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

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

If I ask someone what 5+3 is, the right answer is 8, they should give the anser of 8, the ideal answer to that question is 8. If they say 9 does that make them immoral, of course not, but you seem to think that I secretly think they are immoral.

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.

Yes of course I can see the benefits, (gay scientist who cures cancer as you mention etc) but that doesn't mean that they don;t have a medical abnormality. As you say about evolution at this stage, yes it is useless. Most medical abnormalities can be maintained so they they don't interfere with a persons life, like diabetes for example, but diabetes still remains a medical abnormailty no matter how well it is controlled.

Wow, now that is impressive. nice comments.

I think all of us here are mostly on the same side, it's just that you've started this and we've all got cought up in semantics. I mean ok, yes, as I've said, in a way homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Along with thousands of other things, probably including me, you etc. And I don't think I ever denied it.

The problem here is that, if you say this and stick by it so strongly, it's misleading in a sense that it makes you look like some homophobe in denial. No matter how true a statement is according to some definition in some circumstances, it's unpragmatical (as shown in the air condition example) and therefore seems indicative of some sublime agenda. So even if we call gays abnormal/malfunctioning according to some biological definition, due to the reasons we've all gone through by now, it's completely misleading to highlight it specifically... and as I said, makes the person look like some homophobe. And that's why we keep going back and forth, sometimes calling you just that - a homophobe.

...Regarding the "medical abnormality": it's dictated by the norm and because of obvious reasons is often pretty universal due to the fact that most medical conditions bring discomfort and pain. So people agree when something is malfunctioning. That's why we won't see people fighting for diabetes or the rights to keep cancer, like we see homosexuals fighting for their right to be as they are.

I think here specifically arises the mind-body problem. Once we come to the brain we find ourselves objectifying peoples thoughts and consciousness. Homosexuality also fitting in this category. We see shizophrenia as a disease, but not homosexuality, so the question might arise - what's the correct function here... since we have nothing to compare brains to, except to other brains. The answers seem pretty simple. Homosexuals don't have a problem with themselves, so we can let them be and stop calling them psychologically malfunctioning. Shizophrenics can go through living hell, so it's easier to classify it as a malfunction. But still, there are gray areas - like completely rational people who feel the need to cut off a specific body part etc.
So as far as labeling homosexuals as medically malfunctioning, I refer to my previous paragraphs and post.

Yes of course I can see the benefits, (gay scientist who cures cancer as you mention etc) but that doesn't mean that they don;t have a medical abnormality.

You keep on using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means:

A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1][2][3] It may be caused by external factors, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.

I'd hardly call wanting to shag members of the same sex an impairment of bodily functions. You treat it as a disease, but it is not.

Also, homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of diagnosable mental conditions in 1975.

Carry on.

homophobe

A real phobia is one of unnatural fear. Ever consider the semantics of creating an oxymoron to effect an argument?

All I know is that we have to treat this homophobes condition. It's a malfunction you see...

I think all of us here are mostly on the same side, it's just that you've started this and we've all got cought up in semantics. I mean ok, yes, as I've said, in a way homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Along with thousands of other things, probably including me, you etc. And I don't think I ever denied it.

Yes,as I said earlier I think many of us are on the same side, me and you for two. However I created this thread to get the point of view of those who are on the other side, if two parents each 4'6" have a child who is 7'6" then 97/98% of people would recognise that something abnormal has happened somewhere (excessive growth hormone in the womb or something), but only 85% ish of people recognise the same for homosexuality.

I'm really not a secret homophobe, many homosexual think along the same lines as me, I just wanted to see the point of view of the other side.

EDIT: Bonsay you have the best avatar on the interwebz, lulz

Originally Posted by Thatperson

..., but only 85% ish of people recognise the same for homosexuality.

That's because homosexuality is traditionally only fought over in some religious context. So the moment somebody talks about malfunctions, all we really expect is the same old hellfire condemnation, talk of sin, and other such bullshit. Nobody expects a debate over an ambiguous technicality.


I was joking with the homophobe. Philosopher presented an interesting observation, to which I tried to respond humourously. Regarding the oxymorons - I was under the impression homophobia isn't exclusively a phobia, but also represents general hostility. I guess I was wrong.

EDIT: Bonsay you have the best avatar on the interwebz, lulz

Thank you. I stole it myself.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm really not a secret homophobe, many homosexual think along the same lines as me, I just wanted to see the point of view of the other side.

You've been saying over and over again that homosexuality is abnormal. All the bisexuals and homosexuals I know (and have studied) don't consider themselves in anyway abnormal and in fact use themselves as proof that homosexuality is normal.

Also, you've made no secret about your position with the statements you have made and the words you have chosen to use. You are a homophobe.

(FYI - phobia is not restricted to "fear" but also hate, dislike, contempt and any other negative connotation used to define your feelings about something. You think homosexuality as abnormal and consistantly use negative words to describe it - therefore you are homophobic.)

It could be considered as abnormality. Actually, it is since most of the people are heterosexual. That's, however, all it is. Abnormal. It is not any better or worse, immoral, wrong or anything else.

Just because something is statistically abnormal doesn't proof anything else.

You've been saying over and over again that homosexuality is abnormal. All the bisexuals and homosexuals I know (and have studied) don't consider themselves in anyway abnormal and in fact use themselves as proof that homosexuality is normal.

Also, you've made no secret about your position with the statements you have made and the words you have chosen to use. You are a homophobe.

As bonsay says, most of us are on the same side (so does that make everyone in this thread a homophobe?) Indeed this is one of the major flaws of our Liberal-fascist society, while it appears that most people agree with my point, no one dare say it. Please define a homophobe and how I fit into this definition.

I said I can see how it can be viewed as such. But I also said how unpragmatical and eventually detrimental it is to your own "public/forum" image. Without trying to be too offensive, I think you (Thatperson) are the one being stubborn here. Stubborn by not dropping the argument after it being reggurgitated and disected to death. DV members are intelligent enough to see, how homosexuality can be seen as malfunctioning from some strictly defined point of view, by themselves. So if you keep this up, you do end up looking homophobic... simply because you keep holding on to it like it's the holy grail of defining homosexuals.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I was joking with the homophobe

Wasn't aimed at you anyway, just anyone who thinks I am.

Sekhmet, I thought to be homophobic, you had to have some dislike of homosexuals themselves. Something which I do not have.

DV members are intelligent enough to see, how homosexuality can be seen as malfunctioning from a strictly defined point of view

Most but there are still a few left who don't see it as malfunctioning from any point of view at all. I still don't understand there reasoning yet, that's the only reason this thread is still active.

Who are you to tell others how they should think?

Originally Posted by MementoMori

Who are you to tell others how they should think?

Well, that is like asking who are you to tell a blind man that a particular rose is red. If we cannot say what we see, -- well the nasty desire to censure is in all of us.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

As bonsay says, most of us are on the same side (so does that make everyone in this thread a homophobe?) Indeed this is one of the major flaws of our Liberal-fascist society, while it appears that most people agree with my point, no one dare say it. Please define a homophobe and how I fit into this definition.

Liberal-fascist society? I do believe it is liberals who believe in personal liberties and freedoms much moreso than conservatives. I don't see liberals trying to regulate how gay people conduct themselves in their own homes. Let's take a look at the chart:



O-ho, look where conservatives fall: right at the low end of self regulation, i.e. government control in personal lives. And fascism? Hardly. We have one of the most capitalist societies in the world. And thanks to liberals, we also have a hell of a lot of personal rights, including the right to shag members of the same sex in Georgia if we so wish.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well, that is like asking who are you to tell a blind man that a particular rose is red. If we cannot say what we see, -- well the nasty desire to censure is in all of us.

