Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

LDA wrote: Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Well said! :clap:

[Prole]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Dookiestix wrote:
Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?

If one has two heads without the interference of any drugs or anything at all, and is born and develops like one headed people are, then this event was "natural". However having two heads is not "normal" since humans are designed with one head.

On the gay issue, if less than 3% of the population call themselves homosexual, and like Nixon talked about the event of being attracted to the same sex makes no scientic logic, then in what sense is homosexuality "normal"?
Well, Nixon was not an expert of human sexuality or biology (with an emphasis on recessive genes), and lived in an era where homosexuality was commonly diagnosed as a mental illness. And I don't think Nixon had ever heard of the colloquially named "Gay Uncle Theory" which does provide a viable scientific explanation for a homosexuality being perfectly compatible with evolution, and possibly being a beneficial characeristic in a minority of individuals.

In what sense is it normal? It's normal for homosexuals; why else should it matter? It's normal for me to sneeze twice instead of once. Is this statistically normal? Is there any biological reason for me to do this? Or if it is not solely genetically determined, then what environmental factors gave rise to this tendency? And did I choose this behavior?

Better yet, who cares? I'm guessing that you really don't think that my sneezing habits make much difference. So why should other's sexual habits make any difference, when they meet the exact same qualifications as my sneezing habits?

[sublime]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The homosexuality debate is about morals, culture and society - anything else is really a side issue. Deciding whether homosexuality is a natural abnormality or some kind of psychological issue still fails to address all major questions of it posed by critics

I don't know the answer to that; but until about the 1970s the American Psychiatric Association considered it a maladjustment.........a case of someone not ever having matured past an early adolescent stage of preoccupation with one's own body................... etc. You can find that in old Merck Manuals I think. Do you believe in psychiatry as a science? ! :wink: I have a friend in that field..........

[connermt]

sublime wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: The homosexuality debate is about morals, culture and society - anything else is really a side issue. Deciding whether homosexuality is a natural abnormality or some kind of psychological issue still fails to address all major questions of it posed by critics

I don't know the answer to that; but until about the 1970s the American Psychiatric Association considered it a maladjustment.........a case of someone not ever having matured past an early adolescent stage of preoccupation with one's own body................... etc. You can find that in old Merck Manuals I think. Do you believe in psychiatry as a science? ! :wink: I have a friend in that field..........

It's a good thing we have advanced since then!

[Enoch]

LDA wrote: Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Well said....until...

"Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural." That is misleading and incorrect. I assume you meant "homosexuality does not lend itself to standard methods of reproduction." That is true. But, beings that homosexuality occurs in nature (humans as only one example), it is natural.

Is it normal (common)? No. I admit that freely, even as a gay man.

I am gay, and that is not normal, but it is natural.

[StrangerWitCandy]

I agree with UrielsFire. Its completely natural as it occurs in nature with many species, but it is certainly not normal. However abnormal isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just as albinos are abnormal but there's really nothing wrong with them.

[Dookiestix]

aLienaTeD wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Question: How can something that's natural not be normal?
Well, normal is a statistical term. It might be perfectly natural for certain people to return to caves and hunt for food using spears, but if they were in the minority, such people would not be considered 'normal'. Being smart or being dumb or being anywhere in between might be natural, but smart people are not 'normal' nor are dumb people 'normal'. Normal s*cks, if you ask me.
Normal does svck. It just has too many boring connotations to it.

[Dookiestix]

UrielsFyre wrote: LDA wrote: Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Well said....until...

"Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural." That is misleading and incorrect. I assume you meant "homosexuality does not lend itself to standard methods of reproduction." That is true. But, beings that homosexuality occurs in nature (humans as only one example), it is natural.

Is it normal (common)? No. I admit that freely, even as a gay man.

I am gay, and that is not normal, but it is natural.
Normal is a purely relative term, judging by the myriad of responses on this thread. But I think we can all agree that homosexuality, as it has existed historically throughout our culture and throughout the animal kingdom, is certainly natural.

[LDA]

UrielsFyre wrote: LDA wrote: Most of the people that "defend" homosexuality only do so because it's a democratic (liberal) talking point. What's sad as that many gay people actually are tricked into believing that the left gives a s**t about them. That's just an observation I had.

I have to say, the point of "why is it physically possible" is a pretty stupid point, if you can even call it that. Many people point to the fact that homosexuality "occurs in nature." Most of you probably haven't even done your research on this, you just heard someone else say it. To those of you that have done your research, good for you. It turns out we're not that different from the animals. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural. Two men/women cannot produce a baby. The attraction to the other sex is an evolutionary mechanism that developed in order to keep various mammals alive.

Plastic and modern medicines created by man to keep man alive.

I don't believe being gay makes you a "bad person" anymore than being straight makes you a bad person. People will decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

Well said....until...

"Biologically speaking, homosexuality is not natural." That is misleading and incorrect. I assume you meant "homosexuality does not lend itself to standard methods of reproduction." That is true. But, beings that homosexuality occurs in nature (humans as only one example), it is natural.

Is it normal (common)? No. I admit that freely, even as a gay man.

I am gay, and that is not normal, but it is natural.

I guess you're right. We're just having a misunderstanding, as I'm using natural in a way that isn't technically correct. It wasn't meant to mislead anyone. Homosexuality is "natural" as it occurs in "nature."