• 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
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.

So one book buy one guy? OK that proves everyone else wrong.
 
So one book buy one guy? OK that proves everyone else wrong.

You are now grasping at straws and again you are not actually following links. His book draws material from over 300 studies on the subject. The reason people include links is so you can actually go and verify. Just dismissing without actually looking at a source never works well.
 
You are now grasping at straws and again you are not actually following links. His book draws material from over 300 studies on the subject. The reason people include links is so you can actually go and verify. Just dismissing without actually looking at a source never works well.

No that is not the fail. The fail is the article as I said before. Here is the end...

Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial by social conservatives because it asserts the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to equate animal behavior to morality.[7][8] Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research[9][10][11][12] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex.

PS I read the article and as I said before animal motivations and human motivations are two separate and distinct things.

No evidence at all exists to show homosexuality is physical or anything else for that matter.
 
Last edited:
No. We've debated this lot of times... and I am not talking about anyone but myself. I have consistently stated that we do not know, precisely, how sexual orientation is formed, but the best assumptions from researchers is that it is created by genetics, biology, body chemistry/hormones, and environmental factors... or some combination. This has always been my position.

You just did it right there....you glossed over the "may be".

I emphasized best assumptions as it's the closest thing you've said to it may be.
 
The majority who all agree your assessment of what is homosexuality in animals is dead wrong.


Seems to me that the majority thinks if a female has sex with a female it is gay. Now what majority is this you speak of?
 
You just did it right there....you glossed over the "may be".

I emphasized best assumptions as it's the closest thing you've said to it may be.

So? I have no idea what you are trying to point out.
 
Seems to me that the majority thinks if a female has sex with a female it is gay. Now what majority is this you speak of?

They are ALL female, what part of that are you NOT understanding? Many animals of different types can either change gender or are the same gender and breed.

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[11] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[12] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to the human condition.

Even you should now understand.
 
You are being misleading....at least mildly. Most, though, are far more blatantly misleading about it.

Not at all. I am stating something as a researcher would. It seems like how I am stating it doesn't fit into your position.
 
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.
Nah. You implied that animal homosexuality is based in something other than genetics. I clarified.
You are however trying to imply because it happens in the animal kingdom it is more than choice.
No.

In the animal kingdom this may be true. In humans however, no evidence to support this one way or the other exists.
No **** - unless you take people's word for it.

Then you need to read what I responded too.
This?

Edit 2: Oh as for the "realm of Abnormal Psychology"....black people were once thought of as animals at one point in history also...it took strong lobbying to get them elevated to human also.
Still nothing there.

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.
Not so much. Most, if not all, of that was true in certain parts of Africa, certainly not on the whole continent. It looked inferior and "animalistic" to them when it was really just the product of a different environment.

And it does not apply to humans. Unless you have evidence the rest of the world does not? :mrgreen:
You seem to be perpetually confused as I literally just said that in the comment your responding to.:shrug:
 
Last edited:
They are ALL female, what part of that are you NOT understanding? Many animals of different types can either change gender or are the same gender and breed.

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[11] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[12] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to the human condition.

Even you should now understand.


Hey you are the that brought up alligators in the first place. I simply showed you examples of homosexual behavior in the reptilian world.
 
Not at all. I am stating something as a researcher would. It seems like how I am stating it doesn't fit into your position.

No...you are glossing it over. The studies clearly state the "may be" in all cases. You, do not.
 
Nah. You implied that animal homosexuality is based in something other than genetics. I clarified.

No I did not. That is blatantly untrue. Please feel free to point out where I said this?


Yes you did imply it, or the way you worded it it seemed that way.

No **** - unless you take people's word for it.

Take who's word for it? Someone with a biased opinion lacking in facts?

This?
Still nothing there.

That is part of it. And yes something IS there.

Not so much. Most, if not all, of that was true in certain parts of Africa, certainly not on the whole continent. It looked inferior and "animalistic" to them when it was really just the product of a different environment.

They are speaking of the race as a whole, not "certain parts of Africa." Yes if it is wrong in even just one village let alone large parts of Africa, it is not true. It has less to do with black culture and more to do with white racism as I said.

You seem to be perpetually confused as I literally just said that in the comment your responding to.:shrug:

Then why did you even respond? I think you are confused and assume I said something I did not.
 
Hey you are the that brought up alligators in the first place. I simply showed you examples of homosexual behavior in the reptilian world.

I already showed examples, all you did was make a lame attempt to set some juvenile trap that backfired.

You are trying to apply something human to animals. A bad example as I said before you jumped in.
 
Last edited:
No I did not. That is blatantly untrue. Please feel free to point out where I said this?
In your first response to Kal. I may have misread it.

Yes you did imply it, or the way you worded it it seemed that way.
Didn't try to imply.

Take who's word for it?
Take most gay people's word for it.

That is part of it. And yes something IS there.
I'm not seeing it.

They are speaking of the race as a whole, not "certain parts of Africa." Yes if it is wrong in even just one village let alone large parts of Africa, it is not true. It has less to do with black culture and more to do with white racism as I said.
Well yeah. They took things from certain parts of Africa and applied it to every African. They generalized and that was my point. Their generalization/racism came partially from behavior and was not simply skin color based. I agree that they made snap judgments on skin color, but behavior and cultural difference also played a significant role.

Then why did you even respond? I think you are confused and assume I said something I did not.
Not so much.
 
I already showed examples, all you did was make a lame attempt to set some juvenile trap that backfired.

You are trying to apply something human to animals. A bad example as I said before you jumped in.


You said
Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?

I called you on your ill informed BS.
 
No...you are glossing it over. The studies clearly state the "may be" in all cases. You, do not.

No, I am saying what researchers say... from doing research. There is no "glossing over". You don't like the words I've chosen, though they are similar.

But tell us mac, what is the difference between saying "I assume" and "it may be"? Neither gives a definitive... but why don't you tell us the difference since you seem to be stuck on this.
 
Last edited:
I don't dispute that, I never have. I entertain that it is possible that being homosexual is not a choice, but know that there is no proof of it. The problem I have with this argument is that there are an aweful lot of people out there that think there is conclusive proof that homosexuality has been proven to be a result of genetic and other factors and that "born gay" has been proven conclusivley. You yourself have indicated that by glossing over the "may be" in the summaries of all these studies.

Does it make a difference whether its genetic or a choice really, the end result is the same. I can only go by my stepdaughter who says she was not born that way.
 
You said

I called you on your ill informed BS.

I notice you cut out my comment in context...

Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?

Now their are a few that exhibit this behavior due mostly to pheromones and an attraction to others that have just finished feeding as in the case of bed bugs. It is exceedingly rare in lower level organisms in general, why?
- http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97929-gay-people-abnormal-94.html#post1059475778

Try again. :lol:
 
I notice you cut out my comment in context...

Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?

Now their are a few that exhibit this behavior due mostly to pheromones and an attraction to others that have just finished feeding as in the case of bed bugs. It is exceedingly rare in lower level organisms in general, why?
- http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97929-gay-people-abnormal-94.html#post1059475778

Try again. :lol:

If true, that is a very interesting point. It makes me wonder what causes the behavior in other animals, and if those same reasons apply to humans. Obviously, for a person the reasons are much more complex than instinctive behaviors in many cases. But there has to be some sort of genetic component or it wouldn't be as common.
 
If true, that is a very interesting point. It makes me wonder what causes the behavior in other animals, and if those same reasons apply to humans.

So far no evidence points to this at all, but it does not rule it out completely as we discover new things every day.

Animals are not a good example for human behavior.

Obviously, for a person the reasons are much more complex than instinctive behaviors in many cases. But there has to be some sort of genetic component or it wouldn't be as common.

Again no evidence of it being genetic in humans exists so far. What most studies I have seen recently do say is they think (still a theory without much proof either way) it is a combination of environment, nature and nurture. I also have seen something about brain shape??? Capitan correct me if I am wrong. The male and female brain is slightly different in function as well as shape, and it appears that in some cases they are reversed in gay or trans gendered males and females.

So nothing conclusive on either front as we are still learning.
 
Last edited:
So far no evidence points to this at all, but it does not rule it out completely as we discover new things every day.

Animals are not a good example for human behavior.

Why not? We are animals, and our behavior is really not that different from the rest of the animal kingdom. The fact that there is rape, murder, incest, and horrible violence should be proof of that.


Again no evidence of it being genetic in humans exists so far. What most studies I have seen recently do say is they think (still a theory without much proof either way) it is a combination of environment, nature and nurture. I also have seen something about brain shape??? Capitan correct me if I am wrong. The male and female brain is slightly different and it appears that in some cases they are reversed in gay or trans gendered males and females.

So nothing conclusive on either front as we are still learning.

Nature (genetics) is one aspect. Nurture (environment) is mostly how a person is raised by family. To me, the nature aspect seems more convincing in most cases. The male brain is actually shaped by estrogen during its development (odd, I know) while the female brain when developing is protected from the estrogen by a certain chemical which I can't remember. I can find some links for this if you're interested. But the point is, people are mostly born homosexual or become so because of factors beyond their own control.
 
Why not? We are animals, and our behavior is really not that different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

You really have to ask that? With very few exceptions we are the only animals that kill for sport etc.

Yes we are very different.

The fact that there is rape, murder, incest, and horrible violence should be proof of that.

Rape, murder and incest are not examples of bad animal behavior. They are examples of bad human behavior as animals cannot rape etc because they don't know any better, they don't have morals and we do. The rest is just violence when animals in 99.9% of the time are doing it to eat. We are doing it to eat as well but also for sport.

Nature (genetics) is one aspect. Nurture (environment) is mostly how a person is raised by family. To me, the nature aspect seems more convincing in most cases.

According to science the answer for the most is that no evidence to date shows homosexuality is physical in DNA etc. No evidence of it at all, and we have looked for the last what? 20 to 30 years?

The male brain is actually shaped by estrogen during its development (odd, I know) while the female brain when developing is protected from the estrogen by a certain chemical which I can't remember. I can find some links for this if you're interested. But the point is, people are mostly born homosexual or become so because of factors beyond their own control.

Most of the brain research I saw was transgendered people or men who thought they were female etc. This is not truly homosexuality as it is not 2 males as one feels they are female and goes to great lengths to be just that. So I don't agree.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom