• 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
Is it homosexual behavior or not?

Yes or no will will suffice.

No it is not. Just like other frogs which change sex to reproduce, are they transsexuals? Of course not. Has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.

Please find a better argument.
 
Last edited:
No it is not. Just like other frogs which change sex to reproduce, are they transsexuals, of course not. Has nothing at all to do with homosexuality.

Please find a better argument.


Uhmmm the lizard doesn't change sex like the frog. They "mate" with the same sex. And same sex sex is pretty gay IMO.
 
Guys... truthfully, I do not adhere to comparing the behaviors and/or states of other species to that of humans.

For some behaviors and states, such comparisons have merit in a scholastic sense. It can help understand how and why humans evolved to engage in certain behaviors, for example.

But, despite having merits in certain contexts, I believe that such comparisons have no place in a debate such as this one because the arguments involving them are almost always fallacious in nature.
 
Cannibolism can't exactly be compared to homosexuality.

That's off-topic.

You state that if animals do it, it must be normal for us. But then animals can be cannibalistic, so should that be normal for us?

If you use a behavior of animals to describe what is normal for humans, you must then use ALL behaviors that animals commonly partake in lest you seem hypocritical.
 
Uhmmm the lizard doesn't change sex like the frog. They "mate" with the same sex. And same sex sex is pretty gay IMO.

Then you consider the frogs transsexuals by your own definition, lol.

If no males exist in the species, then no "gay" behavior exists. You are going on a nickname and not science. That my friend is ridicules.
 
Then you consider the frogs transsexuals by your own definition, lol.
If no males exist in the species, then no "gay" behavior exists.

Sorry sparky having sex with the same sex is gay.

You are going on a nickname and not science. That my friend is ridicules.


What is ridiculous is your initial comparison of reptiles to mammals. Alligators are reptiles.

And here is alist of homosexual behavior in reptiles:

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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 didn't make a claim about humans. I said homosexual attraction exists as something other than human choice which it does - it exists in other purely instinctual species.

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.
What part of my statement was not factual?

Did not read his argument. I was just correcting Kal's information.
What incorrect information were you correcting? I don't remember Kal saying anything that contradicted this:
Blackdog said:
This had nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with superficial physical judgment.
Even though you're statement is only half-true.

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

I'm not sure what this proves. Blacks were considered animals in large part because of their society - their behavior. From your link:
Blacks are unique in that when we arrived, they had no written language, no wheel, no architectural works, nothing at all that would indicate they live a human existence. Whereas literature and palaces and cities existed in almost every corner of the earth, from the Incas to the Indians to the Persians to the Chinese to Stonehenge to Ankar Wat in Cambodia — nothing existed in Africa. For the past 100,000 years non-blacks have been spreading across the globe, building pyramids and cities, developing new technology, domesticating animals and crops, covering themselves in finely decorated clothing, and living essentially human lives. Blacks, meanwhile, stayed nearly naked, self-mutilating, technology-less, with no domesticated animals, no written language, no wheel, no stone buildings, no metalworking, nothing.

The jury is still out either way, but again animals show nothing and are in the case of human sexuality evidence of nothing.
Sure they do. They show that homosexual attraction is not unique to humans or simply a chosen sexuality as it exists unchosen in other species. Scientific evidence for choice/not choice in humans is inconclusive though.
 
It is at least an interesting perspective. If such behavior is commonly seen in the animal kingdom, it can't be that abnormal.

Rape is common in some mammal species. It is abnormal among civilized humans, and should remain so.
 
Rape is common in some mammal species. It is abnormal among civilized humans, and should remain so.

Was this meant to be in the rape thread(s), or no? ;) Seems like a good fit, either way.
 
I hear being gay is like pedophilia or incest or zoophilia, or even rape lately. :roll:

The wise thing to do would be to not bring the animal comparison into any arguments about gay rights. It doesn't serve much of any purpose except to reinforce certain logical fallacies.
 
The wise thing to do would be to not bring the animal comparison into any arguments about gay rights. It doesn't serve much of any purpose except to reinforce certain logical fallacies.

That in both humans and animals being of nature and homosexuality occuring across its entire spectrum would be logically fallable in the face of flacid notions of human morals or civility trumping nature?
 
That in both humans and animals being of nature and homosexuality occuring across its entire spectrum would be logically fallable in the face of flacid notions of human morals or civility trumping nature?

The fallacy is that because it exists in animals, it is somehow "natural" in humans. Now of course i'm not saying it's NOT natural in humans, but it's a false comparison because animals engage in a lot of other behaviors that humans these days would find "unnatural." (like for instance, eating your own **** like I saw goats do when I volunteered at the National Zoo).
 
Sorry sparky having sex with the same sex is gay.

Not in all cases when talking about the animal kingdom. This is a scientific fact as some can change gender etc.

My name is Blackdog, not Sparky.

What is ridiculous is your initial comparison of reptiles to mammals. Alligators are reptiles.

Not when you look at the context of what I said and his statement. Then again "context" has always been a difficult concept for some to grasp.


According to who? Some anonymous poster on Wikipedia?
 
That in both humans and animals being of nature and homosexuality occuring across its entire spectrum would be logically fallable in the face of flacid notions of human morals or civility trumping nature?

Animals display such behavior for very different reasons than humans. Even scientists agree on this point.
 
The wise thing to do would be to not bring the animal comparison into any arguments about gay rights. It doesn't serve much of any purpose except to reinforce certain logical fallacies.

The ideas of morality are often based on logical fallacies. When one says that homosexuality is not abnormal because it is common in the animal kingdom, one is not implying that cannibolism or rape is morally acceptable although it may be common.
 
The fallacy is that because it exists in animals, it is somehow "natural" in humans. Now of course i'm not saying it's NOT natural in humans, but it's a false comparison because animals engage in a lot of other behaviors that humans these days would find "unnatural." (like for instance, eating your own **** like I saw goats do when I volunteered at the National Zoo).

Such behaviors are natural and not abnormal. The OP, unless I am mistaken, is asking whether homosexually is abnormal not whether it is moral.
 
Such behaviors are natural and not abnormal. The OP, unless I am mistaken, is asking whether homosexually is abnormal not whether it is moral.

That's true. Nevertheless the majority of debaters on both sides who tend to use the animal comparison do it when discussing "naturalness."
 
I didn't make a claim about humans. I said homosexual attraction exists as something other than human choice which it does - it exists in other purely instinctual species.

Then your comment has nothing to do with the context in which I responded to Kal, as it was indeed about the animal human comparison.

You are however trying to imply because it happens in the animal kingdom it is more than choice. In the animal kingdom this may be true. In humans however, no evidence to support this one way or the other exists.

What part of my statement was not factual?

Read comment above.

What incorrect information were you correcting? I don't remember Kal saying anything that contradicted this:

Then you need to read what I responded too.

Even though you're statement is only half-true.

I'm not sure what this proves. Blacks were considered animals in large part because of their society - their behavior. From your link:

Only problem with that is, it is a lie...

The only thing they did not have was the wheel. So no I am correct.

It proves people see what they want to see contrary to facts.

Sure they do. They show that homosexual attraction is not unique to humans or simply a chosen sexuality as it exists unchosen in other species. Scientific evidence for choice/not choice in humans is inconclusive though.

And it does not apply to humans. Unless you have evidence the rest of the world does not? :mrgreen:
 
According to who? Some anonymous poster on Wikipedia?

On Wiki, they expect sourcing, and in fact there is sources listed after each reptile on the list. A quick check shows they come from this book: Biological exuberance: animal ... - Google Books

You can find out more about this "random person" on his wiki page: Bruce Bagemihl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turns out his book used as a source is rather famous and well respected. Damn those "random people" on Wiki and their damn habit of sourcing things so any person can actually check and see who the random person is.
 
Back
Top Bottom