Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

anonymac · May 3, 2007, 12:32 AM

yes. homosexuality is not a normal behavior. a guy having sex with another guy's butt (which is what being gay is all about despite how many gay guys deny it) or two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

Helmling · May 3, 2007, 12:49 AM

How do we define "normal?" Really, does the term have any meaning in this context? These days homosexuality has indeed become pretty "normal" by any dictionary definition. Is it "natural" that you mean? Because in that case we have documented homosexual behavior patterns in just about any mammal species.

There's plenty of heterosexual behavior that doesn't seem either normal or natural, but that's just me.

Really, I think we should all just stop fussing over other people's sex lives. Dear lord, isn't there something more important out there for us to worry about as a people?

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 12:49 AM

What is "normal"? How is it relevant? How does the idea of normalcy relate to your opinions and how homosexuality is viewed in our culture?

SpaceMonkey · May 3, 2007, 12:58 AM

Disembodied butt sex is definitely not normal.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 3, 2007, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Disembodied butt sex is definitely not normal.

Ok even if it isn't... so what?

Is your moms haircolour "Normal" or for that matter...natural?

Is the food you eat?

SpaceMonkey · May 3, 2007, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Ok even if it isn't... so what?

Is your moms haircolour "Normal" or for that matter...natural?

Is the food you eat?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make a point.

I was just poking fun at the OP's phrasing.

Uncle Skeleton · May 3, 2007, 01:27 AM

It's not...usual. If there was a law it would be against it!

PS. I'm an American. I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming.

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

Really, I think we should all just stop fussing over other people's sex lives. Dear lord, isn't there something more important out there for us to worry about as a people?

There are a lot more things to worry about as a people, but it's always easier to point out other people's "faults" than it is to look at our own.

aristotles · May 3, 2007, 02:00 AM

Of course it's not normal. The human species propagates through sexual reproduction. Let's stop walking on egg shells and playing games with words. There is a dictionary definition for normal. Is there a reason for it? Probably, but that does not make it normal (the norm).

Spare me your tears and hurt feelings. That being said, I think every human being deserves to be treated with respect and is entitled to basic human rights.

There can be no argument about what the biological norm because it is objective rather than subjective. Now we of course could argue about whether certain institutions are "rights" that any is "entitled" to or whether they exist to serve a specific legal and social purpose until the cows come home.

I'm a firm believer in treating everyone regardless of their sexual urges equally which is why I'm against gay rights and the movement pushing that agenda. I am a firm believer in human rights and completely against laws based on race or sexuality and I believe that certain institutions exist for a specific purpose.

Some people may see conflict in the above paragraph but I would challenge you to show me where there is conflict. Sexuality is irrelevant but gender is not when it comes to marriage. That is the way it has been since before the dawn of western civilization and that is the way it should remain.

Sleep with whomever you wish because it is your business but be sure to keep it your business. The activists are trying to make what happens in the bedroom the government's business. The silent majority does not want government interference in something that was originally none of the governments business.

Mithras · May 3, 2007, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by aristotles

The activists are trying to make what happens in the bedroom the government's business. The silent majority does not want government interference in something that was originally none of the governments business.

Quoted for great hilarity.

Kerrigan · May 3, 2007, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Mithras

Quoted for great hilarity.

I'm a firm believer in treating everyone regardless of their sexual urges equally which is why I'm against gay rights

double lols

Uncle Skeleton · May 3, 2007, 02:43 AM

It's a slippery slope. If you want to call homos normal, then pretty soon you'll have to call those sinister left-handers normal, and then you'll have to call libertarians normal, and men with mustaches, and women who have multiple orgasms. And then there's JEWS! Everyone can't be included in "normal," ok? You have to fit a very elite set of criteria to make it in the club. Only about 10% of the population are even close to normal, the rest we call "weirdies." Poor bastards.

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by anonymac

…a guy having sex with another guy's butt (which is what being gay is all about despite how many gay guys deny it) or two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

Prove it. Seems to me that when men are put into a situation where the normal rules of society don't apply and there are no women around that take quite nicely to the backdoor boogie.

Originally Posted by Helmling

Is it "natural" that you mean? Because in that case we have documented homosexual behavior patterns in just about any mammal species.

I always hate this example. This shows only that it is natural only in the sense that any other disorder is "natural".

Really, I think we should all just stop fussing over other people's sex lives. Dear lord, isn't there something more important out there for us to worry about as a people?

I agree, though I would say that there is little in this world worth truly worrying over.

IMO, homosexuality is not something that is part of the natural order of things, that is, it is every bit of a disorder as a myriad of behaviors that are called "disorders" these days.

Thing is…IT DOESN'T MATTER. In my view being gay shouldn't require a genetic cause in order to get respect and tolerance. If they are born that way then so be it, but even if it was PURELY a lifestyle choice so what? Does that somehow make it NOT OK? Not in my mind.

