Brown University: Queer minority worshops to overcome attraction to white gays.

[loco]

It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

Sorry boss simple statistics say its not normal. Seeing as less than 3% I believe identify as gay they are statiscallu an anomaly.

That aside you can't even begin to argue I hope anyway that you feel heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality of humans or any species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate.

Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute prime.

I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct.  The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.  

[24KT]

I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct.  The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.  

Is this an argument for eugenics? 

[chadstallion]

I already posted my pics - your turn.

you did?
where?
I'll offer cash to see them.

[syntaxmachine]

I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct.  The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.  

Let's look at each of your assertions in turn.

(1) 'If homosexuality were normal, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim isn't evaluable in this context because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal': the term is ambiguous between a variety of interpretations. If you mean anything like 'natural,' however, then (1) will reduce to (2) and thus (2)'s evaluation will be an evaluation of (1) as well (see below).

(2) 'If homosexuality were natural, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim is false on the standard interpretation of 'natural,' which in this context I take to mean 'caused by biological (genetic, primarily) processes and not mere convention.' This is because homosexuality is in fact natural -- it has been exhibited across hundreds of species including our own and its occurrence is stable over time -- and we've yet to go extinct.

[Necrosis]

In nature, certain species eat their own excrement or kill their mates after sex. Should we mimick that behavior, too?

BTW, that's 100 species out of how many, 10,000? That's 1%.

100,000? That's 0.1%

1,000,000? That's 0.01%

Any way you slice it, that's abnormal at best and immoral at worst.

Look who's talking. You and your ilk want to say that two dudes cornholing each other is "normal", simply because they "love" each other.

You overvalue YOUR importance, because of your adult indoctrination.

to the first point, yes, if people want to do that then go right ahead, why are you always trying to decide what is allowed and not allowed for others. There are a few criteria any behavior needs to have in my book then all is permitted.

I am not saying it's normal, it is natural, it's commonality says nothing about it, absolutely nothing. The impact it has is the only issue, morally you have no authority.

[tonymctones]

to the first point, yes, if people want to do that then go right ahead, why are you always trying to decide what is allowed and not allowed for others. There are a few criteria any behavior needs to have in my book then all is permitted.

I am not saying it's normal, it is natural, it's commonality says nothing about it, absolutely nothing. The impact it has is the only issue, morally you have no authority.

its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?

nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!

you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?

[Soul Crusher]

you did?
where?
I'll offer cash to see them.

You do the reseach.  I posted two yesterday or monday and a shit load in WOOs thread on me.

[24KT]

its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?

nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!

you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?

There have been gays & lesbians hidden all throughout the closets of history.
To ask "why do we need to normalize it?" or to say it shouldn't be made a normal part of society, assumes and presumes we have anything to do with it. It is already a normal part of society. What's abnormal is the amount of attention we're forced to pay to the issue, because people think they can legislate away their existence, deny them the same rights & privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and in so doing leave homosexuals feeling they are fighting for their lives... which in many cases they are.

[tonymctones]

There have been gays & lesbians hidden all throughout the closets of history.
To ask "why do we need to normalize it?" or to say it shouldn't be made a normal part of society, assumes and presumes we have anything to do with it. It is already a normal part of society. What's abnormal is the amount of attention we're forced to pay to the issue, because people think they can legislate away their existence, deny them the same rights & privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and in so doing leave homosexuals feeling they are fighting for their lives... which in many cases they are.

again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.

Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...

what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...

[24KT]

again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.

Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...

what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...

A small percentage are out of the closet, ...a huge number are still in hiding for fear of the bigots, or deluding themselves into thinking they're not really gay. HA! Just look at the posters on these boards.

[Primemuscle]

It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder.

Sorry boss simple statistics say its not normal. Seeing as less than 3% I believe identify as gay they are statiscallu an anomaly.

That aside you can't even begin to argue I hope anyway that you feel heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality of humans or any species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate.

Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute prime.

Your response implies that I posted my own opinion, which is not the case. I posted the opinion of folk who are considered to be experts on these matters.

I would not even try to argue that heterosexuality isn't the norm, because it absolutely is. Your statistics disagree with those of the experts I cited. There studies purport that it is 1 in every 6 men are homosexual. I am no math wizard, but this seems higher than 3% of men. Moreover, their definition of a homosexual is someone who exclusively engages in homosexuality for several years. Men who experiment with various sexual experiences including same sex sexual relationships are not considered to be homosexuals.

My opinion, like it or not, is that folks are sexual creatures and thus crave sexual gratification. Sometimes for various reasons this gratification comes for same sex relations. At heart we are all animals who enjoy sexual pleasure and as such many people will take it were ever they can get it. Deprived of women, men have historically resorted to other men for sexual gratification. However, this does not necessarily mean they are gay. I suspect the same is true for women.

Obviously, up until recent times it took sex between a man and a woman to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of our species. However, this no longer being the case, it opens the door for folks to explore other avenues. For example, women can now be impregnated without having sex with a male partner, via artificial insemination. Note that this avenue is also available to heterosexual couples who are, for one reason or another, unable to have a child through the conventional process. Likewise, two men who wish to be parents can provide their sperm to inseminate surrogate mother. The result of this relatively new science is that sexual norms are challenged.

Considering that the world is extensively overpopulated, the argument that homosexuality threatens the survival of our species is absolutely absurd.

Don't believe statistics which require one "identify" with homosexuality. Believe it or not, folks lie when it comes to admitting to their sexual preferences. This is understandable since there remains a stigma against folks who are homosexuals. I think the line is that they are in the "closet" and are not ready to come out. Can you blame them?

[Primemuscle]

Why dont these twinks who are little panzies get in the gym and man up so to say? 

Oh they do. Bodybuilding, which is by nature narcissistic behavior, is filled with men who are seeking to make themselves more attractive to other men.

[Primemuscle]

I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct.  The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.  

I am bisexual for lack of a better definition. I have two children. They and their partners have produced four offspring. As a family we are zero growth, but stable in terms of human extinction.

I have no idea what is normal. I suspect "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, my normal may not be your normal.

[Primemuscle]

Let's look at each of your assertions in turn.

(1) 'If homosexuality were normal, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim isn't evaluable in this context because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal': the term is ambiguous between a variety of interpretations. If you mean anything like 'natural,' however, then (1) will reduce to (2) and thus (2)'s evaluation will be an evaluation of (1) as well (see below).

(2) 'If homosexuality were natural, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim is false on the standard interpretation of 'natural,' which in this context I take to mean 'caused by biological (genetic, primarily) processes and not mere convention.' This is because homosexuality is in fact natural -- it has been exhibited across hundreds of species including our own and its occurrence is stable over time -- and we've yet to go extinct.

Thanks. You have stated this much better than I could ever hope to do.

[LurkerNoMore]

I am bisexual for lack of a better definition. I have two children. They and their partners have produced four offspring. As a family we are zero growth, but stable in terms of human extinction.

I have no idea what is normal. I suspect "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, my normal may not be your normal.

Real talk here.

I am amused by those arguing about what is "normal" when they themselves are biased against the very term and live their lives accordingly. 

[Necrosis]

its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?

nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!

you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?

We are not normalizing it,you are talking about basic rights of human beings, you sound like a nazi dude.

What objections do you have towards gay marriage? what impact do you expect this to have? What is a normal society? one where blacks cannot drink out of the same water fountain? or perhaps one where woman are to keep covered from head to toe and be subservient?

I pass judgement sure, I don't try and mandate what they can and can't do with there lives especially when it harms no one. There is not one good argument against gay marriage, besides religious bigotry. Religion is a relic, dying slow and painfully, it is corrupt and rotten at the core.

[Necrosis]

Your response implies that I posted my own opinion, which is not the case. I posted the opinion of folk who are considered to be experts on these matters.

