Isn't Homosexuality Abnormal?

[UncleBuck]

Some of your theories are logical fallacies as well, so who are you to speak?

Forcibly taking from a human being, to give to another. That's a logical fallacy, and hence why I logically call you a hypocrite.

Are you confused?



And on the topic of this subject, mother nature doesn't have any emotions or "norms" that reinforce "anti-gayness". Gay human beings exist because mother nature made them.

The theory that mother nature is subliminally "anti-gay", because homosexuality is not as common of an occurrence compared to it's counterpart, is absolutely the worst viewpoint to approach from.

In other words, mother nature doesn't give two shits if gay people take the world over. If there is a will, there is a way, and mother nature just doesn't care.

impressive cross sub-forum trolling from a younger than 18 year old member.

 

[bombasticson]

No, gay people don't all start off straight, ive known some that when they were as young as they could remember, they just knew they liked people of the same sex. Im sorry, but if you are a straight male, and you dislike homosexual woman fucking around with eachother... there is something definately gay about you. And if you do like gay girls and you are a man, then why the fuck do you have a problem with gay men? Fag.

...Im not a hypocryte so I cant support gay women and if I dont support gay men all of that sh1t is taboo. And you people just continue to prove my point, you try to attack my sexuality like most gay men do to straight guys ive seen it on many occasions. Sorry man straight as a whistle, the whole gay seen is sad and terrible tragedy because you guys can never truly find eternal peace.

 

[bombasticson]

Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental

 

[Padawanbater2]

Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental

A gay person couldn't decide to be straight any more than you could decide to be gay. Can you turn yourself gay right now? Go ahead and try. Are you gay now?

What proponents of that argument fail to realize is that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice. It's as much a choice as choosing to be tall or choosing to be male or female.

Think about how absurd it would be and how foolish someone would look if they hated someone for being tall, absurd right? Now apply that to yourself to get a good look at how rational people view you.

 

[UncleBuck]

...you guys can never truly find eternal peace.

bible thumper identified.

isn't bible thumping abnormal?

 

[Heisenberg]

Did you know that their are gay men these days who realize they have problems and go see priests to exorcise them.. After these exorcisms the gay men turn straight so I am certain you guys are mental

This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine belief in god affords you. If you think that homosexuality, or anyone's sexuality, is a choice then you are not educated enough to express any sort of informed opinion. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the process you went through when you chose to become heterosexual. It is certainly reasonable that if gays 'choose' then everyone does. Unless you think it is a choice for some, and not for others. I would find it quite a statistical anomaly to find out that only the people who actually choose who they are attracted to happen to all be gay.

Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation. Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture. You think it's wrong because you were told, and you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality. This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man. It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.

It's one thing to state your belief in god and attempt to explain why, it's another to use your belief in god to justify monomaniacal discrimination. When your attempts at logic and reason fail, you fall back on your scripture, somehow finding comfort and absolution in bigotry. I can't not think of a better description of perverse.

 

[cannofbliss]

seriously???

not this shit again???

these threads about homosexuality being "weird" or "wrong" or "abnormal" pop up more than dicks do on viagra...

how many times does science have to answer these questions for you "bible thumpers"???

here... we'll just lie to you and give you guys the "answer" you "want to hear"...

being homo is "bad" and "wrong" and "evil"... and you thumpers are "justified" by your idiotic ideologies... for "believing" such crap about other peoples sexual preferences...

there... you happy now???

seriously get over it...

 

[WileyCoyote]

Again, this is incorrect and you are not acknowledging the fact that animals do not feel a need to procreate, they feel a desire toward sex. Sex usually leads to procreation in nature which is why sexual reproduction is successful. You cannot however equate sexual desire with the desire to procreate. If you look at young males, the most virile of our species, they tend to desire to have sex with as many woman as possible while not getting attached to any. Woman, OTOH, have a desire for long-term relationships. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes since since that is what is necessary for raising a child but it is not procreation or raising children that give woman their emotional desire for close relationships. You seem to be confusing the goal of genes, which is to survive long enough to make as many copies of itself to continue on and the results that various genes have on the vehicle in which they find themselves, plant or animal. Do you really think that when plants and animals mate they understand that it is this action that will produce offspring? Like you say, humans are merely animals. Just because we can intellectually and consciously connect the sexual act with procreation does not mean that procreation is what we desire.

Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...

But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...

 

[WileyCoyote]

seriously???

not this shit again???

these threads about homosexuality being "weird" or "wrong" or "abnormal" pop up more than dicks do on viagra...

how many times does science have to answer these questions for you "bible thumpers"???

here... we'll just lie to you and give you guys the "answer" you "want to hear"...

being homo is "bad" and "wrong" and "evil"... and you thumpers are "justified" by your idiotic ideologies... for "believing" such crap about other peoples sexual preferences...

there... you happy now???

seriously get over it...

I'm not a Bible Thumper. Nor Have I ever been. I try to see the universe as it is. NOT as it's seen by right-wing Christians. NOR as it's seen by left-wing liberals. RATHER, as it IS...

 

[bombasticson]

This is a good example of asserting prejudice and oppression based on the false authority you think your asinine belief in god affords you. If you think that homosexuality, or anyone's sexuality, is a choice then you are not educated enough to express any sort of informed opinion. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the process you went through when you chose to become heterosexual. It is certainly reasonable that if gays 'choose' then everyone does. Unless you think it is a choice for some, and not for others. I would find it quite a statistical anomaly to find out that only the people who actually choose who they are attracted to happen to all be gay.

Then to explore the ramifications of your logic, it is not a choice for straight people, it is automatic, but it is a choice for gay people. This would mean that those who have a choice always choose the same sex? I find that hard to believe. It seems much more logical and reflective of reality to assume gay people's sexual desire is also a result of natural instinct, unless you think your situation is unique. Your conclusions do not seem to be based in any sort of reasonable observation. Your belief tells you it's wrong and should be stopped, but you can not give any meaningful reason for this belief other than scripture. You think it's wrong because you were told, and you can not give even the slightest justification for why without incorporating fantasy and misrepresentation of reality. This is how you are required to view the world to coincide with your beliefs. It warps your reality and poisons your good will to your fellow man. It causes you to preach intolerance and exclusion over things which don't effect you in the slightest, and all in the name of God.

It's one thing to state your belief in god and attempt to explain why, it's another to use your belief in god to justify monomaniacal discrimination. When your attempts at logic and reason fail, you fall back on your scripture, somehow finding comfort and absolution in bigotry. I can't not think of a better description of perverse.

Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?

 

[Heisenberg]

Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...

But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...

Rather than refute the assertion that desire is about pleasure, and not specifically to pass on genes, you have simply restated your original argument.

Mother nature utilizes sex drive as a way to procreate. I give no argument that the goal of a sex drive is procreation. Never the less, a sex drive leads to all sorts of acts that do not serve to pass on genes, many of which are not seen as abnormal. The goal shared by all these acts is pleasure, not impregnation. You are giving no clear distinction for why homosexual acts are separate from acts such as oral sex and masturbation. My sex drive causes me to want a blowjob. This does not help pass on my genes in any way. How it is relevant if the other person involved in the blowjob is a male or female? Neither sex makes the chance of passing on my genes any better. When I masturbate, is there a better chance of a baby if I think about girls rather than boys? Millions of people daily incorporate birth control into their sexual gratifications, it's not seen as abnormal.

Your premise just doesn't hold up when we apply it to reality.

 

[mindphuk]

Well, I admit that you're a very intelligent person who could make a good argument in court that I was involved in the assination of President Lincoln. And I would sweat it out until a 2012 jury acquitted me...if in fact they would...

But I look for SIMPLE explanations, where they exist...and in the case of natural selection, I think they do...anything that inhibits the second-strongest desire in nature (desire to pass on genes) is unnatural, and is for some reason being discouraged by evolution...I didn't make these rules, nor do I applaud them...I just allow the evidence lead me where it naturally leads me...to the fact that these rules exist...whether I like it or not...

You are making up rules. You are ignoring someone that deals with evolution for a living. I do not like to pull out the authority card but since you have not been able to support your belief that we have a primary innate desire to pass along our genes, I will just explain to you again that you are wrong and continuing to state that this is fact and not just your personal understanding of natural selection is not going to fly. You are purposely mischaracterizing evolutionary theory in order to continue to state your belief and you're trying to tell someone that has a doctorate and a picture of Darwin for his avatar is somehow wrong about his understanding of evolution.


Maybe you will answer some questions I will propose using the Socratic method to help you understand.
If I were to vasectomize a dominant male chimpanzee, do you think that would kill his desire to continue to mate with females? He is unable to pass along his genes, therefore his desire should be gone, right?
If I put a hot naked girl in front of you and then told you she was on the pill or was otherwise sterile, does that remove any of your desire to fuck her?
Do you think young people that engage in highly dangerous behavior are abnormal? Skydiving, race car driving, commercial fishing, etc. all will increase the likelihood that genes will NOT get passed along because the person will be dead yet those are typically associated with manly men. Contradiction or maybe your understanding of behavior and evolution is incomplete?

 

[tyler.durden]

Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?

You do not find information about what you do not know because you do not seek it. Pad had to close another recent thread regarding homosexuality because it became an unmanageable troll fest, or you may have seen these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

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

This last link lists 1500 animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. It seems that internet search engines are vastly superior to your clairvoyance when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Bring up a Google tab and do your own fucking homework...

 

[Heisenberg]

Why are there no animals that turn out gay... the only ones that are which I have heard of are ones that scientists made gay by changing how the animals brain worked. Which means gay peoples heads are not normal. Case closed, there is no way that someone is born gay because what makes you born gay and not someone else?

A closed mind is one that rejects investigation while still wanting the comfort of opinion. It takes about 10 seconds of investigation to produce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

[Padawanbater2]

This is a good reflection of society and something I've been thinking a lot about lately, I'd like to hear your guys' opinions on it especially.

At what point do we say "we're right, it no longer matters what you say because you can't defend it" and move on? Clearly Wiley isn't going to accept that there's nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Why continue to try to explain it to people like this?

I think we need to come up with some sort of mechanism where when a claim is made, supported and defended with science and logic, everything else is dismissed on the basis of reason. Someone like this keeps on arguing with the established, supported and defended claim, we show them the evidence and if they don't accept it, clearly they're irrational.

I mean, it's to the point where the denial is just absurd!

2+2=4

No it doesn't, 2+2=5

How do you figure that? 1+1+1+1=4..

No, you're wrong... 2+2=5

Well how did you add? Are you sure you did it correctly?

Obviously.. I came up with the right answer didn't I? 5

...but 2+2 doesn't = 5, that's what I'm trying to tell you...

Well I'm going to choose to believe that it does, so you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.


These people don't seem to understand that there are certain things, a lot of things, that are true whether they believe they're true or not..

 

[WileyCoyote]

You are making up rules. You are ignoring someone that deals with evolution for a living. I do not like to pull out the authority card but since you have not been able to support your belief that we have a primary innate desire to pass along our genes, I will just explain to you again that you are wrong and continuing to state that this is fact and not just your personal understanding of natural selection is not going to fly. You are purposely mischaracterizing evolutionary theory in order to continue to state your belief and you're trying to tell someone that has a doctorate and a picture of Darwin for his avatar is somehow wrong about his understanding of evolution.


Maybe you will answer some questions I will propose using the Socratic method to help you understand.
If I were to vasectomize a dominant male chimpanzee, do you think that would kill his desire to continue to mate with females? He is unable to pass along his genes, therefore his desire should be gone, right?
If I put a hot naked girl in front of you and then told you she was on the pill or was otherwise sterile, does that remove any of your desire to fuck her?
Do you think young people that engage in highly dangerous behavior are abnormal? Skydiving, race car driving, commercial fishing, etc. all will increase the likelihood that genes will NOT get passed along because the person will be dead yet those are typically associated with manly men. Contradiction or maybe your understanding of behavior and evolution is incomplete?

Well, I wish you hadn’t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you’ve lost my respect completely.

I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I’ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.

But much like you, she is full of herself and has to be corrected by “peons” like me all the time. Doctors of Philosophy generally teach because they cannot do.

Do yourself a favor in the future and refrain from mentioning your doctorate to strangers or new acquaintances, if you want to command their respect.

To answer your questions:

1. OF COURSE, a chimpanzee can’t tell whether he’s had a vasectomy or not, so it wouldn’t serve to lessen his desire for sex. But cut his balls off, Mr. p.HD., and he would completely lose his desire to have sex.
2. No male cares whether his super-model girlfriend is on the pill or not, as far as his genetically-controlled animalistic desires are concerned. The desire to procreate is not mindful; it’s physical.

Don’t you see what I mean about your doctorate blinding you and serving as an indicator that you are useless to real-world science?

 

[Heisenberg]

Well, I wish you hadn’t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you’ve lost my respect.

I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I’ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.

But much like you, she is full of herself and has to be corrected by “peons” like me all the time. Doctors of Philosophy generally teach because they cannot do.

Do yourself a favor in the future and refrain from mentioning your doctorate to strangers or new acquaintances, if you want to command their respect.

To answer your questions:

1. OF COURSE, a chimpanzee can’t tell whether he’s had a vasectomy or not, so it wouldn’t serve to lessen his desire for sex. But cut his balls off, Mr. p.HD., and he would completely lose his desire to have sex.
2. No male cares whether his super-model girlfriend is on the pill or not, as far as his genetically-controlled animalistic desires are concerned. The desire to procreate is not mindful; it’s physical.

Don’t you see what I mean about your doctorate blinding you and serving as an indicator that you are useless to real-world science?

^This is the very definition of bias. You demonstrate an irrational distrust for authority. In the world of transparent academics, this bias seems abnormal.

Rest assured that I have no qualifications beyond a high school GED. Your arguments have been rather well refuted, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. Your lack of a counter suggests you do not have one, as regurgitation of your ordinal premise does not count. Your position breaks down to one of special pleading. You are essentially saying, "This one thing that I don't like should be considered abnormal on the exact same criteria shared by things that I do like and aren't abnormal. This one thing is special and I can't explain why'.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Well, I wish you hadn’t told me that you have a doctorate. Because I actually respected you before that, even if I did disagree with you. But now you’ve lost my respect completely.

I have a degree in math and computer science. And I work as a Computer Engineer. Nothing to brag about, I know. But my supervisor has a doctorate in computer science. And I have to almost daily correct her in basic programming algorithms. She has great oratorical prowess, much like you; and she writes wonderfully complex papers (I’ve read them) and uses long sentences and big words, much like you.

But much like you, she is full of herself and has to be corrected by “peons” like me all the time. Doctors of Philosophy generally teach because they cannot do.

Do yourself a favor in the future and refrain from mentioning your doctorate to strangers or new acquaintances, if you want to command their respect.

To answer your questions:

1. OF COURSE, a chimpanzee can’t tell whether he’s had a vasectomy or not, so it wouldn’t serve to lessen his desire for sex. But cut his balls off, Mr. p.HD., and he would completely lose his desire to have sex.
2. No male cares whether his super-model girlfriend is on the pill or not, as far as his genetically-controlled animalistic desires are concerned. The desire to procreate is not mindful; it’s physical.

Don’t you see what I mean about your doctorate blinding you and serving as an indicator that you are useless to real-world science?

Thank you for proving my previous post.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Thank you for proving my previous post.

The only thing you've proven is that you can forge someone's response.

 

[WileyCoyote]

Rest assured that I have no qualifications beyond a high school GED. Your arguments have been rather well refuted, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. Your lack of a counter suggests you do not have one, as regurgitation of your ordinal premise does not count. Your position breaks down to one of special pleading. You are essentially saying, "This one thing that I don't like should be considered abnormal on the exact same criteria shared by things that I do like and aren't abnormal. This one thing is special and I can't explain why'.

I don't think my arguments have been refuted at all. Rather, I think your reactions are knee-jerk in nature, much like the fundamentalist Christians you loathe...you are no different than them...you just "dog mate" about different things than they do.