This thread is for those who have sincere, respectful questions about homosexuality and related issues who are genuinely interested in hearing the perspective of people who identify as gay/homosexual/same-sex oriented. If you aren't such a person, kindly stay out of the thread. Any of the forum members who identify as gay/homosexual/same-sex oriented are welcome to field questions posed in the thread. So ask away...
There are genetic traits (hair, eye color, height, weight, etc.) and there are abnormalities such as physical or mental defects. If the primary function of a male penis after being a manner through which to excrete urine, is to penetrate female vulva and deposit sperm for procreation, then it is not made to function as a tool for another man's anus. Not saying people may not be born that way, but it's only right that we all agree on physiology, no? This is not a moral argument.
So to be clear, you are arguing that homosexuality is a mental defect? And the reason for this is because the penis is made to penetrate female vulva for procreation, and homosexuals do something else? Also, what about lesbians?
I'm not arguing that. I'm asking if there is one homosexual in the history of the world willing to admit they are abnormal, by the understanding of how biology functions in procreation. I don't get the lesbian reference as the question I began with is cross gender so the same goes for the ladies.
Then I do not understand what your definition of abnormal is, so I can't really answer your question. Are you saying something is abnormal if it goes against its primary function?
That depends on the definition of normal/abnormal we are using. What is your definition of abnormal? I am honestly just trying to understand where you are coming from, and defining terms is necessary for that.
No, you're not. You are doing the gay dodge. Maybe someone else will come along and not pretend interest but actually engage. Thanks for wasting my time.
If I don't know what abnormal means in the context you are using it, how can I answer a question asking "is this abnormal"? I don't understand why you won't give me the definition of abnormal you are using. If you wanted to have a discussion you would. But since you wont, let me offer this one, and if you agree with it we can continue. From dictionary.com
Ill explain this; Homos are abnormal in the functional sense of life being mere self replicating elements. In other senses the fact that homoasexuality exists across the natural world they are entirely normal. There done, question answered.
Okay. Now with that in mind, cannibalism is a "normal" part of the wild world. Not uncommon at all for animals to kill and eat their own species. A human cannibal then would be normal and abnormal by your previously set standard. Is that correct?
Absolutely. When one uses the nature argument as you have posited one must thereby take it on to its conclusion, at least to see where it leads. We are thus both in agreement.
That depends whether you're trying to interpret the word "abnormal" statistically or load the word "abnormal" as a proxy for "immoral", bad or wrong in some way (which I'm guessing you are)? Are people normally homosexual? No. Is a generation with no homosexuals statistically normal? No. Are people normally heterosexual? Yes. Is a generation with no homosexuals statistically abnormal? Yes. You could equally say that homosexuals are a "normal" variant of human sexuality (as does every major medical and social scientific body in the western world) and that it is statistically abnormal to be a homosexual given that outright homosexuals "normally" don't exceed 3 or 4% of the population. Does that help?
I tried to get a definition of abnormal out of Pennywise and he refused, so you are likely correct he was trying to use it in a loaded way. Good post, I think you said all that really needs to be said.
No, because homosexuals are not incapable of procreation. It appears to me that you are attempting to establish a foundation for using abnormality as a proxy for arguing that homosexuality is immoral. Examining morality is not the purpose of this thread. Consider yourself on notice that I will not hesitate to fetch a mod if you attempt to troll the thread in a way that moves the discussion off-topic.
Yes. Abnormal means something other than the norm. So homos are abnormal in the same way that interracial couples are abnormal, or Jewish wedding are abnormal, or gingers are abnormal. Procreation is not necessarily normal even among heteros. Lots of heterosexual couples, even married couples, choose not to procreate.
You are making assumptions about homosexuality that should not be made. Homosexuality does not equate to anal sex, as your post appears to suggest. The practice of anal sex is not limited to homosexuals, nor is it necessarily the preferred sexual behavior of homosexuals as a rule. The plain fact is that the penis does function just fine as a tool for performing anal sex, whether it be inserted into the anus of another man or a woman. The argument can certainly be made that the practice of anal sex doesn't represent a statistical norm, but this thread isn't about examining statistical norms. Moreover, it appears you are using the specific example of male-on-male anal sex as a tactic for evoking disgust in an attempt to troll the thread. That's two strikes. You're not fooling anyone by claiming it's not meant to be a moral argument. And no, we don't agree on your version of human physiology or the allegation that these uses of human physiology can be used to classify homosexuals as "abnormal". Homosexual orientation and practice are obviously not statistical norms for broad populations. I do not see what your point is in trying to establish that homosexuality is "abnormal". Either make that point, or better yet, move on. My patience is wearing thin.
