Identical twin studies show that homosexuality is not genetic

[Dirty Dog5]

That's exactly what it mean. That's what normal is what a majority of society does. That's what makes something normal.

That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.

I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?

 

[Makalakumu]

Yes, but not where sexual orientation itself is concerned. Attraction to inanimate objects, say, is abnormal--amongst other things, it often causes problems (distress).

Not necessarily, I can think of lots of inanimate objects that humans pleasure themselves with.

This discussion really gets interesting if we begin to consider masturbation.

 

[ballen0351]

Not necessarily, I can think of lots of inanimate objects that humans pleasure themselves with.

This discussion really gets interesting if we begin to consider masturbation.

Masterbation is an act not a way of life

 

[ballen0351]

That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.

I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?

Yes again you act like abnormal is bad. Its not its just different

 

[Makalakumu]

Masterbation is an act not a way of life

Tell that to middle school age boys...lol.

 

[Flying Crane]

Masterbation is an act not a way of life

being gay is not a way of life either. It's just life, for a small but significant portion of the population, throughout all of human history.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes again you act like abnormal is bad. Its not its just different

abnormal does not have to mean bad. But it often implies such.

 

[ballen0351]

being gay is not a way of life either. It's just life, for a small but significant portion of the population, throughout all of human history.

OK we will just have to disagree here

 

[Sukerkin]

There has long been quite some body of evidence that the incidence of homosexuality in a population has advantages for the group, especially as the size of the group increases. It is also the case that this is not a 'human problem' as many species show the proclivity for homosexual orientation, again especially when populations get beyond a critical number.

For me, after the usual strong reactions against it as a younger man (probably a legacy of my overly religious upbringing), I have not allowed strong opinions on homosexuality to factor over much in my life. I am far too interested in the beauty that is the female form to be much interested in the male form (no matter how Adonis like ) and, thankfully, I am no longer young and pretty so I don't have to worry about rebuffing unwanted advances; so I don't let the existence of men who love men to ruffle my feathers much.

This article from the Economist touches on the evolutionary advantages of 'switching affections' for a social group: http://www.economist.com/node/12465295

P.S. The part about being "young and pretty" is a lie, I may have been young once but I have never been pretty :lol:.

 

[Flying Crane]

OK we will just have to disagree here

well, if you believe it is a way of life, then that implies a person has the ability to make a deliberate choice about it. They could have gone either way, and they specifically chose gay. That's really at the root of the issue, in my opinion. When you recognize that it's not a choice, that it is simply who they are, it is the way they were "made", well then that really does change everything.

 

[ballen0351]

well, if you believe it is a way of life, then that implies a person has the ability to make a deliberate choice about it. They could have gone either way, and they specifically chose gay. That's really at the root of the issue, in my opinion. When you recognize that it's not a choice, that it is simply who they are, it is the way they were "made", well then that really does change everything.

Ok

 

[Dirty Dog5]

Yes again you act like abnormal is bad. Its not its just different

ab·nor·mal /abˈnôrməl/

[TABLE="class: vk_txt ts"]
[TR]
[TD]Adjective
[TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD]Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Synonyms
[TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD]anomalous - unnatural - irregular - aberrant - unusual[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

If you're going to make up your own definitions, then it's going to be really difficult to carry on a conversation. Unless there's a Ballen-English dictionary around that I can consult?

 

[ballen0351]

If you're going to make up your own definitions, then it's going to be really difficult to carry on a conversation. Unless there's a Ballen-English dictionary around that I can consult?

Ok everything's normal nothings different were all the same but not.

 

[Big Don]

I don't think that's supportable, especially when we are talking about humans. Procreation is most definitely not the only reason for sex. In the animal world we can look at the Bonobos, sometimes called "pigmy chimpanzees" (incorrectly so, as they are a distinct species but they look very very similar). Their social interactions center largely on sexual interaction, including between members of the same sex.

At any rate, I think the mistake is in believing that there are only two sexes and one sexuality. In my opinion, there are more than that. There are male and female and heterosexual, but also bi and gay as real sexualities that ought to be included in the list. Trying to make hetero and "the" sexuality is a mistake and as long as we keep trying to have only one catagory for that, well we are just gonna keep having trouble with it. I believe that bi and homo and possibly some other sexual orientations that don't fit quite so cleanly into these categories, are entirely normal sexualities. Just because they are found less commonly in society doesn't mean they are not normal.

Animals are by definition amoral. People, have morals, well some...

 

[Dirty Dog5]

Animals are by definition amoral. People, have morals, well some...

Implying that your sexual orientation is the only moral one, and that those who do not align with you are somehow lacking in morals.

:bs:

 

[ballen0351]

Implying that your sexual orientation is the only moral one, and that those who do not align with you are somehow lacking in morals.

:bs:

Are you not judging his morals by your own to say he is BS. Whos morals do web go by then?

 

[Steve]

Are you not judging his morals by your own to say he is BS. Whos morals do web go by then?

Morality is like a giant venn diagram. Most of us overlap on most things, but on some specific issues, what you believe is moral may be immoral to me. Don has declared that he is bigot. Further, he made it very clear that bigotry is, to him, moral, and that tolerance is immoral. I disagree. Do you?

Whether you do or not, the answer to your question is that you live by your own moral code. Don lives by his and Dirty Dog lives by his. But don't presume that on any given topic, your position is the only moral one. It just isn't.

For what it's worth, I don't think that you should be made to tolerate something you believe is immoral. I'm simply asserting that you should be able to acknowledge that other people have a different position, and that their position could be just as valid as your own. Not better or worse. But different.

 

[ballen0351]

Morality is like a giant venn diagram. Most of us overlap on most things, but on some specific issues, what you believe is moral may be immoral to me. Don has declared that he is bigot. Further, he made it very clear that bigotry is, to him, moral, and that tolerance is immoral. I disagree. Do you?

Whether you do or not, the answer to your question is that you live by your own moral code. But don't presume that yours is the only one, or even that yours is the only "good" one.

I'm speaking more on a society level how do we (as in all of us). Decide what's OK and what's not. Or should we just be a more anything goes society?

I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexual behavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountain warriors that treat woman as property as the proof.

 

[ballen0351]

Double post

 

[Steve]

I'm speaking more on a society level how do we (as in all of us). Decide what's OK and what's not. Or should we just be a more anything goes society?

I do find it quite interesting that in an effort to prove to me that homosexual behavior is "normal". People used pigmy monkeys and Afghan mountain warriors that treat woman as property as the proof.

As I read your posts, my impression is that people were reacting to the negative connotations that the word "abnormal" carries with it. There are other words you could have used, but you chose "abnormal." Is it really a surprise to you that people reacted the way they did?