Gay

[knifeboy77]

La.... La..... La..... La.....





BOOOYA! Don't MAKE me come over there!.....



What? *shrug* I don't know. Shhhh! You shhh bitch! Ahhh, screw you. Yea? Well screw you too bigmouth.




That was a brief summer of this thread, have a nice day.

[Angie]

[quote="Seraphim";p="361462"]We are debating homosexuality. Someone provided a resource, showing that there opinions are fact, and a few of us are tearing that source to threads. It's much better then when someone posts a source and everyone ignores it out of fear of conceding. Before you condescend to us about being off topic read everything you've missed.[/quote]

No I read the source. Just the child porn debate is one of those things that triggers body shivers and most days my gag reflex.

[Seraphim]

Child porn was part of the source. I'm saying the source is invalid, due to child pornography, others are debating that.

[Azurain]

Back on topic, because I don't feel like arguing how the morality of a study and the accuracy of a study are in no way related unless falsification of results is a distinct possibility--which it's not in this case... Er, yes, back on topic.

I'm still curious, Deacon, why you think that homosexuality should be treated, given that there are no non-social/societal negative effects resultant from it, and abnormality in itself is not a thing warranting of treatment. Enlighten me. Why does homosexuality, if it's a birth abnormality, require treatment at all?

-- Chris

[ReggarBlane]

Birth abnormality? Where do we draw the line? Once it starts, where does it end? Too dark of skin? Too light of skin? Sounds a bit Aryan to me. Homosexuality is pretty much a cosmetic difference (meaning it affects no one else except in sensibility just like all other cosmetic differences).

And it's not proven to be "abnormal". It may be the result of something natural... like population control. Nature has its own ways to deal with things regardless what Mankind thinks is right. Mankind tends to be a bit arrogant in regards to Nature's intentions as well as God's intentions.

[Seraphim]

It is in the strictest sense of the phrase a birth defect. I am by no means homophobic; I have gay/bi friends. Just because I don't hate it, doesn't mean it changes what it is. It's a difference that results from an accident, in the womb. I see no reason in stopping the accident, seeing as it hurts no one... kind of like Azurains posts, but that doesn't change the nature of the condition. Or maybe since homosexuality is a lack of something happening in the womb, then maybe heterosexuals are the ones with the birth defect, and homosexuality is the default. I don't know, my point is one of them is a birth defect, but there’s no reason debating it, because it doesn't matter.

[ReggarBlane]

Why is it a defect? Does either light skin or dark skin have to be a defect? You can't make that distinction without including everything that comes out differently from the womb. Blue eyes, brown eyes, tall, short... Which are the defects?

[Azurain]

Reggar, you came in in the middle of a hypothetical conversation. The question was if homosexuality is a birth abnormality (not defect, there's a difference), why would it require treatment? I am not assuming that it is a birth abnormality in anything other than a hypothetical sense. Do try to understand what kind of conversation is taking place before you throw nazi accusations around .

-- Chris

[Deacon]

[quote="Azurain";p="362324"]RThe question was if homosexuality is a birth abnormality (not defect, there's a difference)[/quote]
What's the difference, exactly, then?

birth defect
n.

A physiological or structural abnormality that develops at or before birth and is present at the time of birth, especially as a result of faulty development, infection, heredity, or injury. Also called congenital anomaly.

[wocket]

If you're born extra extra tall, or have extra sharp teeth, is that a defect? No, but it's still abnormal. Hence, there is a difference. Just because it's abnormal doesn't mean it's necessarily BAD, just different.

[Azurain]

[quote="wocket";p="362343"]If you're born extra extra tall, or have extra sharp teeth, is that a defect? No, but it's still abnormal. Hence, there is a difference. Just because it's abnormal doesn't mean it's necessarily BAD, just different.[/quote]
Thank you, wocket. Well said. Defect means bad; abnormal means different; different does not equal bad.

[ReggarBlane]

[quote="Azurain";p="362324"]Do try to understand what kind of conversation is taking place before you throw nazi accusations around .[/quote]
Um.... I was responding to Seraphim who said it was a defect. I am pretty aware where the conversation has been.

But how can you call anything abnormal when nothing can be considered the norm?

And what about the definitions of defect and abnormal. They overlap. You need to be MUCH more specific. A stigma is attached to both as something being wrong. I refuse to think that some cosmetic difference is "wrong". And then the conversation toes the line with "naziism".

[Seraphim]

I used the wrong term then I suppose, I would apologize for being mistaken... but I only do that when people politely point out my error such as Azurain did. We're arguing that it is a birth abnormality; Deacon is arguing if it is, then it is rather a birth defect.

But how can you call anything abnormal when nothing can be considered the norm?

What that statement seems to imply is that there is no such thing as a birth defect, or abnormality. That everything is just a trivial difference. There are birth defects/abnormalities, and homosexuality is one of them.

[ReggarBlane]

Prove it. While you're at it, prove that you're stance is not caused by a defect in your birth. For all we know, some people are just predisposed to think that homosexuality is some kind of defect.

There have been many things simply saying it's just a difference, but nothing narrowing it down to being qualified as a defect (which has the stigma of something being wrong -- which can't be proven).

[Azurain]

Reggar, just to get this clear, what exactly do you think homosexuality is? It's unlikely that it's exclusively genetic, unfathomable that it's choice (you're too intelligent to start arguing that people choose to be gay, so don't, or I'll stab you : ); no, most likely it's slightly genetic and mostly hormonal, generally resultant of what you might call 'mishaps' in the womb. As in, hormones being applied in a way that does not directly conform to established physical gender roles, leading to indefinite or non-standard sexuality.

This would be considered an abnormality, but as I said, there's nothing wrong with abnormality. In fact, I tend to prefer what's original and different to what's normal and boring. But your stances seems to be that nothing can be considered 'normal' or 'abnormal' which is a counterproductive argument. A definition of normal can be applied to this situation and so a classification of homosexuality being abnormal can result from that definition of normal.

Now, if hormones in the womb are the primary cause of homosexuality, the political correctness of that (or lack thereof) isn't going to change the fact. And I mean, really, it's fairly obvious that homosexuality is an abnormality of some kind. The problem is just that the ignorant or backward fear the abnormal, fear that which is different from them, and so we have homophobics like BBQ. Alas.

-- Chris

As for poor Seraphim proving it... he's linked to so many sources and argued volumnuously on the subject for so many pages of this thread... if you want him to prove it, all you'd have to do is read back a hundred or two posts.