This is what I don't understand about the whole thing. You have one group preaching that it is a lifestyle choice, as if that should matter. And you have the other side struggling to prove that they "can't help it"…as if that should matter!

So no, they aren't normal. What's your point?

analogika · May 3, 2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It's a slippery slope. If you want to call homos normal, then pretty soon you'll have to call those sinister left-handers normal, and then you'll have to call libertarians normal, and men with mustaches, and women who have multiple orgasms. And then there's JEWS! Everyone can't be included in "normal," ok? You have to fit a very elite set of criteria to make it in the club. Only about 10% of the population are even close to normal, the rest we call "weirdies." Poor bastards.

This is an astoundingly stupid thread, but while I'm here, just to throw something into the mix:

I don't have exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot more o'them "gays" worldwide than there is Creationists.

smacintush · May 3, 2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

This is an astoundingly stupid thread, but while I'm here, just to throw something into the mix:

I don't have exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot more o'them "gays" worldwide than there is Creationists.

I would be doubtful of that…I'm not a creationist, just to be clear.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 11:25 AM

It looks like you are wanting to use a statistical definition of 'normal' that is similar to 'usual'. It certainly appears that homosexuality, like left-handedness or blue eyes, is not normal in the sense that it is relatively unusual. You might, however, be wanting to use it is the sense of 'abnormal', similar to 'malformed', or 'deviant', frankly, that's a matter of perspective, on a par with whether you prefer Monet or Hirst.

kmkkid · May 3, 2007, 11:36 AM

One thing is for sure, it was abnormal for you to post a topic on an issue already being discussed in another suitable thread.

Big Mac · May 3, 2007, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Prove it. Seems to me that when men are put into a situation where the normal rules of society don't apply and there are no women around that take quite nicely to the backdoor boogie.

Ridiculous. The thought of that act makes me physically ill, and any guy who would ever consider engaging in it under any circumstances is at least a latent homosexual.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

any guy who would ever consider engaging in it under any circumstances is at least a latent homosexual.

Well, yes, by definition, but I think it's pretty clear that sexuality is not a bright line, it's a spectrum. Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree.

lpkmckenna · May 3, 2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by anonymac

yes. homosexuality is not a normal behavior. a guy having sex with another guy's butt (which is what being gay is all about despite how many gay guys deny it) or two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

No, we cannot all agree on your retarded thread.

BTW, is it "normal" for me to have sex with my gf's butt? Is that ok with you?

lpkmckenna · May 3, 2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree.

Really? Frankly, I doubt that.

BRussell · May 3, 2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by anonymac

two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

Is wanting to watch two lesbians licking each other a normal desire?

peeb · May 3, 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Is wanting to watch two lesbians licking each other a normal desire?

I once read an interesting article about lesbian pornography from the perspective of pornographic efficiency. The idea is that for lesbians this is a no-brainer, while for hetrosexual men, this is more efficient pornographically because there are two women to watch, rather than only one. So I would say, yes.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Really? Frankly, I doubt that.

Doubt away, but human behavior is very rarely black or white. Everything is shades of grey when you get right down to it.

lpkmckenna · May 3, 2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Doubt away, but human behavior is very rarely black or white. Everything is shades of grey when you get right down to it.

I've very well aware of that. What I doubted was your use of the word "most." I greatly doubt that "most" people are latent homosexuals.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I've very well aware of that. What I doubted was your use of the word "most." I greatly doubt that "most" people are latent homosexuals.

What I actually said was "Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree.". I think that most people are latent homosexuals to some degree, of course, for many people, the value of 'some' is quite small, but it is a scale, not black or white.

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by anonymac

yes. homosexuality is not a normal behavior. a guy having sex with another guy's butt (which is what being gay is all about despite how many gay guys deny it) or two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

The fact that you use graphic terms to describe what you falsely think homosexuality is all about tells us more about you than you think. Is there something you want to tell us?

To homosexuals, their behavior is perfectly normal. One of the questions that you can never get an honest answer to is; why does it matter to you what two consenting adults do in their private moments?

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

What I actually said was "Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree.". I think that most people are latent homosexuals to some degree, of course, for many people, the value of 'some' is quite small, but it is a scale, not black or white.

I'm not sure if the term "most" is quite accurate; I'd agree that it's higher than people realize, or want to admit. BTW, got plans later?

lpkmckenna · May 3, 2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

What I actually said was "Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree.". I think that most people are latent homosexuals to some degree, of course, for many people, the value of 'some' is quite small, but it is a scale, not black or white.

I think you're hair-splitting. I find it hard to believe that "most" people have "some" homosexual feelings. More likely, some people have some "bi-curiousity," but they are less than half of the population.

