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

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

It seems like every (straight) guy who exists really wants to have sex with a woman in the rear, instead of the vagina.

Originally Posted by Sekhmet

PANCAKES ARE ABNORMAL!!!

Crepes however, are normal, moral and just.

I agree with the first, however I know nothing of the last. However, I do find it stange on here that so many mistake the anomolie with those who have it. I thought the discussion was about the anomolie, those who have it are not the topic.

Perhaps, it is my mistake, after all, the original claim was in the universal and not the particular.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet (cos jumping in for the first time now, after 11 pages... I don't have time to sift through it)... but has anyone yet to mention that the ACT of sex isn't even necessary to procreate in this day in age?

We have the technology!

So in essence... the entire world could pair off same sex and we could still make babies via insemination, fertitlity clinics or what have you. I mean... just because you bat for the same team doesn't mean that you have no desire to procreate.

So in a way, that negates the evolutionary factor...

And I realize it's a bit of an extreme point of view as there will obviously always be hetero and homo couplings... but... just saying. In this era and from now until forever, there's no existing reason to call it an abnormality.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

It seems like every (straight) guy who exists really wants to have sex with a woman in the rear, instead of the vagina. Do you also consider THAT abnormal?

Man, you've gotta find a decent guy...I prefer to make her happy, personally.

Philosopher8659, i asked you to stay on topic. I've deleted you last post and will do so for each and everyone that follows if they are not on-topic, because they are simply derailing and spamming the thread. STOP. Please and thank you.

@ Thatperson: You asked me why a thread questioning the morals of homosexuality would be closed. Really? You really wanna go there?
Ok why would a thread questioning the morals of being black be closed?? <- your answer

that isn't really an answer, if someone wanted to argue that homosexual acts were immoral, I would argue against that, but what is wrong with having such a thread? That thing about being black, that wasn't an answer, just an irrelevant comparison. The rules don't state anything suggesting that type of thread would be disallowed.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

Philosopher8659, i asked you to stay on topic. I've deleted you last post and will do so for each and everyone that follows if they are not on-topic, because they are simply derailing and spamming the thread. STOP. Please and thank you.

@ Thatperson: You asked me why a thread questioning the morals of homosexuality would be closed. Really? You really wanna go there?
Ok why would a thread questioning the morals of being black be closed?? <- your answer

Well fuck you if I am not as free to comment as anyone here.

and as for the absolute and relative, you can only abstract two concepts, biological fact, material differece (relativre) and form (absolute). So, if a thing is true (absolute) it does not matter what time of day it is, or what yeat it is, it is true.

And for all those who whine, if you dont see which words belong in which class, and what it entails, instead of enforcing your rude stupidy, try asking a relevant question. Or do you really believe that spreading gibbish and not being able to think is anything but rude?

And Mr Mod, if someone is lying to themselves and others, can they possibly be complying with the principles of grammar? Can they possibly be on topic? Or have you, in your great and rude wisdome, even considered the matter? Is complying with the conventions of grammar a social act and non-compliance an anti-social act? Or have you once again, given it any thought?

I still don't understand what you're trying to say Philosopher. Nothing of what you say makes any sense. I usually like to think that I have a good sense of understanding, but nothing of what you say is making any sense, and I have a feeling that a lot of people in this thread feel the same way. Maybe you should take your language down a notch, to a level where people actually understand what you're saying.

If people don't understand what you're saying, it doesn't mean that you're more intelligent. It means you're rude.

I understand that. It was a long hard learning experience for me also.

Food for thought, what changes a heap of people into a civilization? If people do not know, can not comprehend, cannot effect from the foundation of langauge itself, can they pride themselves even on civil behavior? Is not the first civil act of a civil society imply knowing the foundation of grammar itself, and using it in social commerce? If they cannot, even because of physical limitations, can the call themselves civil?

And if one have any true love of their fellow man, what would they do? Help or hinder them in learning to think by standards set by reality itself, or ignore same?

Communication between people does not require perfect grammar, though it does help out a lot. Communication has a lot more do with knowing how to lead a conversation, something that you're having a hard time accomplishing, apparently, seeing as you've completely deviated from the topic at hand.

It is not about perfect grammar. It is about the abstractions themselves. I, for one, cannot spell worth a damn.

Did you ever realize that all you can do in a grammar system, is develope a convention of names. Everything else in the grammar is abstracted from reality itself. It is these abstractions to which I refer. The principles of judgment refer to every thing you say, do and think.

Once in a metaphor, You shall love the Lord with all thy Heart, all thy body, and all thy soul. When you learn to comprehend metaphor, you will see the truth of it. It is inescapable.

And, if you are fruitful with your lucid dreaming, you may eventually learn that you are being taught by metaphor, and you may even wish to comprehend and develope it. Plato called it learning by simili in multis--the common abstraction in the many examples.

My example above can be stated simply, the quote I used from the text, it simply means you learn by experience--everything.

Philosopher, I considered commenting on your posts here a couple weeks ago. But then I thought, 'well it's not worth it'. But revisiting this forum I see you're posts are still as hit and miss as before (in terms of conveying any meaning) and what's more, they're now completely off topic. And other people have noticed too. Either English isn't your first language, you are lacking in some intellect, or you are being deliberately obscure when making any points.

Did you ever realize that all you can do in a grammar system, is develope a convention of names. Everything else in the grammar is abstracted from reality itself. It is these abstractions to which I refer.

Any good philosopher would explain the points they make and relay information or understanding they have accrued fully and simply. You don't do that. EVER.
It looks like you edit a lot of your posts as well. I don't know how you can read them a couple of times and not see just how obscure their meaning is.
Hope you don't get too offended, but reading your posts is seriously frustrating.

I am not offended, you simply said you do not understand, however, if you do not understand, I amire your further comments.

My reading comprehension has always been years in advance of my peers. I do not presume a readers depth of ignorance. I speak on my own level, as you do. Now you can either respect me as you respect yourself, or not. You are free to be a rude as you like, and so should I.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I am not offended, you simply said you do not understand, however, if you do not understand, I amire your further comments.

My reading comprehension has always been years in advance of my peers. I do not presume a readers depth of ignorance. I speak on my own level, as you do. Now you can either respect me as you respect yourself, or not. You are free to be a rude as you like, and so should I.

It's not very fun to debate when nobody understands what you're trying to say though, is it?

Hell yeah, I said I don't understand. BUT

You are free to be a rude as you like, and so should I.

so much stuff you write is like that. It doesn't make sense. I'm not asking you to change how you write. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of how many of us perceive you, for your benefit as much as ours.

It's not very fun to debate when nobody understands what you're trying to say though, is it?

then again maybe you get a kick out of not being understood.

The fun in debate is learning others meaning, not crying that one does not understand or telling someone to shut up. Where did the people here learn their manners from?

Let me add one point about grammar. Any living organism environmental acquisition system can only abstract a things form, or a things material difference. This means that fundamentally one has two, and only two categories of primitive names. We name perceptions.

Thus, in order to do anything with these names we must, as in all craft, learn how to bring together the names of forms and the names of material difference to construct the names of things. i. e. grammar is a craft. A craft that may someday be practiced by those who wish to be civil.

alright i got that our perception is limited to two things: material difference (I'm gonna take a wild guess that that is the matter which is subject to change within a thing) and form (is that form in the Plato sense?). And you threw another thing in: biological fact. Two concepts? Three concepts? who knows? So you say that we only perceive those 2 (or 3) things, and everything else we know is built on this perception and to build any further understanding of these perceptions, we need grammar. What really messed with my mind is that you say we use grammar to ring together the names of forms and of material difference to construct the names of things. THINGS. so the material difference and forms are nothing? what we need is a proper explanation of terminology.
Call me ignorant or stupid, but dude, I can't make head nor tail of it. I admit I haven't read all your posts here so maybe that stuff builds on stuff you said previously. I tried deciphering your point about a convention of names, but I gave up. the meanings are so ambiguous. All I have atm is, form + material difference = grammar = sense = abstractions = all our beliefs, therefore determinism rooted in perception. My understanding could be completely wrong. In fact I'd be more shocked if I understood you correctly.

stay on-topic


homosexuality is as abnormal and as detrimental as being born left handed.

Originally Posted by Marvo

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.

this is amazing
and true.

Pardon yet another off-topic post, but I'm calling troll.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well fuck you if I am not as free to comment as anyone here.

Insulting the moderators. The people with near total control over what you do here. Nice. Real smart. You're free to comment here, but if it isn't an on-topic post, it's probably going to be regulated/deleted. You may go and create your own thread if you like. You could probably even ask a mod to split this massive slab of off-topic drivel, if you wish. But please, keep this thread on-topic. Your incomprehensible posts, combined with your pompous jackass attitude and strong aversion to posting anything relevant to the thread lead me to think you're a troll. Kindly shape up or leave. We have no use for your kind around here.

And for all those who whine, if you dont see which words belong in which class, and what it entails, instead of enforcing your rude stupidy, try asking a relevant question. Or do you really believe that spreading gibbish and not being able to think is anything but rude?

You're the one spreading gibberish and being rude. Most of us would prefer to stay on-topic without being assaulted by posts only a select few would ever understand without Ph.D. degrees in philosophy and language. You're the one slinging around generalizations and insults (calling us all rude and stupid, eh?), while at the same time posting long strains of nonsense (or what most people would call nonsense, seeing as how you seem utterly incapable of stating your arguments in a language we can understand at some level). Pardon me for not giving a rat's ass about whatever obscure point you seem to be trying (and failing) to convene, but quite frankly, I don't care. Now stop being a troll and either get your own thread or GTFO. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to start making posts in plain English. Despite all your claimed intelligence and philosophical superiority, you can't even state your arguments in a way that makes sense to us peons. Why is that?

And Mr Mod, if someone is lying to themselves and others, can they possibly be complying with the principles of grammar? Can they possibly be on topic? Or have you, in your great and rude wisdome, even considered the matter? Is complying with the conventions of grammar a social act and non-compliance an anti-social act? Or have you once again, given it any thought?

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. We're discussing if homosexuality is normal or abnormal, not searching for the philosophical meanings behind language and grammar. Again, stop being a troll or gtfo.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

My reading comprehension has always been years in advance of my peers. I do not presume a readers depth of ignorance. I speak on my own level, as you do. Now you can either respect me as you respect yourself, or not. You are free to be a rude as you like, and so should I.

I'm all for intellectual advancement, and I, too, have always been ahead of my class. However, that does not give me license to assume all others of being dumb fucks who can't read, and then tell them so. This is a free country, yes, and you can be as rude as you want, but do it somewhere else. You can voice your opinions all you like, but here, not only won't people listen, but your posts will be deleted. You can still be rude and arrogant, just not here.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The fun in debate is learning others meaning, not crying that one does not understand or telling someone to shut up. Where did the people here learn their manners from?

Better question is where did YOU learn YOUR manners from? Debating is a joy to me. Defiling the English language by posting off-topic nonsense is not. We're telling you to shut up because you refuse to make relevant posts or post in any sort of way that makes sense. For all intents and purposes, you are trolling. Go away, or dumb it down for the rest of us uneducated knuckle-draggers. Capiche?

Let me add one point about grammar. Any living organism environmental acquisition system can only abstract a things form, or a things material difference. This means that fundamentally one has two, and only two categories of primitive names. We name perceptions.

Thus, in order to do anything with these names we must, as in all craft, learn how to bring together the names of forms and the names of material difference to construct the names of things. i. e. grammar is a craft. A craft that may someday be practiced by those who wish to be civil.

Again, this shit does not make sense. Your issue seems to be that language is a loose (and inaccurate) interpretation of reality. It's a system of symbols used to represent reality. This is irrelevant to the topic. You can go make your case in another thread (and attempt to refine your writing skills so people can actually understand what you're getting at). Now, I can call you a troll, a jackass, a pompous jerk, and you know what I'm talking about quite well. I can point to a creature with four legs, a pointed muzzle, and droopy ears and say, "dog," and you'd understand me. Your posts, being the abstract, incomprehensible, irrelevant monstrosities that they are, by contrast, use a different type of language that is highly ineffective at communicating your point. The words are the same, but your meaning is lost in a sea of nonsense. Trying to make heads or tails of your posts is kind of like trying to extract the hidden meaning of a three-hour long civil war story told through the lips of a toothless stroke patient.

indeed it has been said, if you cannot explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough

it's not normal*, therefore it's abnormal**.

*that which is the standard

**that which is not the standard

Originally Posted by jacobo

it's not normal*, therefore it's abnormal**.

*that which is the standard

**that which is not the standard

False. Particularly in human behavior, there's no such thing as "the standard," only accepted standards. In any Western nation, a city above a certain size without homosexual culture, businesses and support/advocacy organizations would be quite abnormal. While there are (mostly rural) parts of our nations where no open homosexuality is accepted, in the culture as a whole homosexuality is not only accepted but expected, i.e. well within norms.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

It seems like every (straight) guy who exists really wants to have sex with a woman in the rear, instead of the vagina. Do you also consider THAT abnormal?

If a guy wants to bang a female in the ass instead of the vagina all the time, yes it is abnormal. Any anal sex is abnormal in my opinion, and no, despite what porn would have you believe most men don't want to stick their penis in a females rectum.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Man, you've gotta find a decent guy...I prefer to make her happy, personally.

....

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

...anal sex is abnormal in my opinion

it's ALL a matter of ones opinion...

@ Thatperson:

White women marrying/sleeping with black men or visa versa, was and still is in some parts of america "abnormal" to a lot of people, doesn't mean it is.

Indeed masturbation was considered highly "abnormal" at one time and now is almost accepted as a normal thing (this doesn't help one to procreate).

You can be homosexual and still procreate through sperm banks or by agreeing to impregnate females for the sake of procreation... So, why is it anymore abnormal than anything else in life? why not make millions of similar threads asking all these other questions about why people do not find other things abnormal instead of shooting directly to why homosexuality is abnormal... unless you have a personal moral bias against homosexuals... ?

So what if homosexuality is abnormal biologically, millions of things are, it's our social norms that affect us because we are solely social creatures that are driven by interaction with other through emotions and thought and speech. Society has moved passed the ancient ideas that being gay is a "sin" (sin being used as a term to relate to a serious offense) against the higher meaning of human existence and realized that to persecute and condemn others for such a thing is ignorant and unintelligible of us as a race. So this thread has no credit to sit on in the 21st century.

We already know it's biologically abnormal, but we've found ways socially around this by donating sperm, and by male homosexuals pairing up with females for the sole purpose of procreation. Homosexuality is as much a part of being human as being sentient.