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

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 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.