CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm actually going to have to agree with lolzors on this one. Just because other animals do it does not, necessarily, make it the norm.
Now, I think the issue here is more of what is "normal?" If we mean the average, homosexuality is not normal. If we mean by what is practical, homosexuality is most likely not normal.
I think you're merely taking what is natural, and sure, it is natural, but so is heart disease. Unless heart disease were to become the average cause of death, it wouldn't be "normal" to have heart disease.
Abnormal doesn't have to be negative. Lolzors may be against homosexuality in general, but that doesn't change the denotation of the debate.
I think you are getting normal and abnormal mixed up with something other than their psychological meanings. In psych, 'Abnormal' doesn't just mean uncommon.
If we mean by what is practical, homosexuality is most likely not normal.
I think though that the example highlights the normalcy of a species to have a percent of homosexuality. As in "Is it normal for some animals in a given species to be homosexual" and the numbers clearly say, yes, that would be a normal phenomenon. There is no reason to introduce the additional factor of practicality. After all, how much of human sex of any sort is "practical"?
Assface mentions normal as a percent, and this too could categorize it as abnormal.
Again though, it is picking one of many "abnormal" things and comparing it to a whole. When manipulated and surveyed I think that "normal" in terms of sexuality, is not normal at all. The whole of it is quite abnormal, and this makes the various forms of it, including homosexuality, normal.
After all, how much of human sex of any sort is "practical"?
With added aesthetic values and our scientific age, the practicality of homosexuality is no longer as relevant. We could all become gay right now and it wouldn't matter.
However, at face value homosexuality is not very practical for a species. Rational human beings will want to have children as they always do because of our rationality, but animals, for the most part, will just fuck those of the same gender and wouldn't give child rearing a thought... because they don't think that way. Consider the Bonobos which have a very diverse sexuality, it's mostly paraphilia and of the sort, but includes incest and homosexuality. The bonobos, still, enjoy sex with those of a different gender because they are indiscriminate.
Homosexuality, though, is sexual arousal towards those of the same sex. This not practical for a species that doesn't think as rationally as we do. If the human species had been mostly homosexual since pre-civilization, we would not have a very large species at this point.
When manipulated and surveyed I think that "normal" in terms of sexuality, is not normal at all.
It is when your options are between "do you prefer your own gender, the opposite gender, or both pretty much equally?" considering that most prefer their own gender is what makes it normal in terms of orientation. Sexuality is not limited to orientation.
Using animals as an example that it is normal is actually quite stupid, it is not normal. It may be natural, but definitely not normal. Homosexuality should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
The only reason someone would be against this is because they were unable to accept the truth that hurts too much (honestly now, who would want to consider themselves as fucked up?). If you have issues you have issues, saying otherwise won't change it.
Homosexuality should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
How about...
Blondes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
I mean, blondes are a lower percentage of the total population right? So obviously not "normal."
Or
People with green eyes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
Or
Old people should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
If the factor which determines "normalcy" is only that thing's prevelance as a percent of society, and if anything which meets this criteria should also necessarily be treated as a disease, even if there are no negative side effects,
then there is not a human on earth who is not diseased in one way or another.
Blondes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
So stupid...
How about being awake should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, ... I'm not as stupid as to finish this.
I mean, blondes are a lower percentage of the total population right? So obviously not "normal."
You don't seem to grasp "normal".
Oh, and here where I live they are not exactly a lower population, in fact, if I remember correctly, they are the higher population. There's a lot of them... including myself (although a darker blonde).
Yeah, I get it, you're stupid.
People with green eyes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
I already got it... you're stupid.
Old people should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).
Okay, this is new, you're an idiot.
If the factor which determines "normalcy" is only that thing's prevelance as a percent of society, and if anything which meets this criteria should also necessarily be treated as a disease, even if there are no negative side effects, then there is not a human on earth who is not diseased in one way or another.
Homosexuality is a disorder. How hard can it be to understand?
If you have sexual urges for the same sex then you have a problem with your mind or with your genetics. Having sexual feelings for the same sex is not normal. There are two genders of humans, not one. Without both genders working with each other we...
I might as well ask you why is cancer treated as a disease? Or Down syndrome as a genetic disorder? Because that's exactly what they are. The same goes about homosexuality, it's a disorder.
1. There are less blondes in the world than brunettes. It wasn't a blonde joke... you turned it into one when you mentioned the color of your hair though ._.
2. You've defined disorder as something which constitutes a lower percent of the total population. I was showing you how your logic is stupid.
3. You are now trying to compare homosexuality to a disease. A: diseases are not abnormal. B: diseases do cause harm and you yourself have established that not only does homosexuality not cause harm, but a thing does not have to cause harm to be abnormal.
There is no single sentence of your actual argument which does not contradict itself. Congratulations. That's probably hard to do... even for a blonde.
There are less blondes in the world than brunettes. It wasn't a blonde joke... you turned it into one when you mentioned the color of your hair though
So what?
And no, I did not. Your mind must be rather fucked up if you think I did.
You've defined disorder as something which constitutes a lower percent of the total population. I was showing you how your logic is stupid.
You call my logic stupid, yet yours is clearly inferior to mine. Idiot.
You are now trying to compare homosexuality to a disease. A: diseases are not abnormal. B: diseases do cause harm and you yourself have established that not only does homosexuality not cause harm, but a thing does not have to cause harm to be abnormal.'
You did notice I said it is a disorder? Seriously...
There is no single sentence of your actual argument which does not contradict itself.
My sentences do not contradict themselves. You must be delusional to think they do.
Congratulations. That's probably hard to do... even for a blonde.
Just letting you know... there are also documented cases of cannibalism, rape, incest, bestiality (meaning having sex with humans), pedophilia, etc. in the animal kingdom. So if you are going to argue this tactic then you have to also say that it is natural to eat other humans, rape other humans, have sex with animals, have sex with kids, etc.
Well, he was arguing about naturality, not morality....still....what, EXACTLY, IS immoral about two being of the same sex showing their love for one another in a personal act?
Two beings of the same sex? You mean a male human and a male dog? Yeah... that is normal.
Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral. Shoving it into someones ass is simply disgusting, you'll get shit all over it. Ass is for letting things out, not inserting them.
Personally I don't care about gays. All I see them as is people with issues.
Whilst I did not downvote that, as I agree with it, I can kinda see why. It seems like you called homosexuality immoral because it's distasteful. Then some gay probably got all butt hurt (pun definitely intended), and downvoted it.
So a Hetrosexual couple that have Anal Sex are Immoral because Anal is not just something Homosexuals do. Your statement that you think Homosexuals are people with issues and that they are immoral for having Anal sex rather than just acccepting them as people show's you do have a problem
I said toward immoral. It doesn't matter whether heterosexual or homosexual, if you are shoving it into someones ass you are doing it wrong and, most importantly, it is disgusting.
You might as well eat your own shit while you're at it. Now why does no one do that? Because the taste is far too bad? Who cares! It's not wrong! I do it all the time so it is okay, it is normal. You see the problem in that? That it's not normal?
Shithole is not for banging; shit is not for eating. If you like to do those then go ahead, but don't claim it is normal.
Your statement that you think Homosexuals are people with issues and that they are immoral for having Anal sex rather than just acccepting them as people show's you do have a problem
Seriously, reread my argument, seems you missed the last line.
They are people who have issues, because they are banging the wrong sex and into the wrong hole (there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex) and they claim there is nothing wrong with it. Everything's wrong with it. They are people, just people with issues. You are the one with a problem if you cannot accept this.
Your problem is right there "they are banging the wrong sex"!! There is no such thing as the wrong sex and your argument is based on the assumption that all Homosexuals are having Anal sex, what if they are just engaging in mutual masturbation and oral sex or is that not normal either?, what about Lesbians they dont neccasarily engage in Anal Sex and they both have the "right holes" or does the Vagina somehow become the wrong hole when it's two women because you have said "there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex".
There is no such thing as the wrong sex and your argument is based on the assumption that all Homosexuals are having Anal sex, what if they are just engaging in mutual masturbation and oral sex or is that not normal either?
The same sex as yours is the wrong sex.
My argument is not based on ass banging, it was just an example. Doesn't matter whether they are doing one thing or another. Normal people don't do any of that with their own sex. And having issues is normal... but if you go to the specifics then not so much.
what about Lesbians they dont neccasarily engage in Anal Sex and they both have the "right holes" or does the Vagina somehow become the wrong hole when it's two women because you have said "there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex".
Same sex and right holes do not exist. Men don't have right holes in the first place... they've got sticks.
Would you like humanity consisted of only one sex that has both balls and tits and all the rest? Dream on... that's never gonna happen. We have two sexes, that should say it all (not that you'll get it).
I dont remember saying that I wanted the Human race to consist of only one sex, I think sir that you are deluded and your definately wrong in your assumption that I want this. I ike the diversity of the Human race and I dont judge people on their Race, Sex, Sexuality or Religion I make my decisions on what I think of people by what they say and how they act. It's sad that there are people in this world who are too narrow minded to see beyond Sexuality, Sex, Race or whatever excuse they use to spout their bigoted views and wont accept people for who they are
I dont remember saying that I wanted the Human race to consist of only one sex, I think sir that you are deluded and your definately wrong in your assumption that I want this.
It was just a question. Humanity consists of two genders, not one, both are needed for us to keep existing. Doing the same sex is stupid.
I ike the diversity of the Human race and I dont judge people on their Race, Sex, Sexuality or Religion I make my decisions on what I think of people by what they say and how they act.
Neither do I, if you haven't still gotten that. All I am saying is that homosexuality is a disorder and, well, wrong.
It's sad that there are people in this world who are too narrow minded to see beyond Sexuality, Sex, Race or whatever excuse they use to spout their bigoted views and wont accept people for who they are
Yeah, there are those, but I'm not one of them. I accept them (homosexuals) as they are - people with an issue, assuming there's nothing else wrong with them.
Two beings of the same sex? You mean a male human and a male dog? Yeah... that is normal.
