• 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
Jaaaman said:
That is a position that I find intolerable and to be a complete cop-out. There are clear 'right' and 'wrongs' in society and this progressive position that is being pushed by you and others is disgusting.

Much of what is being pushed by progressives is nothing more than the decay of morals and common sense.
Click to expand...
In truth, so-called right and wrong are not black and white but infinite shades of gray.
This I was taught as a child, and 70 years later I agree, more or less.
On homosexuality, I'd say its not normal, do you agree ?
And I disagree that morals and common sense are "decaying", and I think people do have a better idea of what they are today as opposed to yesterday.
 
The truly abnormal folks are the people who fear other people on the basis of race, gender, or sexual preference.
 
Henrin said:
The better question is what is the purpose of the pleasure. I have always thought that the pleasure was there to get you to partake in the act and nothing else. Though the pleasure is not triggered exactly as such, I still believe that is the only reason for its existence in the formula.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really address what was being brought up. Anal sex is (I'm assuming here) pleasurable for some men and women, but especially for some men due to the pleasure that it causes the prostate. But, since regular, vaginal sex would not provide that same sort of pleasure for the man (since in most vaginal sex to get a woman pregnant, anal penetration of the man is not really necessary), then why would that particular area "need" to be pleasurable? What "purpose" would that particular sexual pleasure point provide in procreation? This is what I was asking, since some people believe that the only purpose of sex is procreation.
 
In a secular world, it is ok. But in terms of traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it is a sin. Many state that God "loves", which makes everything ok, but that is not the only piece of the puzzle. In the religious sense, you must also obey the scriptures. Yes, some scriptures have been modernized, but that is not precedent enough to change even more scripture. I have been researching different sects of Christianity, and I can't help but notice that a lot of the modernized sects seem vaguely similar to general liberalism. Those who call themselves Christians must remember that God is not tolerant of sin. Even now, I saw a segment on the Bill O'Rielly show where he believes he's a Christian, yet thinks that believing in hell as it was intended is an "extreme" position.

If you're not religious, then the prior paragraph is incomprehendable to you. There are secular arguments that can be made against homosexuality, but I think the most important one is the traditional religious argument against it. Just because you're gay doesn't mean I hate you; I merely deem it a sin. It's not what I would deem as a high-ranking sin, but a sin none-the-less. But I suppose with my traditional morality it makes me completely illogical and incapable of being a part of the intelligentsia. No matter; thank goodness those who have religious beliefs can vote democratically in America.
 
Abnormal means not the norm, so yes.

Abnormal would be the only answer.
 
Wake said:
It's not what I would deem as a high-ranking sin, but a sin none-the-less. But I suppose with my traditional morality it makes me completely illogical and incapable of being a part of the intelligentsia.
Click to expand...

To put it blatantly, embracing traditional morality means you have embraced the moral code of a militant, desert people that existed about 2,000 years ago. Illogical, no? You were likely indoctrinated into it at a young age and have chosen to ignore the epistemological question of "why do I believe what I believe?" for fear of losing your place in the group that you have come to identify yourself with and rely upon. Without said group you would struggle to make sense of the cold world in which you live. If you need proof of this, simply ask yourself if you can envision morals in a world without God.

Your votes simply aim to reduce society to a dichotomous, teleological philosophy of virtue and vice rather than embracing an ethical system based upon simple reasoning and the natural human capacities to empathize.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
To put it blatantly, embracing traditional morality means you have embraced the moral code of a militant, desert people that existed about 2,000 years ago. Illogical, no? You were likely indoctrinated into it at a young age and have chosen to ignore the epistemological question of "why do I believe what I believe?" for fear of losing your place in the group that you have come to identify yourself with and rely upon. Without said group you would struggle to make sense of the cold world in which you live. If you need proof of this, simply ask yourself if you can envision morals in a world without God.

Your votes simply aim to reduce society to a dichotomous, teleological philosophy of virtue and vice rather than embracing an ethical system based upon simple reasoning and the natural human capacities to empathize.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you just think thats the way to go, and don't give a crap about people bashing your moral integrity to serve their own needs.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Of course they are abnormal. Anything other than usual is abnormal.
Click to expand...

And yet if you met my mother, who is gay, the only thing you would notice as abnormal is her exceptional taste. My mother's house is decorated perfectly. Her clothes are, while not expensive, very good looking and compliment her very well. In pretty much every way, you would see a perfectly normal person. Does one or two traits make a whole person abnormal?
 
mac said:
Or maybe you just think thats the way to go, and don't give a crap about people bashing your moral integrity to serve their own needs.
Click to expand...

Of course, I have yet to actually meet anyone who truly adheres to traditional morality. The whole stoning people to death for adultery and subjugating women thing tends not to go over so well in modern society. People like yourself tend to practice a bastardized form of traditional morality.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Of course, I have yet to actually meet anyone who truly adheres to traditional morality. The whole stoning people to death for adultery and subjugating women thing tends not to go over so well in modern society. People like yourself tend to practice a bastardized form of traditional morality.
Click to expand...

CT! How ya been?

Traditional morality is stoning folks for adultery and subjugating women. I'm more progressive than I thought!

Where do you get this stuff? You were likely indoctrinated into it at a young age and have chosen to ignore the psychological question of "why do I want what I want?" for fear of losing your place in the group that you have come to identify yourself with and rely upon. Without said group you would struggle to make sense of the cold world in which you live. If you need proof of this, simply ask yourself if you can envision making love to a woman.
 
LuckyDan said:
CT! How ya been?
Click to expand...

Oh getting by. How about yourself?

Where do you get this stuff? You were likely indoctrinated into it at a young age and have chosen to ignore the psychological question of "why do I want what I want?" for fear of losing your place in the group that you have come to identify yourself with and rely upon. Without said group you would struggle to make sense of the cold world in which you live.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, I question every belief I have. My sexual orientation is no exception.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/50072-truth-and-dangers-homosexuality.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/51669-truth-and-dangers-same-sex-marriage.html

I was raised as a Christian and I get my beliefs about Christianity from the Bible.

If you need proof of this, simply ask yourself if you can envision making love to a woman.
Click to expand...

I could have sex with a woman. Sex is sex. How is that a comparison to an individual who is unable to concieve of a moral world without God?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
For how you define the word "abnormal", do you consider gays to be "abnormal"?
Click to expand...

In that there are less homosexuals than heterosexuals only... it is not "normal" sexually, whatever "normal" is anyway. Take sexual orientation out of it and heterosexuals are just as mentally and emotionally messed up as anybody.
 
Redress said:
And yet if you met my mother, who is gay, the only thing you would notice as abnormal is her exceptional taste. My mother's house is decorated perfectly. Her clothes are, while not expensive, very good looking and compliment her very well. In pretty much every way, you would see a perfectly normal person. Does one or two traits make a whole person abnormal?
Click to expand...

I am abnormally good looking and have a perfect emotional balance... which is fairly abnormal.
 
Henrin said:
If you can't understand purpose when its right there in your face what in the hell is the point of this. Its like trying to teach reading to person that is blind. I'm done with this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Prove purpose. Remember, in order to do so, you have to go to the source, the one who created the purpose.

My whole point is that your argument fails because you can't PROVE purpose.
 
lpast said:
Thats exactly why I pulled out of the threads...its pointless to continue. The supporters keep saying the same thing over and over and asking the same questions that youve already answered. They want to badger people into agreeing with them
Click to expand...

No, the supportes keep asking the same questions because the non-supporters are unable or refuse to answer them. I suspect you pulled out of the theads because you knew you were beaten on logic and chose to bow out instead of getting beaten anymore.
 
CriticalThought said:
Of course, I have yet to actually meet anyone who truly adheres to traditional morality. The whole stoning people to death for adultery and subjugating women thing tends not to go over so well in modern society. People like yourself tend to practice a bastardized form of traditional morality.
Click to expand...

and you don't I take it?
 
CriticalThought said:
To put it blatantly, embracing traditional morality means you have embraced the moral code of a militant, desert people that existed about 2,000 years ago. Illogical, no? You were likely indoctrinated into it at a young age and have chosen to ignore the epistemological question of "why do I believe what I believe?" for fear of losing your place in the group that you have come to identify yourself with and rely upon. Without said group you would struggle to make sense of the cold world in which you live. If you need proof of this, simply ask yourself if you can envision morals in a world without God.

Your votes simply aim to reduce society to a dichotomous, teleological philosophy of virtue and vice rather than embracing an ethical system based upon simple reasoning and the natural human capacities to empathize.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is merely your own interpretation. 2nd sentence---you think religion is illogical. 3rd---wrong. I question and wonder about everything. Stating that I'm ignoring said question is a very incorrect belief. 4th statement is assumptuous, so I dismiss it. 5th---that idea is still up for debate; I've only discussed it over 20 times. 6th statement is insulting and biased, of course.
 
It saddens me how many people voted "yes"

What are you all, 12 years old? I don't think anyone who is an adult or a teenager would harbor an anti-gay sentiment.
 
Tyrannosaur said:
It saddens me how many people voted "yes"

What are you all, 12 years old? I don't think anyone who is an adult or a teenager would harbor an anti-gay sentiment.
Click to expand...

I voted No. But to be fair, "abnormal" does not equal "wrong" or "bad."
 
Tyrannosaur said:
It saddens me how many people voted "yes"

What are you all, 12 years old? I don't think anyone who is an adult or a teenager would harbor an anti-gay sentiment.
Click to expand...

Technically it's abnormal because there are many more "normal" people who don't live that lifestyle. Abnormal does not equal wrong. However, It is abnormal, and I believe it wrong based on my religious beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom