March of Tolerance in Krakow

You ceratinly have the right to an opinion, but opinions are not facts.


How does that make homosexuality biologically normal?
Doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. On a social level definitions are fluid and depend on the times. Gays were OK, then they were not, now they are OK again. On a biological level nothing changed - they do have a tendency to continuous misplacement of their sexual organs.

Again, as Shea said: "I was born abnormal, and therefore I'm normal is not good logic"

Even at worst worst prognosies, an illness ought to harm someone,no? homosexuality doesn't.
Finding a cause does not denote a problem.


Reproduction of the species aside, anyway we seem to be doing a bit too well in the over population area.

Some people want so bad for it to be some disease or abnormal thing they look for any little detail they can form to that end. I cannot understand why they are so worried or interested in what adults do in a relationship as long as they arent harming other people.

What about a famous Greek man Aristotle?
Did you know guys that learning from his philosophical potential was paid by simple pleasuring him during the time of schooling? That time a school was available only to males, young enough to start proper education, from 11 +. Young guys were fighting about getting his attention… to get a knowledge of the World of course.

I mentioned nothing about social harm.
As for why people are interested? Why not. Some are interested in harmless bees, what's wrong with being interested in harmless gays?

ok smartasses.... it's gonna be nasty now but i don't care...
how is it not normal when a guy sticks his d!ck to a guy's ass
and how is it normal when a guy sticks a d!ck to a woman's ass?
not a procreation style, huh?
facts z_d?? look how people analyze the facts in posts above...

Who says it's normal? Might be a slip of a "tongue" too :)


I haven't used opinions of other posters on PF. Neither did Dr. Shea.
So what's your point?

You can find 'studies' to support any opinion you want. People worry too much about these things.

Those blue eyes in your avatar momentarily seemed to turn red just then.

Correction: THAT blue eye! At least it wasn't a .... eye.

i'm done here.... my eyes are blue again... ;)

Am I the only one who thinks it isn't so nice to talk to a lady about such things in such terms? In public I should say, as I know that sounds a bit hypocritical to my live and let live sexual policy.

z_darius, there is this kind of "every sperm is sacred" thing with the old survival of the species debate.(nothing religiously)



I think you are a good debater but this does not make you right or wrong.
I appreciate that you are one of the few posters, who seems least influenced by others but I think many are influenced by yours and minipulate the questions you pose as fact.

---

Gayness is a disease, you contract it from kissing another man's ***et***si***suc***fing

Who said this? How ignorant.

the researcher doesn't use the word "ilness". Check it again.


With all respect, this isn't much of an argument.


The article I quoted doesn't strike me as an expression of worry. You appear to be worried about it though.

I did, it is a joke.
I never said i had a good sense of humour.

No... Simply avoid having more than 2 children (1 male and 1 female is desirable)!

Ah I thought you were quoting someone....just couldnt see who.

z_darius I was going to type a whole bit about interpretation vs measurement but then I googled


and realised that the denial of anything other than scientific rational had small print underneath it.

Then I read


and realised that brevity is good

Behold Your God!

ODIN

How does that affect the contents of the actual research?
Could we then stipulate that since gays say homosexuality is OK then it must mean it is not OK just because homosexuals' inherent conflict of interest?

The articles has been quoted by many, CNN and CBC among others. Did you bother to check more than what met the eye? Great people were quoted by fools millions of times. Does it mean that the great became fools?

Strangely, you also did not check the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. The name of the periodical is mentioned in that quote. Why were you so selective in your google search? Of all the possibilities you failed to look for the actual article :)

I don't think you put yourself in a position to critique the integrity of others, without first improving yours.


thank you for the praise


I can't be really responsible for whatever others say and how they use what I say. I strike no allegiances, other than the one with myself, reason, fact and logic, as much as I am capable.

I think the gist of the conflict between what I wrote, and what others disagreed with is actually a non-existent conflict of views. Almost all responses, negative to my posts, tried to swing (pun not intended) the topic onto the social plane. That plane is an area of pure bull$hit and everybody is wrong and everybody is right. Still, I wasn't even touching upon it, so in effect, as per an old Polish saying, we have been arguing whether the bus is red or whether it took a left turn left instead.

Some discussions are not well accepted exactly because of social conditions. We do not criticize the research or people with 6 toes, and we do not see that research as socially wrong. The same with legally recognized disabilities. There are people with Down syndrome and they are obviously abnormal. Medical research on Down is huge but few have an issue with that. Other valid examples could be multiplied till cows come home. Those would also include research of heterosexuality. And yet, we do not have a problem with those.

Why is it?

Why is it that homosexuals, having reached social legal, and in many places social acceptance, now want to convince us that crooked is straight. It is not, and homosexuality is an abnormal state in humans. That state is clearly up for grabs by researches, i.e. open for discussion for all.

And that's what I have been doing here.

Straight is great!
Bendy is trendy!
:)

Sean,

Two simple sentences describe it so well that I think anyone would agree.
Ever considered being a crisis/hostage negotiator? You sure show the skill ;)

yo, hey, z_man, you kinda forfeited on our last exchange. No big deal I suppose as this latest of yours is of much more interest to me.

I think the findings you posted are quite interesting but they don't appear to be actually proven, just a hypothetical cause. Anyway let's make like their theory (if it is in fact a theory) is spot on and homosexuality is "abnormal." So is blindness, so is being born with a number of abnormalities, what conclusion(s) do you draw from this then?

I mean the fact that it is not as predominant as heterosexuality kinda makes it pointless for the big conclusion to be that it's abnormal, that's pretty obvious, but so what? Isn't this thread about being tolerant of differences?

That's right and what's so ironic is I happened to be waiting at the dentist's office this morning and was thumbing through a magazine. The article which I didn't get a chance to finished talked about homosexuality. As I previously stated, it said pretty much once we get gene therapy down...there maybe a possibility of finding a gene that causes homosexuality. For example, there are genes which are passed down which they believe make a person fat. Some people no matter how well they eat, diet, or exercise are always going to carry a few extra pounds above normal. That is genetics.

The article also did a study on identical twins. They found that if one twin was gay it was over an 80% chance the other identical twin was gay, but when they did the study on fraternal twins(those who don't look alike) they found the percentage much lower...50% almost. This once again goes back to genes since identical twins are created from a division of the same egg during creation.

Therefore, as time continues to go by you might find you were wrong, the church was wrong, and so was society in their intolerance of people for being who they are due to factors beyond their control...genes.

A dictionary is useless unless one knows the meaning of many other words. Concepts can only be defined in terms of other concepts, the meanings of which are understood and agreed.

When Newton proposed the concept of mass he couldn’t define it in prenewtonian terms so he had to develop a new conceptual system. One cannot understand Mass or Force simply by observing Billiard balls.

Einstein and Galileo before him performed thought experiments which is a problem for empiricists who think that theories are derived solely from observation and measurement.

One needs to use analogies and metaphors to describe the concept, these are built upon over time. Science starts with vague notions that can only be derived from the social environment then developed and built upon, while other concepts are discarded.

My point is that you formed an opinion which cannot be divorced from the social or "behavioural environment" so your opinion is not science....yet. Unfortunately you do have to argue in the social sphere to define your concept and advance your theory.

sorry about that, the number of responses was has been overwhelming so I must have missed yours.


It sure is a theory, based on research, not the bible or ACLU charter. As for the conclusions I draw - there is a body of research that shows what has always seemed logical to me: homosexuality is a biologically abnormal state. That's all.


Yes, it is. But if homosexuality is normal in all aspect then:

1. why do we have to prove that the difference is of the same nature as, for instance, that between a blond and a brunette?
2. Why should we even discuss tolerance towards someone who doesn't display biologically abnormal behavior?


Conclusion based on purely biological grounds may be very beneficial to the whole issue. Consider AIDS. They used to call it gay's disease. Biology has proven there is no special relation between homosexuality and HIV. This has been beneficial for gays in the society, and by extension for those infected with the virus.

Along the lines of grethomory's post, if there is a proof that homosexuality is an abnormality of the genetic code then the bible thumpers are screwed. They can no longer claim homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. Moreover, one could potentially blame their gods for creating what they criticize. A little speech to that effect could touch upon the beauty of all of god's creations ;)

Right On !

hmmm, the reason i questioned if it was a theory was simply because i know there's a difference between theory and hypothesis and i'm guilty too often of confusing the few, i've no doubts regarding that it's based in science.

It's biologically abnormally, geez that's it? no conclusions from that then? Well on it being abnormal then it looks like I agree with you wholeheatedly. But was a study really needed to establish that? I mean wtf, isn't abnormal just a term for not like the majority? But I could (or we) be wrong.

i musta missed the boat on where someone said it's normal. *shakes head*

Well anyway it was fun debating with you. Cheers for your time (whatever it was we were on about)
:)