• 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
as if said:
I will give you race and skin tone in this matter. One which does not matter since the planet is full of various races and mixed races.

HOMOSEXULITY IS THE REASON THEY CALL THEMSELVES GAY

You cannot deny this.

I do not buy, agree with, or condone relativism.

Do not waste my time and patience.
Click to expand...

SKIN COLOR IS REASON THEY CALL THEMSELVES BLACK.

You cannot deny this.

Unfortunately, black people aren't abnormal just because of skin color just like gay people aren't abnormal just because of their sexuality. The end.
 
ADG said:
That's a young photo of Gillian. She is sooo hot!
Click to expand...

There should be a hot or not page...because I have to say...shaggy bad haircut, gramma's wool shawl...that particular picture makes her a WalMart hottie at best...in my book...
 
Are gay people "abnormal"?
Click to expand...
Gay people may or may not be "abnormal" but homosexuality is. If homosexuality were normal, the human species would become extinct.
 
theplaydrive said:
SKIN COLOR IS REASON THEY CALL THEMSELVES BLACK.

You cannot deny this.

Unfortunately, black people aren't abnormal just because of skin color just like gay people aren't abnormal just because of their sexuality. The end.
Click to expand...

What part is so confusing for you that you insist that race is somehow different by default?

No one has to proclaim they are black unless ppl mistake them due to thier appearance.

You are talking peas and carrots, and I doubt you can even graft those together.

If someone should decide to make others know they are gay or appears gay by no uncertain terms they are gay.

You gave no reason foot or hair color should make ANY difference but insist that skin tone or color does. IE race

EVERY PESON ON EARTH HAS SKIN

The same as every peson on earth has reproductive parts sans some sort of abberation of no sexual organs. It is the sexual organs that decide gender. It is what someone DOES with those organs that denotes sexual proclivity.

It cannot be denied they do what they do, hence they are what who and the way they are born or choose to be.

THE ONLY SIMULARITY IS BORN THAT WAY

A person of any and all races mixed or not, black for your usage, CANNOT change thier race.

Lightening or darkening of the skin tone is the extent of change available with intervention by man.

Not even some other medical proceedure can change thier race.

If any or all black pesons are being discriminated against, gays are not thrust into that group for any reason other than dislike.

I do belive this is YOUR problem. The dislike.

Without dislike there is no disagreement.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how you define abnormal. If you define it as out of the majority, then sure, gays make up less than half the population. But then again, blacks are "abnormal" and blondes are "abnormal" and left handed people are "abnormal" too. At that point, the term loses all meaning.
 
as if said:
What part is so confusing for you that you insist that race is somehow different by default?
Click to expand...

LOL at you insulting my intelligence.

Anyway, what is so confusing for you that insist homosexuality makes the totality of a person abnormal?
 
It is normal for some species to produce some members who are homosexual. It may be advantageous to those species to do so. Abnormal has the connotation of being disadvantageous. As such, the use of the word in describing homosexuality would be pejorative to homosexual individuals. Pejorative wordings are only warranted when something is undesirable. I would not describe it as abnormal, but simply use the phrase "not the norm", or the word "unusual".

Considerably Less than 10% have IQs above 150. Are those people abnormally intelligent, or are they unusually intelligent? Is their intelligence "abnormal"? I think it would be abnormal to describe it that way.
 
theplaydrive said:
LOL at you insulting my intelligence.

Anyway, what is so confusing for you that insist homosexuality makes the totality of a person abnormal?
Click to expand...

I stated in plain english a person can be gay in totality... beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does he need rainbow on his head?

You do know the rainbow has been a gay symbole for some time do you not?

Would that suffice as totality for all purposes and intent for you?

I will not repeat myself again to you.
 
as if said:
I stated in plain english a person can be gay in totality... beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

What you are not understanding is that a gay person cannot be gay in totality. It's literally impossible.
 
Dezaad said:
Considerably Less than 10% have IQs above 150. Are those people abnormally intelligent, or are they unusually intelligent? Is their intelligence "abnormal"? I think it would be abnormal to describe it that way.
Click to expand...
How is being overly intelligent detrimental to the human race? That's how I view it -- something which is detrimental to the human race is abnormal.
 
I have used this word, maybe its is too strong, too insensitive.
But, a homosexual is not normal, this should be accepted.
But, am I "normal" ?
With my hypertension, bi-polar, anger, obsessiveness, poor memory, hepatitis, diabetes,deafness, and what have you ?
A few of us may even be perfect...
 
theplaydrive said:
What you are not understanding is that a gay person cannot be gay in totality. It's literally impossible.
Click to expand...

It appears you lost the race card as a provocating argument.

Now you insist on totality again.

It is a sexual orientation issue. That is totality. THEY even mark the differnce with a letter designation, L OR G OR B OR T.

You do not want to agree with thier orientation is who they are even though they feel they even need to designate it by a letter, or the obious fact a person can, will, and does go out of thier way to make every appearant available appearance, and in no uncertain terms (for some reason) to appear and be all things gay.

Incesant insistance from one thing to another is the tatic of someone with no real arguemnt. Hence your race card and now totality.

Not skin nor foot nor hair nor language is an argument.

I doubt totality is either. Touche, you sucked me in with a strawman, and have shown it is futile to discuss something with you. You are for the lack of a better word disengenous.

You ran out of cards to play aside from insistance, and isistance does not equate even an arguemnt to the logical mind.

Childish
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How is being overly intelligent detrimental to the human race? That's how I view it -- something which is detrimental to the human race is abnormal.
Click to expand...
Being "overly intelligent" taxes people's tolerance to the max.
Its intolerance which is detrimental

Might I add "argumentative " to my list.
 
Originally Posted by Dezaad

Considerably Less than 10% have IQs above 150. Are those people abnormally intelligent, or are they unusually intelligent? Is their intelligence "abnormal"? I think it would be abnormal to describe it that way.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
How is being overly intelligent detrimental to the human race? That's how I view it -- something which is detrimental to the human race is abnormal.
Click to expand...

I think we have reached the realm of annomoly.

Got anything to eat? :D

It's a long way back home.
 
Last edited:
as if said:
It appears you lost the race card as a provocating argument.

Now you insist on totality again.

It is a sexual orientation issue. That is totality. THEY even mark the differnce with a letter designation, L OR G OR B OR T.

You do not want to agree with thier orientation is who they are even though they feel they even need to designate it by a letter, or the obious fact a person can, will, and does go out of thier way to make every appearant available appearance, and in no uncertain terms (for some reason) to appear and be all things gay.

Incesant insistance from one thing to another is the tatic of someone with no real arguemnt. Hence your race card and now totality.

Not skin nor foot nor hair nor language is an argument.

I doubt totality is either. Touche, you sucked me in with a strawman, and have shown it is futile to discuss something with you. You are for the lack of a better word disengenous.

You ran out of cards to play aside from insistance, and isistance does not equate even an arguemnt to the logical mind.

Childish
Click to expand...

LOL...I never pulled the race card. Why are you not comprehending words?

My point is that race negates your totality argument. Race doesn't have a sexuality. Therefore, the totality of an individual cannot be gay or homosexual because that person's race is not gay or homosexual.

Totality of Individual = Sexuality + Race + Temperament + Height + Everything Else

Totality of Individual =/= Sexuality
 
Alfons said:
The biggest problem is that homosexuals literally push their abnormality to mentally sound people.

Homosexuals know that their are ill, therefore they want to transform entirely society to a mentally hospital.

5741 years long in all countries by all peoples homosexuality was considered as mentally illness and sin, but today homosexual mafia
claims that homosexuality is not only fine but also better as normal sexual behavior. That is abhorrent.
Click to expand...

As usual, everything you say is idiotic and incorrect. You really need to educate yourself on this issue.
 
as if said:
Here is the crux of even trying to describe with one word the sexuality aspect. --->The word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations." Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the first line under the title of sexualization... pleasure, the sexual aspect. Hard to escape.

I wont disagree that some intend no cannotations of thier sexuality, but the word even in wiki has a sexual vein, and has contiued in that path.



I have enumerated them with various words and terms as to not offend anyone, most notably them. I used the word normal and at some point definitions for all words were asked for including the word facts. ~sigh~

From now on I plan, hope, and intent to use the word abberation for the sexual aspect.
Click to expand...

And if you use the term abberation, I am going to ask you what you mean when you use this word. It's really simple. If you mean, "statistically outside the mean", then I would agree with you. If you mean something else, then I challenge you to tell us what you mean.
 
The blind do not see.
 
whysoserious said:
Why do the names not match up with the numbers in the poll?
Click to expand...

Because someone didn't like how the poll was turning out, so they "gamed" it. There are only 14 people who voted for abnormal, not 33. I will change the numbers, manually to reflect that.
 
as if said:
I will give you race and skin tone in this matter. One which does not matter since the planet is full of various races and mixed races.

HOMOSEXULITY IS THE REASON THEY CALL THEMSELVES GAY

You cannot deny this.

I do not buy, agree with, or condone relativism.

Do not waste my time and patience.
Click to expand...

One's sexuality does not define who they are. One's race does not define who they are. One's religion does not define who they are. Just because someone calls themselves gay or black or Catholic does not mean that is all of who they are.

I do not condone absolutism. Relativism is the way the world works.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
And if you use the term abberation, I am going to ask you what you mean when you use this word. It's really simple. If you mean, "statistically outside the mean", then I would agree with you. If you mean something else, then I challenge you to tell us what you mean.
Click to expand...

You as a person and I as a person have nothing to discuss. You know why.
 
as if said:
I stated in plain english a person can be gay in totality... beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does he need rainbow on his head?

You do know the rainbow has been a gay symbole for some time do you not?

Would that suffice as totality for all purposes and intent for you?

I will not repeat myself again to you.
Click to expand...

Here is how you fail. If someone is Catholic they do not need to wear a cross for them to be Catholic, but if someone asks, they will tell people what their religion is. However, them being Catholic is not all that they are.

Your position has now been proven wrong. Congratulations.
 
as if said:
You as a person and I as a person have nothing to discuss. You know why.
Click to expand...

Probably because I challenge you on your beliefs and prove that your position is without logic... and you do not like that. Demonstrate for us all how one's religion defines that person in their totality.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Gay people may or may not be "abnormal" but homosexuality is. If homosexuality were normal, the human species would become extinct.
Click to expand...

Then why hasn't the human race become extinct? Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. How can something that has been around for thousands of years be "abnormal"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom