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

This was breifly covered in the gay marriage topic, but to keep that thread on topic I thought I'd post here.

How can some people not accpet that homosexuality is an abnormality I don't mean abnormal as in uncommon. I mean abnormal as in a malfunction. I'm sure most would consider beastiality or mechanophilia as abnormalities but why not homosexuality? I'm not questioning the morality of homosexuality here, just from a biological viewpoint i'm saying.

That's how:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals.
Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?

Originally Posted by dajo

That's how:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals.
Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

Well, that is the answer, dumb down and you can call anything right. So much for the human mind being developed to effect human action! I see there are plenty of people who would compare sense with non-sense as justification for anything.

Good point to use for not doing one's homework.

Reminds me of a trip I took in Thailand. A bus full of us stopped off at Monkey Village, while the entire bus were fascinated by monkeys fornicating in the tree tops, Hobart and I struck out and found a Monk who wanted someone to speak English with as he learned the language but never met anyone to practice on.

Of course, one can justify every politician that ever lived by the same means. Many animals eat shit, and insects too!

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well, that is the answer, dumb down and you can call anything right. So much for the human mind being developed to effect human action! I see there are plenty of people who would compare sense with non-sense as justification for anything.

Good point to use for not doing one's homework.

Reminds me of a trip I took in Thailand. A bus full of us stopped off at Monkey Village, while the entire bus were fascinated by monkeys fornicating in the tree tops, Hobart and I struck out and found a Monk who wanted someone to speak English with as he learned the language but never met anyone to practice on.

Of course, one can justify every politician that ever lived by the same means. Many animals eat shit, and insects too!

Is your point that my argument doesn't equate? Do you mean I'm generalizing?
(I didn't make only that one post, you know)

Dumb it down and you can call anything wrong. Give me some substance, other than a simplfied
view of evolution and I'll respond to it. If you make good points, I'd reevaluate gladly.

Reminds me of the time I stayed in Cambodia. I saw a bus with many people on it, while I was living
with monks and taught English to a bunch of kids, who never spoke to a foreigner before.
What's your point? Are you calling me ignorant?

I might have misunderstood, what you were trying to convey.. so please, enlighten me.

Well, answer me this one simple question, what kinds of things do not acquire their judgment of use from their own designed functionality? That is the whole of the question. And no, I do not consider it very bright when one judges the right or wrong expression of almost everything in their life based on a things designed function, but abandons it with very bad arguments. Something other at work here than truth.

Which of the environmental acquisition systems of the human body were designed not to sustain and promote the life of the body, but where designed-- well--- for anything an empty head can imagine?

And even more to the point--since when did the functionality or disfunctionality of one environmental acquisition system determine the right or wrong expression of another? The human mind or the procreative system, which of those two determine the right and wrongness of the answer?????

I suppose you never understood the fact that what is true is independent of both gods and men.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well, answer me this one simple question, what kinds of things do not acquire their judgment of use from their own designed functionality? That is the whole of the question. And no, I do not consider it very bright when one judges the right or wrong expression of almost everything in their life based on a things designed function, but abandons it with very bad arguments. Something other at work here than truth.

Which of the environmental acquisition systems of the human body were designed not to sustain and promote the life of the body, but where designed-- well--- for anything an empty head can imagine?

And even more to the point--since when did the functionality or disfunctionality of one environmental acquisition system determine the right or wrong expression of another? The human mind or the procreative system, which of those two determine the right and wrongness of the answer?????

I suppose you never understood the fact that what is true is independent of both gods and men.

Oh now I get it. You misunderstood me. I wasn't making a moral judgement at all.

My point was that "why would it be considered a biological abnormality more than the opposobal
thumb if homosexuality can be perfectly explained by evolution?" We were concentrating on these
factors, so of course this is not how I operate or judge, if ever, in less secluded domains of my life,
especially not while working scientifically or searching for truth independent of both gods and men.

You are being quite melodramatic.

I'm neither arguing from authority on this matter nor do I particularly care, since as it was pointed
out here sereval times - the biological functions don't determine our moral thinking in our society
anyway. Besides, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, as long noone is being opressed.

Why don't you explain to me then why it should be considered an abnormality? I don't even know your stance.

And please, dial down the sophistitalk a few noches. Unless you're not able to.

Originally Posted by dajo

That's how:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals.
Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

Haha, dogs are not homosexual. Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance, they are not penetrating the anus. They lick each others penis not to give pleasure but to groom one another. I own three dogs myself, I see how they interact everyday. I'm sure all the other animals on the list have similar stories. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I definitely consider it abnormal.

Maybe you should read past the first response or even click one of the sources... ?

But sure, you're even free to believe the world is flat if you'd like. My personal experience
doesn't tell me otherwise, since I have never personally seen it to be spherical. So, haha

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

Haha, dogs are not homosexual. Male dogs hump other male dogs to show dominance, they are not penetrating the anus. They lick each others penis not to give pleasure but to groom one another. I own three dogs myself, I see how they interact everyday. I'm sure all the other animals on the list have similar stories. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I definitely consider it abnormal.

That dogs groom and show dominance is not evidence that there are no homosexual dogs. I happen to know a pair of lesbian dachsunds.

Originally Posted by dajo

Maybe you should read past the first response or even click one of the sources... ?

But sure, you're even free to believe the world is flat if you'd like. My personal experience
doesn't tell me otherwise, since I have never personally seen it to be spherical. So, haha

Cute.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That dogs groom and show dominance is not evidence that there are no homosexual dogs. I happen to know a pair of lesbian dachsunds.

How could you possibly know they are lesbians?

Ok first of all this is a lucid dreaming sight if u didn't know. And second of all who are u to say what is normal? This is an idiotic post.

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

How could you possibly know they are lesbians?

That would be called sarcasm, mate. And now that I have a moment, I can argue exactly why I don't think homosexuality is "abnormal." First off, for humans, sex is about far more than reproduction, and serves numerous social roles and functions. To argue that it is "abnormal" solely from the standpoint that it decreases the likelihood a gay person will reproduce is ludicrous. Second, it can generally be shown that homosexuality is not a choice the individual actively makes, and while a specific cause has yet to be identified, it can be assumed within a reasonable degree of certainty that people do not choose, change, and shift between sexual orientations. To any who disagree with this point, I offer a challenge: think of a member of the same sex. Do you feel any sexual attraction toward this individual? Would you shag them at the drop of a hat? No? How interesting. Yes? Come out of the closet, seeing as how you're either gay or bisexual. I speak from experience when I say I have no sexual attraction toward other men, and while I can appreciate a good-looking guy, in no way do I want to shag him. Third, and possibly most importantly, it is found in nature all over the place. Even provided that dogs may not be gay, it is still prevalent in many other species, including bonobo monkeys, some of our closest relatives. Homosexuality is not in conflict with nature, and indeed appears to be an integral part of it.

As long as:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm not questioning the morality of homosexuality here, just from a biological viewpoint i'm saying.

remains your point in this thread it'll stay open, but moving an inch towards discrimination of any sexuality including the sexuality the OP is referring to will have the thread locked up faster than Lady Hamilton's virtue.


On-topic, i do not see it as abnormal, nothing is abnormal, if it can exist then it's normal. You first need to question what is or isn't normal. There's no such thing as normal, there's simply different shades of life...

one of my favorite quotes:

Doc Holliday: What do you want Wyatt?
Wyatt Earp: Just to live a normal life.
Doc Holliday: There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life, ya live it.

... there's just life, you live it.


Edit: please clear this up:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but are you comparing Homosexuality to Cancer? Or was this just a general statement to express a point?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I mean abnormal as in a malfunction.

It would be a malfunction if a person who is straight is suddenly gay. A gay person being gay is not a malfunction, but rather working as intended.

Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?

If you mean abnormality in the sense of "bad move reproductively speaking" then I'd agree with you. As for why you don't hear many people stating that view, it's because very few people think like that. I mean really, who cares?

Similarly I wouldn't expect people to react to my decision not to have children with "that's a weird biological malfunction there, your genes are going to die out". If anyone did I would find it an extremely odd reaction. And I'm completely aware that my conscious decision not to is completely at odds with my biological drive. Again, why would this matter to be worthy of comment?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?

LOL best. reply. ever

In many cases masturbation is abnormal, especially when you have one of a couple who masturbates while the other is sexed starved. However, I think it is a bit of a weak minded response to equate the augmentation of a thing with its defeat. But, weak minded comparisons are in vogue in some corners of the intelectual world. We eat ice cream too--but that does not mean we don't live on steak.

However, every male should know, that if they do not, under certain circumstances they could be injuring themselves--or create an emotional state that leads to some very bad judgments.

However, I have never known that the fact that one must eat to survive, automatically makes everything eatable. Don't make no sense to this fool.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

In many cases masturbation is abnormal, especially when you have one of a couple who masturbates while the other is sexed starved. However, I think it is a bit of a weak minded response to equate the augmentation of a thing with its defeat. But, weak minded comparisons are in vogue in some corners of the intelectual world. We eat ice cream too--but that does not mean we don't live on steak.

However, every male should know, that if they do not, under certain circumstances they could be injuring themselves--or create an emotional state that leads to some very bad judgments.

However, I have never known that the fact that one must eat to survive, automatically makes everything eatable. Don't make no sense to this fool.

you dont have to reproduce to survive, so Im not sure how eating ice cream equates with not eating anything to survive.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?

It's only abnormal if you don't have blue balls.

The funny thing is, individuals do not evolve biologically; only species do. There is no good or bad, but only what furthers the species. The vast majority of bees do not reproduce, but they promote the propagation of their genes by doing things that aid the queen, who shares those genes and does reproduce.

Cancer is neither good or bad. To say so would be like saying a trees genes are bad since they caused it to grow too tall and break.

Homosexuality is part of our species, and many others. Cancer at least could be argued to be on the rise due to our habits and may cause a problem for the species. Homosexuality has been part of humanity for as long as our records show, and doesn't appear to be changing at all in frequency.

Why is it a malfunction? Some like blonde hair, some like brown. Some like short people, some like tall. Some like blue eyes, some like brown. Some people like the opposite sex, some like the same sex. It's just what they like. It's their own preferences, and if 51% of people were gay would that make straight people an abnormality?

Just 'cause i'm 14, it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen.

Originally Posted by Zezarict

Just 'cause i'm 14, it doesn't mean you shouldn't listen.

I'm sorry what was that, i wasn't listening.

Just to correct the argument at the beginning of this thread, suggesting homosexuality is beneficial to a species to resolve conflict etc.

Homosexuality is defined by wiktionary as: "Sexually attracted solely or primarily to other members of the same sex"

Therefore, it is NEVER an evolutionary advantage for a creature to be homosexual as there is a far less chance of procreation. Merely, an acceptance and/or willingness to participate in what could be considered homosexual acts would be beneficial for some species.

With humans, homosexuality reduces the chances of procreation to almost zero (non-zero because of in vitro etc.)

therefore, I believe homosexuality is abnormal ( at least from an evolutionary standpoint) - as it greatly inhibits the individual's chances of procreating.