If I had to guess, 1-2% are gay and 10-20% are bi. To say "more that half" of all people have "some homosexual tendencies" is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence.

peeb · 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I think you're hair-splitting. I find it hard to believe that "most" people have "some" homosexual feelings. More likely, some people have some "bi-curiousity," but they are less than half of the population.

If I had to guess, 1-2% are gay and 10-20% are bi. To say "more that half" of all people have "some homosexual tendencies" is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence.

Again, what I said was "Most people are at least latent homosexuals to some degree." I said nothing about homosexual feelings. Have you read the Kinsey Reports? Any current work on the topic?

I'm not normally a wikipedia fan, but this page is pretty well sourced. Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BRussell · May 3, 2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Have you read the Kinsey Reports? Any current work on the topic?

I hope you agree that those are two very, very different things. I know the research pretty well on this, and although none of it is perfect I'm sure, about about 2-4% of people (more men, less women) are gay, whereas about 5-10% report feeling some attraction to the same sex.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 02:15 PM

They are different, but what they both point out is that sexuality is a graded scale, and situational.

Atheist · May 3, 2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by anonymac

yes. homosexuality is not a normal behavior. a guy having sex with another guy's butt (which is what being gay is all about despite how many gay guys deny it) or two lesbians licking each other is not a normal desire.

As a card-carrying member of the homosexuality club, I'm the first to agree that homosexuality is not normal (in it's most simplistic definition):

normal |ˈnôrməl| adjective
1 conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

That said, I'm not sure what point the OP was trying to make. Anyone that thinks homosexuality is purely about the physical act of sex is naive at best. My experience is that most straight people that are relatively comfortable/tolerant of gays and lesbians still don't really "get it". But that's okay... cuz I really don't "get" heterosexuality even though I'm completely surrounded by it. Big Mac says the thought of homosexual acts make him physically ill. I concur only in the opposite: The thought of having sex with a woman disgusts me. To each his own.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 02:27 PM

Yep - whatever floats your boat.

kmkkid · May 3, 2007, 02:47 PM

Penises are much better looking than vaginas, I must confess.

peeb · May 3, 2007, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Penises are much better looking than vaginas, I must confess.

In other news, apples compared to oranges, found to be better!

kmkkid · May 3, 2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

In other news, apples compared to oranges, found to be better!

Well if you cut an orange in half, it kinda looks like... nevermind

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 03:05 PM

Ewwwww, gross!

Atheist · May 3, 2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Well if you cut an orange in half, it kinda looks like...

Half an orange?

Chuckit · May 3, 2007, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Penises are much better looking than vaginas, I must confess.

Reproductive organs in general do not seem to have been designed with "pretty" in mind. Bewbs are better-looking than either.

OldManMac · May 3, 2007, 03:28 PM

Even that seems to be debatable.

BRussell · May 3, 2007, 03:30 PM

This thread is now about Intelligent Design.

Atheist · May 3, 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

This thread is now about Intelligent Design.

I thought it was about oranges?

BRussell · May 3, 2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

I thought it was about oranges?

Well then how about we bring it all together with bananas and evolution? ( <- a must-see if you haven't seen it before

)

Atheist · May 3, 2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well then how about we bring it all together with bananas and evolution? ( <- a must-see if you haven't seen it before

)

Oh man... that was good. I really thought he was going to perform oral sex on the banana. (I think Kirk thought so as well... he was having a hard time keeping a straight face).

voiceofra · May 3, 2007, 04:24 PM

You don't have to be gay to like butt sex.

Seriously though, homosexual behavior IS NORMAL.
Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding.

Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season."[citation needed] Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)

Bonobos [monkeys] in zoos.

Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds, the typical males among whom homosexual behavior is common and "effeminate sheep" or "behavioral transvestites" which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior.

Non-human animal sexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ONLY thing dictating that homosexual behavior is ABNORMAL is THE CHURCH.

Go cry to your Invisible Pink Unicorn

besson3c · May 3, 2007, 04:56 PM

I guess we aren't going to get an encore post from anonymac.

Chuckit · May 3, 2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I guess we aren't going to get an encore post from anonymac.

That's the proper way to troll.

wolfen · May 3, 2007, 05:41 PM

I can agree that homosexuality is not normal the way the following things are not normal:

Blonde hair. Split uvula (I have one). Space travel. Identical Twins. Winning an olympic gold medal. Three nipples. Cubs fans. An extra vertebra (I have one). A fair wage. Genius IQ. Being 6 1/2 feet tall. Blindness. Being Wealthy. An American polyglot. Celibacy. Humility. Near Death Experiences. Self-sacrifice. Red hair. Shark attacks on humans. Martian Rovers. Blissful Marriages. Uranium. Bald women.

And, finally, life bearing planets.

lpkmckenna · May 3, 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Atheist

Oh man... that was good. I really thought he was going to perform oral sex on the banana. (I think Kirk thought so as well... he was having a hard time keeping a straight face).

If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's Kirk.