• 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
as if said:
What word was made up?
Click to expand...

Unnatural rights, global facts. But I don't wish to bring that thread up in this thread anymore. Start a thread about those words if you want to discuss them.
 
The problem with homosexuality and genetics is that we don't really have a protein explanation for homosexuality (nor do we have one for homosexuality). It may be due to sex hormone, but I'm not aware of any studies that look at androgens in lesbians or estrogens/progesterone in gay males. I am not dismissing a biological factor, however there is no evidence either way genetically speaking (although we should also consider epigenetics).
 
digsbe said:
The problem with homosexuality and genetics is that we don't really have a protein explanation for homosexuality (nor do we have one for homosexuality). It may be due to sex hormone, but I'm not aware of any studies that look at androgens in lesbians or estrogens/progesterone in gay males. I am not dismissing a biological factor, however there is no evidence either way genetically speaking (although we should also consider epigenetics).
Click to expand...

This is why we just need to study sexuality, and not focus on hetero, homo, so much. To understand them, we must understand how we develop them.
 
Redress said:
For how you define the word "abnormal", do you consider gays to be "abnormal"?
Click to expand...

considering that gays make up less than 10% of the population, then technically I'd have to say that gays are "abnormal". But then again, so are left-handed people
 
Your Star said:
This is why we just need to study sexuality, and not focus on hetero, homo, so much. To understand them, we must understand how we develop them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Regardless of the results individuals deserve respect and equality regardless of sexuality or how it may come about.
 
Your Star said:
Unnatural rights, global facts. But I don't wish to bring that thread up in this thread anymore. Start a thread about those words if you want to discuss them.
Click to expand...

You say you do not want to bring it up, yet had to post that is was in another thread. Promoting? Advertising?

You deny nature and insist on definitions in lack of a defense.

Feel free as I noted in the other thread to you and others to do your own footwork. Unless you insist I do post links for definitions from now on.

Your insistance that I start a thread is indicitive of a dictorial nature.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+453&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b79e22abe8453b355ea0228a88818f54

Your lack of knowledge is a disservice to you. Your insistance to stay that way, as evidenced by your post and insistance of "made up words," is an outright choice to remain ignorant of FACTS. The other word you and others insisted I could not use.

Astonishing
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
The problem with homosexuality and genetics is that we don't really have a protein explanation for homosexuality (nor do we have one for homosexuality). It may be due to sex hormone, but I'm not aware of any studies that look at androgens in lesbians or estrogens/progesterone in gay males. I am not dismissing a biological factor, however there is no evidence either way genetically speaking (although we should also consider epigenetics).
Click to expand...

Genetics can have drastic effects on behavior. Let's look at the fosB gene in mice. http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors96/group3/Page2.html

The article is fascinating reading, and note that the fosB gene is found in humans.
 
as if said:
You say you do not want to bring it up, yet had to post that is was in another thread. Promoting? Advertising?

You deny nature and insist on definitions in lack of a defense.

Feel free as I noted in the other thread to you and others to do your own footwork. Unless you insist I do post links for definitions from now on.

Your insistance that I start a thread is indicitive of a dictorial nature.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+453&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b79e22abe8453b355ea0228a88818f54

Your lack of knowledge is a disservice to you. Your insistance to stay that way, as evidenced by your post and insistance of "made up words," is an outright choice to remain ignorant of FACTS. The other word you and others insisted I could not use.

Astonishing
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
This is not the place for this discussion, and personal attacks of other members are not allowed on this forum except in the basement.
 
Redress said:
Genetics can have drastic effects on behavior. Let's look at the fosB gene in mice. http://student.biology.arizona.edu/honors96/group3/Page2.html

The article is fascinating reading, and note that the fosB gene is found in humans.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll look into primary research articles on it. Thanks for sharing that. It would be interesting to see if the protein product somehow influences maternal instinct and it would be interesting to see how the human homologue of the gene functions in us.
 
digsbe said:
The problem with homosexuality and genetics is that we don't really have a protein explanation for homosexuality (nor do we have one for homosexuality). It may be due to sex hormone, but I'm not aware of any studies that look at androgens in lesbians or estrogens/progesterone in gay males. I am not dismissing a biological factor, however there is no evidence either way genetically speaking (although we should also consider epigenetics).
Click to expand...

It's been conclusively demonstrated that homosexuality is not the product of abnormal hormone levels in adults.
 
Redress said:
Everything you posted around the word "perfection".
Click to expand...

It was a way of describing it. If someone is Schizophrenic (sp?) it's abnormal, having a third eye is abnormal, having hypothyroidism is abnormal, Having hair in-between the crack of your toes is abnormal, having purple colored eyes is abnormal, having an irregular heartbeat is abnormal, being born a homosexual is ABNORMAL.
Just because its abnormal doesn't mean its bad, it's just, abnormal.
You think we are supposed to have a irregular heartbeat? Are we supposed to be born without an arm? with extra non-symmetrical cartilage? NO, these, just like homosexuality, was a flaw in development. You can't argue we are supposed to have homosexuals, we are suppose to have homosexuals just as much as we are suppose to been born with spina bifida, our species would die if this was a normal feature of our body make-up.
Again... most of us has something our genetic blueprint did not really call for, but through development got mess up on the way.

The "perfection" thing was meant to explain that homosexuality does not contribute to the survival of our species directly in of itself... but obviously its a side affect of something that does work for evolution, like our sex drive.
 
Last edited:
as if said:
You say you do not want to bring it up, yet had to post that is was in another thread. Promoting? Advertising?

You deny nature and insist on definitions in lack of a defense.

Feel free as I noted in the other thread to you and others to do your own footwork. Unless you insist I do post links for definitions from now on.

Your insistance that I start a thread is indicitive of a dictorial nature.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+453&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b79e22abe8453b355ea0228a88818f54

Your lack of knowledge is a disservice to you. Your insistance to stay that way, as evidenced by your post and insistance of "made up words," is an outright choice to remain ignorant of FACTS. The other word you and others insisted I could not use.

Astonishing
Click to expand...

What is dictorial?
 
TOJ said:
The question was, 'Are gay people abnormal?". It was not, 'is homesexuality abnormal?". :doh

.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the first time in history that I have agreed with you. You nailed the difference.
 
Alfons said:
The question is, what people, country, imperial, civilization etc. in the last 5771 years considered Homosexuality as normal and has not vanished?
Click to expand...

No, actually that is not the question at all. If you cannot answer the actual question, do not alter the question to suit your purposes.
 
as if said:
You say you do not want to bring it up, yet had to post that is was in another thread. Promoting? Advertising?

You deny nature and insist on definitions in lack of a defense.

Feel free as I noted in the other thread to you and others to do your own footwork. Unless you insist I do post links for definitions from now on.

Your insistance that I start a thread is indicitive of a dictorial nature.

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=60+U.+Miami+L.+Rev.+453&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=b79e22abe8453b355ea0228a88818f54

Your lack of knowledge is a disservice to you. Your insistance to stay that way, as evidenced by your post and insistance of "made up words," is an outright choice to remain ignorant of FACTS. The other word you and others insisted I could not use.

Astonishing
Click to expand...

Are you ever going to post any of your so called facts or are you just going to strut?
 
CriticalThought said:
Are you ever going to post any of your so called facts or are you just going to strut?
Click to expand...

global facts don't exist

unnatural rights pertain to intellectual property, not homosexuality

I have no idea what as if is ranting about at this point.
 
American said:
Yes, asking a controversial question about a controversial subject is just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

This Debate Politics, not Debate Basketweaving.

Discussing controversial topics is quite all right. If trouble ensues... I'm usually around. ;)
 
StillBallin75 said:
global facts don't exist

unnatural rights pertain to intellectual property, not homosexuality

I have no idea what as if is ranting about at this point.
Click to expand...

He is foundationalist, but he doesn't know anything about epistemology, so he is struggling to find the words to describe his beliefs.
 
kaya'08 said:
So what's your take on gay marriage?
Click to expand...

i think it's pretty clearly a state decision. not really sure how that fits into this discusion....
 
Paschendale said:
Yeah, and? The discussion at hand is "normality". Brutality and violence are certainly normal for human beings.
Click to expand...

charles manson is not normal. the definition you have provided is so open as to be meaningless.
 
Your Star said:
What's your opinion on DOMA?
Click to expand...

on that i'm less certain. i would say that defining marriage for the purposes of the federal government is definitely a function of congress and the executive.


as a far as portability, however, i'm torn between the instinct is to say that it is illegal of them to try to say that one state can choose not to recognize the marriage contracts of another and the instinct that marriage licensing is a state authority, and it's not up to congress to tell a state what they must or must not extend in that area. even for our second amendment rights - which are directly and blatantly demanded, as opposed to "marriage rights" which one must read through penumbra's and "senses of the times" to achieve - we allow states to refuse to acknowledge (for example) concealed carry licenses of the others that put into place standards of which that state disapproves.

i would like to see the SCOTUS take up that portion of the issue, but I would rather it be done honestly, which is to say, having an actual argument between a true proponent and a true detractor - as opposed to an administration charged with defending the law that refuses to do so.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
i think it's pretty clearly a state decision. not really sure how that fits into this discusion....
Click to expand...

No state should be in the business of denying people rights due to sexual orentation.

This is one instance where I believe the Federal Government must stand up for the people of the entire land and declare that no man, woman or child should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom