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

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.