• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Gay People "Abnormal"?

Are gay people "abnormal"?


  • Total voters
    91
I think it is abnormal... Definitely not "normal" to me.

I'm all for gay rights and such, but i think there is no question that its not really what nature intended, but hey we do a lot of things that are not intended for it's original purpose.

Nature does not intend anything unless you posit a higher power. Nature simply exists.
 
When humans evolved from apes, the sexual cues that males got from females had to evolve, and it is strongly suspected this is why women have enlarged breasts. The enlarged breasts are shaped(vaguely) like buttocks. This all happened fairly recently in evolutionary terms. Changes in sex drives and what people find attractive do change evolutionarily, and evolution can account for homosexuality.

With the power of opinion, we can explain everything because of evolution. Your statement is merely a supposition, just like everyone else's. At least you used the word "can".
 
Nature does not intend anything unless you posit a higher power. Nature simply exists.

No, i think biologically, certain things clearly have a certain purpose, and the purpose of sex is to reproduce. If we were all gay we would die out as a species. It's not intended, but a common side affect/defect of the development of the sexual drive.
 
It's an interesting question, statistically I would say yes, but alot of things are statistically abnormal, and being statistically abnormal is nothing to be worried about. Now the way I've always understood normal is, if it's good for you, it's normal. Being gay, and participating in homosexual acts is perfectly normal for me, but for someone else, it might not be. And to close it all off, normal is not a moral indicator, being normal, or being abnormal doesn't make an action morally okay, nor does it make it morally wrong. I personally believe that being gay, and homosexual acts are okay, and not morally wrong, but not because of it's normal for me, but I don't see how it hurts anyone, or is bad. I don't really put being gay into the right/wrong dichotomy, it's just a state of being.
 
With the power of opinion, we can explain everything because of evolution. Your statement is merely a supposition, just like everyone else's. At least you used the word "can".

I made it clear that this was supposition and based on the best knowledge that we have. This does not in any way change the point.
 
No, i think biologically, certain things clearly have a certain purpose, and the purpose of sex is to reproduce. If we were all gay we would die out as a species. It's not intended, but a common side affect/defect of the development of the sexual drive.

Your use of the word "purpose" and "intended" make your statements untrue from an evolutionary standpoint.
 
I made it clear that this was supposition and based on the best knowledge that we have. This does not in any way change the point.

Exactly. Thank you.

____

The more important question is the definition of "abnormal". Once we pin that down, we can move on from there. "Normal" is merely as subjective as are the terms "good, art, evil," etc.
 
Exactly. Thank you.

____

The more important question is the definition of "abnormal". Once we pin that down, we can move on from there. "Normal" is merely as subjective as are the terms "good, art, evil," etc.

We are not going to pin that one down. The question is intended for each person to apply their own definition of the term.
 
Your use of the word "purpose" and "intended" make your statements untrue from an evolutionary standpoint.

How so? Could you elaborate?
 
How so? Could you elaborate?

Yes, but it's going to be awhile. Just noticed the time and hockey game started and it's a long answer.
 
We are not going to pin that one down. The question is intended for each person to apply their own definition of the term.

But what does that serve when in one thread we get a gaggle of contentious users?

Since we can't pin down the definition, and we know such argumentation would ensue, why even offer up the question?*
 
When humans evolved from apes, the sexual cues that males got from females had to evolve, and it is strongly suspected this is why women have enlarged breasts. The enlarged breasts are shaped(vaguely) like buttocks. This all happened fairly recently in evolutionary terms. Changes in sex drives and what people find attractive do change evolutionarily, and evolution can account for homosexuality.

That doesn't make sense at all...
Homosexuality would never come out of evolution, because homosexuals would not likely reproduce. It is an advantage however to have a hyper sex drive= more baby making. I think a side affect of the evolved developing human sex drive has a slight chance of messing up in early development in the womb or early childhood. It shows that women who have a stressful pregnancy have a higher chance of having a gay child.
 
But what does that serve when in one thread we get a gaggle of contentious users?

Since we can't pin down the definition, and we know such argumentation would ensue, why even offer up the question?*

I'm assuming to understand how different people think.
 
Evolution has no purpose, what survives is what survives.

I thought Darwin professed that the point of evolution was survival of the fittest. I would think that all members of said genus were meant to produce, not just a few. But then again if the point of evolution is to survive and multiply, how does this explain the homosexual or the man/woman who prefers to never have children? Odd..
 
Your use of the word "purpose" and "intended" make your statements untrue from an evolutionary standpoint.

Not at all! I am simply making the observation that, in general, all the organs and aspects of our brain has a purpose that made us successful to survive... the purpose is to survive, and survive long enough to reproduce.

I don't really believe in a higher power, dont label that on me :roll:
 
I'm assuming to understand how different people think.

Instead of "to", do you mean "you"?

If so then the question's intellectually dishonest because you are questioning my capability of recognizing and understanding the notions of individual people. Just because I disagree does not mean I don't understand.
 
The question is, what people, country, imperial, civilization etc. in the last 5771 years considered Homosexuality as normal and has not vanished?

Time plays a greater part in civilizations vanishing that dudes ass****ing.
 
We're all abnormal. I don't think that there is a definition of "normal" that everybody falls into.

For crying out loud, some people get wood from having someone else take a piss on them. The sheer variety of things that people get turned on by is staggering. There is no normal as far as sex goes.
 
Evolution has no purpose, what survives is what survives.

Evolution has a method to it's madness... this is what you would call "purpose".

Homosexually clearly does not make you fit for evolution; therefore it is not "natural". It's a side effect of a developing sex drive that can happen. Your disregarding is that homosexuality COMPLETELY laughs at evolution in the face, it literally makes the ONLY way for any life to survive... unlikely, no species could survive with a entire gay population... sure some would get curious, but the population would eventually go down to zero.
 
I thought Darwin professed that the point of evolution was survival of the fittest. I would think that all members of said genus were meant to produce, not just a few. But then again if the point of evolution is to survive and multiply, how does this explain the homosexual or the man/woman who prefers to never have children? Odd..

Personally I don't think homosexuality is purely genetic, I think we are born this way, but I think it is a variation of sexual development(which we know very little about in general), that some people may be genetically predisposition too. And it is very possible enough people with this genetic predisposition passed this along to future generations so that we have a fair amount of people who are homosexual today. You must note that possibly one doesn't have to be homosexual to carry this predisposition, I would wager that is very likely the case, on how this has been passed down through the generations.
 
Instead of "to", do you mean "you"?

If so then the question's intellectually dishonest because you are questioning my capability of recognizing and understanding the notions of individual people. Just because I disagree does not mean I don't understand.

No, I meant to.
 
Personally I don't think homosexuality is purely genetic, I think we are born this way, but I think it is a variation of sexual development(which we know very little about in general), that some people may be genetically predisposition too. And it is very possible enough people with this genetic predisposition passed this along to future generations so that we have a fair amount of people who are homosexual today. You must note that possibly one doesn't have to be homosexual to carry this predisposition, I would wager that is very likely the case, on how this has been passed down through the generations.
I agree, i don't thinks it's really genetic, but something that happens developmentally either in the womb or early childhood... like the stressful pregnancy statistic i said earlier. But i also i agree that some genetic histories may make one more prone to the occurring if it does happen... which would explain the twin gay studies and any other genetic theories.
 
The question is, what people, country, imperial, civilization etc. in the last 5771 years considered Homosexuality as normal and has not vanished?

I will try to answer your question, if you answer this one first: what people, country, imperial, civilization etc. in the last 5771 years considered Homosexuality as abnormal and has not vanished?

I need to see your answer to this question before I can really understand what you are asking.
 
Nature does not intend anything unless you posit a higher power. Nature simply exists.

That is totally illogical. If nature did not intend, flowers would not have a stamen and pistal. Hence they would not exist, no more than gay would exist aside from the fact it happens regardless of what the cause/s is/are.

I am appauled at the fact the gay agenda now touts that nature is irrelevant, doesnt exist. But it is yet another self serving attitude that is required to justify the percieved need that being gay is not only ok, it should be able to do what Nature never intended, reproduce. It is not possible. Adam and Steve could try till they die, they cannot reproduce ---> naturally.

Sorry, that's the way it is. We dont dictate nature, we can only muck it up or preserve it.
 
Back
Top Bottom