Ah! Look at that! As if to make my point...so, you support censoring others and keeping them from speaking out? Ah, no, wait, I've got it...people can only speak if they agree with you, is that it?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Sekhmet, I thought to be homophobic, you had to have some dislike of homosexuals themselves. Something which I do not have.

Sure coming off that way.

Most but there are still a few left who don't see it as malfunctioning from any point of view at all. I still don't understand there reasoning yet, that's the only reason this thread is still active.

What is with this compulsive need to try and force people to agree with you? In terms of individual propagation, it does reduce one's chance to pass on their own genes. But even this, I hardly consider "abnormal," especially in today's society. Define "normal." At what exact percent chance of passing on one's genes is a person "normal?" There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things out there that can all inhibit a person's chance to pass on genes. These so-called defects are common enough that I wouldn't consider them abnormal. Birth control isn't abnormal, so why should homosexuality be? If you want to define it in a purely nature-based sense, homosexuality is found throughout nature. It isn't unnatural. Your arguments have been shot down. The only way I'd consider it abnormal would be if I was forced to look through your skewed, stubborn perspective, but fortunately, that isn't going to happen.

{Ah! Look at that! As if to make my point...so, you support censoring others and keeping them from speaking out? Ah, no, wait, I've got it...people can only speak if they agree with you, is that it?}

You have a peculiar lack of ability to render the sense of a sentence. You will forgive me if I do not comprehend it.

Since the foundation of grammar starts with a convention of names, the proper effectation of language determines if what is said complies with the origional convention, i. e. "makes sense" only when made from sense. Plato, thought lacking explanation for those who do not understand, does demonstrate it in his dialogs. That is all a dialectician actuallly does--demonstrate if what you say "makes sense" or not. But, if you admit this, you have to admit that all moral code, all human behavior, is dictated by what we abstract such that in rendering judgment, it simply goes back to the convention of names originally agreed upon. i.e. what you are is not your choice, neither is what you believe.

How are most of us on the same (your) side? I doubt that.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You have a peculiar lack of ability to render the sense of a sentence. You will forgive me if I do not comprehend it.

Oh, wait, censure, not censor. Goddamnit. Never mind.

I guess this all boils down to the fact, that if we were to apply your "abnormal/malfunction" logic to the real world, we would end up with every sexual action that does not involve sticking a penis inside a vagina being abnormal/a malfunction. So whether you stick your dick in a man's butt or a woman's butt, the biological/evolutionary/medical (what) outcome is the same, or in your logic, abnormal/malfunction.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

If I ask someone what 5+3 is, the right answer is 8, they should give the anser of 8, the ideal answer to that question is 8. If they say 9 does that make them immoral, of course not, but you seem to think that I secretly think they are immoral.

Thank you for this excellent example of your absolutist mentality. If you ask me what 5+3 is, perhaps I will be cheeky and answer 11, because that is the answer in a base 7 number system. My answer will be correct. Will it be ideal? No. There is no ideal answer. There are countless rationalizations that I could come up with to explain why just about any answer is the correct one. What you seem to mean by ideal is just what you personally expect to find. It is unfortunate, but sooner or later we all must figure out that this is not how the world works.

Look, Thatperson, we get it that to you it's something that is abnormal, and we understand (not saying agree) where you have drawn these conclusions from. There's no other reason to continue this conversation. You CANNOT expect others to take up your beliefs and conform to your way of thinking just because you believe it's correct by whatever facts you think you know. If someone says they just don't except that it's an abnormality then you have no room to argue otherwise, because it's just like faith and trying to argue with someone with a strong sense of it, some things take personal steps to reach an understanding of them.

@ Philosopher: Stay.On.Topic.

I lost a long time ago what it matters if its abnormal or not? They whole point of our republic is that democracy rules, but the rights of the minority are still kept in tact. So...pancakes?

PANCAKES ARE ABNORMAL!!!

Crepes however, are normal, moral and just.