• 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
ecofarm said:
No one should live where there is bad weather, it's just uncosmopolitan. That said, capes are only cool if you fly or glide regularly.
Click to expand...

and they are seriously uncool when the wearer uses the power for eeeville.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I want to know is when is CC going to say something other than just mindless trash? He doesn't even bother to refute any arguments at all, just act like a cocky little worthless dick.

And yes, comparing hair color to homosexuality is worthless.
Click to expand...

1: He's provided plenty of sound reasoning and has offered up plenty of links when the occasion warrented it over many many many gay threads before. Does he really have to post the same links in every single gay thread that pops up?

2: I don't think that CC was the original one to use the hair analogy. But even if he did when you consider a persons POV then it is a good analogy. If you are one that believes that homosexuality is genetic then using the hair analogy would be appropriate. From that POV.

lpast said:
Theres debating, thats when someone actually has some knowledge information or opinion to add. Its baiting when someone repeats the same thing over and over because they have no arguments and just want what they want and want you to like it.
Click to expand...

Well...when the other side keeps repeating the same thing over and over like a record with a grand canyon sized scratch across it then yeah..the same counter arguement is going to be used over and over. Either bring up something new or actually debunk the counter arguement. I've yet to see any real debunking going on and I certainly have not seen any new arguements when it comes to GM and homosexuality in general. Hell, if I actually thought hard enough I could probably repeat the whole argument almost word for word. (just a slight exaggeration there...but only slight)
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: He's provided plenty of sound reasoning and has offered up plenty of links when the occasion warrented it over many many many gay threads before. Does he really have to post the same links in every single gay thread that pops up?

2: I don't think that CC was the original one to use the hair analogy. But even if he did when you consider a persons POV then it is a good analogy. If you are one that believes that homosexuality is genetic then using the hair analogy would be appropriate. From that POV.



Well...when the other side keeps repeating the same thing over and over like a record with a grand canyon sized scratch across it then yeah..the same counter arguement is going to be used over and over. Either bring up something new or actually debunk the counter arguement. I've yet to see any real debunking going on and I certainly have not seen any new arguements when it comes to GM and homosexuality in general. Hell, if I actually thought hard enough I could probably repeat the whole argument almost word for word. (just a slight exaggeration there...but only slight)
Click to expand...

I have never seen any proof of a genetic link to homosexuality. In the past homosexuality was treated in the realm of Abnormal Psychology and a strong lobbying campaign changed that. No proof of genetic origins for homosexuality has ever been documented, even in this thread. That is a strong statement that there are no genetic origins, but if there are, I would like to know about them. Provide the links.
 
I think genetics give inclination but environment decides.

Anyway, I don't think it's a choice. I don't remember choosing to be straight.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree with you. So, I hope that those on the anti- side of this issue take your advice and start presenting some information and knowledge. I am getting tired of demonstrating that there is none of either being presented by these folks.
Click to expand...

We have you refuse to accept it because you dont agree with it
 
DaveFagan said:
I have never seen any proof of a genetic link to homosexuality. In the past homosexuality was treated in the realm of Abnormal Psychology and a strong lobbying campaign changed that. No proof of genetic origins for homosexuality has ever been documented, even in this thread. That is a strong statement that there are no genetic origins, but if there are, I would like to know about them. Provide the links.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, this tired old refrain. Here, let me post the standard reply.

"Show me the heterosexual gene."

Funny thing about genetics....no one knows what each gene strand does what yet. They can't even tell you whether a person will be born blue eyed or brown eyed.

Edit: As to the evidence bit, there are over 1000+ species on this planet that have homosexuality members. Link That is a pretty strong indicator that homosexuality is genetic as animals are instinctual, IE not capable of making choices.

Edit 2: Oh as for the "realm of Abnormal Psychology"....black people were once thought of as animals at one point in history also...it took strong lobbying to get them elevated to human also.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not necessarily. There are plenty of physical and/or innate differences that are not numerically equal, yet at the same time are on equal footing. Handedness, hair color, eye color, the enjoyment of certain foods or smells. Just because there is a larger percentage of one over the other does not mean that both do not have the same intrinsic value. Your comparison is invalid because you are trying to compare numerical equivalency with worthiness equivalency.
Click to expand...

Well, first, physical characteristics such as hair and eye color are genetic without a doubt so are not comparable. There chance of occurance is related to combinations of genes whereas orientation is not. Well, is likely not, to be fair.

That's pretty funny, mac, but you really need to put some sort of smilie after you make a joke.
Click to expand...

Why's it a joke? I'm not trying to prove anything, at least to anyone other than myself. I'm explaining my point of view, and waiting for someone to show me real evidence of their claim.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nor is there ANY CONCLUSIVE study on the origins of heterosexuality. Everytime we debate, you run into this problem.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, I never have. I entertain that it is possible that being homosexual is not a choice, but know that there is no proof of it. The problem I have with this argument is that there are an aweful lot of people out there that think there is conclusive proof that homosexuality has been proven to be a result of genetic and other factors and that "born gay" has been proven conclusivley. You yourself have indicated that by glossing over the "may be" in the summaries of all these studies.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Edit: As to the evidence bit, there are over 1000+ species on this planet that have homosexuality members. Link That is a pretty strong indicator that homosexuality is genetic as animals are instinctual, IE not capable of making choices.
Click to expand...

Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?

Now their are a few that exhibit this behavior due mostly to pheromones and an attraction to others that have just finished feeding as in the case of bed bugs. It is exceedingly rare in lower level organisms in general, why?

Kal'Stang said:
Edit 2: Oh as for the "realm of Abnormal Psychology"....black people were once thought of as animals at one point in history also...it took strong lobbying to get them elevated to human also.
Click to expand...

This had nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with superficial physical judgment.

PS: Either way animals are not a good model for human behavior. Animals cannot reason as humans do.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?

Now their are a few that exhibit this behavior due mostly to pheromones and an attraction to others that have just finished feeding as in the case of bed bugs. It is exceedingly rare in lower level organisms in general, why?
Click to expand...

Well fruit flies aren't too smart:
Male Drosophila melanogaster flies bearing two copies of a mutant allele in the fruitless gene court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males.[18] The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster.[80] Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating.[81] These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animal's brains.
Click to expand...

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure why the uncommonness of it in "lower" species matters (if it even is uncommon). If there is just one, it's clear that homosexual attraction exists as the result of something other than human choice.

This had nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with superficial physical judgment.
Click to expand...
His point has nothing to do with behavior vs. appearance. It's about the fact that uneducated characterizations of certain groups are illogical to use as evidence for arguments about those groups.

Moreover, behavior had a lot to do with why blacks were considered animals. Obviously Europeans made superficial judgments based on skin color, but the "animal" characterization was based in the differences between African and European society and culture.

PS: Either way animals are not a good model for human behavior. Animals cannot reason as humans do.
Click to expand...
It isn't about animals as "model" per se as human behavior. It's about using animals to see if homosexual attraction and behavior is purely the result of human choice/reason; it clearly isn't.
 
Redress said:
For how you define the word "abnormal", do you consider gays to be "abnormal"?
Click to expand...



It's not usually something people choose, although it can be. Many people have felt "gay" even early in childhood, and have always known they were different. Others experience sexual abuse and become gay. Is it abnormal? It depends. less than 10% of the population is thought to be homosexual, but I'm guessing the number is likely higher. Just because something is in the minority doesn't necessarily make it abnormal.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
I have never seen any proof of a genetic link to homosexuality. In the past homosexuality was treated in the realm of Abnormal Psychology and a strong lobbying campaign changed that. No proof of genetic origins for homosexuality has ever been documented, even in this thread. That is a strong statement that there are no genetic origins, but if there are, I would like to know about them. Provide the links.
Click to expand...

1) No one is claiming a genetic link to homosexuality. However, if you know of a genetic link to HETEROsexuality, please provide the links.

2) You are mistaken about how homosexuality was removed as a disorder by the APA. The lobbying campaign was to have the APA read the research that demonstrated that homosexuality was not a disorder.
 
lpast said:
We have you refuse to accept it because you dont agree with it
Click to expand...

You have not. Anything you have presented has been refuted. You do not accept that because you do not agree with it.
 
mac said:
I don't dispute that, I never have. I entertain that it is possible that being homosexual is not a choice, but know that there is no proof of it. The problem I have with this argument is that there are an aweful lot of people out there that think there is conclusive proof that homosexuality has been proven to be a result of genetic and other factors and that "born gay" has been proven conclusivley. You yourself have indicated that by glossing over the "may be" in the summaries of all these studies.
Click to expand...

No. We've debated this lot of times... and I am not talking about anyone but myself. I have consistently stated that we do not know, precisely, how sexual orientation is formed, but the best assumptions from researchers is that it is created by genetics, biology, body chemistry/hormones, and environmental factors... or some combination. This has always been my position.
 
Blackdog said:
Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?
.
Click to expand...

Aheeem let me introduce you to the lesbian whip tail lizard:

The New Mexico whiptail lizard is a crossbreed of a western whiptail which lives in the desert and the little striped whiptail that favours grasslands. The lizard is a female-only species that reproduces by producing an egg through parthenogenesis. Because the genetic information has already been recombined in meiosis, the offspring is not a perfect clone. Despite being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in "mock mating" with other members of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname "lesbian lizards". A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not "mate" do not lay eggs.

New Mexico whiptail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Guys... truthfully, I do not adhere to comparing the behaviors and/or states of other species to that of humans.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Guys... truthfully, I do not adhere to comparing the behaviors and/or states of other species to that of humans.
Click to expand...

Well we are just animals, and ultimately when a behavior can be observed in so many other species, it lends credibility to the argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.
 
evanescence said:
Well we are just animals, and ultimately when a behavior can be observed in so many other species, it lends credibility to the argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things animals do, like eat each other.
 
theplaydrive said:
Well fruit flies aren't too smart:

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure why the uncommonness of it in "lower" species matters (if it even is uncommon). If there is just one, it's clear that homosexual attraction exists as the result of something other than human choice.
Click to expand...

No evidence exist to support this hypotheses in humans, period. None of the recent studies on twins, genes, DNA or anything else have come to any conclusion or have any evidence to support your statement.

I said it existed even if rarely in lower life forms. This does not change the question or Kal's and your statement being less than factual.

theplaydrive said:
His point has nothing to do with behavior vs. appearance. It's about the fact that uneducated characterizations of certain groups are illogical to use as evidence for arguments about those groups.
Click to expand...

Did not read his argument. I was just correcting Kal's information.

theplaydrive said:
Moreover, behavior had a lot to do with why blacks were considered animals. Obviously Europeans made superficial judgments based on skin color, but the "animal" characterization was based in the differences between African and European society and culture.
Click to expand...

If that were the case any natives who were less developed would have been considered "animals" and this was not the case. In fact many still think this way today...

Good things can be said of virtually every group or civilization on earth. This is unsurprising, given the fact that everyone on earth is descended from the same small tribe that left africa 100,000 years ago. East Asians are such decent, advanced people they are comparable to whites. Unsurprisingly, they only diverged from the White race 40,000 years ago. There is only one group nothing good can be said about, there is only one group completely unrelated to the rest of the human race, and that is the black African. There is enough genetic variation between blacks and non-blacks that any objective scientist, classifying us like they would classify various animal species, would label us different species. On one side humans, on the other blacks. There is enough phenotypic, common sense variation, that again it is an insult to categorize blacks among the human race. They are nothing like us and they never will be, they are worse in every way. Call them orcs, or trolls, devils, or whatever you like–they are not human. - The Road Less Traveled: Blacks Aren’t Human

theplaydrive said:
It isn't about animals as "model" per se as human behavior. It's about using animals to see if homosexual attraction and behavior is purely the result of human choice/reason; it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

The jury is still out either way, but again animals show nothing and are in the case of human sexuality evidence of nothing.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Aheeem let me introduce you to the lesbian whip tail lizard:

The New Mexico whiptail lizard is a crossbreed of a western whiptail which lives in the desert and the little striped whiptail that favours grasslands. The lizard is a female-only species that reproduces by producing an egg through parthenogenesis. Because the genetic information has already been recombined in meiosis, the offspring is not a perfect clone. Despite being an all female species, the whiptail still engages in "mock mating" with other members of its own species, giving rise to the common nickname "lesbian lizards". A common theory is that this behavior stimulates ovulation, as those who do not "mate" do not lay eggs.

New Mexico whiptail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The species has only females. Did you even bother to read it? LMAO!

Welcome to the truth.
 
evanescence said:
Well we are just animals, and ultimately when a behavior can be observed in so many other species, it lends credibility to the argument that homosexuality is not abnormal.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Different species are in different states of evolution and react to things differently. And, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is abnormal.
 
Blackdog said:
The species has only females. Did you even bother to read it? LMAO!

Welcome to the truth.
Click to expand...


Is it homosexual behavior or not?

Yes or no will will suffice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom