I never said it was on the basis that it is sexual behavior that cannot result in reproduction. I said it was an abnormaility because it prevents (or at least seriously hinders) an organism from passing on its genes, masturbation does not have this effect.

What do you mean "we" have genes that make us avoid homosexuality

No, I meant 'we' have genes that make us pursue hetrosexual behavior.

Are people who have had vasectomies or tubal ligations medically abnormal? What about women who have been through menopause? They can't reproduce even if they have sex.

They choose to have a vasectomy, if they we're born with tied tubes (I dunno what the real term is lol) then yes but they choose to do this. Well I think it would be abnormal if a woman reproduces in their 70's. Because the genes cause the menopause.

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thatperson

No, I never said it was on the basis that it is sexual behavior that cannot result in reproduction. I said it was an abnormaility because it prevents (or at least seriously hinders) an organism from passing on its genes, masturbation does not have this effect.

Any act of masturbation hinders an organism from passing on its genes in that scenario because the sperm does not go to an egg. Still, I see your point about how masturbators can reproduce. For that matter, though, so can homosexuals if they have rare moments of heterosexual sex for the sole purpose of reproducing.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

No, I meant 'we' have genes that make us pursue hetrosexual behavior.

Who are "we"?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

They choose to have a vasectomy, if they we're born with tied tubes (I dunno what the real term is lol) then yes but they choose to do this. Well I think it would be abnormal if a woman reproduces in their 70's. Because the genes cause the menopause.

I don't see what the choice has to do with anything. We are talking about people who cannot reproduce. You said homosexuals are abnormal because they are not set up to reproduce.

**Alric** · 05-15-2010 08:11 PM

I believe all people are capable of enjoying sex with the same gender. There is no physical reason why we wouldn't. The reasons people don't are not physical but mental reasons. Most of us grew up where it just wasn't normal, so the idea is a bit strange and so it doesn't appeal to us that much. So I agree that most straight people wouldn't enjoy gay sex, but only because they are to uptight to let them self go in that way. I am straight and I am not a wild person, so I know. I can't just let go of all inhibition and do any crazy thing. However if I did, I don't see a logical reason why I wouldn't enjoy it.

The same could probably be said of most sexual fetishes. Its kind of like eating strange foods. People think they are gross and don't want to try new things. To know if you like it you have to try it at least once though. Some people will probably hate it, and some people will probably like it. Of course if you eat something you hate, often enough, you develop a taste for it, and will eventually like it.

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 08:27 PM

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Oh, that clears things up. Thanks.

As I said, every point you have made to support your claim that homosexuality is medically and socially abnormal applies to things you don't think are abnormal. Apparently you have run out of ways to try to get around that.

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 08:59 PM

Right from the first post, i've only been arguing it's Medically/biologically abnormal, the other things may well be socially abnormal but not medically/biologically abnormal.

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 09:11 PM

I know your claim about medical abnormality. You have not cleared up why you think it. If you will respond to my earlier post with something other than Patrick Stewart with his hand on his face, it might help the discussion.

**Thatperson** · 05-15-2010 09:23 PM

But homosexuals don't reproduce, if they do, then they are Bisexual.

**Universal Mind** · 05-15-2010 09:30 PM

That responds to only one of my points in that post. I said a lot more.

Having heterosexual sex does not make a person not homosexual. Being attracted to the opposite sex or nobody at all makes a person not homosexual. Elton John, for example, has had sex with women, but he said he is 100% gay because he doesn't like having sex with women.

**Maria92** · 05-17-2010 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Thatperson

But homosexuals don't reproduce, if they do, then they are Bisexual.

...or they know what a sperm bank is.

**Motumz** · 05-17-2010 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

I haven't read this whole topic, so I don't know what's currently being discussed on page 6, but I just wanted to stop and say the quote above is basically the best argument I've heard about whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong" / an abnormality. Because honestly, I just think it's weird.

Just my 2 cents in saying the above quote says a lot.. to me at least. Puts things into perspective I guess..

MementoMori - post edited due to insulting wordage.

**byungsukimmishi** · 05-18-2010 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by dajo

That's how:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals.
Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

Haha, dogs are not homosexual. Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance, they are not penetrating the anus. They lick each others penis not to give pleasure but to groom one another. I own three dogs myself, I see how they interact everyday. I'm sure all the other animals on the list have similar stories. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I definitely consider it abnormal.

**dajo** · 05-18-2010 12:41 PM

Maybe you should read past the first response or even click one of the sources... ?

But sure, you're even free to believe the world is flat if you'd like. My personal experience
doesn't tell me otherwise, since I have never personally seen it to be spherical. So, haha

**Taosaur** · 05-18-2010 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

Haha, dogs are not homosexual. Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance, they are not penetrating the anus. They lick each others penis not to give pleasure but to groom one another. I own three dogs myself, I see how they interact everyday. I'm sure all the other animals on the list have similar stories. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I definitely consider it abnormal.

That dogs groom and show dominance is not evidence that there are no homosexual dogs. I happen to know a pair of lesbian dachsunds.

**byungsukimmishi** · 05-19-2010 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by dajo

Maybe you should read past the first response or even click one of the sources... ?

But sure, you're even free to believe the world is flat if you'd like. My personal experience
doesn't tell me otherwise, since I have never personally seen it to be spherical. So, haha

Cute.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That dogs groom and show dominance is not evidence that there are no homosexual dogs. I happen to know a pair of lesbian dachsunds.

How could you possibly know they are lesbians?

**BenTheDream1018** · 05-19-2010 11:15 PM

Ok first of all this is a lucid dreaming sight if u didn't know. And second of all who are u to say what is normal? This is an idiotic post.

**dajo** · 05-20-2010 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

Cute.

Good thing you caught the point I was making.

scientific evidence vs personal experience.

"them scientists are wrong, I look at my dogs and they're just playin' " doesn't cut it.

At the very least, read the sources before writing them off...