• 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
And the purpose of a public poll is? I think we know.
 
celticwar17 said:
I agree, i don't thinks it's really genetic, but something that happens developmentally either in the womb or early childhood... like the stressful pregnancy statistic i said earlier. But i also i agree that some genetic histories may make one more prone to the occurring if it does happen... which would explain the twin gay studies and any other genetic theories.
Click to expand...

There is more to it than that, there is influence. Something that cannot be denied.

We have alcohol, candies, and a host of other things. We dont need them, but decide if we want them. Alcohol and whether or not one uses it is often decided by peer pressure, or influence. When we need something there is an undenyable fact that you will die, or languish in ill health without it. Even the simple things like minerals are something we need or at least benifit from.

It seems most just dont get or consider influence. If influence has not played a factor in your life, you have a rock hard constitution. And, I have to wonder, did you drink at the HS prom, and if so, why?
 
Your Star said:
Personally I don't think homosexuality is purely genetic, I think we are born this way, but I think it is a variation of sexual development(which we know very little about in general), that some people may be genetically predisposition too. And it is very possible enough people with this genetic predisposition passed this along to future generations so that we have a fair amount of people who are homosexual today. You must note that possibly one doesn't have to be homosexual to carry this predisposition, I would wager that is very likely the case, on how this has been passed down through the generations.
Click to expand...

I think it is the influences around us that make people decide that lifestyle. From an evolutional standpoint which demands survival and productivity, I do not believe we are "born" gay. If we were then the species is being culled off. We're meant to multiply, in regards to evolution. *Has read a few part of Darwin's book. In terms of Christianity, I don't believe people are born that way, either, because scriptures in both new and old state it is a "perversion." There may be fat genes, but I don't believe there are homosexual genes. If genes could count for our every notion, then am I to then assume that there's a Goth gene, or an Emo one, or a jock one (not sure on this one), a vore gene, a polygamy gene, etc?

Do I hate homosexuals? No. I hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't view them with contempt because we all sin, constantly, from pride, to vanity, to lust, to vengeance, to greed, etc. My dislike of sin spreads to everyone equally, myself included. That's pretty much why I now view both political parties with contempt. *I don't mean to seem off-topic.

Also, I know people who believed they were born gay, but then greatly changed their minds. How is that explained?
 
Last edited:
as if said:
That is totally illogical. If nature did not intend, flowers would not have a stamen and pistal. Hence they would not exist, no more than gay would exist aside from the fact it happens regardless of what the cause/s is/are.

I am appauled at the fact the gay agenda now touts that nature is irrelevant, doesnt exist. But it is yet another self serving attitude that is required to justify the percieved need that being gay is not only ok, it should be able to do what Nature never intended, reproduce. It is not possible. Adam and Steve could try till they die, they cannot reproduce ---> naturally.

Sorry, that's the way it is. We dont dictate nature, we can only muck it up or preserve it.
Click to expand...

And if nature did not intend, homosexuality wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom. As it turns out, it did.
 
Wake said:
How so? Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

"Purpose" and "intend" require a conscious intent. Evolution is simply nature acting on billions and billions of combination randomly, and the random forces of nature selecting from those combination. Evolution is random. If you ask what the purpose of an opposable thumb is, the question is nonsense. If however you ask why we have opposable thumbs, that question does have meaning. We have opposable thumbs because it was a trait that arose from random mutations that gave those with the mutation a survival advantage. It's purpose is not to use tools, nor to grasp with, nor to suck, and yet those are all uses and advantages to thumbs.
 
whysoserious said:
I do not know that it is a good idea to "cure" people who have been alive for many years and already have developed a personality and a sense of who they are. Are you sure people would be as outraged at the idea of targeting homosexual genes in children?
Click to expand...

If they are psychologically healthy and well-adjusted, I agree. For people who struggle with their sexual desires and identity, and for whom it is a source of profound torment, then I think that treatments that aligned their sexual desires in more comfortable directions would be a very positive thing, if it were possible. Much of the outrage at so-called "reparative therapy" is that it's ineffective and harmful and the methods employed are abhorrent-- all wholly valid and compelling arguments-- but there is also a very large degree of outrage over the concept itself. People get very upset when you threaten their identity, even if your motives and methods are wholly beneficial.

If you don't believe me, try discussing cochlear implants on forums for deaf people.

Redress said:
When humans evolved from apes, the sexual cues that males got from females had to evolve, and it is strongly suspected this is why women have enlarged breasts. The enlarged breasts are shaped(vaguely) like buttocks. This all happened fairly recently in evolutionary terms. Changes in sex drives and what people find attractive do change evolutionarily, and evolution can account for homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I do not believe this to be the case and I am hard-pressed to think of any evolutionary benefit that homosexuality would provide.

celticwar17 said:
I think a side affect of the evolved developing human sex drive has a slight chance of messing up in early development in the womb or early childhood. It shows that women who have a stressful pregnancy have a higher chance of having a gay child.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality occurs in non-primates as well.

There's nothing conclusive that I am aware of yet, but there is a theory that sexual identity and sexual orientation are linked to sex hormone levels during two separate phases of fetal brain development. This would, of course, further reinforce the general psychiatric consensus that attempting to "treat" homosexuality through behaviorist methods is misguided and indicate that we are decades away from any medical technology that could conceivably offer a solution.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
But what does that serve when in one thread we get a gaggle of contentious users?

Since we can't pin down the definition, and we know such argumentation would ensue, why even offer up the question?*
Click to expand...

The question and how I worded it has multiple purposes. Note the interesting discussions ongoing here. It is further meant to, in a way, highlight a couple points, at least one of which has nothing to do with the actual question(in fact, to highlight the importance of defining terms, though that is the least of the reasons for my wording).
 
Redress said:
"Purpose" and "intend" require a conscious intent. Evolution is simply nature acting on billions and billions of combination randomly, and the random forces of nature selecting from those combination. Evolution is random. If you ask what the purpose of an opposable thumb is, the question is nonsense. If however you ask why we have opposable thumbs, that question does have meaning. We have opposable thumbs because it was a trait that arose from random mutations that gave those with the mutation a survival advantage. It's purpose is not to use tools, nor to grasp with, nor to suck, and yet those are all uses and advantages to thumbs.
Click to expand...

Interesting, it is.

What proves/validates your belief?
 
StillBallin75 said:
And if nature did not intend, homosexuality wouldn't exist in the animal kingdom. As it turns out, it did.
Click to expand...

No not necessarily, Thinks happen that nature does intend... but they usually die out. But i think there is a connection between a development of a human and some other animals sexual drive where a mess up can occur. The sex drive aspect would pass, but when the defect happens it wouldn't.
 
celticwar17 said:
That doesn't make sense at all...
Homosexuality would never come out of evolution, because homosexuals would not likely reproduce. It is an advantage however to have a hyper sex drive= more baby making. I think a side affect of the evolved developing human sex drive has a slight chance of messing up in early development in the womb or early childhood. It shows that women who have a stressful pregnancy have a higher chance of having a gay child.
Click to expand...

Viktyr Korimir said:
I do not believe this to be the case and I am hard-pressed to think of any evolutionary benefit that homosexuality would provide.
Click to expand...

There are actually a couple different theories of evolution accounting for homosexuality. The best(to my mind) assumes that evolution selects genes, not individuals(this assumption is I believe the favored theory at the current time). It is important to remember that you are not the only one with a particular gene. Your sister for example contains 1/4 of the exact same genes you do. Therefore if homosexuality increased the odds of survival for relatives of the homosexuality enough, it could in fact be a survival trait for the gene. There is a whole math built on this concept, and I forget the name of it off the top of my head, and since it is between periods of the hockey game, not going to search for it.
 
celticwar17 said:
No not necessarily, Thinks happen that nature does intend... but they usually die out. But i think there is a connection between a development of a human and some other animals sexual drive where a mess up can occur. The sex drive aspect would pass, but when the defect happens it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Interesting this is as well, but what proves/validates your belief?

*Every day people state their beliefs yet have virtually nothing to concretely prove their claims. Thus I will take people to the great "I Don't Know".
 
Redress said:
"Purpose" and "intend" require a conscious intent. Evolution is simply nature acting on billions and billions of combination randomly, and the random forces of nature selecting from those combination. Evolution is random. If you ask what the purpose of an opposable thumb is, the question is nonsense. If however you ask why we have opposable thumbs, that question does have meaning. We have opposable thumbs because it was a trait that arose from random mutations that gave those with the mutation a survival advantage. It's purpose is not to use tools, nor to grasp with, nor to suck, and yet those are all uses and advantages to thumbs.
Click to expand...
"purpose" / "intend" are just words to explain why things are the way they are, like why do we have a big butt compared to other primate? There is all an evolutionary reasoning/ "purpose"... homosexuality has no purpose, it is simply a side effect of some that has a purpose; much like any defect any human can have.

Our genetic make-up is very specific... but it often messes up on the way of developing from the blueprint. There are common "mess-ups" /errors that happen and some uncommon ones... homosexuality i think is just one of the common "mess-ups" from development.
 
Last edited:
If we are going to say that gay people are "abnormal" because homosexuality is abnormal, then technically we are all abnormal because there is something about us as individuals that is not the norm.
 
Wake said:
I thought Darwin professed that the point of evolution was survival of the fittest. I would think that all members of said genus were meant to produce, not just a few. But then again if the point of evolution is to survive and multiply, how does this explain the homosexual or the man/woman who prefers to never have children? Odd..
Click to expand...

No. "Survival of the fittest" is simply an aspect of how evolution works.
 
jamesrage said:
Yes
Abnormal | Define Abnormal at Dictionary.com
1.
not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.
Click to expand...

Can it be quantified? Concretely proven what "normal" is? "Normal" changes from time and place.. There can be a plethore of "normals" with even more "abnormals".
 
celticwar17 said:
Evolution has a method to it's madness... this is what you would call "purpose".

Homosexually clearly does not make you fit for evolution; therefore it is not "natural". It's a side effect of a developing sex drive that can happen. Your disregarding is that homosexuality COMPLETELY laughs at evolution in the face, it literally makes the ONLY way for any life to survive... unlikely, no species could survive with a entire gay population... sure some would get curious, but the population would eventually go down to zero.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a term to describe the cumulative effects of random forces. There is no "method".
 
as if said:
That is totally illogical. If nature did not intend, flowers would not have a stamen and pistal. Hence they would not exist, no more than gay would exist aside from the fact it happens regardless of what the cause/s is/are.

I am appauled at the fact the gay agenda now touts that nature is irrelevant, doesnt exist. But it is yet another self serving attitude that is required to justify the percieved need that being gay is not only ok, it should be able to do what Nature never intended, reproduce. It is not possible. Adam and Steve could try till they die, they cannot reproduce ---> naturally.

Sorry, that's the way it is. We dont dictate nature, we can only muck it up or preserve it.
Click to expand...

Nature is not conscious, it does not "intend" anything.
 
digsbe said:
If we are going to say that gay people are "abnormal" because homosexuality is abnormal, then technically we are all abnormal because there is something about us as individuals that is not the norm.
Click to expand...

I agree and I would add that we all "have our demons", and flaws.
 
American said:
And the purpose of a public poll is? I think we know.
Click to expand...

Yes we do. It is so we can see if the number of members who voted matches the number of votes cast.
 
Redress said:
Nature is not conscious, it does not "intend" anything.
Click to expand...

So basically nature just "is" and we have absolutely no idea what we're supposed to do in life? It would seem like the safest position one could make about existence, yet it offers nothing for depth of understanding.
 
Wake said:
So basically nature just "is" and we have absolutely no idea what we're supposed to do in life? It would seem like the safest position one could make about existence, yet it offers nothing for depth of understanding.
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
Redress said:
I base my statements on the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly the point. The theory of evolution is not concretely proven, it's a theory. Theory =/= concretely proven. If I asked 20 scientists how life came to exist, I am sure I would not get one unanimous position. In fact, I've actually debated with multiple "evolutionists" and they kept arguing amongst themselves about their theories...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom