# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Homosexuality, how can it not be considered an abnormality?

## Thatperson

This was breifly covered in the gay marriage topic, but to keep that thread on topic I thought I'd post here.

How can some people not accpet that homosexuality is an abnormality  ::?:  I don't mean abnormal as in uncommon. I mean abnormal as in a malfunction. I'm sure most would consider beastiality or mechanophilia as abnormalities but why not homosexuality? I'm not questioning the morality of homosexuality here, just from a biological viewpoint i'm saying.

----------


## dajo

That's how: 

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. 
Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

----------


## Thatperson

Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?

----------


## MementoMori

As long as:





> I'm not questioning the morality of homosexuality here, just from a biological viewpoint i'm saying.



remains your point in this thread it'll stay open, but moving an inch towards discrimination of any sexuality including the sexuality the OP is referring to will have the thread locked up faster than Lady Hamilton's virtue.


On-topic, i do not see it as abnormal, nothing is abnormal, if it can exist then it's normal. You first need to question what is or isn't normal. There's no such thing as normal, there's simply different shades of life... 

one of my favorite quotes:




> *Doc Holliday*: _What do you want Wyatt?_ 
> *Wyatt Earp*: _Just to live a normal life_. 
> *Doc Holliday*: _There is no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life, ya live it_.



... there's just life, you live it.


Edit: please clear this up:




> Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?



Correct me if i'm wrong, but are you comparing Homosexuality to Cancer? Or was this just a general statement to express a point?

----------


## Marvo

> I mean abnormal as in a malfunction.



It would be a malfunction if a person who is straight is suddenly gay. A gay person being gay is not a malfunction, but rather working as intended.

----------


## Universal Mind

Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?

----------


## dajo

> Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?



You missed this





> Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.



There seems to be an evolutionary benefit from homosexuality that occurs quite often in nature. 

We are subjected to the evolutionary process as well - behavior is also quite different from cancer growth. 

I'm not considering it an abnormality at all and that's how I'm reasoning at this point.

----------


## Photolysis

If you mean abnormality in the sense of "bad move reproductively speaking" then I'd agree with you. As for why you don't hear many people stating that view, it's because very few people think like that. I mean really, who cares? 

Similarly I wouldn't expect people to react to my decision not to have children with "that's a weird biological malfunction there, your genes are going to die out". If anyone did I would find it an extremely odd reaction. And I'm completely aware that my conscious decision not to is completely at odds with my biological drive. Again, why would this matter to be worthy of comment?

----------


## Sornaensis

Only something with conscious intent behind it can become abnormal, because there are expectations for it. There are none objectively. There is a process behind how someone becomes gay, it is common throughout animals, and it can/will be explained naturally. Unless you mean to say that all humans should be straight (i.e. How you want them to be...) then homosexuality can't be abnormal, but you might be a bigot  :smiley:

----------


## RedfishBluefish

"There is no normal, only average."

As for the biological part, it is my understanding that there are some evolutionary benefits to having a certain proportional of homosexuals in the population, although I don't know the details of why. But if this is so then homosexuality can hardly be called abnormal, it's simply natural selection "working as intended" to borrow Marvo's words. No, it's not evolutionary beneficial to the genes of the individual that happens to be homosexual, but it's not as if most people care about that.

----------


## ninja9578

Scientifically speaking, yes it's an abnormality.  Evolutionally speaking, yes it's a flaw.  The problem is that most stupid people add in philosophy and morality, which are not based on reality.  Abnormalities are the entire essence of our being, Earth is the only planet with life, it's an abnormality, humans are the only species with advanced civilizations, we are an abnormality.  In science, abnormalities are nothing more than curiosities.  Evolutionarily speaking, the appendix and tonsils are flaws as well.  Useless parts, but the fact that they take energy to keep alive and can flare up and kill you mean that they are flaws too.  Abnormalities and flaws are what makes science fun.

Remember though, that there are more factors in reproduction than the act of reproduction, there is also the social interaction vital to our species existence.  A homosexual man would have no interest in females, and thus would be more inclined evolutionarily to hunt and gather than deal with the young, which could keep a tribe alive during tough times.  Evolutionary "flaws" are what drive evolution in the first place.

----------


## Motumz

> Scientifically speaking, yes it's an abnormality.  Evolutionally speaking, yes it's a flaw.  The problem is that most stupid people add in philosophy and morality, which are not based on reality.  Abnormalities are the entire essence of our being, *Earth is the only planet with life*, it's an abnormality, humans are the only species with advanced civilizations, we are an abnormality.  In science, abnormalities are nothing more than curiosities.  Evolutionarily speaking, the appendix and tonsils are flaws as well.  Useless parts, but the fact that they take energy to keep alive and can flare up and kill you mean that they are flaws too.  Abnormalities and flaws are what makes science fun.
> 
> Remember though, that there are more factors in reproduction than the act of reproduction, there is also the social interaction vital to our species existence.  A homosexual man would have no interest in females, and thus would be more inclined evolutionarily to hunt and gather than deal with the young, which could keep a tribe alive during tough times.  Evolutionary "flaws" are what drive evolution in the first place.



Uhhh.. what?  ::roll::

----------


## Loaf

Simple thinking, thats how.

Man + Women = Baby
Man + Man or Woman + Woman = No Child, therefore is unnatural.

Its silly really. I don't care who you love, as long as he / she is a human.  :tongue2:

----------


## Marvo

> Uhhh.. what?



It's the only planet with life as we know it.

----------


## Thatperson

> Scientifically speaking, yes it's an abnormality.  Evolutionally speaking, yes it's a flaw.  .



Thank you. This is all i'm on about. i'm just wondering why some people don't understand this.

Also




> Its silly really. I don't care who you love, as long as he / she is a human.



Why do they have to be human?

----------


## dajo

> Scientifically speaking, yes it's an abnormality.  Evolutionally speaking, yes it's a flaw.



But why a flaw? I don't get it. I'll have to continue to disagree. 

In your second paragraph you even state possible benefits it could have to society. If it were 
flawed, it would not appear anymore in the long-run. But it rather seems to be a self-regulating 
feature of the evolutionary process that benefits society, occurs naturally and makes it seem 
even strictly biologically speaking natural. If it makes things better and therefore happens in 
evolution, how could it possibly be considered abnormal? It adds to variety. 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sexuality.html

http://www.danaanpress.com/hsex.html




> "Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"
> 
> Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.








> As for the biological part, it is my understanding that there are some evolutionary benefits to having a certain proportional of homosexuals in the population, although I don't know the details of why.



You should check out the two links above. They're about that.

----------


## Thatperson

lets say That a person has 2 mutations. The first one makes them Immune for everysingle disease infection and cancer. The 2nd mutation makes them gay. If he only had the first mutation then his genes would most likly dominate the world within a few hundred generations, but the fact that he is gay means this massive remarkable trait will die out within 1 generation.

Another point is that Asexuality is medically and almost universally recognised as a medical problem, often a treatable one. So not having desire for the opposite sex is accepted as a medical abnormality but it suddenly becomes normal if they have a desire for the same sex.

----------


## Lseadragon

> lets say That a person has 2 mutations. The first one makes them Immune for everysingle disease infection and cancer. The 2nd mutation makes them gay. If he only had the first mutation then his genes would most likly dominate the world within a few hundred generations, but the fact that he is gay means this massive remarkable trait will die out within 1 generation.



Fun Fact #1 - Recent research has suggested that the reason gay people are not removed quickly from the gene pool in this manner is the fact that traits within their family genetic line in their straight siblings leads to those siblings having more children than average, continuing the gene. 

Genetics is a funny sort of thing. Negatives and positives may be all from one gene; and if the positive ever-so-slightly weighs out the negative, in the long term under certain conditions which /just so happened/ to happen, then that gene will continue. Bit of a crapshoot.





> Another point is that Asexuality is medically and almost universally recognised as a medical problem, often a treatable one. So not having desire for the opposite sex is accepted as a medical abnormality but it suddenly becomes normal if they have a desire for the same sex.



Fun Fact #2 - It's not, according to all the articles I have read (or rather according to the fact that none of them mentioned this at all). It's another sexuality on the line of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. So this point isn't valid.

This, however, is my word against yours; so I give you the chance to link to any three (because you did say universally, surely you can scrounge up a few) articles which recognize asexuality as such. I might take two, if they're reputable.

In my defense, I link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoact...esire_Disorder and argue that this rules out asexuality as a disorder. According to that (if you don't want to read through it all) asexuality would only be classified as a disorder if it caused the person distress. As this does not happen for the naturally asexual there is quite apparently a distinct difference between asexuality and HSDD.

----------


## JesterKK

I disagree that homosexuality is a malfunction or a flaw. Philosophically speaking, that is considering everything, we cannot say objectively that it is a flaw. Scientifically speaking, if it is caused by genes, then it is *not* necessarily a flaw. it may hinder the reproduction of an organism as some of you have said, but the gene centred view of evolution argues that evolution is not about the propagation of the organism, but about the most dominant genes recognising themselves in similar organisms and ensuring the propagation of other organisms. That is to say that homosexuals may have a function which benefits their species. Also many homosexuals do have children and so your argument about homosexuality hindering childbirth is flawed. It shows that the prevalance of homosexuality is less likely a negative genetic mutation (because if this is the case, their reproduction would have negative effects on the species and for the long time homosexuality has existed, we haven't noticed negative effects on our species caused exclusively by gay sex) and it is more likely to be a social function. Homosexuality has maintained a similar proportion of populations among cultures which suggests it is not going to compromise our species and also that until it disappears completely, it may serve a function. Then there is always the case that homosexuality is purely environmental, but I don't know enough to discuss that.
Its too easy for us to oversimplify a process as complicated as evolution and then infer dangerous things from it, I think we should be more humble and careful.

----------


## Thatperson

Lseadragon, when I said asexuality what I meant was, the thing wikipedia calls "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)". And on the article it does say 



> "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), is considered as a sexual dysfunction and is listed under the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders of the DSM-IV."



 So Asexuality (or HSDD) is considered a sexual dysfunction but homosexuality is not? Double standards?

As you seem to know the difference could you please clarify for me the difference between HSDD and Asexuality? They seem identical to me :S


EDIT: Oh Dear. Upon further reading it appears that the Asexual lobby are trying to get HSDD removed as a disorder.  :Picard face palm:

----------


## JesterKK

> Lseadragon, when I said asexuality what I meant was, the thing wikipedia calls "Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD)". And on the article it does say  So Asexuality (or HSDD) is considered a sexual dysfunction but homosexuality is not? Double standards?
> 
> As you seem to know the difference could you please clarify for me the difference between HSDD and Asexuality? They seem identical to me :S
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh Dear. Upon further reading it appears that the Asexual lobby are trying to get HSDD removed as a disorder.



It's not a disorder in my opinion and the dsm criteria are no where near perfect tools for psychological diagnoses. Many people who would be considered disordered according to the DSM would argue against such a label. Many people are impacted in a disproportionately negative way by poorly construed diagnoses criteria. Look up Dr. John Breeding for more information on how our identities and individualities are put at serious risk by psychiatrists, ignorant people, conspiratory entities and self-proclaimed psychology know-it-alls.
One of the key points Dr Breeding makes is that average in a statistical sense (which has a large impact on our behaviour) does not exist *in* people. It exists *between* them. That is to say people might converge on a mean, but no one can be statistically average. And also, means vary based on the sample and the time. They are contingent and subject to change. There are always people who aren't average and diversity is compromised more and more by labels and stigmatisation. Also note that the use of psychiatric drugs has increased massively in recent times, but there has been no real change in suicide rates, delinquency rates or many other rates supposedly connected to mental disorders to correlate with the increased use of medication.
i apologise if this is slightly off topic, but I think this stuff should be brought to people's attentions.

----------


## Philosopher8659

> That's how: 
> 
> 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
> 
> Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. 
> Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
> 
> http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior



Well, that is the answer, dumb down and you can call anything right. So much for the human mind being developed to effect human action! I see there are plenty of people who would compare sense with non-sense as justification for anything. 

Good point to use for not doing one's homework.

Reminds me of a trip I took in Thailand. A bus full of us stopped off at Monkey Village, while the entire bus were fascinated by monkeys fornicating in the tree tops, Hobart and I struck out and found a Monk who wanted someone to speak English with as he learned the language but never met anyone to practice on.

Of course, one can justify every politician that ever lived by the same means. Many animals eat shit, and insects too!

----------


## tkdyo

> Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?



LOL  best.   reply.    ever

----------


## Philosopher8659

In many cases masturbation is abnormal, especially when you have one of a couple who masturbates while the other is sexed starved. However, I think it is a bit of a weak minded response to equate the augmentation of a thing with its defeat. But, weak minded comparisons are in vogue in some corners of the intelectual world. We eat ice cream too--but that does not mean we don't live on steak.

However, every male should know, that if they do not, under certain circumstances they could be injuring themselves--or create an emotional state that leads to some very bad judgments. 

However, I have never known that the fact that one must eat to survive, automatically makes everything eatable. Don't make no sense to this fool.

----------


## Jorge

> Is masturbation "abnormal", or have you been successfully making your hand reproduce?





It's only abnormal if you don't have blue balls.

----------


## Cacophony

*Who cares?

Why should someone give a crap who I'm boning, be it male or female? 

If anyone has a problem with it, I'd rather not associate. If you think anal sex is gross then don't do it. It's that simple. Let people do what they want, it doesn't affect you one bit.*

----------


## MementoMori

> Who cares?



those who have a moral/religious/personal bias against homosexuality or just "think it's icky"....

----------


## UsernameTheRand

One thing to think about**:

How do we know when an animal is homosexual or not? Just because an animal is humping on it's own kind or greets each other by moving their parts around, that doesn't mean it is homosexual.

Like the Bonobo monkey:
Somebody said they use it as a GREETING. Nothing erotic (or even platonic), just a greeting.

And just because "nature" does it, that doesn't mean that it isn't "natural". 

Normal vs Abnormal

Gays are a minority amongst humans, and probably amongst the rest of the Animal Kingdom (although I do not know the exact statistics).


EDIT: And I, in no way, believe that a homosexual's "abnormality" is bad. I just consider it not something to promote, just to tolerate.

----------


## tkdyo

> One thing to think about**:
> 
> How do we know when an animal is homosexual or not? Just because an animal is humping on it's own kind or greets each other by moving their parts around, that doesn't mean it is homosexual.
> 
> Like the Bonobo monkey:
> Somebody said they use it as a GREETING. Nothing erotic (or even platonic), just a greeting.
> 
> And just because "nature" does it, that doesn't mean that it isn't "natural". 
> 
> ...



ugh..this has been covered already.  Theres ones who do it for greetings, and others who do it for pleasure.  If they do it for pleasure, how is that not homosexual?  

I dont understand about your nature comment though...I thought the very definition of natural was something that occurred in nature...

of course, we shouldnt be promoting any kind of sexuality, as that would make it seem like the abnormalities of other sexualities is bad.

----------


## no-Name



----------


## Maria92

> And just because "nature" does it, that doesn't mean that it isn't "natural".



Is that an intentional double negative? Because you just said that if nature does something, it's natural. Ergo, if homosexuality is found in nature (as has been established in multiple animal species as both an instrument of social conduct and of pleasure), then it is natural. 





> Gays are a minority amongst humans, and probably amongst the rest of the Animal Kingdom (although I do not know the exact statistics).



So, are all minority groups abnormal, then? Are Native Americans "abnormal" because they're in a minority? No. They simply have different characteristics. They're as normal as the next person. 





> EDIT: And I, in no way, believe that a homosexual's "abnormality" is bad. I just consider it not something to promote, just to tolerate.



So, if we don't promote homosexuality, what should we promote? Being straight? Hardly seems fair...seems more like a choice individuals should make. How exactly do you promote homosexuality, anyway?

----------


## Thatperson

> How exactly do you promote homosexuality, anyway?



By the abolition of Section 28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

----------


## Bearsy

> Indeed masturbation was considered highly "abnormal" at one time and now is almost accepted as a normal thing (this doesn't help one to procreate).



Masturbation is a part homosexual and part incestual, you can't try and tell me this is "normal".

----------


## Taosaur

> By the abolition of Section 28
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28



Hmm, looks more like abolishing Section 28 ended institutional condemnation that was hampering education--not just sex ed, but banning any number of books that simply mention homosexuality. If ending that practice constitutes promotion, then I suppose if I were hitting you in the face and then stopped, I'd deserve a humanitarian award for not-hitting-you-in-the-face.

----------


## Marvo

> The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality  or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".[2]



Aslong as this goes both ways, as in, both heterosexual and homosexual couples, I don't see a problem with it. There's no reason to say that one is better than the other.

----------


## Thatperson

I do agree that it should go both ways in primary school, but eventually sex ed is needed in secondary school, at which point they shouldn't be teaching homosexuality, in the same way they don't teach mechanophilia etc. It appears the government at the time recognised homosexuality as an abnormality (rightly so I'd say), and therefore not to be encouraged.

----------


## Original Poster

Homosexuality IS an abnormality.  That doesn't meant there's something wrong with it.

----------


## Marvo

> Homosexuality IS an abnormality.  That doesn't meant there's something wrong with it.



It's a minority.

----------


## Original Poster

Right, but those words sort of mean the same thing depending on where you are.

Who would ever want to be normal?

----------


## Maria92

> By the abolition of Section 28
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28



Section 28 is abnormal. It needed some normalcy beaten into it. Thank heavens it did. 





> I do agree that it should go both ways in primary school, but eventually sex ed is needed in secondary school, at which point they shouldn't be teaching homosexuality, in the same way they don't teach mechanophilia etc. It appears the government at the time recognised homosexuality as an abnormality (rightly so I'd say), and therefore not to be encouraged.



I have so many issues with this...first off, I think sex ed should cover homosexuality, instead of only teaching straight sex. I'd go as far as to call that discrimination against gay people. Why shouldn't they also be entitled to the same level and relevancy of education as the next person? The teenage years is a time when many  come to terms with their sexuality. The last thing they need is to be taught that straight sex is the only way. I'm not saying you go into schools like gay Hitler and force someone to go gay, but it should be a part of the curriculum. Note that being educated on a matter and being encouraged to engage in that behavior are two totally different things. I see nothing wrong with handing out a pamphlet on a play containing a gay couple. What the hell's wrong with that? And why the hell would you want to deny gay people equal rights? So they have a different lifestyle. If you feel threatened by that, to the point where you support the abomination that is Section 28, then you're a homophobe. 





> Right, but those words sort of mean the same thing depending on where you are.
> 
> Who would ever want to be normal?



Define "normal."

----------


## dajo

I like this and feel it's fitting now:

----------


## Thatperson

> There are people who are on the internet until 4am and you assume they're looking at porn but they arn't, They're reading about underground rivers and concrete graveyards and abandoned subway stations



Wikipedia FTW

----------


## byungsukimmishi

> Masturbation is a part homosexual and part incestual, you can't try and tell me this is "normal".



I disagree. Masturbation is in its own category. Using such rhetoric you could say suicide is murder. I can see how you could say that though, I really hope that is not how you view masturbation though! lol.

----------


## RedfishBluefish

Urgh, how is this thread still going?

Normalcy is an arbritrary measure of how often something happens, that has no real meaning beyond itself. Why does it even matter whether homosexuality is normal or not then? Why ask the question?

All it comes down to is how you define "normality". So what?

----------

