• 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
SgtRock said:
What is normal about being homosexual. Its normal for humans to have children. Two men or two women cannot copulate and have a child. My conclusion is that homosexuslity is not normal. In fact it is an aberration to be a homosexual. I recomend converting to heterosexuality. Do your part to propagate our species.
Click to expand...

:sigh: Define normal.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant. Procreation and sexual orientation are two different things.
Click to expand...

Kind of a dumb point. In order to figure out which is the normal route, you have to figure out which was designed into the system to have purpose. Frankly, this entire debate is dumb. Obviously there is nothing correct about having sex with your own gender or otherwise it would do something. I'm not saying it shouldn't be accepted or not, but damn, just shut up and admit what is what.

Oh and normal=/= natural. If you guys would realize that, it would be great. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Kind of a dumb point. In order to figure out which is the normal route, you have to figure out which was designed into the system to have purpose. Frankly, this entire debate is dumb. Obviously there is nothing correct about having sex with your own gender or otherwise it would do something. I'm not saying it shouldn't be accepted or not, but damn, just shut up and admit what is what.
Click to expand...

Actually, completely on target point. Let me know what you have spoken to the designer and he has indicated specifically what each part was designed to do. You can link me to his site, too. Further, I would hope that you understand that procreation has nothing to do with sexual orientation... but from your post, that does not seen the case.

Oh and normal=/= natural. If you guys would realize that, it would be great. :cool:
Click to expand...

And if you guys would actually come up with an accurate and legitimate definition of EITHER, THAT would be great.
 
Yes, I consider being gay to be abnormal. Heterosexuality is the norm, and homosexuality deviates from it, and is therefor abnormal. This is in no way a bad thing though.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, I consider being gay to be abnormal. Heterosexuality is the norm, and homosexuality deviates from it, and is therefor abnormal. This is in no way a bad thing though.
Click to expand...

Are you talking, statistically, molten_dragon?
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, I consider being gay to be abnormal. Heterosexuality is the norm, and homosexuality deviates from it, and is therefor abnormal. This is in no way a bad thing though.
Click to expand...

One could argue that everyone does something abnormal, or is in some way abnormal, hence abnormality is the norm.
 
mac said:
[video=youtube;_6FBfAQ-NDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6FBfAQ-NDE[/video

Good point, one I will no doubt be making in the future. For some errant reason those who cannot "get enough" believe the rest of the world should be the same or condon thier behavior.

Back when the agenda goups made so many claims I didnt listen to much. If I heard this means that this one's gay, or whaterer, I shruged it off. Good Golly Molly, if depeche mode is not gay I'll eat... something. He is even singing gayer for the song. spits ! ... and the wheels on the buss go round and round
Click to expand...
 
spud_meister said:
One could argue that everyone does something abnormal, or is in some way abnormal, hence abnormality is the norm.
Click to expand...

That is a position that I find intolerable and to be a complete cop-out. There are clear 'right' and 'wrongs' in society and this progressive position that is being pushed by you and others is disgusting.

Much of what is being pushed by progressives is nothing more than the decay of morals and common sense.
 
Last edited:
Jaaaman said:
That is a position that I find intolerable and to be a complete cop-out. There are clear 'right' and 'wrongs' in society and this progressive position that is being pushed by you and others is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Right and wrong are completely subjective, however, two things that aren't subjective are the facts that homosexuality is abnormal , and that everyone is abnormal in some way, therefore, the logical conclusion from that is that while something may be abnormal in of itself, being abnormal is completely normal.
 
spud_meister said:
Right and wrong are completely subjective,
Click to expand...

I don't believe that right and wrong is completely subjective since I believe in moral reasoning, but completely arbitrary definitions of morality such as that offered by Jaaman are certainly indefensable. There is really nothing to argue if you adopt either stance -- that morality is absolutely fixed, finite and arbitrary , or that it is completely relativistic, since in the first case the propnant is simply providing a recipe to follow with which one either agrees or disagrees, while in the latter, they are indulging in nihilism.

I think it is better to construct arguments based upon moral principles and following through logically rather than resorting to the relativistic copouts. I/E -- morality can be defined according to that behavior which causes harm, and then detail one's arguments accordingly.
 
Redress said:
Where do you get your numbers from?
Click to expand...


Homosexuality: Nature, Nurture, or Politically Correct?

The question of the nature of homosexuality has become an issue of a

significantly political, as well as, politically correct nature. Is it nature or nurture? The

fact that the standard question has eliminated the psychological possibility is a politically

correct success. The motivational politics of homosexuality are clarified by reading

"Homosexual Conduct and the Law," by Irving J. Sloan:

The earliest legal argument for outlawing homosexuality is found in

Plato's Laws ... Prohibitions on male homosexuality in the Old Testament,

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an

abomination (Leviticus: 18:22). . . ." "If a man also lie with mankind, as

with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall

surely be put to death; their blood shall be them (Leviticus: 20:13)."(1)

To paraphrase Sloan, death by burning, hanging, burying alive... exile, castration,

corporal punishment, etc., have been politically correct solutions for homosexuality (2-4).

This history presents some of the motivational forces driving advocacy groups to promote

studies indicating a genetic link to homosexuality. Recent genetic studies have shown

links to personality (Colt, George Howe, 1998), overall happiness, psychornotor reaction

time (Simonen et al, 1998), mathematics disability (Alarcon, Marciela, 1997) and many

factors which had been presumed to be the province of nurture (environment). Is there a

genetic component to homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality? This question begs

for answers, and answers are available if one approaches the subject matter logically.

In this age of computers, the logical starting place is established databases, and in

this specific case, a database of twins would be ideal. Hershberger's study of the study

by Lykken et al., "The Minnesota Twin Family Regist is exactly that and is used

extensively by many of the authors whose works are cited on these pages. To paraphrase

the study, twins registered in the State of Minnesota from 1936 to 1955 were sent

questionnaires, the replies allowing analysis of whether or not the twins were

monozygotic (identical) or dizygotic (fraternal). The questionnaire also requested the

twin~ sexual orientation, his/her twil sexual orientation, his/her non-twin siblings sexual

orientation, marital status, sexual orientation before age 25 and after age 25, and the

number and frequency of sexual encounters with persons of the same or opposite sex (3

of 3, 5,6,7 of 7).

An initial study of the Australian Twin Registry database by Michael Bailey of

Northwestern and Richard Pillard of the Boston School of Medicine was highly

publicized internationally as the proof of a high genetic influence for



homosexuality (Shapiro 4 of 6),,The study was refuted by one of the authors in a

subsequent and much less publicized study, as documented by Jones in "The Incredibly

Shrinking Gay Gene ... .. Michael Bailey of Northwestern has produced a study that

refutes his earlier research conducted with Richard Pillard of the Boston School of

Medicine, which claimed that there is a high genetic influence on homosexuality "(53).

In this same study " Only 3 pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a

total of 27 male identical twin pairs where at least one twin was homosexual"(53). These

27 pairs had 100% gene match in the individual twin pairs. If the gene was a significant

influencing factor, the incidence of homosexuality for both twins should have been much

higher. This is saying that homosexuality is not a genetic marker. These are identical

twins with same color eyes (genetic marker), same hair color (genetic marker), near

100% shared attributes (genetic markers), but no genetic marker for homosexuality.

Actually, 10% of the pairs were both gays, which begs a question.

Did the twin participant questionnaires used in the study ask if the twins were

raised by one or more gay parent/s? This is significant because children of gay parents

are 10 times (30%) as likely to be gay as the general population (3%)(Cameron, 1997, 8

and 9 of 14). In a twin study this is significant because it could cause sample bias. If this

error is not eliminated from any twin study an implication of genetic causation for

homosexuality will result; however, it will be a very small implication statistically. For

example, relate to the 27 pairs of twins and if one parent was gay (I in 33, or 3% would

be the average), then it is a strong possibility that one of the homosexual pairs could have

been caused by that factor and it dilutes an already minimal percentage (10%) to a lower

percentage (7.4%). It is worth noting again that this genetic marker is the same marker

that causes the 100% match of hair color and many other attributes that motivate the

researcher to choose a monozygotic twin study for meaningful analysis.

In a Minnesota Twin Registry study, "A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female

Sexual Orientation" by Hershberger, this data is analyzed with particular emphasis on the

monozygotic twins, because this represents an identical gene match (100%). This is

important for the purpose of the study because it would indicate that the sexuality of the


continued next post
 
continuation
one twin has to be exactly the same for the co-twin if genetics causes the sexual

orientation. As in the Australian study, this is not the case, as this quote from the

Hershberger study reveals.

For men, depending on the criterion used, the prevalence of homosexuality

ranges for 1.06% to 3.24%, with an average of 2.49%; for women, the

range is from.55% to 2.11%, with an average of 1.68%. If combined with

bisexuality, the average rises to 4.57% for men and 3.26% for women.

These rates of homosexuality are very similar to those found in studies

using probability samples conducted in the United States and elsewhere(4

of 9 in 2 of 3).

The Hershberger study also states; "Specifically, significant genetic effects were

found for self-identified female homosexuality, but not for male homosexuality, in both

the twin and extended family analyses."(5 of 9 in 2 of 3) The questionnaire used for this

study is included (6 of 7 and 7 of 7 in 3 of 3), and the question of gay parents is not

included, causing the same potential flaws as indicated for the Australian study.

In the case of monozygotic twins, any marker that does not match is the deviation.

The deviation should be measured against 100%, meaning the further away from 100%

(which is the expected match), the greater the proof that the factor is not genetic. If twins

do not have the same eye color, they are not monozygotic, meaning no 100% gene match.

Does this statement sufficiently dramatize genetic correlation?

The factual conclusions do not support a link between genetics and

homosexuality. Many institutions have attempted to stand on high moral ground by

giving generous interpretations of minimal statistical data implying genetic

homosexuality. The data should be overwhelming, if true, in a monozygotic twin study,

most certainly not a minimal statistic. The ABCNEWS.com special, "Nurture, Not

Nature" concludes that a sense of humor is not genetic (1). Overall happiness: however,

is genetic as acknowledged by Simonen et al (1998). Asa reminder, referring to Emma

Wilson's, "Textuality and (homo) Sexuality in Tournier's Les Meteores" to acknowledge

the psychological inferences, in this case, narcissism, regarding homosexuality might be

enlightening (9 of 9). The backlash caused by the historical overreaction to

homosexuality is analogous to affirmative action. Do the words, "too much of a good

thing," strike a responsive chord here?













Works Cited

Alarcon, Maricela, DeFnries, J. C, and Light, Jacquelyn Gillis. "A Twin Study of

Mathematics Disability Journal ofLearning Disabilities. Nov/Dec 1997. 617-23.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Did the APA Misrepresent the Scientific Literature

to Courts in Support of Homosexual Customers Journal of Psychology- May

1997. 313-32.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Homosexual Parents". Adolescence. Winter 1996.

757-76.

Colt, George Howe. "Were You Born That Way?". Life. April 1998. 38-42.

Hershberger, Scott L. "A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female Sexual Orientation".

The Journal of Sex Research. 1997. 212-22.

Jones, Stanton L. "The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene". Christianity Today. Oct. 1999.

53.

Shapiro, Joseph P. "Kids With Gay Parents". U.S. News & World Report. Sept. 1996. 75-

6.

Simonen, Riitta L, Videman, Tapio, and Battie, Michele C. "The Effect of Lifelong

Exercise On Psychomotor Reaction Time: a Study of 38 Pair of Male

Monozygotic Twins. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Sept. 1998.

1445-50.

Sloan, Irving J. "Homosexual Conduct and the Law". Ed. Irving J. Sloan. Oceana

Publications. London/Rome/New York. 1987.

Viegas, Jennifer. "Nature, Not Nurture". ABCNE WS. com. April 14, 2000.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/D...morOO0414.html.

Wilson, Emma. "Textuality and (homo)Sexuality in Tournier's Les Meteores". Romanic

Review. Jan. 1995. 115-27.
 
This was a research paper I did on the genetics of homosexuality using identical twins for the database. Identical twins have identical DNA ergo if one is homosexual and it is genetic then the other must also be. The research indicates, fairly conclusively, that there is no genetic link to homosexuality.. There is plenty of data to indicate a nurture link to homosexuality but none to link nature to it.
 
DaveFagan said:
There is plenty of data to indicate a nurture link to homosexuality but none to link nature to it.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the link between a greater number of older siblings and an increased chance of younger siblings being gay, or that women who are related to homosexuals being more fertile?
 
spud_meister said:
Right and wrong are completely subjective, however, two things that aren't subjective are the facts that homosexuality is abnormal , and that everyone is abnormal in some way, therefore, the logical conclusion from that is that while something may be abnormal in of itself, being abnormal is completely normal.
Click to expand...

morality is not completely subjectve. the basics of moralitt have been shown to be naturally occuring and exist in animals other than humans.
 
Henrin said:
Kind of a dumb point. In order to figure out which is the normal route, you have to figure out which was designed into the system to have purpose. Frankly, this entire debate is dumb. Obviously there is nothing correct about having sex with your own gender or otherwise it would do something. I'm not saying it shouldn't be accepted or not, but damn, just shut up and admit what is what.

Oh and normal=/= natural. If you guys would realize that, it would be great. :cool:
Click to expand...

You only think it is dumb because A: you are not gay, and B: you were not raised or conditioned at some point in life to believe the rehtoric of the agenda de jure should be whatever makes you feel good.

Nature porvides the sampling for normal. The fact that they are not the norm is one reason they argue normal to the point of taunting. This taunt coupled with numerous ilogical examples that seem almost feasable, and any other concievable made to confuse line of thought are thier tools. The made to confuse lines of thought must be how they made any case in court at all. The purponderance on continued and relentless confused thought is used to recrute higher and higher numbers. There are advantages in numbers in more ways than I can concieve of... and lawyers aint cheap.
 
Last edited:
as if said:
LOL no, but some do have to note to others that they are gay... when they note they are gay why do they if not to signify sexuality?

This is the reason I detest at times having to refer to me or most people, the term straight. From what I hear they are a small minority though one would not know it.

I'm digging for my 1970's hard copy dictionary now... I find I need to see if straight means anything in regard to sexuality... along with gay.
Click to expand...

they are a minority 8-10% of humanity. that doesnt mean they dont exist.

do you refer to yourself as straight generally, or just in conversations concerning sexual orientation.
 
DaveFagan said:
This was a research paper I did on the genetics of homosexuality using identical twins for the database. Identical twins have identical DNA ergo if one is homosexual and it is genetic then the other must also be. The research indicates, fairly conclusively, that there is no genetic link to homosexuality.. There is plenty of data to indicate a nurture link to homosexuality but none to link nature to it.
Click to expand...

That is not a research paper, it is an op/ed. Further, it sources Cameron, who is entirely discredited. Lastly, the numbers you cite for homosexuality come from a twins study, not from general population, and I can find no corroboration of that study.
 
I'm late to the party, but no, I do not consider homosexuals to be abnormal based solely upon their sexual preference. I'd think that was a pretty obvious answer, but looking at how many pages this poll has generated, I'm presuming that there are a number of people who disagree. That's okay. They are entitled to be utterly wrong. :)
 
Redress said:
That is not a research paper, it is an op/ed. Further, it sources Cameron, who is entirely discredited. Lastly, the numbers you cite for homosexuality come from a twins study, not from general population, and I can find no corroboration of that study.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you did not read the paper.
 
DaveFagan said:
I can only assume that you did not read the paper.
Click to expand...


I guess you know nothing of paul Cameron


  • On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
  • At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6
  • In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron." At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:
    The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8
    ​
  • In August, 1996, the Canadian Psychological Association adopted the following policy statement:
    The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally disassociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
    ​
  • Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Fo[/FONT]http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, completely on target point. Let me know what you have spoken to the designer and he has indicated specifically what each part was designed to do. You can link me to his site, too. Further, I would hope that you understand that procreation has nothing to do with sexual orientation... but from your post, that does not seen the case.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the "designer" (what are we in a religious thread all of a sudden?) decided an action that does nothing to be done and desired and the action that does something to not be desired. Are you even listening to yourself here?


And if you guys would actually come up with an accurate and legitimate definition of EITHER, THAT would be great.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I did that already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom