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

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 Alric

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.

Actually, my older brother is in many ways like me, but he certainly has some behavioral differences, that differ very greatly from both me and our 2 other brothers. We are only 3 years apart and have grown up under very much the same conditions, yet he's still greatly different when it comes to certain things. I could get into more detail, but my point is that he picked up some very prevalent personality quirks from our father that my other brothers and I did not, which makes me believe that we as humans pick up certain personality related things through our genes and other things through environmental factors while we grow up.

Putting all our preferences, like our sexuality, our prefered food, our prefered form of entertainment and all kinds of other preferences into the same box, is taking the wrong approach. I probably like playing video games, because I grew up playing video games. Why am I bisexual? I honestly can't give a good answer to that. My mother and father seperated when I was 6 and I lived with my mother from then, but I still regularly visitted my father. The divorce didn't hurt me emotionally in any way, because my parents were not being idiots about it. They were fine with each other, they just couldn't live together anymore.

Originally Posted by Alric

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?

I never said that every little thing had to have a genetic origin. But, what makes you so dead-sure that homosexuality is only a preference? I could argue it's a different form of instinct. Genetics got the "have sex" bit right, but switched about the "with whom" part of the program. It could be that, during brain development, a gay person's neurons connect a bit differently. Perhaps even that prenatal developmental stage shapes our future interests and preferences. It could be any number of factors. People who receive more testosterone in the womb are usually more aggressive, and so would not be content with something like stamp keeping, and may prefer race car driving or baseball playing. Now of course I'm not going to say that development throughout life isn't going to have an impact at all...that would be silly. But neither am I going to discount the possibility of prenatal and genetic factors, as some do. I retain my stance that homosexuality is not an active choice an individual consciously makes in a short period of time...the same way people don't actively choose to be heterosexual.

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?

Because a joy for reading comic books can rise up out of anything, and can spontaneously develop in the course of a couple of minutes. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is far more complex and more deeply rooted. A person will get a nice chuckle out of a comic book, but love is a far more powerful emotion. Hobbies come and go, but sexuality seems to be somewhat rigidly defined on an individual basis, which is to say, a person does not typically move very far from whatever point on the gradient they landed at. Gay people tend to stay gay, straight people stay straight, and bisexuals bisexual. Deviations from the norm could be a result of any numerous factors. A straight person who suddenly finds themselves gay, perhaps, may have hit upon a level of self-realization, suppressed by societal expectations until just that instant.

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.

There is more to homosexuality than just animal sex, you know. Like, emotional love, excitation, and the like. I could care less that it involves sex. Remove the sex, and you still have deep-seated love for a person of the same sex that that same person does not hold for members of the opposite sex.

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.

And you haven't shown me any evidence that homosexuality is as simple as being a preference for one gender or another. I believe I just showed above, too, how it is different from picking up a comic book. A person could go out and have gay sex, but if that attraction, if that love, is not there, it isn't there. The sex may be great, sure, but without love, it isn't homosexuality, is it?

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

Again, all things outside the direct control of the individual. My argument is simply that homosexuality is not a conscious choice a person makes. That's all I'm arguing. Beyond that, I'm tossing out other possibilities with evidence neither for nor against in an effort to show you that you could very well be wrong. I grant that I could (and likely am) wrong on at least several of the potential causes of homosexuality I'm tossing out, but you seem to remain perfectly certain that your point of view, made on personal observations without objective evidence, is absolute truth. See, that kind of pisses me off, because we don't know. Logically, we may like to think we know, but we don't. Your hypothesis that homosexuality is solely about preferences influenced only marginally by prenatal or genetic factors is just that: a hypothesis. It is a testable claim with thus far inconclusive results.

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.

I never said that genes were the be-all end-all of everything. And "blaming" genes? What an interesting selection of words for the context of this argument. Is there something wrong with homosexuality? (You see how fun it is to put words in the mouths of others?) Genetically, science has gotten very interesting results with just how much a person's personality is determined by genes, right down to hand gestures. I do think they play a larger part than you give them credit for. I'm afraid we have gotten a bit off-topic with the "nature vs nurture" debate, so...care to remind me exactly how it is an abnormality?

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.

I have never seen anything to show that sexual orientation is a static unchangeable thing. Peoples interest do change, and you can gain or lose sexual fetishes through life. You my be a breast guy then switch to loving legs betters. A straight person can become bisexual, and while it might be uncommon people do go from straight to gay, or from gay to straight.

Normally changes in things like that are so gradual that they are not easily noticeable, but it can and does happen. A person that suddenly notices they are gay, may really have at one point enjoyed and preferred the opposite sex.

Since it can change, it make it seems even less likely that things are set at stone at birth.

Also, you can be homosexual without actually loving a person. If you have great gay sex, but have no other feelings for them, you are still gay. Just like a straight person doesn't have to love their partner, neither does a gay person. Now I am not saying most people are like that or anything, but it does count.

Any way, to get back on the abnormality topic. My entire point was that being gay is a personality trait and a preference, and no preference is ever abnormal because humans are individuals and we are all different and capable of doing whatever we want.

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.