Is homosexuality "normal"?

Sit where you like.



​

 

I doubt that anyone could sit right on the norm regardless of how hard they tried.

 

If you are a male homosexual that is a significant accomplishment. Tough old dames are all too common.

 

If anything, my comment about ideas was a classic Marxist comment. Christianity became prevalent in ancient Rome because of the decreasing ideological dominance of Roman polytheism, which was a consequence of the decreasing material/socioeconomic dominance of Roman society in comparison with its rivals. The collapse of the Roman Empire was but another consequence.

And yeah, "normal" is a pretty useless word (and I'm partial to that meme as well) but that doesn't change the meaning of the word and the fact that homosexual people do not fit it. There's nothing wrong with this, I'm just stating a fact; albeit an irrelevant one. My point was that there is nothing inherently positive or negative about (ab)normality.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

How does homosexuality fit this definition of normal?

 

I don't care who does what to who sexually. I realize that human sexuality runs a wide gamut but also, that sexual proclivities are strong...That is...what is preferable to one may be abhorrent to others. Being civil and respectful of others in this area is what normal people do. If a person is gay and decides not to reveal themselves they are not boring, just respectful of others that may not share their sexual proclivity. In my daily life, I couldn't care less if someone is gay or not....Until they reveal themselves and I must consider that facet of their personality. This does not make me suddenly dislike them.

 

Gay is OK.

Nothing abnormal about people who live this lifestyle.

 

If you do not think/believe it does (homosexuality, that is)... then I'm not going to waste one more bit of energy trying to convnce you otherwise.

Cheers.

 

*shrug* Probably not. The norm is one breast, one testicle, and two and half children.



​

 

Yes, you have to slice it straight down the middle.

 

What's the point of being on this site if you're not even going to try to debate?

 

We can share opinions. I don't have to necessarily argue with or attempt to disprove what you opine... to relate what I think or believe is reality.

Even so, my point is that YOUR perspective isn't all there is to consider or fathom. If you walked up to me and said that homosexuality wasn't "normal", I'd likely laugh and wonder why you didn't know better than that. But really, I've read much of the best science they have on being gay and been involved with the gay community virtually all of my life. My view is counter to yours, based upon a LOT more than a few words we can exchange in this forum.

Even so, I respect you right to express a view or opinion... but when I say that I must/will disagree with you and generally leave it there, I mean that and take that tact for reasons which I should not have to justify before you (just as if you walked up to me in public and said homosexuality is abnormal).

If nothing else, I comment on this site to at least show that others have a view of things that is different from one person to the next. If I want to argue with or debate you (in a more formal fashion), I surely will (bet on that).

We disagree on the normality of homosexuality... take it or leave it.

 

I agree with the first sentence; but I must insist that 'homosexuality' itself, isn't a "lifestyle".

 

Interesting comment. I used the term because I have seen gays refer to this term when discussing their lives. What alternate term do you recommend?

 

'Fact' ?

 

Expounded Upon from a Religious Perspective

More To Consider

Even More To Think Over

 

The Homophobic often try to use biological reproduction as their "base-line" for "normal".....

which of course quickly trips them up, when you say "Okay, so an infertile heterosexual marriage....or a heterosexual marriage to a woman beyond menopause is ....'abnormal'?"....and they quickly move their goal-posts.

But let's use biology......

if heterosexuality is the "only biological norm"....then wouldn't it be true that the ONLY way that a man could achieve an orgasm would be by the insertion of his penis into a vagina and the ONLY way a woman could achieve orgasm would be by the reverse?

Manual, oral, and anal sex ....wouldn't have the same result or a much, much less intense result.

 

Sure...but some sort of justification is surely necessary. I mean, if we just opined whatever we wanted all the time without attempting to provide a justification or critique others' views, there would be all sorts of crazy opinions circulating and discourse would be non-existent. I don't see how you could ever have a constructive discussion with anyone with this sort of mindset.

You don't say.

If you want to show me that other opinions exist apart from my own, if you think my opinion and the justification I provided for it is laughable, the best way to demonstrate this is by providing a logically justified argument. Otherwise, your opinion is merely a random, unjustified statement, like "bananas are blue" or "people are selfless" or "the world was created 6.000 years ago."

Many of my opinions are based on a lot more than a few words we can exchange in this forum. My socialism stems from growing up as a second-generation immigrant and being raised by parents who epitomise the modern proletariat, and relating my entire backstory every time someone asks me why I'm a socialist would be exhausting for everyone. But I still argue in favour of socialism and try to explain why it would be beneficial to everyone, not just me. In fact, I try to avoid anecdotal evidence altogether and stick to facts and reasoning. There's no reason why you can't do that.

There's a difference. This is a discussion forum. Politics is generally not discussed in public.

Suit yourself. But frankly, I think all this is a cop-out.

 

Well, stick around here a bit longer, an you'll see people make less... far less of an effort to do what you expect, than you've seen from me.

But seriously, rather than singling my approach out for criticism, maybe you can UP your own game and encourage myself or others to engage more in the manner you are looking for.

From here, I'll bow out; but that isn't to say that I won't be back to offer more, even from another perspective.

Regards.

 

I'm gay and don't mind "lifestyle" as long as it's not implied that I chose to be gay. There is an element of choice, that is if you decide to accept that your gay, embrace it and have same-sex relationships. It is possible to be gay and in straight unfulfilling relationships because you're too scared to accept yourself. So in that way it is sort of a lifestyle. Maybe an alternative is to just say that it's ok to be gay and leave it at that. Then you don't risk people misunderstanding in an online forum where we can't hear tone. I didn't read your comment like you meant anything bad, but "lifestyle" is definitely a term that has to be used carefully.

 

I don't get the obsession with the idea of 'normal' as if the term was inherently positive and somehow morally commendable. Its like people who say 'its natural' as if the positivity in that is self explanatory. My response is usually 'those little coloured frogs in the Amazon are natural, go lick one & then tell me why natural is so wonderful'. 'Normal' is a mathematical equation and is no more inherently positive than Pi. There might be circumstances where it is good or where it is bad or where it is utterly meaningless - usually the latter.

A more intelligent question would be 'does it matter that there is a range of human sexuality and why?'. An intelligent answer might suggest that it does matter in a few cases (paedophilia being one), but provided the people concerned are consenting adults it rarely does. 'Normal' doesn't enter into it.

 

Thanks for your comment - am glad to know my view was not taken as an affront.

But perhaps such a reply should be used in discussing this with other gays so that they will know that they are the ones often being quoted when using the term "life style". It could well be that they may have suggestion as to how to make references that could not be construed as an affront.

 

I think someone suggested what reflects reality:

If one uses the term ANY term describing gay people (or any group of people)... then some care is in order. Otherwise, problems will likely ensue.

Gay people and others have been literally oppressed and discriminated against over large periods of time. That they would express certain sensitivities or types of defensiveness in dealing with the same, is ultimately reasonable.

 

Yes it is understandable.

Am a huge fan of Melissa Etheridge and have heard some of her interviews and a PSA she did a few years back. She has often used the term "lifestyle" in her discussions and I use it as respectfully as she does.

 

I can accept that.

 

Shakespeare said it well; "To Thine own self be true" if you live a life not your own, in order to accomodate other people, you will not be happy, you will foster unhealthy resentments and psychological disorders.