Isn't Homosexuality Abnormal?

InCognition said:

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.

Click to expand...

Zaehet Strife said:

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.

Click to expand...

bombasticson said:

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

Click to expand...

bombasticson said:

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

Click to expand...

bombasticson said:

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

Click to expand...

mindphuk said:

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.

Click to expand...

cannofbliss said:

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...

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

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.

Click to expand...

WileyCoyote said:

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...

Click to expand...

WileyCoyote said:

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...

Click to expand...

bombasticson said:

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?

Click to expand...

bombasticson said:

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?

Click to expand...

mindphuk said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

WileyCoyote said:

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?

Click to expand...

WileyCoyote said:

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?

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Thank you for proving my previous post.

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

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'.

Click to expand...