107 replies to this topic

[Frizzle]

Unless you've got a PhD in behavioural psychodynamics or BA(hons) in Biology then whatever you say makes little sense.

You are not a doctor, you're talking opinion with fact or science. Therefore it doesn't matter what you say.

[brandonxan]

Unless you've got a PhD in behavioural psychodynamics or BA(hons) in Biology then whatever you say makes little sense.

You are not a doctor, you're talking opinion with fact or science. Therefore it doesn't matter what you say.

LOL.
You don't have to be a doctor to know that you don't get to choose who you get a crush on.
One day when you do get a crush on someone, you'll realize that it isn't a conscious decision

[Frizzle]

LOL.
You don't have to be a doctor to know that you don't get to choose who you get a crush on.
One day when you do get a crush on someone, you'll realize that it isn't a conscious decision

Look, I'm almost 20, don't dare condesend to me as it just makes you look like a pathetic child.

This was supposed to be a debate not a slanging match.

[brandonxan]

Look, I'm almost 20, don't dare condesend to me as it just makes you look like a pathetic child.

This was supposed to be a debate not a slanging match.

Exactly, a debate.
If I recall (which of course, I do) you were the one who starting throwing out random irrelevant insults (dressing up in women's clothing?).
To try to back-up your...argument...just explain a time that you woke up one morning and made a conscious decision to have a crush on someone.

[Frizzle]

Well I have sexual desire for women, and being a man, this is what we call normal in comparison to other abnormalities. Homosexuals must use a mixture of primary and secondary socialisiation, biological reactions and conscious choices. I'm not saying it's as black and white as you make it out to be, but so far there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological, chemical or pyschological from birth.

[brandonxan]

Well I have sexual desire for women, and being a man, this is what we call normal in comparison to other abnormalities. Homosexuals must use a mixture of primary and secondary socialisiation, biological reactions and conscious choices. I'm not saying it's as black and white as you make it out to be, but so far there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological, chemical or pyschological from birth.

Yes but have you ever looked at a random woman and told yourself "Yes, I shall have a crush on her. I decide to be in love with her."

[Frizzle]

Yes but have you ever looked at a random woman and told yourself "Yes, I shall have a crush on her. I decide to be in love with her."

No, but I could, easily. If I can force religion upon myself, I can force this emotion you call love and others call lust.

Lee, I can think of one person that logically you probably shouldn't have fallen for and did just the same. And when she wasn't interested, you feelings didn't just go away in a snap.

Look, I swear, I thought she was AT LEAST 15!!

But seriously, who?

[brandonxan]

No, but I could, easily. If I can force religion upon myself, I can force this emotion you call love and others call lust.




Look, I swear, I thought she was AT LEAST 15!!

But seriously, who?

No, you can't force yourself to fall in love with someone.
Right now I'm in love with a 29 year old guy.
And it's the absolute last thing I could ever, ever, ever want.
Last night he told me he hadn't felt anything for me the past few days and I started having a panic attack and I started shaking and crying and I felt so numb inside, like I was about to just pass out.
This is definitely the absolute worst thing I could ever feel and you're trying to say that I actually WANT it.
There's no way you can make yourself feel like this.

[brandonxan]

How long have you known this person? Were you together for any amount of time? I can't tell from what you've said.

For the record, I believe quite strongly that you don't control who you desire, no matter of gender.

We've been dating for almost 7 months, and we live together.
After I met him and fell in love with him I started having the most sympathy for my parents and especially my mother through their divorce.
I never cared or understood it. But now when I think back to my mother pleading with my dad and telling him how much she loved him, I can
understand how she felt. And it makes me cry cause I know exactly the feeling.
Tonight could be the biggest fuck-up of my life.
Because when he comes home I'm gonna tell him how much I'm in love with him, for the first time.
I'm so scared because I won't be able to handle him telling me he doesn't love me.
No way in hell I would choose this bullshit.

[Frizzle]

Sounds like you're too emotional to comprehend this rational and with function.

[414de7fe6]

Controlling acute biological function is pretty fucking difficult.

Try raking the inside of your urethra with a paper clip. You're not going to be doing that for any extended period of time.

It's pretty obvious that people don't ultimately control what they lust for. Prime genetic imperative isn't something you can switch off.

[brandonxan]

Sounds like you're too emotional to comprehend this rational and with function.

No, you've just never had a relationship.
One day when you do happen to find a relationship you will realize that you are not in control of your feelings, desires, lusts...
But again, all in good time

[Frizzle]

I've been on and off with some for 4/5 years now, I know what relationships are like.

Again, stop with the patronising.

[brandonxan]

I've been on and off with some for 4/5 years now, I know what relationships are like.

Again, stop with the patronising.

Nah it's easy to see that even if you are "on and off" with someone for the past 5 years that they're just a friend or something because if you had real feelings for someone you would know that it's uncontrollable, indescribable.
Not everyone is capable of love at the same time. You just need some more time to emotionally mature. Nothing to get all worked up about

[Frizzle]

I think you wear your heart on your sleeve. I've had enough of this "debate" as it's just you going on about how you love men.

[brandonxan]

I think you wear your heart on your sleeve. I've had enough of this "debate" as it's just you going on about how you love men.

Not a single word of that was even relevant...it's actually verging on spam

One day when you fall for someone (other than a 5 year on-and-off fuck buddy) you'll see that you are not in control at all of how you feel.
Yes it's scary honey, to not be in control of your romantic feelings, but it's just life. You'll get used to it

[jcrdude]

So where's your genetics or scientific proof to back up your claim?

...

What am I saying is, homosexuality is a choice unless you can prove otherwise.

Playing Devil's Advocate for just a moment on this exact quote, who's to say that the "homosexuality is not a choice" argument is the argument that bears the burden of proof? There is "scientific proof" for both arguments, but I'm absolutely positive that either side could debate the inherent bias of the studies, so unless/until a "gay gene" is found, both arguments can be considered equally valid because neither "side" bears the burden of proof.

Your statement bears no weight whatsoever.

Well I have sexual desire for women, and being a man, this is what we call normal in comparison to other abnormalities. Homosexuals must use a mixture of primary and secondary socialisiation, biological reactions and conscious choices. I'm not saying it's as black and white as you make it out to be, but so far there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological, chemical or pyschological from birth.

A man having a sexual desire for women is considered "normal" because that is what a majority of the population feels/practices.

WARNING: What follows next does not constitute a proof of my argument, but is more of a social comparison; using a past example to attempt to draw parallels for illustration purposes

In many parts of the world, there was a period of time where slavery on farms was considered "normal" because it was accepted socially.

Also, in several ancient cultures, the "normal" punishment for theft was the removal of the thief's hand. This was considered a fair practice that prevented the thief from stealing again (and if they did, the other hand was removed... problem solved)



One last point... I'm going to use the testimony of "cured" homosexuals to hopefully bring some reliable evidence to the table.

The start of the article (worth a read):
http://www.timesonli...icle4893735.ece

"I still have same-sex attraction," she sighs at one point, "but it's like elevator music to me now. I just don't pay attention to it."
-A quote from an instructor at a "gay-curing boot camp"
http://www.timesonli...ffset=12&page=2

“You walk out on this cloud of ex-gay glory,” says Toscano, “but you end up intimate with no one, becoming more and more isolated until it's just you alone on this little ex-gay island ... so many people are hurting and living this half-life.”
-A quote from a "graduate" that later gave up the lifestyle of an "ex-gay" and described his experience.
http://www.timesonli...ffset=24&page=3

Edited by jcrboy, 08 June 2009 - 05:30 AM.

[Ives]

It's "normal" because it's our genetic design to 1) be prejudiced, most of all, but 2) have that attachment to the opposite sex. Humanists today have a tendency to make the argument that everything lies within choice, making human behavior a matter of chaos and not pattern. Granted, we try to find pattern in chaotic objects, but there is an underlying pattern to human behavior that makes homosexuality an abnormal behavior. Now, if you take ethics into account, that's a different scenario.

[jcrdude]

Granted, we try to find pattern in chaotic objects

Different argument, but I'd like to throw in that many people consider this why so many people believe in God because of "miracles"... but I'm not tackling that one here.

There is an underlying pattern to human behavior that makes homosexuality an abnormal behavior.

I guess if you want to go at things from a statistical standpoint, then yes, homosexuality can be considered an abnormality.

Really, any set of behaviors that occurs in less than 10% of the population can be considered an abnormality

Now, if you take ethics into account, that's a different scenario.

I think that when it comes to a matter of "is this natural" ethics are irrelevent...

But this is just one of those topics that constantly dips into ethics because most religions (arbiters of ethics) disapprove of the "practice".

[Ives]

Thanks for the reply.

What I mean by the ethics comment is that although homosexuality is an abnormal behavior (and the comments on chaos are relevant to the extent that it is the foundation of my claim in the first place) it is only abnormal in, as you said, a statistical sense. This is not to say it is at odds with humanity.

People tend to use the moral utilitarianism (at least when it comes to how they generally argue against homosexuality) they grew up with without careful analysis. At first glance, it would seem coutnerproductive for society to have a lack of population growth. That tends to let them slide with their prejudices, I believe, and lets their biases live on as valid opinions. That's not to say I'm not biased - I just don't think it should be an ethical issue. Historically it is, but I see it part of the way people are reared more than the way it actually is.

[jcrdude]

Thanks for the reply.

Always up for a little debate, that and I've been waiting for activity on this topic for about a week or so

What I mean by the ethics comment is that although homosexuality is an abnormal behavior (and the comments on chaos are relevant to the extent that it is the foundation of my claim in the first place) it is only abnormal in, as you said, a statistical sense. This is not to say it is at odds with humanity.

We are in complete agreement on this, so this could be a lame debate... this could end up just being a discussion

People tend to use the moral utilitarianism (at least when it comes to how they generally argue against homosexuality) they grew up with without careful analysis. At first glance, it would seem coutnerproductive for society to have a lack of population growth. That tends to let them slide with their prejudices, I believe, and lets their biases live on as valid opinions. That's not to say I'm not biased - I just don't think it should be an ethical issue. Historically it is, but I see it part of the way people are reared more than the way it actually is.

1. I ultimately blame religious and social bias for the lack of careful thought on many issues affecting society.

It's not a big problem when it comes to minor issues, but when it comes down to voting for a President either a) because of their party choice based on broad concepts or b) because they "identify" with a person or because they "seem like a good guy"

2. Population growth isn't really a great idea until we as a society learn to properly distribute food over profiteering

3. Completely in agreement over ethics being in irrelevant in a discussion of "is it natural."

Now when we get into homosexual relationships in nature, there are many examples

Strong evidence for my argument: http://en.wikipedia....vior_in_animals

But when you get right down to it, "The true extent of homosexuality in animals is not known."

But the current evidence is heavy for homosexuality being a perfectly natural abnormality that is not unique to humans, but much of it ends up being suppressed by the folks that are strongly against it.

[Sweeney]

Homosexuality is only "abnormal" at the level of the individual.
At the population level, there has been a proportion of homosexuals throughout recorded history. It's even documented in many other species.

Therefore, to say that homosexuality is unnatural is unequivocably, undeniably, objectively incorrect.

[jcrdude]

Homosexuality is only "abnormal" at the level of the individual.
At the population level, there has been a proportion of homosexuals throughout recorded history. It's even documented in many other species.

Therefore, to say that homosexuality is unnatural is unequivocably, undeniably, objectively incorrect.

Can you at least go along with the statistical delineation that a "trait" that occurs in a statistically low portion of the population can be considered unnatural from a statistical point of view.

As it stands now, homosexuality can be estimated at about approximately 10% of the population, but this statistic is hard to prove or disprove.

Maybe a better term than "unnatural" might be "abnormal."

But if we're going on that definition, I'm pretty sure that everyone has a trait or behavior set that occurs in 10% or less of the population, so we could all be labeled as "abnormal" in some way

...so it may be redundant to label ANY trait as abnormal, because we all end up falling into some category

[Sweeney]

Can you at least go along with the statistical delineation that a "trait" that occurs in a statistically low portion of the population can be considered unnatural from a statistical point of view.

As it stands now, homosexuality can be estimated at about approximately 10% of the population, but this statistic is hard to prove or disprove.

Maybe a better term than "unnatural" might be "abnormal."

But if we're going on that definition, I'm pretty sure that everyone has a trait or behavior set that occurs in 10% or less of the population, so we could all be labeled as "abnormal" in some way

...so it may be redundant to label ANY trait as abnormal, because we all end up falling into some category

The thread is about evolution, which occurs at the population level, so that should be where the discussion should be pitched.
Calling something abnormal at the individual level is, as you say, essentially meaningless.

[jcrdude]

If you have the time read Evolution and Homosexuality (15 pages) on one perspective that mentions homosexuality as a sign of the ending of a species. Why did homosexuality evolve? on the other hand sides homosexuality with creating stable societies by sexual relationships between one's own sex, and actually promoting successful reproduction.

If this is the topic at hand then the given assumption from the article is (at least from OP's abstract) that once homosexuality begins to develop, then the species is on the road to extinction.

According to the information here: http://www.news-medi...0/23/20718.aspx

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

Given these two assumptions, the only species not going to go extinct are the asexual and hermaphroditic creatures. It's going to be a bleak world in a few years.

If this topic is solely for the discussion of homosexuality as a sign of extinction, then the information I found (from a reliable scientific study) seems to prove the whole damn thing moot and renders this topic completely lackluster. Sorry for sounding bitter, but damn. Every time someone on the anti-homosexual side of things comes up with something, there's anti-proof from the other side. No matter how much proof either side gives, nobody will care.

No side will ever give. Homosexuals will continue being homosexuals, and the anti-homosexuals will continue looking for proof that what the homosexuals are doing is wrong. The only way for anything to "change" is for a majority shift, and that always takes generations in stubborn topics like this. I'll admit that the argument is sometimes fun, but it's gotten to a point where nobody gives any ground, goes on believing what they believe, and nothing changes. All the fun really came from humbling a person with studies someone else performed, and it's impossible to appreciate that online. So I guess these topics just become troll-fodder and nobody wins but the trolls.