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

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

How could you possibly know they are lesbians?

That would be called sarcasm, mate. And now that I have a moment, I can argue exactly why I don't think homosexuality is "abnormal." First off, for humans, sex is about far more than reproduction, and serves numerous social roles and functions. To argue that it is "abnormal" solely from the standpoint that it decreases the likelihood a gay person will reproduce is ludicrous. Second, it can generally be shown that homosexuality is not a choice the individual actively makes, and while a specific cause has yet to be identified, it can be assumed within a reasonable degree of certainty that people do not choose, change, and shift between sexual orientations. To any who disagree with this point, I offer a challenge: think of a member of the same sex. Do you feel any sexual attraction toward this individual? Would you shag them at the drop of a hat? No? How interesting. Yes? Come out of the closet, seeing as how you're either gay or bisexual. I speak from experience when I say I have no sexual attraction toward other men, and while I can appreciate a good-looking guy, in no way do I want to shag him. Third, and possibly most importantly, it is found in nature all over the place. Even provided that dogs may not be gay, it is still prevalent in many other species, including bonobo monkeys, some of our closest relatives. Homosexuality is not in conflict with nature, and indeed appears to be an integral part of it.

Mario have I told you I love you :0

lol I misread your post, at first I thought you said "...while I can appreciate another good looking guy..." XD

In the interest of clarity, sexuality sometimes does shift and change over a lifetime, and some individuals are bisexual to a greater or lesser degree, but in my experience, both first- and second-hand, there is no way to "fake it until you make it" with sexuality. Genetics, the hormonal environment of the womb, and life experience all contribute, but there are infinite permutations and therefor infinite outcomes for who crosses your path and to whom you're attracted. Society is moving increasingly toward a norm in which all consensual relationships among adults in which coercion is not exercised are acceptable. The notion of an "ideal" relationship/orientation is as laughable as claiming that Oranges Are the Only Fruit.

Originally Posted by dajo

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...

I did read the sources and I don't agree with them. You don't need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, or point. I made a logical opinion based on my observations, how exactly is that different form what a scientist does? I've been observing a small pack of 3 dogs for a year now. I think I'd have more expertise in this particular area than a scientist would.

Flame on!

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

I did read the sources and I don't agree with them. You don't need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, or point. I made a logical opinion based on my observations, how exactly is that different form what a scientist does? I've been observing a small pack of 3 dogs for a year now. I think I'd have more expertise in this particular area than a scientist would.

Flame on!

My observations are based on two females displaying repeated intimate behavior (unusually extended "make-out" sessions, including oral intercourse but not mounting) in a pack now approaching 20 dogs (6-8 in one location, 10-12 in another, with frequent mixing), including plenty of unrelated males. Both males and females in the pack regularly mount to show dominance, such that the pecking order is quite clear. I also lived with two male cats who had an affair, one seducing the other over a period of time, with a female cat in the same house.

The main reason your views are not scientific, however, is that a scientist "stands on the shoulders of giants," becoming intimately familiar with the observations of others in their field and the methodology by which those observations were arrived at, and applies rigorous standards to make sure that new observations are meaningful. In short, they go to great efforts to actually know what they're talking about, rather than spouting conjecture.

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

I did read the sources and I don't agree with them. You don't need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, or point. I made a logical opinion based on my observations, how exactly is that different form what a scientist does? I've been observing a small pack of 3 dogs for a year now. I think I'd have more expertise in this particular area than a scientist would.

Flame on!

Well, first thing about the scientific method would be that for an idea to be considered valid, it must be repeatable in laboratory settings. Another factor would be that large populations are studied, varying situations and factors taken into account, rather than studying one tiny pack of 3 dogs. Obviously, if the studies show homosexual behavior, it doesn't automatically make every male dog gay, and to assert your comparably limited experiences while simultaneously discrediting the best-and-brightest with degrees in animal behavior, biology, etc that have worked with many different dogs for years is arrogant, plain and simple. To put it shortly: just because 3 dogs don't appear to be gay to you doesn't mean the entire dog family is perfectly straight, and shutting out arguments from people with more experience and knowledge than you to preserve your beliefs is generally a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

My observations are based on two females displaying repeated intimate behavior (unusually extended "make-out" sessions, including oral intercourse but not mounting) in a pack now approaching 20 dogs (6-8 in one location, 10-12 in another, with frequent mixing), including plenty of unrelated males. Both males and females in the pack regularly mount to show dominance, such that the pecking order is quite clear. I also lived with two male cats who had an affair, one seducing the other over a period of time, with a female cat in the same house.

The main reason your views are not scientific, however, is that a scientist "stands on the shoulders of giants," becoming intimately familiar with the observations of others in their field and the methodology by which those observations were arrived at, and applies rigorous standards to make sure that new observations are meaningful. In short, they go to great efforts to actually know what they're talking about, rather than spouting conjecture.

So would you admit that you are just spouting conjecture then as well? I understand your point though, and I realize my observations are limited.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Well, first thing about the scientific method would be that for an idea to be considered valid, it must be repeatable in laboratory settings. Another factor would be that large populations are studied, varying situations and factors taken into account, rather than studying one tiny pack of 3 dogs. To put it shortly: just because 3 dogs don't appear to be gay to you doesn't mean the entire dog family is perfectly straight, and shutting out arguments from people with more experience and knowledge than you to preserve your beliefs is generally a bad idea.

Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm being closed-minded. And my "belief" that homosexuality is abnormal isn't a belief. It's merely an opinion I have, I don't adhere to any dogma that states that homosexuality is abnormal.

Obviously, if the studies show homosexual behavior, it doesn't automatically make every male dog gay, and to assert your comparably limited experiences while simultaneously discrediting the best-and-brightest with degrees in animal behavior, biology, etc that have worked with many different dogs for years is arrogant, plain and simple.

I'm not hard-headed enough to say that you're not correct. Point taken. My opinion remains the same, though.

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

I did read the sources and I don't agree with them. You don't need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, or point. I made a logical opinion based on my observations, how exactly is that different form what a scientist does? I've been observing a small pack of 3 dogs for a year now. I think I'd have more expertise in this particular area than a scientist would.

Flame on!

It's just that homosexuality in certain species is a scientific fact, including
penetration and everything. You don't have to be a scientist to have a valid
opinion, but if your stance towards the issue consists of nothing but your
personal experience with a very small number of animals of only one species
and is contradictory to the scientific consensus, then I wouldn't call it valid.

What your three dogs are doing has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The difference of how a scientist operates would be that he or she would
firstly collect larger numbers of data of various sepecies to analyze.

I don't quite understand how you can just "not agree with them", either.
Even the die hard anti-gay conservatives seem to accept that much, even
though they argue that it's not natural or moral because of it.

I realize I'm talking to a bunch social libertarians, but to compare me to "die hard anti-gay conservatives" is laughable. I'm not anti-gay at all, I'm not saying it's wrong or immoral, it's merely abnormal. Normal sexual behavior consists of a man and a woman, therefore it is abnormal for two men or two women to have sex. The ultimate goal of every organism is to reproduce, I'm sure most biologists would agree with me. Aside from asexual organisms this happens between the male and female of all species. How could it not be considered an abnormality if an organism chooses not to reproduce but engage in homosexual activity?

Those points had been adressed on the previous pages.

I didn't mean to imply that you were anti-gay. Not at all.

Also I'm not sure about your political categorization.

Your political categorization of me or my political categorization of you?

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

I realize I'm talking to a bunch social libertarians, but to compare me to "die hard anti-gay conservatives" is laughable. I'm not anti-gay at all, I'm not saying it's wrong or immoral, it's merely abnormal. Normal sexual behavior consists of a man and a woman, therefore it is abnormal for two men or two women to have sex. The ultimate goal of every organism is to reproduce, I'm sure most biologists would agree with me. Aside from asexual organisms this happens between the male and female of all species. How could it not be considered an abnormality if an organism chooses not to reproduce but engage in homosexual activity?

As I have already stated, sex for humans extends far beyond simple reproductive purposes, and with relatively recent developments in things like artificial insemination, you don't have to be straight to reproduce. It isn't an abnormality, first off, because the "organism" does not CHOOSE to be gay, as you claim. Second, one could very easily argue that sex, especially in this day and age, has a more important role in society and social interactions than it does in reproduction. Thanks to today's culture, if you realize you're gay, you no longer have to find a woman and be trapped in a loveless relationship to appease everyone you know. Reproduction has served it's function, and as a primary goal of sex, it has passed. Or, are you against people who use birth control to enjoy sex without reproducing? Are they abnormal as well?

Originally Posted by Mario92

To any who disagree with this point, I offer a challenge: think of a member of the same sex. Do you feel any sexual attraction toward this individual? Would you shag them at the drop of a hat? No? How interesting. Yes? Come out of the closet, seeing as how you're either gay or bisexual. I speak from experience when I say I have no sexual attraction toward other men, and while I can appreciate a good-looking guy, in no way do I want to shag him.

That is because you are sexually repressed. You just admitted that you could appreciate a good looking guy, which means that you do find him attractive, even if it is at a very small level. How can you even say a man is good looking? Just by saying their good looking, you are admitting that he has more pleasing features than another man.

I believe being gay is totally a choice, and I see no logical reason why it wouldn't be. Everyone is more or less bisexual to some degree or other. The only thing you need to do to become gay is to explore same sex often enough, that it becomes pleasing for you.

Straight people are straight, because they decide not to explore that path. The reason they don't explore it, is normally either because of social and cultural reason or for things like religious reasons.

I think the idea of a gay gene is silly. If a person is gay, and they can't help but being gay, its just because they are hooked on being gay. If a person says they can't stop them self from eating potato chips, my first instinct isn't there must be a potato chip eating gene. That is just silly. Clearly they just are hooked on eating them! Either they just really enjoy them, or because of some social mental pressure that is causing stress and making them eat to forget their problem. Though any of that can imply to anything, including who you have sex with.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is because you are sexually repressed. You just admitted that you could appreciate a good looking guy, which means that you do find him attractive, even if it is at a very small level. How can you even say a man is good looking? Just by saying their good looking, you are admitting that he has more pleasing features than another man.

I believe being gay is totally a choice, and I see no logical reason why it wouldn't be. Everyone is more or less bisexual to some degree or other. The only thing you need to do to become gay is to explore same sex often enough, that it becomes pleasing for you.

Straight people are straight, because they decide not to explore that path. The reason they don't explore it, is normally either because of social and cultural reason or for things like religious reasons.

I think the idea of a gay gene is silly. If a person is gay, and they can't help but being gay, its just because they are hooked on being gay. If a person says they can't stop them self from eating potato chips, my first instinct isn't there must be a potato chip eating gene. That is just silly. Clearly they just are hooked on eating them! Either they just really enjoy them, or because of some social mental pressure that is causing stress and making them eat to forget their problem. Though any of that can imply to anything, including who you have sex with.

I disagree that recognizing someone as being attractive prooves that someone has some small sexual attraction towards them.

I could be castrated, have all my sexual centers of my brain removed, and still acknowledge that by societal standards one person is attractive and another is not. I may also be negatively predisposed to someone I don't know because they are considered 'ugly' and I may subconcioussly like someone more because they look nice, (whether male or femal.) This is not culture repressing sexuality but just training us in what looks are ideal.

Does that mean judges at dog shows feel bestial attractions because they find one one dogs features more pleasing than another dog?

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

Your political categorization of me or my political categorization of you?

Yours of me. I have no idea about your political ideas.
Nor would I take them into consideration in a scientific debate.

I have been arguing solely biological in this thread. And with you I only argued
the point that it's not really a question of wether you believe that there are animals
that have homosexual intercourse, but it's just an established fact.

However my inital argument in here is that it's a flawed concept to reduce evolution
to reproduction and that homosexuality is perfectly explainable in its context. And
that there are indications for homosexuality not happening on accident or because
of a dysunction, but because of its benefits on a larger, non-individual based scale.

Edit:
(Just to adress the argument of choice; I think psychological damage that can occur,
if one tries to falsly force oneself into a heterosexual relationship, even with no prior
engagement in the act itself, shows how little of a choice some have.)
I agree with Taosaur's explanation on the top of the page.

Originally Posted by spockman

I disagree that recognizing someone as being attractive prooves that someone has some small sexual attraction towards them.

I could be castrated, have all my sexual centers of my brain removed, and still acknowledge that by societal standards one person is attractive and another is not.

Except we weren't talking about someone being pleasing by societal standards. We were talking about looking at a person, and personally finding them more pleasing than another person. Not because of standards created by someone else, but your own internal standards, that one person is better looking than another.

Originally Posted by Alric

Except we weren't talking about someone being pleasing by societal standards. We were talking about looking at a person, and personally finding them more pleasing than another person. Not because of standards created by someone else, but your own internal standards, that one person is better looking than another.

I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with you on general principle. Just pointing out that finding someone more attractive than another person doesn't really prove your point. All feelings of attraction are not inherently sexual. Even when I can legitimately find someone else attractive, not just recognize they are attractive, that is likely social training shining through. Training on what is nicer to look at. Just like at a dog show, I don't see a difference between one dog and the other. But someone who is familiar with dog shows has been trained what to look for and they internalize that. Some houses are better kempt than others and people enjoy going to 'Parade of Homes' events. They don't have any desire to sleep with the house. But some houses, like art, are nice to look at.

Originally Posted by Mario92

As I have already stated, sex for humans extends far beyond simple reproductive purposes, and with relatively recent developments in things like artificial insemination, you don't have to be straight to reproduce. It isn't an abnormality, first off, because the "organism" does not CHOOSE to be gay, as you claim. Second, one could very easily argue that sex, especially in this day and age, has a more important role in society and social interactions than it does in reproduction. Thanks to today's culture, if you realize you're gay, you no longer have to find a woman and be trapped in a loveless relationship to appease everyone you know. Reproduction has served it's function, and as a primary goal of sex, it has passed. Or, are you against people who use birth control to enjoy sex without reproducing? Are they abnormal as well?

Well... now were moving from a biological argument to a social one. Obviously I realize sex as far as humans are concerned goes beyond reproduction but only to a certain extent. The reason why people have sex because of an instinctual desire to reproduce and because of our complex social nature we have flirtatious games and other things attached to it. We have evolved to feel good while having sex so that way we would be inclined to do it as often as possible. Obviously in this day and age we can't have every couple having 8 kids, otherwise overpopulation would get out of control. So while contraception is an abnormality it is a good one which helps us keep our population in check, and in that case homosexuality is a good abnormality as well because they are less likely to have children.

the answer can be found by asking in a different manner.

Would it be an abnormality if homosexual persons could reproduce via intercourse with the same sex or would it just be a step in evolution?

what isn't abnormal? you were once just energy, and now you're an abnormality of that raw energy.

We living beings, from our current knowledge, are an abnormality in this universe... so who cares if homosexuality is an abnormality of what we were, it's called change and the whole universe experiences it not just human sexuality.

You don't need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, or point.

Unfortunatly too many people seem to think this is true.

If you wished you could construct an ideal person, based on a certain range of variables, they would have a BMI of between 17-25 be between 5ft and 6ft 6inches, they would be hetrosexual, they would have 5 fingers(including thumb) on each hand and 5 toes. Of course a person could be 7 foot 6 inches, and live a normal healthy happy life, but this would be a medical abnormailty, a benign one, but nonetheless an abnormality. if a person exceeded 25 BMI they would be overwieght and under 17 underweight.

For the record these are rough estimates for the variables, the point i'm trying to make is that most people (well this is dreamviews so who knows) would accept being 7 foot 6 inches as a benign medical abnormality, but not homosexuality for some reason. Rather than accept this some people try to wriggle away from the truth by citing artifical insemination etc. The thing is, I Don't see why they are trying to cover it up, diabetics are not ashamed that they have a medical condition, so why should homosexuals be, and as a result try to pass it off as medically normal?

By that logic, any change, mutation, adaption is at first a medical abnormality. As I have said on
one of the previous pages, consciousness is an abnormality as far as we understand. But since
homosexuality has been around as long as man and most likely since the existence of sentient
life itself, when does it finally lose its stigma? What is normal? Should we first define the term?
Do you define abnormality through frequency of occurrence?

It's not on the list of medical conditions. Maybe we should define this term as well.

Diabetes is a condition, because it harms the individual, homosexuality isn't because it doesn't.

And - as stated before, I do NOT think one needs to be a scientist to have an opinion or make a point.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is because you are sexually repressed. You just admitted that you could appreciate a good looking guy, which means that you do find him attractive, even if it is at a very small level. How can you even say a man is good looking? Just by saying their good looking, you are admitting that he has more pleasing features than another man.

As others have stated, it is not because I feel personally attracted to the individual. What I'm saying is that the guy on the left is better looking than the guy on the right:

Why do I think the guy on the left is better looking? First off, he has nice muscle mass and is well-kept, indicating healthiness. The guy on the right, by contrast, is missing teeth and indicates laziness and poor hygiene. Society has conditioned me to observe individuals of both sexes and draw basic conclusions from their appearance. I do not wish to shag either of these gents, but what I'm saying is that from the way society has raised me and from basic instinct and powers of observation, I can see how the guy on the left would be more desirable from the guy on the right.

I believe being gay is totally a choice, and I see no logical reason why it wouldn't be. Everyone is more or less bisexual to some degree or other. The only thing you need to do to become gay is to explore same sex often enough, that it becomes pleasing for you.

And by extension, for a gay person to become straight, they only have to explore the opposite sex often enough. And yet, we find that gay people who do so usually don't change their orientation. How interesting.

Straight people are straight, because they decide not to explore that path. The reason they don't explore it, is normally either because of social and cultural reason or for things like religious reasons.

I don't explore that path because I prefer women. I'm an atheist, and I could care less about prosecution and social stigma. Frankly, the idea of sleeping with another man, to me, is completely unappetizing. It's not for any social or religious reason that I don't explore the path, it's just that I don't want to.

I think the idea of a gay gene is silly. If a person is gay, and they can't help but being gay, its just because they are hooked on being gay. If a person says they can't stop them self from eating potato chips, my first instinct isn't there must be a potato chip eating gene. That is just silly. Clearly they just are hooked on eating them! Either they just really enjoy them, or because of some social mental pressure that is causing stress and making them eat to forget their problem. Though any of that can imply to anything, including who you have sex with.

So, what, I'm hooked on being straight? I like to breathe, too. Am I hooked on breathing? The weird thing about being gay, for most, is not that they discover after some time of having gay sex that they've somehow become gay, but that they realize it out of the blue, perhaps after some meditation. A man can have a wife and live for years in an otherwise happy relationship, then for no apparent reason, declare he's gay and has been all along, citing that he was never truly happy. This happens all the time. No history of gay sex, no exploration of paths, just boom-awareness.

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

Well... now were moving from a biological argument to a social one. Obviously I realize sex as far as humans are concerned goes beyond reproduction but only to a certain extent. The reason why people have sex because of an instinctual desire to reproduce and because of our complex social nature we have flirtatious games and other things attached to it. We have evolved to feel good while having sex so that way we would be inclined to do it as often as possible. Obviously in this day and age we can't have every couple having 8 kids, otherwise overpopulation would get out of control. So while contraception is an abnormality it is a good one which helps us keep our population in check, and in that case homosexuality is a good abnormality as well because they are less likely to have children.

Is it abnormal if it is the product of nature? We, as humans, are in fact a part of nature. Our consciousness is derived from evolution. If we conceived of birth control, is it abnormal? It limits reproduction, yes, which is a good thing, and has helped to allow sex to go from a purely reproductive sport to one of social importance. And is it instinct that drives us to have sex? Personally, I'm out to get it because it feels fantastic, not because I want children, which I don't. I think I could easily make the case that in modern times, sex is far more social than it is reproductive. The planet already has 6 billion+ individuals...the human genome is pretty fairly preserved for future generations, and with the development of human-conceived, nature-made technology at our disposal, it is not necessary to have 8 children to do chores and work in the fields. Liberated of the responsibility to reproduce, humans may now pursue sex purely for the pleasure of it.

Most of the time a person is exposed to heterosexual stimulus before homosexual things. So it makes prefect sense that a gay person doesn't often switch back to being straight when having straight sex. After all they already been in that position, and already considered both and developed a preference. However some gay people do turn straight again.

However people who have not experienced both, when exposed to the other may very well find them self being more attractive to the opposite gender. They hadn't considered it, and then after trying it found it to be more appealing.

Like any preference in life, some people are going to be straight no matter what. People are just different. However, its possible for them to change that preference if they would like.

Its pretty silly to claim a person just suddenly turns gay. They never had any idea then meditated and BOOM their gay. That is just absurd. As you explained, they were unhappy they thought over their options, then decided, they would be happier gay. Which pretty much describes a decision making process, and shows how being gay is actually a preference and not a built in character trait.

You don't actually have to have gay sex. You only have to consider and perhaps fantasize about it. No one randomly becomes gay out of no where, without having ever given in thought before. That is such bullshit.

Originally Posted by Alric

Most of the time a person is exposed to heterosexual stimulus before homosexual things. So it makes prefect sense that a gay person doesn't often switch back to being straight when having straight sex. After all they already been in that position, and already considered both and developed a preference. However some gay people do turn straight again.

If it was a true choice, people would be able to switch and flow across sexual orientations relatively easily, but seeing as how this is not the case, it suggests far deeper causes than "oh, just because."

However people who have not experienced both, when exposed to the other may very well find them self being more attractive to the opposite gender. They hadn't considered it, and then after trying it found it to be more appealing.

Is this really turning gay, or is it realizing something about yourself you didn't know about before?

Like any preference in life, some people are going to be straight no matter what. People are just different. However, its possible for them to change that preference if they would like.

Again, if it were a choice, people shouldn't have to overcome their natural preferences first. Or, are you meaning that some people are just naturally inclined to one preference over another? And if these people are indeed inclined to one preference, why should that universally be people of the opposite gender?

Its pretty silly to claim a person just suddenly turns gay. They never had any idea then meditated and BOOM their gay. That is just absurd. As you explained, they were unhappy they thought over their options, then decided, they would be happier gay. Which pretty much describes a decision making process, and shows how being gay is actually a preference and not a built in character trait.

I didn't say they turned gay...I said that after many years of an unhappy relationship, they came to terms and realized all along that they were unhappy, and that they had always been gay. Again, it's about self-discovery, not making a snap decision. It IS absurd to claim that a person just turns gay after a brief period of meditation and inward reflection...rather, they have always been gay, and are just realizing it that very moment. And if they've always been gay, well, it isn't a choice now, is it?

You don't actually have to have gay sex. You only have to consider and perhaps fantasize about it. No one randomly becomes gay out of no where, without having ever given in thought before. That is such bullshit.

Aye, it is bullshit. People don't become gay. That's laughable. Clearly they're born gay or raised gay, or with homosexual preferences. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you can fap to the idea of screwing someone of the same sex, you're gay! You make homosexuality sound like it's some learning curve or process, but why is this the case? Why would a happy, straight man give up banging women (which he is perfectly content to do) for banging dudes? Why would a person choose to go through all the social stigmas, family shame, issues with marriage, just because he or she felt like it? "Well, I'm a dude, and I love banging chicks, but I think I'll go have sex with another dude today." What? It isn't a choice someone actively makes. You keep calling it a "preference." Well, by nature, I naturally don't prefer to eat grass, but I could acquire a taste for it. For so many gay people, though, they don't have to acquire that taste. They just naturally have it. Go figure. Now could they choose to acquire a different taste? Maybe. I could also eat grass three meals a day and never develop a taste for the stuff. And until I acquired that taste, if ever, I'd find it unpleasant as hell.