• 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
mac said:
Heterosexuality is the main and normal orientation of the human species and has obvious benifits to our species.
Click to expand...

All of which is irrelevant in as far as proof goes. The words you use, "main" and "normal" have no value in your argument... unless you also want to claim that lefthandedness is a choice. As far as benefits go, again, heterosexual BEHAVIOR may qualify. Orientation does not.
 
mac said:
I believe we do, but over a much longer period of time. Every emotion we have other than the primal ones, result from thousands of "micro choices" throughout our lives. Because one doesn't think much about a choice, doesn't mean a conscious choice wasn't made. At the very minimum, we (as intelligent creatures) not only have control over how we deal with our emotions, but also how our emotions are instigated. This is why some people "fly off the handle" and some do not.
Click to expand...

Firstly, when it comes to sexuality, we ARE talking about primal emotions... so that is one point that negates your argument. Secondly, "flying off the handle" is a behavior, not an emotion. You are STILL confusing the two.
 
mac said:
Simply put, you don't have to "buy it". It may very well be your impression that I am "dancing around" the issue, but I think it's more that in not being a trained psychologist, I'm not putting it in words you understand. You might try stepping away from your title for a minute and looking at it fresh.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. You have not indicated the initial formation of an emotion. Pretty much every example you have given denotes a behavioral choice, not an emotional choice.

Please describe in detail the difference between an innate response and a compulsive response, then please tell me why compulsive disorders are not simply normal innate responses.
Click to expand...

No. Firstly... and you've debated me before, so you know how this works... you have STILL not answered my question on the formation of emotions. All of your answers have been about behaviors. Secondly, I am not discussing compulsive responses... and I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state "compulsive responses". Respond to my question and define "compulsive responses" and I'll give it a go.


redacted. :)
Click to expand...

Which definition are you using here... "to put into writing" or "to remove"?
Nor have you or anyone been able to prove that orientation other than normal is anything other than a choice. I fully admit and understand that I am not a clinical or reserach pshycologist...however, not legitimate clinical or research psychologist (or any other Dr.) has been able to prove it beyond "it may be the result of"
Click to expand...

The failure in this comment is the failure in all of your arguments on this topic. If you define normal in statistical terms, then your statement is no more valid than terming lefthandedness as a choice. If you define normal in one of the ways that YOU have defined it in the past, then it is your charge to demonstrate how heterosexuality is formed. Since you cannot discern any originating difference in assorted sexual orientations, your comment above is invalid.

See mac, you cannot separate heterosexuality and homosexuality unless you can describe the origination of the former. Since you cannot do that, your argument in this matter will always fall short.

No you're not, except perhaps you're right that agreeing to your perspective would sink my argument. The problem is, I don't agree with your perspective. If you weren't so convinced in your own perspective, you'd see that difference.
Click to expand...

You argreeing with my perspective is irrelevant to the fact that everything that I said is correct. You not agreeing is you not agreeing with logic. If that's how you want to go, OK.



Nor have you, I'm afraid it boils down to a difference of opinion. You know full well you can not prove that orientation is anything other than choice, just like I can't prove it is.
Click to expand...

See, thing is, that is not my objective. I have no idea what percentage of one's orientatation is choice and what percentage is not... and I have been consistently clear on this position. However, what I can show, from a logical standpoint and from an evidenciary standpoint... and have consistently, is that there is no difference between the states of homosexuality and heterosexuality. And THIS is the point that you cannot and have been unable to refute.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You actually make a very good point there. Some people just don't know how to handle themselves in a debate. So you win by default. But Redress's sloppy debate skills do not make your position correct.

The thing you don't understand about survival of the fittest is what it means in terms of Darwinian theory. "Unfit" genes are the ones that don't get passed on. So, by definition, anybody passing on their genes is "fit." You're making the same mistake as the social darwinists, and that's the sort of ugly thinking that leads to eugenics. Social darwinism has been roundly debunked, and it is a superficial understanding of true evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and I understand what he's saying, I'm not making a valid argument for social Darwinism (not even trying to), just an off-hand point. To be completely honest, I need to do some reading so that I can present it better.

A better example of the point I was making is support of the mentally and physically disabled. Legal disclaimer: I in no way think that we shouldn't support them.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, when it comes to sexuality, we ARE talking about primal emotions... so that is one point that negates your argument. Secondly, "flying off the handle" is a behavior, not an emotion. You are STILL confusing the two.
Click to expand...

Ok, "the urge to" fly off the handle. More clearly put to you?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, I don't think so. You have not indicated the initial formation of an emotion. Pretty much every example you have given denotes a behavioral choice, not an emotional choice.



No. Firstly... and you've debated me before, so you know how this works... you have STILL not answered my question on the formation of emotions. All of your answers have been about behaviors. Secondly, I am not discussing compulsive responses... and I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state "compulsive responses". Respond to my question and define "compulsive responses" and I'll give it a go.




Which definition are you using here... "to put into writing" or "to remove"?


The failure in this comment is the failure in all of your arguments on this topic. If you define normal in statistical terms, then your statement is no more valid than terming lefthandedness as a choice. If you define normal in one of the ways that YOU have defined it in the past, then it is your charge to demonstrate how heterosexuality is formed. Since you cannot discern any originating difference in assorted sexual orientations, your comment above is invalid.

See mac, you cannot separate heterosexuality and homosexuality unless you can describe the origination of the former. Since you cannot do that, your argument in this matter will always fall short.



You argreeing with my perspective is irrelevant to the fact that everything that I said is correct. You not agreeing is you not agreeing with logic. If that's how you want to go, OK.





See, thing is, that is not my objective. I have no idea what percentage of one's orientatation is choice and what percentage is not... and I have been consistently clear on this position. However, what I can show, from a logical standpoint and from an evidenciary standpoint... and have consistently, is that there is no difference between the states of homosexuality and heterosexuality. And THIS is the point that you cannot and have been unable to refute.
Click to expand...

If homosexuality and heterosexuality were "the same" or "on the same footing" than it stands to reason that the would present in more equal numbers than they do. You can't show that people are born homosexual so the possibility that they are not is valid. Lastly, it is not my objective to prove anything either, but to explore the subject.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Firstly, when it comes to sexuality, we ARE talking about primal emotions... so that is one point that negates your argument. Secondly, "flying off the handle" is a behavior, not an emotion. You are STILL confusing the two.
Click to expand...

The urge to have sex is a primal emotion, the urge to have it with Joe or Jane is not.
 
mac said:
The urge to have sex is a primal emotion, the urge to have it with Joe or Jane is not.
Click to expand...

This is what cannot be proven either way. You cannot prove that the urge to have sex with Joe rather than Jane is not primal, whatever the sex of the other person. Neither can those who believe that sexuality is something people are born with prove their position definitely, but at least our side has a few more things to support that it is something that a person is born with through studies and even personal experience.

Most of that argument gets into the bigger nurture vs. nature personality argument that has been going on for a long time. Science has mainly set that it is a combination of both, but still argue about how much and which has the bigger influence.

Nature vs Nurture - How Heredity and Environment Shape Who We Are

But, since homosexuality isn't something that is harmful, especially not when the practice is done by such a small percentage of the population that it does not negatively affect natural birth rate to a point where the human population would likely become extinct if homosexuality were practiced exclusively in increasing numbers, then it shouldn't matter whether it is because of nature, nurture, or a combination, nor should it even matter if it is a conscience choice.
 
Jaaaman said:
Is this not an opinion board?
Click to expand...

As long as your opinions are not, baiting, flaming, or offensive to other posters.

Your opinions are offensive to me. IMHO, they represent the type of fear-based bigotry holding this country back from the next era of greatness.
 
roguenuke said:
This is what cannot be proven either way. You cannot prove that the urge to have sex with Joe rather than Jane is not primal, whatever the sex of the other person. Neither can those who believe that sexuality is something people are born with prove their position definitely, but at least our side has a few more things to support that it is something that a person is born with through studies and even personal experience.

Most of that argument gets into the bigger nurture vs. nature personality argument that has been going on for a long time. Science has mainly set that it is a combination of both, but still argue about how much and which has the bigger influence.

Nature vs Nurture - How Heredity and Environment Shape Who We Are

But, since homosexuality isn't something that is harmful, especially not when the practice is done by such a small percentage of the population that it does not negatively affect natural birth rate to a point where the human population would likely become extinct if homosexuality were practiced exclusively in increasing numbers, then it shouldn't matter whether it is because of nature, nurture, or a combination, nor should it even matter if it is a conscience choice.
Click to expand...

You can't prove anything any more than I can.
 
mac said:
A better example of the point I was making is support of the mentally and physically disabled. Legal disclaimer: I in no way think that we shouldn't support them.
Click to expand...

Your incorrect assumption is that a physically disabled person is unfit from a Darwinian perspective. This is not so. If a disabled person can pass on their genes, then they are fit. The passing of genetic material itself is what defines fitness. It's a different sense than we use the word in every day speech, which is the root of the confusion.

Fitness in everyday speech is a judgment call. But, evolutionarily speaking, fitness refers to the ability to pass genetic material.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Your incorrect assumption is that a physically disabled person is unfit from a Darwinian perspective. This is not so. If a disabled person can pass on their genes, then they are fit. The passing of genetic material itself is what defines fitness. It's a different sense than we use the word in every day speech, which is the root of the confusion.

Fitness in everyday speech is a judgment call. But, evolutionarily speaking, fitness refers to the ability to pass genetic material.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it is unfit from a Darwinian perspective. I'm saying a person that can not support itself wold be left to die by any other species. Ability to pass a lot of genetic material is also important. Males that do not have the right coloring, right sound, sufficient strength or virility in nature, pass fewer if any genes on to subsequent generations due to their "inferiorities".
 
Last edited:
mac said:
I'm saying a person that can not support itself wold be left to die by any other species.
Click to expand...

That's what's so great about our species!
 
theplaydrive said:
fat, dumb, useless people
Click to expand...

Fat and dumb people bother me too, but I don't think anyone will buy that example. Useless will be even more difficult to substantiate.
 
mac said:
Fat and dumb people bother me too, but I don't think anyone will buy that example. Useless will be even more difficult to substantiate.
Click to expand...

Actually, neither bother me, but both are not the kind of people you don't want continuing the species. You could add to the list people with genetically passed on diseases, small breasts, small penises, small testicles, skin color not fit for a particular climate, height not practical for environment, etc. All of these traits signify people who are not fit to aid in the survival of the species and yet people are attracted to them. Do they choose to be attracted to the people least likely to help our species survive?
 
theplaydrive said:
Actually, neither bother me, but both are not the kind of people you don't want continuing the species. You could add to the list people with genetically passed on diseases, small breasts, small penises, small testicles, skin color not fit for a particular climate, height not practical for environment, etc. All of these traits signify people who are not fit to aid in the survival of the species and yet people are attracted to them. Do they choose to be attracted to the people least likely to help our species survive?
Click to expand...

It's obvious that other things have taken over for physical attributes in our species.
tony_4,0.jpg
 
mac said:
It's obvious that other things have taken over for physical attributes in our species.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. Do they choose to be attracted to the people least likely to help our species survive? Or are you amending your statement and saying that having "benefits for our species" is not a relevant qualification for unchosen sexuality?
 
mac said:
You can't prove anything any more than I can.
Click to expand...

Almost. There is no proof either way, but there is more evidence on the side of people being born gay, straight, or bi (which is pretty much what I said). The studies indicate that likelihoods increase for a person being gay or bi within certain families. This is all nature vs. nurture. You can put your hands in your ears (or over your eyes), and sing "lalala, it's a choice, lalala" all day long but it won't change the fact that a) it most definitely isn't a conscience choice for most people, b) it is most likely, from the evidence that is available, a mix of nature and nurture and c) it doesn't matter anyway, because they are people and homosexuality isn't harmful in and of itself.
 
roguenuke said:
Almost. There is no proof either way, but there is more evidence on the side of people being born gay, straight, or bi (which is pretty much what I said). The studies indicate that likelihoods increase for a person being gay or bi within certain families. This is all nature vs. nurture. You can put your hands in your ears (or over your eyes), and sing "lalala, it's a choice, lalala" all day long but it won't change the fact that a) it most definitely isn't a conscience choice for most people, b) it is most likely, from the evidence that is available, a mix of nature and nurture and c) it doesn't matter anyway, because they are people and homosexuality isn't harmful in and of itself.
Click to expand...

No thre isn't. There is not a single study that says there is more evidence in any direction. What the studies say, in a nutshell, is that they are inconclusive. Not one study has ever emliminated or proven any cause other than dropping the general assumption that it is a disorder.
 
mac said:
No thre isn't. There is not a single study that says there is more evidence in any direction. What the studies say, in a nutshell, is that they are inconclusive. Not one study has ever emliminated or proven any cause other than dropping the general assumption that it is a disorder.
Click to expand...

Do heterosexuals choose to be attracted to people who are least beneficial to humanity?
 
theplaydrive said:
Do heterosexuals choose to be attracted to people who are least beneficial to humanity?
Click to expand...

Considering that you have left my question unanswered twice, mac, I'll assume that you have amended your original argument and have to come to accept that, in your words, having "benefits to our species" is not sign of unchosen sexuality.
 
theplaydrive said:
Considering that you have left my question unanswered twice, mac, I'll assume that you have amended your original argument and have to come to accept that, in your words, having "benefits to our species" is not sign of unchosen sexuality.
Click to expand...

They certainly choose to mate with those not entirely beneficial to society. Attraction is unprovable anyways, and is possibly nothing more than a sub-conscious response to learned information.

Stop quoting yourself, I'll get to you in time. Kids are so impatient.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
They certainly choose to mate with those not entirely beneficial to society. Attraction is unprovable anyways, and is possibly nothing more than a sub-conscious response to learned information.

Stop quoting yourself, I'll get to you in time. Kids are so impatient.
Click to expand...

LOL, you prove once again that it's all about you. It would be easier for everybody if you would just accept that your beliefs about choice are illogical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom