• 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!

Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what does it matter if it's a birth defect?

We let people who have down syndrome get married.

We consider Polydactyly (6 fingers) to be a birth defect, but it's actually a dominant gene.

Aren't dimples a birth defect where the skin attaches to the muscle incorrectly?

Even if we accept homosexuality to be a birth defect, it changes exactly nothing.
Though it is crystal clear that homosexuality is a birth defect, an epigentic manifestation, not a genetic dominant or recessive manifestation ..

.. What it matters that the etiology of homosexulity has finally been discovered, and, that it has been discovered to be an epigenetic birth defect, means that homosexulity likely has a prevention, like the birth defect of spina bifida was discovered to have an epigenetic modification prevention via giving the pregnant woman high does of B vitamins and folate.

That's huge, as that means the suffering intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality can one day be prevented.

Because the birth defect of homosexuality is epigenetically oriented, modifying the epi-markers of postnatals may hold promise in actually curing the defect in those who already have it.

The mattering of the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality is medical with regard to improving human health.

However, a number of ideologues are whining in a manner that suggests they think there will be an adverses political repercussion to the reality knowledge of the birth defect nature of homosexuality spreading to the general population.

Though I think the birth defect reality of homosexuality will increase compassion and reducing bullying of homosexuals ..

.. Those of you who think there will be negative repercussions to the spreading of the birth defect reality of homosexuality please state specifically what adverse things you think are going to happen as a result.
 
Though it is crystal clear that homosexuality is a birth defect, an epigentic manifestation, not a genetic dominant or recessive manifestation ..

.. What it matters that the etiology of homosexulity has finally been discovered, and, that it has been discovered to be an epigenetic birth defect, means that homosexulity likely has a prevention, like the birth defect of spina bifida was discovered to have an epigenetic modification prevention via giving the pregnant woman high does of B vitamins and folate.

That's huge, as that means the suffering intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality can one day be prevented.

Because the birth defect of homosexuality is epigenetically oriented, modifying the epi-markers of postnatals may hold promise in actually curing the defect in those who already have it.

The mattering of the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality is medical with regard to improving human health.

However, a number of ideologues are whining in a manner that suggests they think there will be an adverses political repercussion to the reality knowledge of the birth defect nature of homosexuality spreading to the general population.

Though I think the birth defect reality of homosexuality will increase compassion and reducing bullying of homosexuals ..

.. Those of you who think there will be negative repercussions to the spreading of the birth defect reality of homosexuality please state specifically what adverse things you think are going to happen as a result.

What does it mean that your own "people" are stupider than a bunch of "birth defects" ? Doesn't sound like something one would like to proclaim from every mountain...............................
 
Your whining and blaming are simply unfounded.

The science presented in the OP made it crystal clear that homosexuality is a birth defect.

No "interpreting" was required.

Acceptance is really for the best.

It will only lead to positive things for everyone.

You aren't God. Just stop it; you're making me sick. There is no science that is crystal YET on homosexuality. I don't care what your "lean" is, including those who worship the APA, which has now pronounced homosexuality "normal: but which previously, and in keeping with "tradition" and "conventional wisdom" did not.

To repeat, there is nothing crystal yet on homosexuality. What you “interpret” may well be based on your uniquely individual circumstances and touchstones.

Screw accepting what you posit as a Truth. It’s not.

I don’t know what “positive things” mean to you, but I know what they mean to me: Being accepted just as I am, whoever I am, so long as I don’t “frighten the horses. But I can recognize misplaced smugness when I see it. I mean, really—“Acceptance is really for the best”?

Mercy, who do you think you are?
 
You aren't God. Just stop it; you're making me sick. There is no science that is crystal YET on homosexuality. I don't care what your "lean" is, including those who worship the APA, which has now pronounced homosexuality "normal: but which previously, and in keeping with "tradition" and "conventional wisdom" did not.

To repeat, there is nothing crystal yet on homosexuality. What you “interpret” may well be based on your uniquely individual circumstances and touchstones.

Screw accepting what you posit as a Truth. It’s not.

I don’t know what “positive things” mean to you, but I know what they mean to me: Being accepted just as I am, whoever I am, so long as I don’t “frighten the horses. But I can recognize misplaced smugness when I see it. I mean, really—“Acceptance is really for the best”?

Mercy, who do you think you are?
Your whining is meaningless.

It's not a matter of "interpretation".

The OP-presented science links made it crystal clear that the prenatal epigenetic nature of the etiology of homosexuality is, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, a birth defect.

It really is that evident.

So my question to you is why do you care that homosexuality is a birth defect? What does it matter to you?
 
Last edited:
** accidental post -- please delete **
 
Your whining is meaningless.

It's not a matter of "interpretation".

The OP-presented science links made it crystal clear that the pernatal epigenetic nature of the etiology of homosexuality is, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, a birth defect.

It really is that evident.

How come your people weren't aware of this 1000's of years ago ? Are they that stupid ?..........................
 
Your whining is meaningless.

It's not a matter of "interpretation".

The OP-presented science links made it crystal clear that the pernatal epigenetic nature of the etiology of homosexuality is, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, a birth defect.

It really is that evident.

I'm not whining. Trust.

I'm also not interpreting. That's what you are doing: In your overweening hubris, you are pronouncing for all time as fact that which has yet to be proven.

Unless, of course, your entire point is that we all have birth defects. Clearly, we all do, one way or another. Clearly, we are all "defective" or, to use an old-fashioned term, "sinful."

But that's not your point, is it?
 
What does it mean that your own "people" are stupider than a bunch of "birth defects" ? Doesn't sound like something one would like to proclaim from every mountain...............................
Are you saying that homosexuals are stupid simply by virtue of suffering from the birth defect of homosexulity???

That hasn't at all been suggested or determined, not at all.
 
Are you saying that homosexuals are stupid simply by virtue of suffering from the birth defect of homosexulity???

That hasn't at all been suggested or determined, not at all.

I'll pay for your crash course in "Reading Comprehension".............................
 
Your statement that "gays can and do lead healthy fully developed lives" is fairly meaningless within the context of what a birth defect is, as not all birth defects create major impairment, as you would have noticed if you'd read the entire article you linked to here.

Your argument regarding birth defects is fairly meaningless in any context.

You state here that not all birth defects create major impairment. This can be taken to include two different cases: something that causes no impairment but can still be classified a 'birth defect', and something that causes less than major impairment and can be classified a 'birth defect'. Let's examine each.

Something like having an extra finger or toe could be considered a birth defect even when it causes no impairment (which is possible, see: Ulnar Polydactyly). The only reason in this case to treat it and remove the extra finger or toe is because society isn't accepting of abnormalities. The fact is that there is nothing inherently different with being abnormal. To be abnormal only means to not be normal, not to be less than normal. If there is no impairment, then why expend the resources to treat something like this? Furthermore, what you are suggesting can be extended to significantly negative lengths. Studies show that people find faces exhibiting average qualities to be the most attractive. Therefore we should start treating anybody who doesn't have an average face! That way we can all be the same. This is essentially what you're suggesting.

Then there's the other case, where there may be some small impairment. I'm not sure what impairment you think that homosexuality imposes on people. There is no physical deficiency, no mental deficiency, only an attraction to the same sex as opposed to the opposite. Perhaps this causes a deficiency in the ability to procreate. However, procreation is hardly an issue in today's society. Humanity is vast and not going to die out because a small portion of the population is not interested in procreating with the opposite gender. Furthermore, the entire population could be gay and we could still survive -- via in-vitro fertilization. Gays can and do have children via adoption and surrogacy. There is no impairment.

In fact, I would go so far as to state that being gay can give one certain advantages, like an appreciation and acceptance of peoples' differences, something that you clearly lack. The fact that somebody is not the same as you, and that you can identify a medical cause, does not make it a defect or an impairment. There's nothing wrong with abnormality. What if in a few generations homosexuality was the majority? Then you'd be the abnormality, and we'd be exploring what makes you attracted to females instead of males. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
 
I'm not whining. Trust.

I'm also not interpreting. That's what you are doing: In your overweening hubris, you are pronouncing for all time as fact that which has yet to be proven.

Unless, of course, your entire point is that we all have birth defects. Clearly, we all do, one way or another. Clearly, we are all "defective" or, to use an old-fashioned term, "sinful."

But that's not your point, is it?
Maybe you simply need to re-read the OP .. as the OP science links clearly present the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

The epigenetic prenatal inculcation reality of the nature of homosexuality is proof that it's a birth defect, beyond any rational conjecture.

I think you're just having a hard time, for some reason, accepting the truth of it.

And, you seem to think that homosexuality being a birth defect is a "bad" thing.

Again, please tell me why you think the birth defect reality of homosexuality is a "bad" thing.
 
Your argument regarding birth defects is fairly meaningless in any context.

You state here that not all birth defects create major impairment. This can be taken to include two different cases: something that causes no impairment but can still be classified a 'birth defect', and something that causes less than major impairment and can be classified a 'birth defect'. Let's examine each.

Something like having an extra finger or toe could be considered a birth defect even when it causes no impairment (which is possible, see: Ulnar Polydactyly). The only reason in this case to treat it and remove the extra finger or toe is because society isn't accepting of abnormalities. The fact is that there is nothing inherently different with being abnormal. To be abnormal only means to not be normal, not to be less than normal. If there is no impairment, then why expend the resources to treat something like this? Furthermore, what you are suggesting can be extended to significantly negative lengths. Studies show that people find faces exhibiting average qualities to be the most attractive. Therefore we should start treating anybody who doesn't have an average face! That way we can all be the same. This is essentially what you're suggesting.

Then there's the other case, where there may be some small impairment. I'm not sure what impairment you think that homosexuality imposes on people. There is no physical deficiency, no mental deficiency, only an attraction to the same sex as opposed to the opposite. Perhaps this causes a deficiency in the ability to procreate. However, procreation is hardly an issue in today's society. Humanity is vast and not going to die out because a small portion of the population is not interested in procreating with the opposite gender. Furthermore, the entire population could be gay and we could still survive -- via in-vitro fertilization. Gays can and do have children via adoption and surrogacy. There is no impairment.

In fact, I would go so far as to state that being gay can give one certain advantages, like an appreciation and acceptance of peoples' differences, something that you clearly lack. The fact that somebody is not the same as you, and that you can identify a medical cause, does not make it a defect or an impairment. There's nothing wrong with abnormality. What if in a few generations homosexuality was the majority? Then you'd be the abnormality, and we'd be exploring what makes you attracted to females instead of males. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
I've highlighted in red your contradictory erroneously minimized "only" clause that is in reality one of the five factors I previously posted that make homosexuality a birth defect -- that fact that there is most definitely a brain abnormality as homosexual brain scans have proven and I referenced a few posts back.

And, it most certainly is a defect to have a physical sex that is at dysfunctional cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, obviously, and that defect has caused homosexuals intrinsic existential misery in and of itself.

That's reality.

The rest of your diatribe is meaningless with respect to science and topical relevance.

But, clearly, you have a problem with the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

Why?
 
Maybe you simply need to re-read the OP .. as the OP science links clearly present the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

The epigenetic prenatal inculcation reality of the nature of homosexuality is proof that it's a birth defect, beyond any rational conjecture.

I think you're just having a hard time, for some reason, accepting the truth of it.

And, you seem to think that homosexuality being a birth defect is a "bad" thing.

Again, please tell me why you think the birth defect reality of homosexuality is a "bad" thing.



Must be tough facing the fact that the socalled intelligentsia of your people have been talking out of their azzes all these millenia...................
 
I've highlighted in red your contradictory erroneously minimized "only" clause that is in reality one of the five factors I previously posted that make homosexuality a birth defect -- that fact that there is most definitely a brain abnormality as homosexual brain scans have proven and I referenced a few posts back.

And, it most certainly is a defect to have a physical sex that is at dysfunctional cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, obviously, and that defect has caused homosexuals intrinsic existential misery in and of itself.

That's reality.

The rest of your diatribe is meaningless with respect to science and topical relevance.

But, clearly, you have a problem with the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

Why?

Wrong. You've essentially conceded the point to me in referring to homosexuality as a brain abnormality. As stated, there is nothing inherently negative about an abnormality, as abnormality only implies that it is not normal, not that it is less than normal. I notice that you managed to entirely pass over my example of this in the hand with extra fingers that causes no impairment.

I get the feeling that you don't even read other peoples' posts, given how fast you responded and how much you ignored. It's a sign of how weak your argument is and how large your ego is. But let's look at the rest of your post anyways.

You refer to dysfunctional cross-purposes. However, there is no purpose to attraction. Attraction to same sex or opposite sex makes no difference. It causes no impairment. Society is not even dependent upon procreation to survive. I guess this is the part where I add some totally irrelevant and idiotic remark like:

That's reality.

So, it I disagree with your definition of birth defect as inclusive of any abnormality in that abnormalities may exist without impairment. By your definition one could refer to red hair as being a birth defect as it is a genetic abnormality. This is one of many examples in which your argument fails.
 
Must be tough facing the fact that the socalled intelligentsia of your people have been talking out of their azzes all these millenia...................

He speaks only for himself. This is a good thing.

Also a good thing for all of us. I always laugh when folks at DP post "we are waiting for your response." Always want to ask, "You and the mouse in your pocket? What?"
 
I've highlighted in red your contradictory erroneously minimized "only" clause that is in reality one of the five factors I previously posted that make homosexuality a birth defect -- that fact that there is most definitely a brain abnormality as homosexual brain scans have proven and I referenced a few posts back.

And, it most certainly is a defect to have a physical sex that is at dysfunctional cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, obviously, and that defect has caused homosexuals intrinsic existential misery in and of itself.

That's reality.

The rest of your diatribe is meaningless with respect to science and topical relevance.

But, clearly, you have a problem with the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality.

Why?

My problem is that you are confusing your scientific opinion/theory with fact.
 
he speaks only for himself. This is a good thing.

Also a good thing for all of us. I always laugh when folks at dp post "we are waiting for your response." always want to ask, "you and the mouse in your pocket? What?"


lol...................
 
Wrong. You've essentially conceded the point to me in referring to homosexuality as a brain abnormality. As stated, there is nothing inherently negative about an abnormality, as abnormality only implies that it is not normal, not that it is less than normal. I notice that you managed to entirely pass over my example of this in the hand with extra fingers that causes no impairment.
Clearly, I am not wrong.

One of the aspects of a birth defect is its multi-faceted abnormality.

You however, are clearly dodging the question.

So again, what is it about the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality that bothers you?


I get the feeling that you don't even read other peoples' posts, given how fast you responded and how much you ignored. It's a sign of how weak your argument is and how large your ego is. But let's look at the rest of your post anyways.
I get the feeling that you suffer from a pre-conceived ideology that is compelling you to sling unjustified ad hominems my way.


You refer to dysfunctional cross-purposes. However, there is no purpose to attraction. Attraction to same sex or opposite sex makes no difference. It causes no impairment. Society is not even dependent upon procreation to survive. I guess this is the part where I add some totally irrelevant and idiotic remark like: That's reality.
Actually your statement here couldn't be more erroneous.

But, I think you know that, that you're purposelly obfuscating via subterfuge to divert attention away from the OP scientific links that clearly and obviously make homosexuality a birth defect.

You definitely have a problem with the birth defect reality of homosexuality.

Why don't you simply stop digressing and state why you have a problem with it.


So, it I disagree with your definition of birth defect as inclusive of any abnormality in that abnormalities may exist without impairment. By your definition one could refer to red hair as being a birth defect as it is a genetic abnormality. This is one of many examples in which your argument fails.
The statement you're disagreeing with isn't "my definition".

I presented the five qualifying realities that make homosexuality a birth defect in the OP and about ten posts back or so.

Your "red hair" allusion is simply a complete fail, an erroneous accusation that "my definition" would make that a birth defect, obviously.

Reality remains that homosexuality is an epigenetically inculcated birth defect.

So again, I ask you, why do you have a problem with that reality.

And, even if you can't accept the birth defect reality of homosexuality right now, what is it about the thought of homosexuality being a birth defect that bothers you?
 
My problem is that you are confusing your scientific opinion/theory with fact.
But your statement here is simply and obviously false.

If you can find a scientific link on the recently revealed epigenetic reality of homosexuality that states it's not a birth defect, then trot it out. You won't be able to find such a link .. but I challenge you nevertheless.

Otherwise you're making it quite clear that there are basic aspects of science you simply do not comprehend.

Regardless, I sense that it bothers you emotionally for homosexuality to be a birth defect.

For a moment, just humor me, and tell me why it would bother you for homosexuality to be a birth defect.
 
Clearly, I am not wrong.

One of the aspects of a birth defect is its multi-faceted abnormality.

You however, are clearly dodging the question.

So again, what is it about the reality of the birth defect nature of homosexuality that bothers you?



I get the feeling that you suffer from a pre-conceived ideology that is compelling you to sling unjustified ad hominems my way.



Actually your statement here couldn't be more erroneous.

But, I think you know that, that you're purposelly obfuscating via subterfuge to divert attention away from the OP scientific links that clearly and obviously make homosexuality a birth defect.

You definitely have a problem with the birth defect reality of homosexuality.

Why don't you simply stop digressing and state why you have a problem with it.



The statement you're disagreeing with isn't "my definition".

I presented the five qualifying realities that make homosexuality a birth defect in the OP and about ten posts back or so.

Your "red hair" allusion is simply a complete fail, an erroneous accusation that "my definition" would make that a birth defect, obviously.

Reality remains that homosexuality is an epigenetically inculcated birth defect.

So again, I ask you, why do you have a problem with that reality.

And, even if you can't accept the birth defect reality of homosexuality right now, what is it about the thought of homosexuality being a birth defect that bothers you?

So what's your advice to other "normal" people ? Get an eye exam ? Get real ? Up your game ?...............................
 
You are under the asinine notion that defect always equals problem.
You are under the asinine notion that it doesn't. :shock:

No matter how large or small the problem, a birth defect is always problematic for the person who suffers from it.

Such is the case with the birth defect of homosexuality, obviously.
 
You are under the asinine notion that it doesn't. :shock:

No matter how large or small the problem, a birth defect is always problematic for the person who suffers from it.

Such is the case with the birth defect of homosexuality, obviously.

A pronouncement spoken from a not-so-lofty and but very iconoclastic perch.
 
Perhaps a more constructive than "defect" would be "variance."
But that would be scientifically inaccurate via erroneous biased minimization.

Homosexuality is clearly, without rational conjecture, a birth defect, plain and simple, according to the scientific/medical presentation as to what constitutes a birth defect, as I've already presented.

Acceptance is really for the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom