What does you all think of this?

[Dark Moth]

Sorry to jump in late, and I'm sorry for not having time to read all the other responses. I'd say it's fair enough to make the case for trying to become straight. I know some homosexuals who'd find it far more convenient to be straight (or think they would; they should try my ex-girlfriends). But I reckon it's a waste of time. I'd say a person can contribute to the general health and wellbeing of the human race while being gay. End of the argument for me. Don't change your orientation, change the b****rs who are making being gay miserable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was just thinking, homosexuality is not the only trait humans are predisposed toward. A person can be genetically predisposed to have anger problems, violence, kleptomania, etc. All these things people can try to curb or cure by counseling, etc. These are all things we're 'born with' but people still make attempts to alter our behavior anyway for our own good. I don't see any problem with this as long as they aren't corrupt in their dealings. If the person wants to be straight and wants help, let him. It'd be wrong and bigotted if they were forced to go or were wrongfully treated and/or exploited. But if they're treated well then I don't see why people have a problem with this. Or maybe it's just because I'm a bigoted right-wing Christian. I think people here are so prejudiced against these sorts of institutions they automatically assume the worst and so dismiss it automatically.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Gfted1]

I was just thinking, homosexuality is not the only trait humans are predisposed toward.  A person can be genetically predisposed to have anger problems, violence, kleptomania, etc.  All these things people can try to curb or cure by counseling, etc.  These are all things we're 'born with' but people still make attempts to alter our behavior anyway for our own good.  I don't see any problem with this as long as they aren't corrupt in their dealings.  If the person wants to be straight and wants help, let him.  It'd be wrong and bigotted if they were forced to go or were wrongfully treated and/or exploited.  But if they're treated well then I don't see why people have a problem with this.  Or maybe  it's just because I'm a bigoted right-wing Christian.  I think people here are so prejudiced against these sorts of institutions they automatically assume the worst and so dismiss it automatically.

 

 

Heh, thats kind of a catch-22. The examples you cited are considered brain disorders while homosexuality has been de-listed as a disorder (except by China). Sooo, is it a treatable disorder (counseling, drugs) or is it hard wired like pedophelia where there is no chance of "curing", only suppressing the urges?

[Xard]

Or maybe homosexuality is no problem at all? Or should I say, just normal? )

Edited August 30, 2006 by Xard

[Dark Moth]

Heh, thats kind of a catch-22. The examples you cited are considered brain disorders while homosexuality has been de-listed as a disorder (except by China). Sooo, is it a treatable disorder (counseling, drugs) or is it hard wired like pedophelia where there is no chance of "curing", only suppressing the urges?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That I could not say for sure. Despite what some people will say, you do see gay people eventually turning straight in their lives and vice-versa. It has happened. Does that mean those urges actually go away completely? I don't know. I would also have to see why homosexuality was removed from the list in the first place. Many reasons, I'm sure. As for pedophilia, that's natural but it's still taboo because of the whole 'decision' clause, that those children are minors and aren't capable of making a mature decision about their sexuality yet. There's also necrophilia, but let's not go there. My only point is that the whole 'it's okay because it's natural' excuse isn't always good enough. And even if it is natural, that doesn't mean it can't be curbed/cured. God, I'm just begging for a flame.

[Gfted1]

Or maybe homosexuality is no problem at all? Or should I say, just normal? )

 

 

Well thats a sensitive subject. For small percentages of a population or individuals, its no problem. On a macro scale (which its not) Im sure you can see where it could become a population issue. I dont think anyone is discussing if its "right" or "wrong", more like what causes it. Obviously though, it is not normal (biologically speaking).

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well thats a sensitive subject. For small percentages of a population or individuals, its no problem. On a macro scale (which its not) Im sure you can see where it could become a population issue. I dont think anyone is discussing if its "right" or "wrong", more like what causes it. Obviously though, it is not normal (biologically speaking).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Turning that on its head, does the fact that only a small percentage of the human population is gay not support the idea that homosexuality is normal? Our species is operating within acceptable parameters. Society can get rid of its intolerance of homosexuality and the survival of the species is not in jeopardy.

[thepixiesrock]

Well thats a sensitive subject. For small percentages of a population or individuals, its no problem. On a macro scale (which its not) Im sure you can see where it could become a population issue. I dont think anyone is discussing if its "right" or "wrong", more like what causes it. Obviously though, it is not normal (biologically speaking).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Turning that on its head, does the fact that only a small percentage of the human population is gay not support the idea that homosexuality is normal? Our species is operating within acceptable parameters. Society can get rid of its intolerance of homosexuality and the survival of the species is not in jeopardy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, for this type of discussion, we shouldn't use the word normal, because it's all relative. There isn't one uniform normal way to be attracted to a sex. There is a certain attraction that we are supposed to have as animals though. And that is to be attracted to the opposite sex. Now, the thing that we have to look at now, is that we generally like to think of ourselves as being more than animals. Most people don't think of ourselves as animals at all. I think that's why we could say that an animal being gay, is a disorder, but humans being gay, that's just a different life style. In our current condition, you're right Steve, we shouldn't call being gay wrong, because of how we live. It's perfectly fine.

[Dark Moth]

Well, one could easily say it's not normal because it's impossible to create a zygote with two sperm.

[thepixiesrock]

In that isntance, you would be saying normal = serving original biological purpose.

[Dark Moth]

Well, yes. One could say it's not normal for horses and donkeys to breed because mules can't reproduce.

[thepixiesrock]

What I'm saying is, normal can have all sorts of meanings, because the idea normal, is relative. So like, it's normal for people to be gay, because that's how they are. There is no other way it was supposed to be, because everything happens the way it is supposed to happen.

[><FISH'>]

I was just thinking, homosexuality is not the only trait humans are predisposed toward. A person can be genetically predisposed to have anger problems, violence, kleptomania, etc.

 

And procrastination...Don't forget procrastination.

[Dark Moth]

What I'm saying is, normal can have all sorts of meanings, because the idea normal, is relative.  So like, it's normal for people to be gay, because that's how they are.  There is no other way it was supposed to be, because everything happens the way it is supposed to happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This goes back to the old argument though. Is it normal for one to be a pedophile just because it's natural?

[thepixiesrock]

What I'm saying is, normal can have all sorts of meanings, because the idea normal, is relative.  So like, it's normal for people to be gay, because that's how they are.  There is no other way it was supposed to be, because everything happens the way it is supposed to happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This goes back to the old argument though. Is it normal for one to be a pedophile just because it's natural?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It all depends on what you mean by normal. The word normal would need to be specifically defined before an answer can be reached.

[Dark Moth]

Normal isn't always subjective, though. It's not normal for a human to be born with three arms (imagine the sexual possibilities) and one eye. It's a genetic abnormality. Homosexuality has biological ties, it's not like one's political views. If it's biological, that could make it a mutation, if it's really caused by a genetic defect.

[Gfted1]

Turning that on its head, does the fact that only a small percentage of the human population is gay not support the idea that homosexuality is normal?

 

I suppose it could be though of that way when you consider the statistical probability of any genetic mutation.

 

 

Our species is operating within acceptable parameters.  Society can get rid of its intolerance of homosexuality and the survival of the species is not in jeopardy.

 

Our species is capable of living with many many mutations but I dont understand what societal acceptace or rejection has to do with this conversation. Pls clarify.

[thepixiesrock]

Normal isn't always subjective, though.  It's not normal for a human to be born with three arms (imagine the sexual possibilities) and one eye.  It's a genetic abnormality.  Homosexuality has biological ties, it's not like one's political views.  If it's biological, that could make it a mutation, if it's really caused by a genetic defect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's only not normal when you compare a person with three arms to a person with two. Comparing a person with three arms to a person with three arms it's normal. That's the concept of relativity. You must define the context of normal for any end to be reached. To be a homosexual human in the year 2006 is normal.

[Dark Moth]

It's not normal, because it's part of a human's genetic code to be born with only two arms. That's how we developed as a species. Any more or less is considered a mutation, a genetic abormality. If we were talking about some alien species on planet Gorfbnag that had three arms, then it'd be normal for them. If a wolf pack was comprised of purely homosexual wolves who had no interest whatsoever in the other sex, they'd die out. That's not normal. So if homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then how could one say it's normal?

 

Also, don't forget that acceptable and normal are two different things.

[thepixiesrock]

You just don't understand. It's all there, you just don't get it. I never confused acceptable and normal.

[Dark Moth]

I was just clarifying in case you and I weren't thinking along the same lines.

 

Yes, I do understand what you are trying to say, which is that is normal is all relative so we can't say what is normal unless we already compare to something we've already designated as normal. And my point is that, whether you believe in God or not, there are certain things nature on our planet has already determined to be normal and abnormal.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Lucius]

As in being normal and not believing in all sorts of superhuman god crap?

[thepixiesrock]

I was just clarifying. 

 

Yes, I do understand what you are trying to say, which is that is normal is all relative so we can't say what is normal unless we already compare to something we've already designated as normal.  And my point is that, whether you believe in God or not, there are certain things nature on our planet, has already determined to be normal and abnormal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying normal depends on what you compare it to. We don't designate anything as normal, and then compare something to it. We compare something to something else, and then decide if it's normal or not. You understand the idea, but at the same time, you don't. The last sentance there, it's only normal or abnormal depending on what you compare it to. You can't just say something is universally normal or abnormally, no matter what the situation is.

Edited August 30, 2006 by thepixiesrock

[SteveThaiBinh]

Our species is capable of living with many many mutations but I dont understand what societal acceptace or rejection has to do with this conversation. Pls clarify.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because we're talking about what's normal and what's not, and normality is defined by society, very subjectively. The word is pregnant with non-scientific significance, one more reason why:

Well, for this type of discussion, we shouldn't use the word normal...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And with each post, we prove you more right.

[Dark Moth]

I was just clarifying. 

 

Yes, I do understand what you are trying to say, which is that is normal is all relative so we can't say what is normal unless we already compare to something we've already designated as normal.  And my point is that, whether you believe in God or not, there are certain things nature on our planet, has already determined to be normal and abnormal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying normal depends on what you compare it to. We don't designate anything as normal, and then compare something to it. We compare something to something else, and then decide if it's normal or not. You understand the idea, but at the same time, you don't. The last sentance there, it's only normal or abnormal depending on what you compare it to. You can't just say something is universally normal or abnormally, no matter what the situation is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's basically what I meant. Believe me lou, I know what you're trying to say. And I'm saying that yes you can. Not universally, because what's normal for one species might be different for the other. But when talking about more specific things, you can. And what you're saying doesn't change the fact that there are already standards built into our species that we are supposed to compare things to, that define what is normal and what isn't. It's normal for a wolf to have a tail, but not a human. It's normal for a woman to be pregnant, but not a guy.

Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth

[thepixiesrock]

I know what you are saying now. You just aren't clarifying ahead of time what you are comparing to. You say we already have built in what is normal and what is abnormal, but that's only based on observations thus far in our time.

 

Like I said and Stevie quoted, you shouldn't say normal.