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

reproducing is not the only way to see to it that your genes are represented in the next generation

I think someone needs some 1st grade science education

Another point, A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation.

To the guy who said anyone can get pleasure from gay sex, well to enjoy sex you need to be aroused, and most people don't get aroudes by the same sex.

Everyone seems to be missing the point that in the case of gay men, their father passed on his hetrosexual genes, yet his son turned out gay. If a set of parents are both 179cm and their child is 179.1cm tall, that is a minor deviation that is not to be considered a major medical abnormality, almost no difference at all, but to go from hetrosexual to homosexual in a single generation is a massive change, and clearly shows that something major has happened along the path.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a benefit to it, and the benefit would be having gay sex, and having really close relationships with other gay people. Obviously being gay isn't a purely negative things.

All benefits that can be achieved in a heterosexual relationship.

To make it clear, I never said that genes have no effect on a person, only that a person isn't born gay or straight. The genes may play a role, but the majority factor isn't genes, but your experiences in life.

What arbitrary silliness. That is an assertion made with no evidence to back up your claim. Truthfully, we don't know what causes homosexuality, but to assert that you know for a fact that it is caused by a person's experiences is ludicrous. Homosexuality is an unexplained phenomenon, and attempting to explain it without experience or evidence will get you nowhere. I cited several perfectly plausible candidates beyond the genetic factor that could lead a person to have homosexual tendencies from birth.

Its kind of like saying genes are the cause of heart attacks. Yea, genes can play a factor but its not the cause. The cause is more things like poor diet and health. Which are under peoples control.

Again, what arbitrary silliness. You are making an analogy with zero evidence. I could equally assert that homosexuality is like skin color: there is a gradient, but people don't typically move within it.

I should make one thing clear though. I am not talking just about conscious choices, but also subconscious choices, since your subconscious is still apart of you. So even if you do not make an active choice, people make subconscious choices all the time.

My argument is that it isn't an active choice; that is to say, a choice within the direct control of the individual. Subconscious decisions may very well play a part, but the conscious individual (I claim) does not.

As for feeling pleasure from your palm, yea of course you can. Which is why some people masturbate so often. I am willing to say people masturbate because it feels good too, and not because there is a masturbating gene.

But you do understand that there is more to sexual preference than something just feeling good, right? That is the point I was trying to make. Your hand can bring you great pleasure, but you don't fall in love with it. Sexuality is more complex than just a bit of friction.

As for totally rewriting your brain, that is silly. Going from straight to gay is a fairly minor jump, all things considered. A person is physically capable of having pleasure from the same sex. People love and feel compassion for the same sex all the time. You know guys have guy best friends all the time. All the elements are there for a person to be gay. Which is why some times when memebers of the same sex work and stay close together for long periods of time, they some times become gay.

Everything is there...minus the desire to. If you don't like the idea of screwing dudes, hanging out with a couple of dude friends isn't likely at all to change your mind on the matter. And again, it's the question of is it "become" or is it "realize." Self discovery is an interesting little path, and many of us don't really know ourselves until later in life. Perhaps hanging out with some good friends would help you realize something about yourself, but it is debatable whether or not a person actually becomes gay.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think someone needs some 1st grade science education

And someone needs a college-level biology education. There are numerous ways in which a person may pass on either their own genes or else genes they favor and select.

Another point, A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation.

Please define "flourish." If you mean "rapidly become overpopulated, hit the maximum carrying capacity, and stagnate," then yes, that species will flourish. But, as we have seen before, homosexuals don't "waste" resources, and in many species, play a critical part. Either way, we're bounding toward overpopulation at about the same rate, really.

To the guy who said anyone can get pleasure from gay sex, well to enjoy sex you need to be aroused, and most people don't get aroudes by the same sex.

Bada. Fucking. Bing. Thank you, mate. For the vast majority of straight people, that sexual attraction simply isn't present, and so, gay sex is not desirable nor pleasurable. Maybe from a friction-only standpoint, but from an emotional and mental standpoint, it isn't. Contrary to what some may think, men don't think exclusively with their penises.

Everyone seems to be missing the point that in the case of gay men, their father passed on his hetrosexual genes, yet his son turned out gay. If a set of parents are both 179cm and their child is 179.1cm tall, that is a minor deviation that is not to be considered a major medical abnormality, almost no difference at all, but to go from hetrosexual to homosexual in a single generation is a massive change, and clearly shows that something major has happened along the path.

Two brunettes give birth to a blond child. A man with blue eyes marries a woman with brown eyes and has a blue-eyed son. I am a product of such a relationship. It's called a recessive gene, mate. Most traits carry at least two alleles, or options, if you will. Most often, one allele will be dominant and mask any trace of the recessive allele. However, in the formation of gametes, one allele will be selected and another excluded from any one gamete, so it is very possible for a person with brown hair to spawn a blond-haired child. Likewise, the same MAY apply to homosexuality. There is still much we don't understand about human genetics, and seeing as how sexuality does appear to be more of a fuzzy gradient than a black-and-white set of rules, it may be closer to the genes for skin color in interaction (in which there are a total of six genes that code for skin color), or it could be some freaky genetic factor we've never encountered before, or none of the above. More research must be performed in the field to draw any conclusions.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think someone needs some 1st grade science education

Yes, you. This is why this thread is a hidden moral judgment. Every argument you come up with has been logically and scientifically refuted and yet you doggedly cling to your ignorance and continue to use the same arguments. You think gay sex is icky and you are going to argue that it is 'abnormal' and wrong no matter how much sense everyone else tries to force into you.

What do you actually know about evolution, biology, and genetics? Where have you studied these things?

What does roleplaying games like d&d, computer games, playing baseball, driving fast cars, drawing, tv, climbing, swimming, running, boxing, stamp collecting all have in common? All of them are preferences. Some people enjoy doing them, some people do not. Do I need proof and scientific studies to prove that they are all not genetically build in? If I claim they are preferences, you going to call me illogical, because I couldn't possibly know that a person have a choice. You going to argue with me over how each must be a genetic preference that was built in when I was born?

How come being gay is singled out from all of them, as different. How come being gay needs studies and genetic testing to find out where it comes from, while no such things exist for people who enjoy reading comic books?

The truth is that they are no different. The reason being gay is singled out, is because it involves sex. Not only sex, but a sexual taboo. If it didn't involve sex, we wouldn't think twice about it.

You havn't show any evidence to prove that it is any different from any other preference. Except a vague reference that some scientist, may have discovered a gene that plays a small part in it.

Originally Posted by Alric

You havn't show any evidence to prove that it is any different from any other preference. Except a vague reference that some scientist, may have discovered a gene that plays a small part in it.

So tell me, when did you consciously choose to be heterosexual?

When I was about 8.

Originally Posted by Alric

When I was about 8.

So you sat yourself down and said "I prefer to be heterosexual rather than homosexual" at 8 years old?

I don't think so. Most 8 year olds do not have mental faculties required to understand the vast realities of sexual types, psychosexual attitues, behaviour and socioeconomic impact. More realistically you just began to realize that you were attracted to the opposite gender at that age. Becoming aware of an emerging truth about your innate personality and behaviour is not that same as making a conscious choice.

...also, I really don't understand why this thread is 9 pages long. Homosexuality is found throughout Nature, therefore it is normal, otherwise it would not exist. How freaking hard is it to understand such a simple concept? You don't have to like homosexual behaviour to acknowledge that it does exist and is normal.

(Edited for grammar fail)

Originally Posted by Sekhmet

...also, I really don't understand why this thread is 9 pages long. Homosexuality is found throughout Nature, therefore it is normal, otherwise it would not exist. Hard freaking hard is it to understand such a simple concept? You don't have to like (i.e. prefer) homosexual behaviour to acknowledge that it does exist and is normal.

well read the 9 pages and you'll see. by your logic then, conjoined twins are normal, as it has occured several times in nature, but the majority of people would consider that conjoined twins are abnormal.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

well read the 9 pages and you'll see. by your logic then, conjoined twins are normal, as it has occured several times in nature, but the majority of people would consider that conjoined twins are abnormal.

Conjoined twins are normal. Disabilities are normal. Sickness and diseases are normal. Throughout human history there has never been any length of time where human being have had a 100% birth rate without ailmets of some kind. It is expected (though not always predictable) that a small percentage of humans will be born with conditions that are not "ideal" or "perfect". This is true for all living things in Nature. It is normal. You don't have to like this reality to acknowlege that it is true. The concept of "abnormality" only exists in our perceptions of reality and our conscious choice to accept or reject what we see and experience.

Like I said though, it doesn't have to be a conscious choice. Subconscious choices, preferences based on past experiences, social pressures, and cultural influences all count.

Which is the same as any other preference. Often you don't consciously decide if something is fun, its either fun or it isn't fun. Though the reason it is fun is because of your personality which is made up of past experiences, and conscious and subconscious decisions. Your personalty is not created and predestined from birth based on your genes, like some people might lead you to believe. Sure genes may play a part in the start, but its hardly the be all and end all of everything. You cant just blame everything in genes.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

well read the 9 pages and you'll see. by your logic then, conjoined twins are normal, as it has occured several times in nature, but the majority of people would consider that conjoined twins are abnormal.

Like I said, we only consider something like "conjoined twins" "abnormal" with your definition of a "malfunction" because it gets in the way of our priorities. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't necessarily get in the way of any of our priorities. If someone was born with something abnormal by the real definition of the word but it was beneficial you wouldn't consider it a "malfunction," yet something like being homosexual, which is pretty much neutral for human priorities, you consider it a "malfunction." Not everyone thinks having kids is important for their own personal life.

I'll go as far as to say for me being homosexual is beneficial, it is the opposite of a malfunction, it is a desired change.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is why this thread is a hidden moral judgment.

here we go with the paranoia again. Where is this "hidden" moral judgement please quote one thing I have said which implies there is a hidden moral judgement.

You think gay sex is icky

I never said this, and neither did I even imply it.

What do you actually know about evolution, biology, and genetics? Where have you studied these things?

I have never taken a gardening course yet I know that in proper soil, with adequate water and sunlight, a flower will grow. Likewise I have never enrolled in 'homosexuality studies' but my argument is based upon things i've pieced together through a combination of schooling, documentaries, books, the internet (no not some gay hate site) and common sense. What studies have you done relating to the matter?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

here we go with the paranoia again. Where is this "hidden" moral judgement please quote one thing I have said which implies there is a hidden moral judgement.


I never said this, and neither did I even imply it.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Another point, A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation.

In case you missed it, "A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation."

You are implying that homosexuals are worthless parasites.

You are implying that homosexuals are worthless parasites.

you said it not me, you know I hadn't actually thought about that, but from the point of view about competitive societies, then yes I suppose you have a point, mind you using the phrase "worthless parasites" is a little insensitive. Again that's not really a moral judgement, just a statement that that it is not for the most part beneficial for a societies ability to sustain itself population wise. It would also apply to people who can't have/Don't have children, and I have no moral quarms with them.

But the point of the topic was from a bilogical/medical point of view not a sociology point of view. I don't consider homosexuality to be an immoral thing when homosexuals do not choose to be that way, even if they did homosexuality would not be immoral. Although a question to MementoMori, why would a thread discussing the morality of homosexuality be closed?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

you said it not me, you know I hadn't actually thought about that, but from the point of view about competitive societies, then yes I suppose you have a point, mind you using the phrase "worthless parasites" is a little insensitive. Again that's not really a moral judgement, just a statement that that it is not for the most part beneficial for a societies ability to sustain itself population wise. It would also apply to people who can't have/Don't have children, and I have no moral quarms with them.

But the point of the topic was from a bilogical/medical point of view not a sociology point of view. I don't consider homosexuality to be an immoral thing when homosexuals do not choose to be that way, even if they did homosexuality would not be immoral. Although a question to MementoMori, why would a thread discussing the morality of homosexuality be closed?

I'm sorry for having to repeat myself so much. We've already cleared that objectively, scientifically there can't really be any judgements on something malfunctioning, unless you take something common in nature and label it normally functioning and standard. So after such classifications you can compare this conceptual ideal functioning to something else in the real world. If you then find a living being which doesn't reproduce, as opposed to the ideal model for organisms which says that it should, then you can call it malfunctioning.

Now why is it "wrong" to call homosexuals malfunctioning? Well if you apply the aforementioned process, then nothing... But! Our society is intelligent enough (or is it?) to see past some naturally ingrained instincts as universal law that must be upheld. So you see, if there is a person who doesn't want to have sex, or have sex without actually reproducing...so what! If you really must judge people by some percieved biological standard, then can't you see the benefits individuals can have for our species? Others have already showed some hypothetical evolutionary "uses". Anyway... As far as I see it, our biological (macro)evolution is pretty much useless at this point, seeing the technological advances that will take over eventually. So at this stage, judging things by some evolutionary principles is pretty useless. I mean, is a gay scientists who cures cancer, solves our energy crisis and invents interstellar travel still best labeled as malfunctioning? Especially now, when we are already capable of synthesizing a genome from scratch and reproduction is mostly a problem in a negative way, i.e. overpopulation.

The problem here isn't in the actual act of labeling something, but in the absurdity of the label. It's like saying that air condition devices are useless because they don't help you in Antarctica.
I think it's safe to assume you see something wrong with keeping that label as some absolute description of the device.

So that's how it's wrong, even in a "medical/biological" view, if that's how you choose to call it.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

here we go with the paranoia again. Where is this "hidden" moral judgement please quote one thing I have said which implies there is a hidden moral judgement.

Homosexuality 'just doesn't seem right' to many.

But you know sometimes you've just gotta stop being a smart alec, and live in the real world for a second, where people consider cancer a bad thing and unatural thing. (used to compare to homosexuality)

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.

If you wished you could construct an ideal person,

Words like right, wrong, bad, should, and ideal are only applicable in a moral or ethical context (or otherwise philosophical, but either way; not scientific). No matter how many times you try to back track by asserting you aren't making a moral judgment, your real intent shows through when you use these words whether you realize it or not.

I have never taken a gardening course yet I know that in proper soil, with adequate water and sunlight, a flower will grow. Likewise I have never enrolled in 'homosexuality studies' but my argument is based upon things i've pieced together through a combination of schooling, documentaries, books, the internet (no not some gay hate site) and common sense. What studies have you done relating to the matter?

My experience is similar to yours, although I would be interested to know specifically which books you have read, since all of the ones I've read contradict just about everything you are saying. The most common contradiction among the resources I have had access to is the example of non-reproducing insect colony members promoting the continuation of their own genes by supporting their reproducing siblings.