You knew what I was talking about. This is a debate about homosexuality, not bestiality.
Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral. Shoving it into someones ass is simply disgusting, you'll get shit all over it.
Homosexuality is about a lot more than anal sex. How much anal sex does your average lesbian have in the course of a week? Besides, all you highlighted was that you, personally, find anal sex gross. You never made a point for homosexuality "going towards immorality".
All I see them as is people with issues.
The love who they love. It isn't harming anybody. It is mutual consent. Where is the issue?
The love who they love. It isn't harming anybody. It is mutual consent. Where is the issue?
The issue is saying it is normal. It's basically saying it is okay to have a disorder or to be genetically messed up. Homosexuality is not okay, it is a problem, just as is every other disorder. It is natural (as there are also many different disorders), but not normal.
WHY is it not okay? WHY is it a problem? Why is it immoral? Who is being harmed? So far your only cogent argument against it to me is that you find anal sex disgusting.
You have anything against bestiality? How about necrophilia? They harm no one. I'm quite certain you regard those as not normal, or just disgusting, or something like that. If you think homosexuality is okay then you must also think the same about those.
Sexual arousal toward something wrong is abnormal. If you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that means you're not normal, it means there's something wrong with you.
Statistically speaking, vegetarianism is not normal. Neither is wearing all black, or eating a sandwich with a knife and fork. Being an innovator is not normal. You going to rally against these things too? Normalcy is not, in and of itself, the arbitrator of morality.
You have anything against bestiality?
Yes. When it comes to sexual affairs, I have a problem with those acts in which one or more participants is not a consenting human adult. Because only a human adult can properly conceptualize the meaning and potential repercussions of the act, and communicate its consent to its partner.
How about necrophilia?
Well, if the corpse had given prior consent before becoming a corpse, then in the purest sense I do not...although it is no activity I'd wish to participate in. However, society tends to prefer to respect its dead. Particularly the loved ones of the deceased. So I can see why a societal taboo would be in place (not to mention certain health risks). And if the corpse did not give consent prior, see my above answer.
If you think homosexuality is okay then you must also think the same about those.
No, you mustn't. There are more factors in play here than just normalcy. These are all very different sexual practices that need to be judged and compared using ALL criteria, not some arbitrary talking point.
If you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that means you're not normal, it means there's something wrong with you.
And even if I were to agree, what is it to you? How does it affect your life, or make society any worse? Why the hell should you care what two people do in privacy and in love?
Statistically speaking, vegetarianism is not normal.
We are omnivores, not herbivores. It's not normal even without statistics.
Neither is wearing all black, or eating a sandwich with a knife and fork.
Now this, is a very stupid example. As the previous so does this have nothing to do with the debate.
How about a cheese and meat sandwich with some ketchup in between, cooked in an oven or a microwave and is too hot to eat from hands? You eat it with a fork and a knife, unless you don't care about getting burned.
Being an innovator is not normal.
That suggests there's something wrong with the established. Change is necessary and normal, but not all change as our minds can produce such crap.
Normalcy is not, in and of itself, the arbitrator of morality.
I'm not talking about morality.
Yes. When it comes to sexual affairs, I have a problem with those acts in which one or more participants is not a consenting human adult. Because only a human adult can properly conceptualize the meaning and potential repercussions of the act, and communicate its consent to its partner.
You think some animals would not be okay with it? They aren't exactly smart... they might well like it, or some might like it. It hurts no one. Then why do you have anything against it? You think there aren't gay rapists? Think again.
Well, if the corpse had given prior consent before becoming a corpse, then in the purest sense I do not...although it is no activity I'd wish to participate in. However, society tends to prefer to respect its dead. Particularly the loved ones of the deceased. So I can see why a societal taboo would be in place (not to mention certain health risks). And if the corpse did not give consent prior, see my above answer.
Dead is dead, there is no need for a prior consent. It literally hurts no one. The only one it could somehow hurt would be the one doing it. Emotional "damage" to the loved ones? It's their problem they cannot deal with the fact that dead is dead. What if a loved one did the business, say the husband of the dead wife? Still need a consent? I mean, they were married. Why should death stop marriage? Marriage is a pointless thing anyway.
No, you mustn't. There are more factors in play here than just normalcy. These are all very different sexual practices that need to be judged and compared using ALL criteria, not some arbitrary talking point.
Oh, yes you do. If you don't you're a hypocrite.
They are different, yes. And they are all wrong, they are all deviations from normalcy. If you aren't attracted to the opposite sex then you have an issue, essentially meaning you aren't normal.
How does it affect your life, or make society any worse? Why the hell should you care what two people do in privacy and in love?
I don't care about them at all. What pisses me off is the fact that it is considered normal and okay to be messed up, that there is nothing wrong with it, as if it is the right way. It's not right, it's not normal nor okay, it is wrong and abnormal, a disorder, and should be considered as such. That's all I really care about this topic.
My examples all identified activities that are abnormal, but not hurtful to society or the person in general. Something that is "abnormal" is not necceserilly bad. We are not all cut from the same cloth. Nor should we be. If we all did basically the same things, felt the same way, responded the same way, I find it unlikely that our race would have lived so long.
I'm not talking about morality.
So it wasn't you that said "Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral."? Did someone hack your account?
You think some animals would not be okay with it? They aren't exactly smart... they might well like it, or some might like it.
They aren't that smart but we are. Our abilities to reason, to identify consequences and to feel emotion are a) more sophisticated than theirs b) provide us with an added level of responsibility. It is the same reason why pedophilia is wrong. The players on on two different playing fields intellectually and emotionally.
In a basic sense, I actually do agree with you about necrophilia. But if someone did not wish their body or the body of loved one to be treated in such a matter, I wouldn't have the heart to tell them to loosen up.
They are different, yes. And they are all wrong, they are all deviations from normalcy. If you aren't attracted to the opposite sex then you have an issue, essentially meaning you aren't normal.
You are measuring it by this ludicrously rigid criteria. I am measuring it by individual contributing factors and consequences. Since we are use using different criteria, what would make you a hypocrite would not make me one. Because I'm NOT THE ONE saying something is wrong purely by virtue of abnormality, so it would hardly be hypocritical of me to accept or deny other, very different, things that ALSO happen to be abnormal.
What pisses me off is the fact that it is considered normal and okay to be messed up,
So is it wrong to have diabetes? To be infertile? Missing a limb? Older than the average life expectancy? To have attained higher levels of education than the majority? These are all statistically abnormal. Want to curse at people in each category? Have us brand them with some scarlet letter?
Something that is "abnormal" is not necceserilly bad. We are not all cut from the same cloth. Nor should we be. If we all did basically the same things, felt the same way, responded the same way, I find it unlikely that our race would have lived so long.
People are different but not all differences are positive. This one is wrong by genetics and/or by one's mind.
So it wasn't you that said "Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral."? Did someone hack your account?
You were talking about morality, I simply said it goes toward immoral, not that it is immoral. It's like having an issue that you can resist with your mind but won't because the issue itself says it is okay. Like doing something wrong because the issue says it is okay.
Since we are use using different criteria, what would make you a hypocrite would not make me one. Because I'm NOT THE ONE saying something is right purely because it hurts no one. The rest, well, a deviation from normal is a deviation from normal, it's natural but not right (I'm not talking, and haven't been, about positive deviations, like being exceptionally intelligent or just good in something specific, or some other, rarer benefiting deviations). Negative deviations in animals, for example, won't normally survive. The only reason they are so prominent among us is because of our minds, because we allow them to keep existing. In animals there is a natural purification, we no longer have that, we have almost complete control over our own lives, and there's also the help from others.
So is it wrong to have diabetes? To be infertile? Missing a limb?
Not to have but the deviation itself that is not right, as it is negative. Being messed up is not okay. Diabetes is something you cannot resist with your mind. You cannot just make your body fix yourself and you cannot grow a new limb (yet... science). Gays could choose not to give in to their desires, since in the end we choose what to do, how to act.
Older than the average life expectancy?
This is a poor example. It's not even remotely similar to the debates topic. Are you referring to the average life expectancy in Africa? Some particular countries with a very low one? Or globally?
Everyone has a life expectancy but not everyone is gay.
Life expectancy has to do a lot with the environment, in fact I'd say it has almost everything to do with the environment, unless one has very strong resistance to negative influences, or is just lucky.
To have attained higher levels of education than the majority?
Similar to life expectancy, has a lot to do with the environment. It's not something that comes from within one.
These are all statistically abnormal.
I'm not talking about statistics. Statistics are easy to abuse. Statistics do not care about details, usually.
Answer this. Those animals, do they also bang females of their kind? I bet they do. That's not homosexuality, that's bisexuality.
Homosexuality means having a sexual attraction toward the same sex. Are those animals sexually attracted to the same sex, the way that they only do their own gender? Without ever doing the right gender? I bet it has something to do with dominance or just being confused or just having a mating season and being incapable of controlling themselves and thus they bang the first fluff of fur they see. They do not have an abstract mind as we do. They have instincts and urges to ensure survival, those tell them to fuck the right gender to have offspring. If some of them have urges that direct them toward the same gender then that means they are genetically messed up, it means they have a genetic disorder, and it also means they will not have offspring, meaning their flawed genes will die.
Homosexuality is a human thing. Seeing similar acts done by animals while they also bang the correct gender, and claiming those acts to be a sign that homosexuality is okay, normal, right, is very stupid. Those "homosexuals" are attracted to the females of their kind, the same does not go about humans.
Rendering your "argument" completely worthless.
Who's the mindless fuck now? As you failed to include important aspects.
First, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and I have nothing against homosexuality.
Second, unfortunately, the list was probably an huge waste of time because comparing animals to humans is completely fallacious due to Jean Paul Sartre's Existence precedes Essence.
Basically, human action is based on rationality whereas animal action is based on instinct.
Therefore, rationality in human action allows for choice while instinct in animals action is inherent inclinations.
Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle choice than Heterosexuality, I just dont understand this attitude that Homosexuals had a choice about their sexuality but Heterosexuals did'nt it makes no sense
If there were no heterosexuals you think we would exist? Homosexuality alone would lead to certain extinction. There can be no children from banging your own sex, ever. You must be quite stupid to think that having no choice whether to be heterosexual or not makes no sense.
The fact that there is homosexuality among humans makes no sense, literally. Unless it's a way of population control...
Homosexuality is genetic and environmental. It is a choice and there is an inherent inclination also. Sometimes it's only choice that is influenced by the environment, actually I'd say this is so most of the times, not just sometimes.
"If there were no heterosexuals you think we would exist", "Homosexuality alone would lead to certain extinction" no shit Sherlock but we do have Heterosexual's the same way we have Homosexuals and guess what no one chose who they were attracted to it just happens. You think if Homosexuals had a choice they would pick the one that guarantees a tougher life because of people who are too narrow minded to accept them as a normal part of society, I doubt it, saying Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice is like saying being Black is a lifestyle choice and you think i'm the stupid one, I despair about the state of the human race sometimes
we do have Heterosexual's the same way we have Homosexuals and guess what no one chose who they were attracted to it just happens.
If we had them the same way there would be equal numbers, yet there aren't.
As I said there are environmental factors also, and in some cases that is all there is. They basically "chose" it. If it's in genetics then that's just fucked up, just as is any genetic disorder or malfunction or anything similar.
You think if Homosexuals had a choice they would pick the one that guarantees a tougher life because of people who are too narrow minded to accept them as a normal part of society, I doubt it, saying Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice is like saying being Black is a lifestyle choice and you think i'm the stupid one, I despair about the state of the human race sometimes
They do have a choice. Even if they are genetically messed up they can still choose not to follow their urges.
You are narrow minded as you cannot and don't want fathom the truth. Because clearly accepting the truth would hurt too much.
Despairing about the state of human race... you've got no idea how bad it is.
I wont accept your truth because I know it to be wrong, if accepting people as people regardless of their sex, sexuality, race etc makes you think i'm narrow minded fine that's just like you opinion dude but in my view I think that someones opions are pretty fucked up if they think a Homosexual is genetically messed up
I wont accept your truth because I know it to be wrong,
That's a delusion...
if accepting people as people regardless of their sex, sexuality, race etc makes you think i'm narrow minded fine
You're narrow minded because you cannot understand that homosexuality is a disorder.
but in my view I think that someones opions are pretty fucked up if they think a Homosexual is genetically messed up
Aren't you the one saying that homosexuality is not a choice? And now you are saying it is a choice?
Being homosexual, genetically, is being genetically messed up. Homosexuals cannot have children of their own blood (that would require going against their "feelings"), they cannot help us keep existing.
Being Homosexual is not a Genetic Disorder neither is it a choice (hope my stance on this is now clear). You say that being a Homosexual cannot help us exist sure they cant have their own children but in this overpopulated world we dont really need people to keep procreating but Homosexuals can help us keep existing, they can adopt unwanted or orphan children and can be doctors, nurses, dentist's all things that help the human race exist, some of the greatest minds in history were Homosexuals the guy that invented the computer was a Homosexual. Just because I disagree with you does not make me deluded or narrow minded.
Being Homosexual is not a Genetic Disorder neither is it a choice (hope my stance on this is now clear).
In that case homosexuality could not exist... yet it does.
It's clear alright, that you don't really know what you are talking about.
You say that being a Homosexual cannot help us exist sure they cant have their own children but in this overpopulated world we dont really need people to keep procreating
Are you kidding me? If people stopped having children we would, literally, go extinct. In less than 150 years.
but Homosexuals can help us keep existing, they can adopt unwanted or orphan children
Yes, they can, and I'm fine with that. And also, if people stopped having children there would be no children to adopt...
and can be doctors, nurses, dentist's all things that help the human race exist,
There would be those either way.
some of the greatest minds in history were Homosexuals the guy that invented the computer was a Homosexual.
It would've been invented anyway, simply a bit later. And so what if he was? It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not normal. Stephen Hawking, you know how fucked up he is? Yet a great mind.
Just because I disagree with you does not make me deluded or narrow minded.
If what I say reflects reality then you opposing that makes you basically what you just described.
I've read through your responses to other people and you just keep repeating the same thing if someone disagrees with you "your Delusional", "your stupid", your an idiot", is that your idea of an itelligent debate? (Just a friendly word of advice maybe reign in the insults and try and debate in a more friendly manner, your less likely to annoy people).
Now to address your points, Heterosexuals will never stop having Children regardless of how overpopulated the world becomes, so having some people who dont or cant have children wont adversly affect the world
Yes we would still have Dcotors, Nurses etc but you said Homosexuals do not help keep the human race existing I just pointed out ways that they do help
Without Alan Turing the computer might have been invented but who knows, the thing we know for definate is that the modern computer is based on his idea's, he also was the man who broke the German Enigma code during WW2, before he did this the code was believed unbreakable and thanks to his work the code was broken enabling America to move troops across the Atlantic, making D Day possible and so ending the war earlier and saving many lives (not bad for a man whose sexuality does not help the human race exist).
Your final post I just disagree I dont think what you say reflects reality and I dont think i'm deluded or narrow minded
you just keep repeating the same thing if someone disagrees with you "your Delusional", "your stupid", your an idiot"
Not disagreeing with me but contradicting logic, reason, reality (this is mainly in religion debates...). Because those are what I base my opinions on. There are also certain people that keep providing nonsense as arguments, and I keep responding to them. And there are people who are prejudiced to certain things, even delusional as it has come out on some occasions.
is that your idea of an itelligent debate?
Sounds like your idea of an intelligent debate is giving nonsense as arguments.
Just a friendly word of advice maybe reign in the insults and try and debate in a more friendly manner, your less likely to annoy people
People differ... How strong or sharp I come off as does not only depend on me. If the opposition gives idiotic arguments then that's exactly what I will say it is. If they keep making them then from there it goes easily to insults.
Now to address your points, Heterosexuals will never stop having Children regardless of how overpopulated the world becomes, so having some people who dont or cant have children wont adversly affect the world
You said, "... in this overpopulated world we dont really need people to keep procreating but..." That means that no one will have children.
Yes we would still have Dcotors, Nurses etc but you said Homosexuals do not help keep the human race existing I just pointed out ways that they do help
You pointed out something that would make no difference as people doing those jobs would exist either way.
Without Alan Turing the computer might have been invented but who knows, the thing we know for definate is that the modern computer is based on his idea's, he also was the man who broke the German Enigma code during WW2, before he did this the code was believed unbreakable and thanks to his work the code was broken enabling America to move troops across the Atlantic, making D Day possible and so ending the war earlier and saving many lives (not bad for a man whose sexuality does not help the human race exist).
This point of yours is worthless.
Just because someone with some specific disorder did something great does not make that disorder something great nor normal. If someone "messed up" did something great that does not make that person "not messed up". As I said something about Stephen Hawking... Why is his disease/disorder not being praised?
Your final post I just disagree I dont think what you say reflects reality and I dont think i'm deluded or narrow minded
Exactly, you don't think.
You don't agree that someone's arguments that reflect reality (that usually means being based on reality), when opposed make the opposer wrong?
All I'm saying is that homosexuality is not normal, it is a deviation from normal. A disorder.
You say your debates are based on religion, now we're getting to the crux of the problem your basing your arguments not on reality but on stories which were originally written many many years ago by people who had a vested interest in getting people to believe what they wanted them to believe so they told them it was the word of God or whoever is the big man in your religion, these stories have been translated into many different languages by other people and as everyone knows things get lost in translation and get changed to suit whoever was running the Church at the time (as we all know religions are not exempt from corruption) to get to the position we are in now were people put their blind faith in these stories and accept them as reality, now that really is deluded.
Quoted direct from your argument: "Not disagreeing with me but contradicting logic, reason, reality (this is mainly in religion debates...). Because those are what I base my opinions on." That's where I got the idea about you basing your agument on Religion, I assume it could also be read that you base your arguments on logic, reason and reality, I opted for Religion because you brought up the subject and your arguments are not based on any form of logic, reason or reality
"Not disagreeing with me but contradicting logic, reason, reality (this is mainly in religion debates...). Because those are what I base my opinions on."
How can you misunderstand that? I gave a short list then I added, in brackets, where it mainly happens. Then I said the listed things are what I base my opinions on. I base my opinions on "where it mainly has happened"? That makes no sense.
and your arguments are not based on any form of logic, reason or reality
It was easy to misunderstand, your arguments are not based on any form of reality apart from what obviously exists in your own little world not on the real world and you brought up the subject of religion before this religion had not even been mentioned.
Anyway i've had enough of going round in circles with you it's been fun but is now getting boring
It was easy to misunderstand, your arguments are not based on any form of reality apart from what obviously exists in your own little world not on the real world and you brought up the subject of religion before this religion had not even been mentioned.
Instead of saying I am wrong give me evidence showing me wrong or logic that I am wrong. You can't...
About religion, I simply said where I mainly encountered that certain something. You wanted to begin discussing religion further, not me.
Anyway i've had enough of going round in circles with you it's been fun but is now getting boring
Basically, human action is based on rationality whereas animal action is based on instinct.
It's not based solely on rationality. And I don't think Jean Paul Startre would even submit that it were, appeal to authority falacy aside.
There is something of a point to what you say:
Therefore, rationality in human action allows for choice while instinct in animals action is inherent inclinations.
Only if you are defining homosexuality only as the act and not the desire. This is incorrect though and I've had this argument with you before. Not sure why you are still making the same mistake.
For example, eating is a desire. I, as a rational person can decide not to, sure. People have knowingly and arguably for rational reasons, literally starved themselves.
However, the desire to eat does not go away. Ergo, homosexuality, the desire, is not rational or irrational, it is instinctual. It is normal for humans to have instincts, like eating and sex. Apollo gives examples highlighting many animals have a similar instinct as well.
The desire is normal than, it can be said of a certain percent of our species.
So then your argument would need to be that it is not normal to try to act on a desire that is natural.
I don't believe that is a position you would take.
Not sure why you are still making the same mistake.
Whatever!! Not sure why you are still an moron. Statements like these are just pointless.
For example, eating is a desire. I, as a rational person can decide not to, sure. People have knowingly and arguably for rational reasons, literally starved themselves.
How can you define desire anyway? You can't because every human is different, so human action shows different choices made.
Eating is not a desire, it is an act as you even demonstrated in your own example. Since people knowingly starved themselves, it is proof that eating is human action; therefore, human action is merely how a man must act if he wants to attain definite end if even it is not eating.
However, the desire to eat does not go away
Actually, the act of eating does go away, which is the time in between meals unlike our friends, dogs. Dogs will eat constantly because there is not act of eating, dogs and many animals have an indefinite end, which means that it is instinctual to keep eating as along as it is there.
The same goes for sexual orientation. It is not instinctual.
Apollo gives examples highlighting many animals have a similar instinct as well.
Wrong, Everything humans do is based on choice, which means human action.
Perhaps he shouldn't have said eating is a desire, because obviously as both you and he point out, it is an action. What he should have said is hunger is a desire which precedes and leads to eating (or even just a desire to eat can lead to eating, not necessarily hunger). The action of choosing to eat or not to eat, as you say, is a choice that we may make. However, we cannot control whether or not we wish to eat, the desire part of this chain of events. This is the instinctual part I believe iamdavidh was referring to.
"Dogs will eat constantly because there is not act of eating, dogs and many animals have an indefinite end, which means that it is instinctual to keep eating as along as it is there."
I hardly think this is true. I have personally seen my dog, cat, bird, other birds, raccoon, and a multitude of other animals not eat even when there is food present. To say that humans are the only "rational" beings (if we go by your definition of "rational" which seems to be the ability to enact choices to achieve some end, which I personally disagree with) would be patently false then.
"The same goes for sexual orientation. It is not instinctual."
And for the same reasons I demonstrated above, sexual orientation would be a desire, and would therefore be instinctual, same as hunger as opposed to eating.
"Wrong, Everything humans do is based on choice, which means human action."
Even this is false. You cannot force yourself to not breath, to not make your heartbeat (short of wounding it), or stop your brain from using electrochemical signals to process and create thoughts (short of, again, wounding it). If you wish to take action against your various bodily functions, those would be choices, but the pre-existing nature of your heart, brain, and lungs would not have arisen through choice. That is, unless I suppose before each thought, breath, and heartbeat you make the conscious choice not to kill yourself... ;)
What he should have said is hunger is a desire which precedes and leads to eating (or even just a desire to eat can lead to eating, not necessarily hunger).
Hunger is just the same as eating. Food doesn't appear out of nowhere. It is not magic. Man just doesn't think about food, and it appears. If man is hungry, he must act on that end. If food appeared out of nowhere, I could agree that hunger or eating is a desire. If man chooses not to act on his end of hunger, he remains hungry.
This is the instinctual part I believe iamdavidh was referring to.
From what I read, nope.
I hardly think this is true. I have personally seen my dog, cat, bird, other birds, raccoon, and a multitude of other animals not eat even when there is food present.
Well, I have seen the opposite, my dog and cat will literally eat anything in front it if it resembles food. The cat will even lick the ear wax out of my ear.
To say that humans are the only "rational" beings would be patently false then.
Really, Name one thing that someone would do that is not rational in one day. Humans are subjected to hundreds of decisions each day if not more.
You cannot force yourself to not breath, to not make your heartbeat (short of wounding it), or stop your brain from using electrochemical signals to process and create thoughts (short of, again, wounding it).
Actually, you can force yourself to not to breath by holding it. Painful, it is a choice. Wounding your heart or brain is still a choice involving human action, which would stop both.
If you wish to take action against your various bodily functions, those would be choices, but the pre-existing nature of your heart, brain, and lungs would not have arisen through choice
Sure, the pre-existing nature of the lungs, brain and heart have no choice, but human action involves choice due to rationality, and the act of choosing bodily harm is a choice. Again, everything humans do is a choice.
I have three dogs, and they all try to hump each other interchangeably, but this doesn't mean they're gay. First of all, they never actually engage, I don't even think they know how. Second, they're just playing a dominance game, it may derive from actual sex, but the meaning has changed. I wouldn't be surprised that many of the example you give fall into the same category. I don't think you can look at behaviors that we, as humans, might categorize as gay, and apply that same rule to animals.
Pretty apathetic actually... I'm cool with everyone doin' who or whatever they want as long as it doesn't negatively effect me... and I don't see how this would?
they are just like any average human on earth. you wont call christains or atheist abnormal because its not in nature to such beliefs(to some being an atheist is abnormal and to others being christain or any other religion is abnormal)would you?
We have reached a point in time where modernisation is shooting up like never before. Personally i believe that we should remain normal to these circumstances.
It is written in the Bible tht everyone is born equal , so why not respect this?
Let us show to homosexuals the respect they deserve because we are living in a free world these days. Why judge people and botherv about what others are doing.
A great many of my friends are either homosexuals or bisexuals so I don't think anything in particular about either orientation.
I am angered by claims that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, as opposed to something with which one is born. If that is so then why have so many turned to suicide by means of escaping the ordeal that is "coming out" to their family, friends and others? On an alternative note, however, I agree that there are cases in which individuals claim to be a particular sexual orientation in order to gain favour amongst people. It's sad, but true.
Completely normal. Considering homosexuality is found within 315 - 485 different animal species, including the domestic cat and the domestic dog, it's completely normal.
My own freaking cats are homosexuals. They try to fk each other though the are neutered and male, and they lick each other and spend alot of time together. It's normal. Everyone's entitled to their life.
It is normal. It is normal to me, it is normal to the sperm whales, it is normal to the gay community. It's something common in the world. Well-known, but unfortunately, not accepted like any other difference in taste. You don't see people who listen to hip-hop tormenting others who listen to punk. People who like chocolate ice cream don't pick on people who like vanilla. So why is it such a big fucking deal that there's people in the world that like something different. Or rather, the same sex. So, yes. It is absolutely normal.
I think they're exactly the sane as us, 'cause, y'know... They ARE exactly like heterosexuals, minus the sexual preference of course. Basically they are no better or worse than you or I, if you think otherwise you're a bloody idiot.
Several species on earth, I'm not going to mention any because Apollo already did a great job, do homosexual acts.
Not being able to reproduce is not a valid argument against homosexuality, unless you're also against women who reached menopause having sex, or women who simply are just .. unable do carry children.
Also you'd have to be against all protection, like condoms and the pill.
Sex is two things.
Reproduction and pleasure. Sex is NOT just reproduction, if it was, then we wouldn't have had any pleasure during the act.
Before Christianity men loved other men and women loved other women. There were fables that explained homosexuality in the ancient world, because people realized that it was completely normal for human beings. The only reason anyone doubts its natural place is because of the teachings of it in Christianity. Since Christian ideology is so much a part of America's backbone, it is natural that its values be indirectly passed to its population and others of Christian surrounding.
I don't really care what people do in their own homes, and regardless of whether it's right or wrong, homosexuals have as much right to be happy as anyone. Christians make a big deal about how the bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says to let those who are without sin throw the first stone, to treat others as you would have them treat you, and has the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which someone who was a member of a supposedly not so good tribe went out of his way to help someone else.
Regardless of whether you think homosexuality is good/bad or normal/abnormal, you should still treat them with respect. Maybe homosexuality is bad, but a homosexual could still be someone who would risk his life to save a child, or do some other noble deed. He may still be an overall good person, and may just be flawed in a different way than you or I.
I consider myself pretty tolerant of homosexuals in general, and I've had gay and lesbian friends in the past, but it still feels a little icky when I see two men making out. People make a big deal over whether or not a person is born homosexual or whether or not they choose it, but I never hear anyone talk about the whether or not the revulsion that many straight people feel when confronted with gays is something they're born with, or if they choose it.
You're 100% right. People don't need to support homosexuality, but they must respect it. Besides, I'll never understand homophobes. I really can't see how homosexuals affect them. And yeah, I know that most heterosexuals thinks disgusting homosexual acts (at least between two men). And, as well as they have to respect homosexuals, I think that homosexuals should respect them. If a person don't like to see it, don't do it in front of him/her. Of course, unless it's a public space. If it's public, anyone can do anything that don't break the law.
If America is all about free religion and beliefs, why do we base laws and logic in this faith, because the bible condemns homosexuality many hate these people, i thought this was a "live and let live country" but its not, and has never been, i have nothing against these individuals, but they will never be accepted as long as faith makes the laws
Think you've hit the nail on the head because Americans have been banging on about the Country being Land Of The Free, Home Of The Brave for so long a lot of people now believe it not realising that Americans have less Free Speech and Rights than a lot of other Countries, in a way the War Of Independence backfired spectacularly the Americans fought off the tyranny of Britain but now have less freedoms than the British.
I just thought I would point out that this is not a dig at America or the Americans and is not intended to upset anyone it's just my views from what I have seen and read etc
From a pure biological view point, the purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. But can we agree to be real with each other? Animals fuck to breed. People fuck because we like it. There's not a lot of people who can HONESTLY say that the have sex for EXPRESS purpose of having children. Even proper heterosexual Christian couples, if they are being honest, aren't planning on having kids every time they fuck. So, let's just call it what it is: A BEHAVIOR. So, people choosing to have sex because they like it is quite normal. When are we going to get past all of these nonsensical labels and admit that there is no gay or strait. No one is 100% strait. No one is 100% gay. We all have a little bit of the other in us. If you haven't found it, you haven't looked hard enough.
I don't know if you know that this is scientific proved. Bu it is. A biologist named Alfred Kinsey created the Kinsey Scale, which classify humans in a scale 0-6, being 0 exclusively heterosexual and 6 exclusively homosexual. And he also says that 11,6% of white males people are with 3 in the scale (bisexual) when they are on the age 20-35. And a few people are on the scale 0 or 6. Most are in 1-2 (when heterosexual) or 4-5 (when homosexual).
I think homosexuality is normal, it is natural and there is nothing wrong with being gay. There is a certain amount of taboo that surrounds the idea of homosexuality but that is because (I think) people are scared of what they don't know and what they can't fully explain.
Are mental diseases, coughs, genetic disorders, tumors, personality disorders, mental disorders, etc., normal? If so then yes, homosexuality is also normal.
All the things you have listed are natural disorders and the people that suffer from them are normal and should be treated that way, Homosexuality is natural but not a disorder and Homosexuals should be treated the same way that any other person is wether they suffer from an illness or are "normal"
All the things you have listed are natural disorders and the people that suffer from them are normal and should be treated that way,
They are natural. The people, if without them are normal, but with them are not. If someone is messed up why do you think that person should automatically be treated as some abomination? I have never claimed anything like that myself.
Homosexuality is natural but not a disorder and Homosexuals should be treated the same way that any other person is wether they suffer from an illness or are "normal"
As are all disorders natural, so is homosexuality. It is a disorder and it is natural.
For the survival of a species that has two different genders the genders must be heterosexual. Otherwise the species would go extinct. There is also no need for homosexuality, not to mention it is rather stupid since the gear you've got is to be used on the opposite sex, not the same sex. Using your gear on your own sex is wrong. Homosexuality is a disorder.
Homosexuality is completely natural and usually (not always) has to do with how the Mother's body responds to the child in her womb. But the thing is, homosexuality is normal, so stop acting like just because you have a different sexual orientation than most people that your somehow "different" or "special" or "unique" because your not, your just like everyone else.
We live in a modern society and have, more than ever the biggest range of people in our world than ever before and the population of the planet is constantly growing. Can we honestly expect that with that amount of people who are all different, we won't get homosexuals people? At the end of the day I don't see how 'normal' can have a definition because one persons idea of normal will be completely different to another persons. I believe that at the end of the day, love is love, it doesn't matter the sex of the person you fall in love with as long as they make you happy and that you trust them. And if two people happen to be the same sex and fall in love, what is wrong with it? Homosexuality has been around since Celtic times and I doubt that with the most amount of homosexual people in the world being at its peak, it will change. I think people that don't agree with it, are ignorant of the fact that love is love, whatever the sex is of the person.
I doubt that with the most amount of homosexual people in the world being at its peak, it will change.
I don't think that there are scientific studies about that, and if there are I never heard about, so nothing is proved. However, in my opinion, the homosexuals quantity is nearly the same of all time. I don't think that the number of homosexuals grow over the years, otherwise in some time the whole population will be homosexual. But I agree that nowadays there are more open homosexuals. I think that this is because nowadays we live in a more civilized and intellectual world, and this increases the homosexual's courage to come out.
Besides this, your argument was perfect. You have the correct ideals.
Statistically, at least. A species in which a majority of the specimens were homosexual wouldn't thrive as ours has.
Its abnormalcy doesn't lend to objectionability in any way, as some would suggest. Plenty of things are abnormal and harmless, like sleeping naked or autofellatio.
Statistically, at least. A species in which a majority of the specimens were homosexual wouldn't thrive as ours has.
Lesbian lizards. I don't know if they're as populace as us (probably not) but they seem to be stable in their existence.
We're not necessarily a thriving species anyway. We populate quickly but we also die off quickly too. Our overpopulation seems to only contribute to more birth abnormalities. Like mother nature is trying to kill us off because we're too high in numbers.
Its abnormalcy doesn't lend to objectionability in any way, as some would suggest. Plenty of things are abnormal and harmless, like sleeping naked or autofellatio.
I probably should have specified heterosexually reproductive species. If we could reproduce asexually, everybody could be as gay as they wanted without imperiling humanity. Too bad about that.
Is there something which necessarily would mean that if homosexuality were naturally a larger portion of the population that the population would necessarily be less to a great degree? It seems obvious at first glance, but since when did homosexuals not have kids outside of their homosexual desires? And I've never seen any evidence that physical attraction necessarily lessens the desire for one to have kids. Would people as a whole have not adapted to the prevalence of homosexuality similar to how individuals who want kids but are gay adapt to the situation?
And if homosexuality were a larger portion of society, it seems this adaption would only be easier. Easier to adopt, easier to have relations for reproduction in conjunction with relations for love, etc.
Next premise: Is the assumption that society "thriving" to the extent it has must be necessarily tied to reproduction patterns and population? I could certainly see how it could be, but not that it necessarily is the case.
It seems each premise is flawed here. Perhaps true, but not necessarily true. And with the introduction of this new sort of "norm" other means of moving forward as society would be developed.
Its abnormalcy doesn't lend to objectionability in any way, as some would suggest. Plenty of things are abnormal and harmless, like sleeping naked or autofellatio.
True exactly.
What constitutes normalcy though? If it is only the extent to which it is practiced as a percent of a people, I'd guess no one is normal completely. Are there more people with say a foot fetish than who are gay? Are there more people into S&M;than who are gay? How does the percent of straight people who like ass sex compare to the overall homosexual population if that is the case? How about those who dress like characters? A specific character? People who like leather vs. those who like lace?
By what measure is homosexuality abnormal if "normal" sex is not the norm?
I would guess normal sex, if sexually active people are honest, is the abnormal.
I think perhaps the wording is incorrect, as others have eluded to.
There are too many people anyway. 1/2 the world being homosexual would drown the population, so to speak, from nearly 8 BILLION to a better 4 billion or less!
I consider it to be abnormal merely due to the fact that we are not intellectually honest about what sort of behavior is normal and natural and what isn't.
None of us choose our sexual orientation - we are born with it, but does that make it normal? The current pro gay crowd is permiated by double standards and hypocrisy. If we accept homosexuality as a type of behavior that society must condone given the current arguments of naturality, then let's be fully consistent.
Nobody chooses homosexuality and it happens in nature - therefore it is normal and cannot be considered unnatural.
--------------------
Nobody chooses to have a taste and a craving for human flesh - cannibalism is a very common phenomena in nature and has been recorded in 1500 different species - therefore, cannibalism is normal and cannot be considered unnatural.
Why not give the people the opportunity to sell their bodies to a food corporation for a large sum of money after they die just like they do for medical institutions.
And given this, cannibalism is natural - it happens in nature, therefore it's normal. To deny this is hypocrisy and discriminatory against people who wish to eat human flesh.
-----------------------------
Cross-species sex i.e bestiality also has been recorded in nature. Animal hybrids are not uncommon at all.
If we evoke and defend homosexuality because it's natural, therefore we must also defend cross-species sex. If we truly have sexual autonomy, why can't a man have sex with his horse? We must consider it to be moral and natural and why not even have parades for besties?
-------------------------------
There is a whole research paper devoted to necrophilia in regards to the Mallard duck. If such an occasion happened in nature, must we then determine that is is natural and normal?
------------------------------
There are many more cases, but I just wanted to get my point across.
I would also like to say that homosexuality in animals is generally not due to active attraction to the same species - rather it is a show of social dominance.
If we are prepared to defend homosexuality with the given arguments, it would be arbitrary to deny all the above mentioned sexual practices. It would actually be hypocritical.
Given that society sees the previously mentioned practices as taboo, I must conclude that homosexuality must also not be condoned by society.
You keep accusing me of false analogies like it's some sort of mantra.
The naturality argument is exactly that - Homosexuality is documented in nature, therefore it is natural.
I gave many examples of other societal taboo's that are documented in nature - we must conclude that the actions I mentioned are also normal and not unnatural. Should we therefore tolerate such practices.
And abnormal is not necessarily a psychological term. It means ''not normal'', or ''deviant'' or even ''unnatural''. Look it up on the dictionary, I'm not interested in debunking rethorical fallacies.
Bestiality is natural. So is pedophilia. So is heterosexual sex.
The first two are harmful to something which has no choice in the matter. The third and homosexuality are not the same. Your analogy, while technically is correct in that it is a part of nature, is incorrect in that it is making a broad assumption about sexuality in general and only comparing it to homosexuality.
Here's how the argument goes:
Gays aint natural
Okay, then you show them that, okay it's natural since most mamals have a percent of it.
Oh! Ignore that! It aint right I meant!
But it doesn't hurt anyone.
Then...
Well animals rape eachother too! You saying that's natural an everyone should just rape!
Which is why it is important to point out where your argument is incorrect in its assumptions though technically correct in part, in and of itself.
Basically, if you can use the exact same argument against heterosexuality, it is not a good argument against homosexuality.
I don't really see why the bestiality question in terms of consent from the animal is relevant. We don't generally care about animal consent, so why should we care in this case? Do we need consent from animals in order to send them off to meat factories or zoos or have them undergo medical tests?
I only compare these to homosexuality as they are all sexual deviances - they are certainly not part of the social norm. If it were a norm, homosexuality would be far more prominent and people would not have such a predjudice against it.
You can't use the same argument against heterosexuality, because heterosexuality is not deviant behavior. Homosexuality is deviant behavior along with necrophilia, bestiality and cannibalism. These are all social taboos and all of these things can be defended with the same arguments i.e sexual autonomy, only affects the people involved, can be consensual etc.
It would be hypocritical to support and defend one minority that engages in action Y while condeming another minority that engages in action X, when the arguments that support action Y also extend to action X.
Maybe it was unintentional, but your argument is a strawman.
Homosexuals, cannibals, necrophiles, those who want to engage in beastiality, are simply normal people who desire different things that most other people do. A desire is not bad, it is not harmful to others, I have no problem with people desiring whatever they want. What I could potentially disagree with is people acting upon those desires.
Now, you need to look at the problems with the act itself, the harm is causes onto others, onto the individual, and so on. Where homosexuality takes place between two consenting adults, the others cannot make the same claim (except cannibalism, but I do not think you need too look too far to see why ripping flesh could be considered bad).
What you're saying is that just because something happens naturally, it must be fine. That's not what is happening here. Even if homosexuality was not natural, and people wanted to do it just because they wanted to, then there would be no issue. The only relevance to homosexuality being natural + therefore moral is a rebuttal to the argument that homosexuality is non natural + therefore immoral. I believe this argument is flawed, but it is harder to point out flawed logic to those that believe the same, than it is to find a gay animal.
Cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality - these are all things that can take place between consenting adults. A person can express intent in his testament - he can give ownership of his cadaver to someone else and that someone could either eat the body or have sex with it. Depends on his desires. The consent is there.
To say that necrophilia and bestiality have no consent is outright incorrect. I find it especially funny that you would imply that animals don't consent to sex - well they also don't consent to being stuffed into meat factories to live a miserable, worthless existence. If you eat meat, then I don't see why you would ever care about animal consent.
I'm just saying that all of these things - cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality - can be defended with the same arguments. Like homosexuality, the previously mentioned actions can be consented to, only affects the people involved and is generally a private matter. If people take offense, well then tough luck. People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it. So why condemn those three and condone homosexuality - it's intellectual hypocrisy.
lol, oh wow. Do the summersaults your brain has to do to come up with this make you dizzy?
In some extreme instances Cannibalism could be consensual. Like an airplane crashing on a desert island and a particularly selfless person says go for it. Necrophilia and bestiality by their nature cannot be because a dead person cannot give consent, nor can animals communicate to a level to allow us to know if there is consent. So no. This is just dumb. Ignoring the rabbit hole of falacies...
your ultimate argument is that "if nature does something it is not necessarily right."
Okay. This would be true.
But it is also not necessarily wrong. You need to accept that too or you just look dumb... which you are beginning to look at this point.
I could as easily say "monkeys eat eachother" (some do) "monkeys also have heterosexual relations" (most do) therefore sex between a boy and a girl is like monkeys eating eachother.
That is what you are saying, but replacing heterosexual for homosexual.
If the two are interchangable, you do not have a valid argument. You clearly do not here.
This is more interesting on a psychological level to me though, I sense quite a bit of narcissism:
If people take offense, well then tough luck. People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it. So why condemn those three and condone homosexuality - it's intellectual hypocrisy.
The difference is that one or the other in a relationship is being harmed in your assinine examples, and none are being harmed in a homosexual relationship. (well necrophilia techncially they are not being harmed, but the family might be, and there's the disease thing.)
But here's the interesting part:
People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it.
No one has asked you to put up with anything. You don't need to take a dick in your ass if you are a dude, or eat carpet if you are a girl, or anything of the sort. It's nothing to do with you in fact.
It is so not anything to do with you, that you should not even have a say in who practices it.
You see the point now? It's not about you. The world doesn't revolve around you or your feelings or what you think of what others are doing. So let other people live how they want.
You have every right to be offended by homosexuality. It's fucking stupid, but you're allowed to be.
You're not allowed to step on other's rights though, simply because you have a self-centered knee-jerk superstitious reaction based on absolutely no rational thought on the subject.
Consensual cannibalism is not extreme at all. In essence, what is the difference between me selling myself to a food corporation and me selling myself to a medical institution? In both these cases, after my death, they will get ownership over my cadaver and they can use it for whatever they please.
You also keep running your mouth about how animals can't give consent and I already adressed this point - we don't consistently care about animal consent anyway. If we did, we wouldn't send them off to meat factories like any other resource to any other factory.
My ultimate argument is that is we take nature as the ultimate criteria for determining our morals, then nothing that happens in nature is inherently immoral. And if nothing is immoral, then cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia cannot be immoral.
You can't replace heterosexuality with homosexuality in this question because heterosexuality is not a deviation from the norm. It's the most common behavior for animals, it's what we are, by our nature, supposed to engage in in order to reproduce. Anomalities like homosexuality are deviances. These kinds of behaviors deviate from your regular, normal behavior just like necrophilia deviates from normal behavior, just like bestiality deviates from normal behavior.
And yet again, I don't know why people resist this point so much, but nobody is harmed in the cases of consensual necrophilia and cannibalism. Who the hell is harmed? In both these cases the partners are dead from a completely unrelated cause. Who is being harmed? When you criticise my points, keep your straw men at home.
And no the world does not revolve around me, but clearly it does revolve around politically correct clowns. If people find it acceptable to force moral relativism down my throat, then why can't I respond in fashion?
I agree with youngidealis. This is a failure comparison.
Yes, cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia are natural. But they aren't the same thing that homosexuality because they aren't sexual orientations, and they cause harm to others. Besides, they aren't consensual. Nobody wants to be eaten, animals don't have how say yes or no and dead bodies are dead. Homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to society.
Yes, it is. Recent studies show that there are several specimens that only have sexual relations with another individuals of the same sex and specie. It's their instinct. In humans, how we don't have instincts (not in that way), the instinct is replaced by sexual desire.
And why would society do that? According to you, homosexuality must be compared to cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia. So why don't compare these to heterosexuality too? You don't choose to love the opposite sex. And who knows if homosexuality is the normal and heterosexuality is the abnormal? Just because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals? There are more men than women in the world. Does this mean that being a woman is abnormal?
And I actually don't understand homophobes. Tell me, how the homosexuals bother you?
Tell me, who exactly does cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia harm? And how does it harm them? All of these things can be consensual, so your first paragraph is moot. I even said that in terms of cannibalism where I suggested that people should be able to sell their bodies to corporations, so when they die the corporation gets ownership of the body. Before you criticize my post, you should read it.
As I said, all of these things can be consented to. The only harm that other people might get is emotional harm - people may get offended. Well, so what? People get offended by homosexuality too and we tell them to put up with it.
And you are actually affirming my point. I don't choose the opposite sex and I don't choose the same sex to get attracted to - but necrophiliacs don't choose their attraction towards cadavers and besties don't choose their attraction towards animals, so should the society tolerate and condone such behavior?.
Your comparison of gays to women is outright laughable. Women are no deviation from the general norm. You might as well say: ''Well, who knows - maybe down syndrome is actually normal and people with 46 chromosomes are abnormal. Just because there are more non-down syndrome people doesn't mean that down syndrome isn't normal.''
My whole point was that if deviation from the norm is acceptable, then why draw the line at homosexuality when the pro-gay arguments could also be applied to bestiality and necrophilia?
You deviated from my main point. If homosexuality can be compared to those behaviors, why heterosexuality can't? And ALL of those things? Cannibalism OK, although I don't think people would like to be eaten. But how an animal would agree with that? Unless it's from Narnia... And necrophilia? How could a dead body consent or not with sex?
All those behaviors can cause countless diseases. And don't come with "homosexuality causes AIDS". It was already proved that AIDS can affect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and can be transmitted by vaginal and anal sex.
You're messing things up. Cannibalism is an eating preference. Bestiality and necrophilia are fetishes, in other words, exclusively sexual. Homosexuality includes love and passion. If you forbid cannibalism, bestiality or necrophilia, the people who have these behaviors will just limit their desires and keep living their lives. I would love to be in London now, but I can't, so i limit my desire. If you forbid homosexuality, the homosexuals will be force to live a miserable life without love. This seems emotional crap, but just imagine a life without love and passion.
No, it isn't. If homosexuals are abnormal just because heterosexuals are more numerous, so women are abnormal too. I don't agree with that, I'm just following your logic.
P.S.: Stop trying to attack me. It won't work and the more you try to insult me, less rational is your argument.
Erm.. I don't attack you, I attack your arguments. But of course, it's always far easier to silence the dissident than to answer his statements.
Why heterosexuality can't be compared with homosexuality is exactly that - heterosexuality is the norm, homosexuality isn't. Homosexuality is a sexual deviance and as such, it should be compared with other societal deviances.
A person can get consent for necrophilia from the guy while he is still alive. I don't know how many times I have mentioned this. If a person explicitly states in his will, that his heir gets full ownership of his cadaver to do whatever he pleases with it - who are you then to say that the heir can't have sex with the corpse?
And animal consent? Who cares about animal consent? Do we ask for animal consent when we send them to meat factories, use them for our entertainment in the circus, imprison them in zoo's, conduct medical experiments on them? No, we don't. I'll let you figure out why.
And those behaviors can cause diseases? So? Alchohol can cause diseases, but it's legal nontheless. Smoking too. They are legal because we assume that people are rational enough to understand the risks involved. In the case of necrophilia, cannibalism and bestiality - if taken the necessary precations, there are no risks involved. And even if there are, so what? We assume people are rational enough to know the risks just as we assume in the case of smokes, alchohol, drugs, medicines etc.
I'm not messing things up. In essence, these are all societal taboos - they deviate from the norm. Bestiality and necrophilia - fetishes or not, they still represent sincere sexual attraction towards either corpses or animals. Cannibalism along with bestiality and necrophilia are, in essence, no different from homosexuality. They are all societal taboos, they only affect the people involved and it is a private matter.
If I limit homosexuals, I also limit their desire, which is to have homosexual relations. This desire, in essence, is no different from the desires of necrophiliacs and besties - a bestie is generally only sexually attracted to animals. If you don't allow him to have sex with animals, then it in no way differs from limiting homosexuality. The bestie will live a miserable life as he cannot act on his natural desires and insticts. Same applies for necrophiliacs.
Your analogy is just... if homosexuality was the norm, it would in fact be more numerous. But it isn't numerous. Neither is necrophilia, bestiality, nudism etc. That's what abnormal means - that you have a general behavior pattern, where some lines of behavior do not conform to the general trend. If not for the number, what the hell would you define as abnormal? By your reasoning, nothing is abnormal. Diseases aren't, down syndrome isn't, deformities aren't - nothing is.
Also, I have not insulted you at all. Unless of course my views are insulting. Please show me where I directly insulted you?
No. The "norm" is both heterosexuality and homosexuality. Tell me, what's the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals besides the loving and sexual desires?
You have a point. How this never happened, I'm not sure what would happen. And since I don't have a formed opinion about necrophilia, I won't argue.
No, we don't. But animals are below the humans in the food chain, so it's survival and natural control of population. I agree that we are abusing, but this isn't the topic.
Yes, I agree with you. I think smoking shouldn't be legal, and alcohol just in small doses with a great supervision. Unfortunately, now is too late, because forbid them will just cause health problems in addicts and stimulate the illegal traffic. But it's curious. The way you say seems like you support such behaviors, like necrophilia and bestiality. If you support them, why not support homosexuality? If you don't support, ignore this comment.
Exactly. Homosexuality is considered a social taboo, but without reasons. That's why homosexuals suffer a lot. And, how I've said before, homosexuals aren't a "deviate", but the "norm", as well as heterosexuals.
No, it's not the same thing. How I've said, necrophilia and bestiality are fetishes, purely sexual. So, they could be miserable if you limit their desires. But not in the same level that homosexuals. You might be thinking, as well as many other people, that homosexuality is just anal sex. But, as well as heterosexuals, homosexuals can love. And if you limit them, you'll not just depriving him from sex, you'll be depriving him from love. Imagine if you fall in love for someone but it's completely impossible to happen something. Actually, this happens many times when homosexuals fall in love with heterosexuals.
You didn't understand me. I'm not saying that everything that isn't the majority is normal. I'm just saying that just because something is below in the numbers, it doesn't mean that it is abnormal. And yes, my analogy is correct. You're saying that homosexuals are abnormal just because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. So, why not say that be a woman is abnormal, since there are more men than women?
You didn't insult me, but mocked my arguments. I respect your opinion and you should respect mine. This is an argumentation. You try convincing me of you point of view and I do the same with you. Or you respect my opinion, doesn't matter how ridiculous are my arguments (even if I say "homosexuality is right because elephants are pink"), or you shouldn't answer.
P.S.: I'm not sure yet if you're homophobic. If you are, think about it: how homosexuals bother you? Besides, more homosexuals results in more single women. Again, if you aren't homophobic, disregard this P.S.
Can two homosexuals (of the same gender) reproduce? No.
Does homosexuality bring any added benefits to life? No.
Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes.
However, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted throughout the world and, therefore, can be considered "natural" because it is more of a "norm" than in past years.
Homosexuals on the other hand are great people and I love being friends with a number of them.
How can this statement be true when there are countless amount of animals that take part in homosexual acts?
Can two homosexuals (of the same gender) reproduce? No.
And this is important because?
Does homosexuality bring any added benefits to life? No.
Highly debatable, we do not need all people who are created and alive to reproduce in order to continue with our species. And now more than ever it's not necessary. So homosexuals can somewhat help in a sense with population control. People live longer, and are reproducing more. And there's more to reproduce. If there are people who can't reproduce that are more open to admit it, then we won't get overpopulated.
Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes.
LOL, this is a ridiculous claim. I am gay, my lifestyle is far from dangerous. You have a fake image in your mind of how gay people live, but dangerous lifestyles don't just come from homosexuals.
How is it dangerous?
And you're not a very good friend to these people you claim to be friends with, otherwise you'd know that the life is not dangerous.
Just because other animals do homosexual acts does not mean it is natural. Do other animals have mental illnesses? If they do then are mental illnesses abnormal? How do you define abnormal and natural?
If you can't reproduce then it goes against what is natural for sexual relations. The vagina and penis is used for reproduction... the anus is not meant for anything but excreting waste...
There is no benefit for the homosexual for being homosexual.
This is my response about homosexuality one time....
"Actually, being gay has many negative consequences... 60% of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners... 28% had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.... and 79% admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers (The Institution for Sex Research; Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 147). "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months... the average heterosexual male has - throughout his life - from five to nine sex partners" (Dr. William Foege, Director of the Centers for Disease Control). "Yvonne Zipter, a lesbian writing in Chicago's gay journal Windy City Times, in an article entitled "The Disposable Lesbian Relationship," notes that the "lasting lesbian relationship" is a "mythic entity" (Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 147). The current figure is that 70% of Americans with
AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals. Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, says that 86% of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation. The homosexual is also 3 times more suicidal than heterosexuals. The life expectancy for gays wihtout AIDS is 33 years shorter than hetersexuals.... etc. (Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 148).
The life style of gays is not a safe one.... I'm sorry, but you are wrong..."
I actually am very good friends with one, if I got married right now, he might end up being one of my groomsmen... And in fact, he enforces my beliefs that it is a dangerous lifestyle....
If you would be so kind, I would very much like to see the specific studies these statistics are being quoted from, and not just the regurgitated babble from a homeschooling manual. When talking about studies, it's pretty important to be given all the date (60% of a sample size of 10 isn't terribly significant, while it would be more concerning if it was say 60% of the population of the United States). Additionally, in reference to your point about the number of sexual partners, honestly I don't see any reason why having a lot is terribly bad. As long as the individuals are consenting, practicing safely and responsibly, it is of no matter to me (and actually it isn't any matter of mine anyway to butt into or judge their sex life).
The AIDS victim stastic about the the number of partners is rather telling. Obviously, those who are more promiscuous are at a higher risk of contracting the disease. However, that doesn't mean that those who are demographically similar (i.e. homosexuals in general rather than promiscuous homosexuals) are similarly prone to the disease.
As for the "86% of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation," I'd have to question the definition of drugs. Are we talking Viagra? Alcohol? Marijuana? Or other harder drugs? I have a feeling it's one of the first three. And on top of that, I would have to put this stastic into perspective by asking what is the percentage of heterosexual male and females that partake in "drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation."
Speaking of life expectancy and suicidal risks, I'd have to ask you a question. Have you ever heard of bullying? LGBTQ teenagers (and adults, really) are perseceuted or bullied daily, either in the schoolyard by intentionally malicious upstarts, passively by a culture that uses "gay" as a synonym for stupid, or actively by the various governments and institutions around the world that either make homosexuality a crime or relegate homosexuals to second class citizenship. I wonder if it's perhaps these unique pressures (torments, rather in the extreme cases of suicides) that give rise to the higher likelihood of suicides.
I'm sorry, but until you can provide something other than references to an out of date homeschooling manual, you cannot be taken seriously. Also please try to not misquote, misrepresent, or use outdated data. The Kinsey Institute has updated their information. Additionally, after a bit of digging, I found some analyses off the Bell and Weinberg study (from which a majority of your stats are taken). Common critiques (as I alluded to earlier) are that the homosexual sample size was not taken at random (while the heterosexual sample was), the heterosexual data was not given (so we can't really compare the homosexual data and say, "Oh look how promiscuous they are," when in fact, since data wasn't included, heterosexuals may be more promiscuous), and the way the homosexual data was collected was from locations that weren't necessarily the best places to find your average Jane/Joe homosexual (e.g. singles bars and gay baths). Try to do some digging next time.
I found what lolzors93 is talking about. One Journal supposedly in a Christian Research Institute. It say's there's a link to the full article but I could not find it. Science requires more than one article from a biased source lolz
Can two homosexuals (of the same gender) reproduce? No.
Yes, they can. Simply not with each other.
Does homosexuality bring any added benefits to life? No.
Its existence necessitates an evolutionary advantage. Scientists have proposed many reasons.
Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes.
Justify this absurd assertion.
However, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted throughout the world and, therefore, can be considered "natural" because it is more of a "norm" than in past years.
What? How does social acceptance of something change how often it exists?
But each of the species has a substantial majority that practice heterosexual sex, so homosexual sex is not the norm if it is the minority behavior in each species.
'Yes, they can. Simply not with each other'
You deliberately ignored the point of the question, even so, you undermined yourself, if a homosexual has sex with the opposite sex and reproduces, he practiced heterosexual sex.
'Its existence necessitates an evolutionary advantage. Scientists have proposed many reasons.'
There is no direct evolutionary advantage from homosexual sex, If an Alpha male suddenly began to have sex with other males and not females, his DNA would not be passed on. Give some examples of benefits these 'scientists' have proposed.
'What? How does social acceptance of something change how often it exists?'
I don't think Lolzors was trying to claim that there is more homosexuality because its more accepted, the levels of homosexuality has probably been a stable percentage for thousands of years.
This was my response earlier: "Just because there are animals that are homosexual does not mean anything... Most male animals will have sex with anything that moves just so it can pass down its genes... there are countless of explanations for this... along with the lines that it could be a mental disorder counting it as "abnormal."
You are knit picking. You understood what I was talking about... They cannot reproduce with one another.
Such as? If anything it is un-evolutionarily sound for this reason: the psychological factor for evolution is sex. If a man is only attracted to men then that present a problem especially since evolution also states that passing down genes and survival of the fittest is one of the fundamental factors of evolution. If a man cannot pass down his genes because he is not attracted to females presents huge problems... Evolution should be that last thing you should debate with in this argument.
This is my response to someone a while back:
"Actually, being gay has many negative consequences... 60% of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners... 28% had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.... and 79% admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers (The Institution for Sex Research; Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 147). "The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months... the average heterosexual male has - throughout his life - from five to nine sex partners" (Dr. William Foege, Director of the Centers for Disease Control). "Yvonne Zipter, a lesbian writing in Chicago's gay journal Windy City Times, in an article entitled "The Disposable Lesbian Relationship," notes that the "lasting lesbian relationship" is a "mythic entity" (Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 147). The current figure is that 70% of Americans with
AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals. Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, says that 86% of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation. The homosexual is also 3 times more suicidal than heterosexuals. The life expectancy for gays wihtout AIDS is 33 years shorter than hetersexuals.... etc. (Understanding the Times student manuel pg. 148).
The life style of gays is not a safe one.... I'm sorry, but you are wrong..."
If something is socially accepted then it does not make it abnormal because it is not considered abnormal to society. For example: interracial couples were considered abnormal at one time. Now they are not considered abnormal.
Impossible. Even if you define nature as not man-made, homosexuality does not defy "nature" in any way by its definition.
Can two homosexuals (of the same gender) reproduce? No.
That doesn't make something unnatural.
Does homosexuality bring any added benefits to life? No.
To you, maybe not. To others, it may.
Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes.
As dangerous as most other lifestyles. If you go hiking you are partaking in a dangerous act. If you spend thousands of dollars on college you are partaking in a dangerous lifestyle. All subjective.
However, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted throughout the world and, therefore, can be considered "natural" because it is more of a "norm" than in past years.
Normality is not the same as natural as I pointed out to Apollo. Something can be "natural" yet not be "normal" and vice-versa (depending on if you view nature as not man-made.)
Homosexuals on the other hand are great people and I love being friends with a number of them.
If you love being friends with a number of them, I suppose they've brought benefits to your very own life.
All of your points are demonstrably false, save one that's just irrelevant. I'll respond to one such point because you really need to educate yourself before saying these things.
"Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes."
The mere fact that heterosexual idiots like you have believed this has caused any and all trends that MIGHT have once agreed with you to turn completely around and statistically show that heterosexuals carry more STD's by percentage than homosexual men. Also, if health is a factor, then being a lesbian is most healthy and should be fully supported by you in every way. The passage of STD's between lesbians rounds down to 0%
Actually, no. People are born with their defined sexual orientations, so it's natural. Besides, cases of homosexuality was registered in more than 300 animal species.
Does homosexuality bring any added benefits to life? No.
Neither do heterosexuality. They can reproduce? Yes, they can. And so can the homosexuals. Of course not between them, but they can have sexual relations with the opposite sex just for reproduction, not for pleasure. And they always can make in vitro.
Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes.
I don't see your point. If you're referring to anal sex, a lot of heterosexuals make it too, so it can't be considered an exclusive homosexual lifestyle. And even more: if you're referring to AIDS, it can also be transmitted by vaginal sex.
However, homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted throughout the world and, therefore, can be considered "natural" because it is more of a "norm" than in past years.
It's not a "norm". Homosexuals still suffer from prejudgment, social exclusions and homophobic attacks, being them aggressions or even murder. Besides, it can't be a "norm" because people don't choose to be homosexuals.
P.S.: Keep this civil. I admire you for be against homosexuality and still respect homosexuals. There are a really few people in the world like you, trust me.
Thats disputable... my mom's master's thesis for psychology determined that it was half and half nature and nurture... but the key is that sexuality is not determined at birth but later in life. When you were one-year-old do you remember liking girls/boys? It develops over time... and that leaves tremendous room for the environment to play a huge role.
Just because there are animals that are homosexual does not mean anything... Most male animals will have sex with anything that moves just so it can pass down its genes... there are countless of explanations for this... along with the lines that it could be a mental disorder counting it as "abnormal."
Thats what I was saying, homosexual couples cannot reproduce with one another... there is no point for them to be together sexually.
"Norm" might have been too strong of a word... I was just trying to say that it could be considered natural now because there are so many homosexuals now a days.
The vagina and the penis are meant for reproduction; that is the natural use of the organs. Other than that, it is simply for pleasure which is not an argument when deciding whether homosexuality is natural or abnormal.
Oh! Okay, I was just checking.. then you should have 'Supported' my argument and not 'Disputed' it... that doesn't make much sense but I'm just being bitchy tonight so carry on... carry on.
No, it answers the same thing. There is no point for them to be together except for pleasure which is not an argument in regards to whether it is natural or abnormal.
That may have been the original purpose of the vagina and penis, but that doesn't mean that evolution couldn't have leveraged off of that to provide other benefits. If sex were only for reproduction, then why don't we only do it when the female is in estrus, like most mammals? The fact is, we also use sex to reinforce our relationships, and gay people, and old people, need relationships just as much as anyone.
Fetus's have been found to masturbate in the womb. I also remember being with some friends at the age of 7, all of us getting a good look at a woman who was sunbathing topless on her porch. I couldn't look away. Explain how sexuality must be found later in life when that happens?
Yes, it's determined in birth. But of course you didn't realize it. You were a child! You didn't had sexual desire, neither for boys or girls. But, when you reach teenage, you start to discover yourself, your body, personality and mind. And then the sexual desire appears, as well as the discovering of sexual orientation. It's a discovery, not an apparition.
No. Scientific studies confirmed that there are several animal species that feel pleasure in having sexual relations with another specimen of the same sex. Besides, animals just don't go and mount in the first thing they see. They have instincts, and a whole process of courting.
And since when sex is just for reproduction? Of course, that's the function, but not the reason for people make it. More than half of sexual relations are done just for pleasure, not for reproduction.
Yes, I get your point. But now is starting to be considered natural. It always have been natural, but just now society is opening eyes. Just like happened with the black people and the left-handed people. And the quantity of homosexuals nowadays is almost the same of years ago. But now that the world is civilized, more people have courage to "coming out".
Homos are gays and lesbian combined together to make a "gasbian". That is reallllllll SICK man........... Examples of homos........ people who wear such sick clothing.
This is a little misleading. It is asking two questions and trying to force us to give the same answer for both.
I suppose we could say that homosexuality is not common, and so not normal (pending one's definition of normal). But that really degrades into semantics for both sides on what is "normal."
I will start by saying that "normal" is not the same as "moral" and so none of my argument should be looked at with morals in mind. I will also like to say that none of this reflects what I believe any laws should be.
I would argue that sexual desires are an evolutionary trait to get us to try to spread our seed and allow our genes to pass on. Any sexual desires that contradict that evolutionary goal are not "normal."
Technically.. It's abnormal. Mother nature gave men and women different genitalia to use them correctly- to re produce. That is, natural. For two of the same sex to mate is not natural. However, for all those haters out there, i am not saying it shouldn't be!
So what? The majority of people are men. Does this mean that women are abnormal? Yes, there is more heterosexuals than homosexuals. However, the "norm" includes everything: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. There isn't a "right" sexual orientation. Every sexual orientation is right, normal and natural.
First, we should define the word "normal." According to the fine folks at Merriam-Webster, "normal" can be defined as the standard, regular pattern, or average development. Logically, this debate should end right now, but I need to elaborate. Saying homosexuality is not a choice has the same principals as saying murderers are not choosing to be murders, and rapists are not choosing to be rapists. Do you have further explanation as to why there are only two genders on this planet, and why those two genders can NATURALLY reproduce? I have no problem with people being happy and prospering in life together. Our Constitution was created for that specific reason. We are free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I do, however, have a problem with homosexuals attempting to get the public to believe it is normal to be attracted to the same sex, because it is obviously not normal and is not following regularities. Is homosexuality the standard? No. Is homosexuality typical? No, it is not. Therefore, it is abnormal.
I have friends who are gay and they're not bad people at all. I see everyone talking about how it's :not nature/natural: blah blah and people saying it is :because animals take part in homosexual acts too: but WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANIMALS. We're humans. VERY different from animals. If homosexuality isn't wrong then why does everyone keep fighting for it to be accepted? because they know deep down it is. People only support gay because they either are of someone close to them is and they probably had to accept that before they supported them. For me now, I don't support gay rights at all, but I'm not against gay people. You're gay? sure we can hangout. Go to an event to support gay rights? No thank you. By the way no one is born gay.
Ad populum and the argument from ignorance. You don't know why it feels funny when you think about it so it must be squirrels... No wait you said it must be abnormal. That's the argument from ignorance talking. Also everybody thinks that the majority agrees with them. They're not always right about that, and the majority can always be wrong about things too. See American History of Slavery.
Psychology would disagree with you about being born gay. Did you choose to be straight? I also have no one close to me who's gay and I'm not gay. I choose to support their equal treatment because I've taken psychology of human sexuality and I now know the science. Forget gay rights events. Go to your local community college and take a cheap course in the Psychology of Human Sexuality. Gay people aren't looking for your approval, they are looking to get just enough tolerance for you to leave their equal rights alone.
Ignorance is the first and, in most cases, the only step to hate. Research before making an argument and write it in a formal language to prevent it of be destroyed.
The argument of animals is to prove that homosexuality is natural and to show that homosexuality can't extinguish a specie. So it's valid.
People fight for the acceptance of homosexuality because it is NOT accepted. Homosexuals suffer from prejudgment, social exclusion and homophobic attacks, as physical/verbal aggressions and even murder. Would you like to live in a society where 2/3 of it thinks you are against the nature and deserves to die and burn in hell?
E-V-E-R-Y homosexual is born homosexual. Of course they don't realize it in childhood, because children don't have sexual desire, neither for boys or girls. But in teenage, when the desire pops, the homosexuals realize that they prefer the same sex rather than the opposite sex. So it's not a choice and people are born with their defined sexual orientation. Are you homosexual to know?
Not strictly true, I know a gay man I went to school with. He had two girlfriends i school and told me that he realised he was gay after he had left school, around 17 yrs old.
That's called "coming out of the closet"... You may have heard of the phrase before. Just because they may have not realized they were gay until later in their life, doesn't mean it hasn't been true for their life, if that makes sense. It could be your acquaintance had never had a homosexual experience before (pornography or in real life), and thus thought that what he experienced with the girlfriends was as good as it gets. But then, after trying out some new things, it looks like he found what he had been looking for. So you see, he didn't convert to being gay, he just realized (emphasis on realized because it implies pre-existence) he was gay.
All what you write is entirely possible, I'm just going off what this former school friend told me. He had two girlfriends in school and mentioned how beautiful the second one was. I asked him if he liked any of the male pupils sexually at school and he was adamant that in school he felt straight and never imagined being gay. I do remember how he was as a kid and looking back, there were some clues that he was gay i.e the way he spoke etc.
Yes, some people take more time to realize than others. I realized it when I was 11. I know a guy that realized just when he was 18. But often in that zone of 10-20. This variation happens because of the society. If society tells that men should date women, that's what homosexuals will do firstly. Then, they will start to notice that they don't get attracted to women as they should get and that they feel something about men. It's a slow process. Usually, when the process begins, it feels like you're bisexual. Some people really are, but most realize that they don't have any desires for women. And then the process ends.