I would not even try to argue that heterosexuality isn't the norm, because it absolutely is. Your statistics disagree with those of the experts I cited. There studies purport that it is 1 in every 6 men are homosexual. I am no math wizard, but this seems higher than 3% of men. Moreover, their definition of a homosexual is someone who exclusively engages in homosexuality for several years. Men who experiment with various sexual experiences including same sex sexual relationships are not considered to be homosexuals.

My opinion, like it or not, is that folks are sexual creatures and thus crave sexual gratification. Sometimes for various reasons this gratification comes for same sex relations. At heart we are all animals who enjoy sexual pleasure and as such many people will take it were ever they can get it. Deprived of women, men have historically resorted to other men for sexual gratification. However, this does not necessarily mean they are gay. I suspect the same is true for women.

Obviously, up until recent times it took sex between a man and a woman to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of our species. However, this no longer being the case, it opens the door for folks to explore other avenues. For example, women can now be impregnated without having sex with a male partner, via artificial insemination. Note that this avenue is also available to heterosexual couples who are, for one reason or another, unable to have a child through the conventional process. Likewise, two men who wish to be parents can provide their sperm to inseminate surrogate mother. The result of this relatively new science is that sexual norms are challenged.

Considering that the world is extensively overpopulated, the argument that homosexuality threatens the survival of our species is absolutely absurd.

Don't believe statistics which require one "identify" with homosexuality. Believe it or not, folks lie when it comes to admitting to their sexual preferences. This is understandable since there remains a stigma against folks who are homosexuals. I think the line is that they are in the "closet" and are not ready to come out. Can you blame them?

Nice post, bigots never learn they will always be on the wrong side of history.

[syntaxmachine]

what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...

It isn't clear what you're saying because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal.' Let's explore the logical space a bit:

If by 'normal' you mean a property that 50+1% of human beings have, then you are simply engaging in semantics by arguing that we shouldn't consider as normal a property which you have stipulated is abnormal by definition -- fine as far as it goes, but irrelevant. No one is attempting to normalize homosexuality in this sense. What people are doing is trying to grant basic rights to an abnormal (as we've defined it in this paragraph) population on the basis of their being no compelling reason not to do so, plus a couple of good reasons to do so.

If by 'normal' you mean 'natural,' or resulting from our genetic endowment, then you are simply mistaken as homosexuality is exhibited across hundreds of species (including our own) and in stable percentages of species' populations over time (including our own). The only possible explanation for this is that it is a natural property.

If by 'normal' you mean what society deems acceptable, then you have simply made an assertion without argumentation -- you'd need to give some compelling evidence that if homosexuality were deemed acceptable, adverse societal outcomes would result. You'd probably also need to show that the arguments to the contrary are mistaken.

Finally, if you're simply expressing your feelings about homosexuality, then that's fine, but has no bearing on what the country's public policy ought to be.

[LurkerNoMore]

You are wasting your time with Tony.  He basically engages in logical fallacies in an effort to appear bright yet doesn't really grasp the fact they are just knee jerk emotional appeals that do nothing to prove or define the underlying claims. 

[OzmO]

again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.

Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...

what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...

How does it normalize abnormal behavior by making legal?

Does that apply to everything or just homosexuality?

[LurkerNoMore]

That's a definite possibility, but I'd like to at least give him a chance to say something that makes sense.

Good luck with that.  He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.

Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him.  Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it. 

[Soul Crusher]

Are white beta-twinks attracted to minority alpha twinks? 

[LurkerNoMore]

Are white beta-twinks attracted to minority alpha twinks? 

You tell us.  Do you get asked out a lot?

HAHA you walked into that one dude!

[Soul Crusher]

You tell us.  Do you get asked out a lot?

HAHA you walked into that one dude!

I know - but its still a funny question in light of the thread. 

[chadstallion]

I know - but its still a funny question in light of the thread. 

i'd ask him out. and pay for drinks and dinner.