Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-30-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: US Empire, Pac NW
5,003 posts, read 12,318,684 times
Reputation: 4125

Advertisements

You have to understand that homosexuality does, in fact, have a genetic component and an environmental component. The fact that the ancient Greeks (and other civilizations, for that matter) had homosexual relations points to the deep bonds that warriors and the such had when being raised. Those who only accepted men were actually seen in a positive light because of their "different" strength in battle.

The genetic component is best described by my mother's side of the family. Two gay uncles and two bisexual aunts. My grandfather was straight as an arrow and my grandmother was apparently bi. So, I think there's a definite genetic component there. Many many other examples I can show.

Then there's scientific studies to back me up.

So ... let's define "abnormal". "Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable."

Normal, in this sense, is heterosexuality. However, it is not undesirable, unless you were to consider that homosexuality deters from procreating the species, in which case you'd technically be correct.

Maladaptive: "Not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation." One could argue against your position here. E.G. the ancient Greeks. It was accepted back then and not doing it would label you as weird.

But while you can make all the logical arguments you want, people are emotional, too. One must remember there's two sides to everyone, emotion, and logic.

The logic your sister is talking about is from a scientific and holistic perspective.

On a holistic basis, your argument falls apart. It IS normal for species to have a small percentage of its members to be homosexual. Said scientific studies have proven this. Your contention that 100% of a species is supposed to be heterosexual goes against the "never perfect" rule in nature. There's no such thing as 100% adherence to a model or rule in nature. That's why there's random mutations, evolution, and diversity.

So, now it is an argument on whether you believe in a micro view of homosexuality versus a macro view of biology. One HAS to take the holistic view because it is pointless to argue against what nature has brought about, even if the society structure can be argued against. Our society, I think, is getting more enlightened (slowly) about this point, hence homosexuality is being more accepted.

 
Old 05-30-2011, 01:13 PM
 
1,364 posts, read 2,908,138 times
Reputation: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
What other connotation could "its a shame" have? That means that you're projecting your definition of a shameful practice upon that person -- To shame someone means to look down on them. How do you spin the definition of shame?..lol
A shame that people's lives are destroyed because society makes it out that homosexuality is the worst thing in the world and gay men buy into it forcing them to marry a woman? Yeah that sure is looking down on them. It's a shame that this type of situation occurs.

I actually understand why men do this. I can empathize with what happens. I stayed in the closet till I was 23 and dated women. Thank god I came to my senses that I was living a lie and started to be honest with things. Not everybody can make that decision for a variety of reasons (right or wrong). That is not looking down on them but thanks for making it appear that way in a dishonest manner.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 01:42 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,657,739 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
You have to understand that homosexuality does, in fact, have a genetic component and an environmental component. The fact that the ancient Greeks (and other civilizations, for that matter) had homosexual relations points to the deep bonds that warriors and the such had when being raised. Those who only accepted men were actually seen in a positive light because of their "different" strength in battle.

The genetic component is best described by my mother's side of the family. Two gay uncles and two bisexual aunts. My grandfather was straight as an arrow and my grandmother was apparently bi. So, I think there's a definite genetic component there. Many many other examples I can show.

Then there's scientific studies to back me up.

So ... let's define "abnormal". "Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable."

Normal, in this sense, is heterosexuality. However, it is not undesirable, unless you were to consider that homosexuality deters from procreating the species, in which case you'd technically be correct.

Maladaptive: "Not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation." One could argue against your position here. E.G. the ancient Greeks. It was accepted back then and not doing it would label you as weird.

But while you can make all the logical arguments you want, people are emotional, too. One must remember there's two sides to everyone, emotion, and logic.

The logic your sister is talking about is from a scientific and holistic perspective.

On a holistic basis, your argument falls apart. It IS normal for species to have a small percentage of its members to be homosexual. Said scientific studies have proven this. Your contention that 100% of a species is supposed to be heterosexual goes against the "never perfect" rule in nature. There's no such thing as 100% adherence to a model or rule in nature. That's why there's random mutations, evolution, and diversity.

So, now it is an argument on whether you believe in a micro view of homosexuality versus a macro view of biology. One HAS to take the holistic view because it is pointless to argue against what nature has brought about, even if the society structure can be argued against. Our society, I think, is getting more enlightened (slowly) about this point, hence homosexuality is being more accepted.
This is a really good and insightful post. Ends the argument.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
4,422 posts, read 6,218,418 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfs985 View Post
I had an argument with a family member about homosexuality and she tried telling me that homosexuality is normal. She took a class on Cultural Anthropology, so she had plenty of liberal garbage to spew. Having taken anthropology as well, I had plenty of ammunition to disprove her arguments.

My argument consisted of two statements: homosexuality is maladaptive to a species (homo sapiens sapiens specifically) and it is abnormal (in that a small percentage of the population is homosexual).

She mentioned the fact that ancient Greeks had homosexual relations for "fun" and also mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in almost every species of life. Her argument is fallacious in both arguments. That's like me saying that since there is slavery going on in the Sudan (and a number of African countries), that therefore, slavery is normal.

I would like someone to refute my statement so I can gain some insight into this issue, because I believe my statement is irrefutable. I am open-minded, so if someone can give me a sincere, logical argument, maybe you can make me a believer.
You're comparing homosexuality to slavery? Homosexuality is as NATURAL in the brains for homosexuals as heterosexuality is for a straight person. They are born that way. Slavery is not natural. BTW, using the term liberal "garbage" is hardly "open minded." The second portion of your argument is laughable at best. It's like saying any minority is abnormal because they are only a small portion of the population.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,802,992 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Your argument about anal sex is also wrong, considering 40% of heterosexuals engage in it
Let's see the proof.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:08 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,047,518 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Let's see the proof.
Here are some results from one study of sex behavior of Americans:



Women are penetrated via anal sex much more often than men.


National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
3,849 posts, read 3,739,075 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
The OP provided what he/she THINKS is 'logical reasons' for his/her position. Some of us are trying to understand his/her "logic" and simply finding it impossible, since they keep repeating the same argument without explanation. (Or at least an explanation that makes any better sense than the first post.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
You have concluded that because you don't agree the OP is irrational and illogical, but you don't explain why.
I'd really like to know where you got that, because I said nothing of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
I personally find homosexual intercourse to be unnatural for the same reasons as the OP. The human a$$ functions as a turd cutter. Why someone would want to try to use it for sex is beyond me.
So, because you don't enjoy something, no one else should either? Does that also apply to foods. I know plenty of people who wouldn't eat the Ruben I'm enjoying right now, but none of them have ever tried to stop me from eating one, just as I wouldn't try to stop someone who enjoys hummus or tofu from eating that though I gag at the thought of eating it myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
The problem we have when we throw away the concept of normal to suit the desires of the abnormal is we are left with no real definitive line between what is OK and what is not. In fact, there isn't even a way to define normal to include the abnormal without having conflicting standards by which some are included and others not.

I agree with the OP that natural function of the organs should be one of those lines we should not cross.
Sorry, but normal and abnormal do not equate in any way to right and wrong when it comes to morality.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
3,849 posts, read 3,739,075 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
What other connotation could "its a shame" have? That means that you're projecting your definition of a shameful practice upon that person --
I read it as "It's a shame in this day and age that anyone is driven by circumstances around them to feel they have to hide their sexual orientation."
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:20 PM
 
3,573 posts, read 6,457,656 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfs985 View Post
I actually believe (from discussions I've had with a homosexual friend) that people are born homosexual and that it is not a conscious choice.

I've never stated that being gay is wrong. If you can find evidence that I have, please enlighten me.

I'm actually extremely open-minded. But thanks anyway!
Then you are contradicting yourself. The title of your thread is "Homosexuality is maladaptive and abnormal"

Maladaptive is unproductive behavior and abnormal is not normal behavior, both behaviors reflect wrong behavior. So in your mind, homosexuality is wrong since you described both behaviors as homosexual.
 
Old 05-30-2011, 02:22 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,047,518 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
I'd really like to know where you got that, because I said nothing of the sort.

So, because you don't enjoy something, no one else should either? Does that also apply to foods. I know plenty of people who wouldn't eat the Ruben I'm enjoying right now, but none of them have ever tried to stop me from eating one, just as I wouldn't try to stop someone who enjoys hummus or tofu from eating that though I gag at the thought of eating it myself.

Sorry, but normal and abnormal do not equate in any way to right and wrong when it comes to morality.
Not to mention that Ruben is horribly unnatural (unless you know of a Ruben tree). Since unnatural and immoral mean the same thing, I only eat fruits and vegetables that have naturally ripened and fallen to the ground. It's really the only way to live morally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top