Originally posted by issendorf:Nice try.thijser: Well the problem with it being genetic is the fact that something that affects aprox 5% of the population would have been removed from the genepool a long time ago.
Not necessarily. After all, four leaf clovers (a mutation) continue to exist.
However, I would say that yer example has a fail because there is a much, MUCH higher number of reproduction of clover than humans.
MAYBE, ya “blanked” because focusing on a genetic cause is a higher degree of ABNORMALITY than hormones….which YOU deem such “abnormality” to be: “If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.”thijser: The current leading idea is that it’s mainly based on hormones. This would for example explain why a boy with multiple older brothers has a larger chance of being gay.
Good point. Not really sure why I blanked on hormones. Probably because I’m an idiot.
“If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty”.thijser: Anyway it’s a fact they deviate from the norm. It’s a completely different question if divination from the norm (“abnormal”) is bad. Einstein was a divination from the norm was that bad? And yes if it’s hormones it could one day become preventable, however this still has many ethical aspects (similarly we could decide to pick a hair colour and eye colour we want all our children to have just as hitler did).
I just don’t see how me saying they’re abnormal is bad. Max Scherzer having two different colored eyes is abnormal. It isn’t bad (and he was a hell of a pitcher this year). Be gay isn’t abnormal. I never made the claim that it’s bad.
Where I come from: faulty is strongly synonymous w/ “bad”.
But, issen…what I see ya doing here w/ is strongly (for WHATEVER reason) trying to “defend” the word abnormal to describe homosexuality. I see this as being little difference than the younger generation’s penchant to use “that’s so Gay” and try to “prove” it isn’t derogatory….when very hugely often it certainly does allude to the specific behavior/ideology of Gays.
I see such attempts to covert a negative attitude (either consciously or subconsciously) via such attempts to use accurate descriptions—though fraught w/ demeaning overtones—as little more than thinly-veiled biases. Sure, the “that’s-so-Gay” might well describe a behavior likely to be clichéd to SOME, SOME Gays. But, the “tone” in which it is used certainly isn’t a positive one. Rather, it is mostly used to chastise.
Being Black is obviously a faulty/abnormal genetic mutation, esp when viewed by a White Supremist. A lackluster manufacturing of a “normal” standard is a sign that waaaayyyyy too much emphasis is overly strongly biased against something that is—in reality—merely a DIFFERENCE. I think this is the point I, thijser, & MmeBunneh are making.
A good example of my point is this: Immortal7777—“It’s not genetic, They choose it. If it was genetic then it would be a negative one and it is a defect.”
KKK: Just because DNA/RNA is different doesn’t necessarily make it a mutation. Skin, hair, eye colors are a result of genetic coding. Maybe homosexuality genetics is merely recessive genes “brought to life” by the unique combination of the union of the contributing couple….as happens in many different areas of “personhood”.
Did I say otherwise?
I’d say ya did: YOU “twist” the natural occurrence of the “Gay gene” to be abnormal & a mutation while failing to see most other genetic differences" as being normal. I see this happen because ya say: “If homosexuality is indeed caused by a genetic mutation, then yes, they’re faulty.”
BUT IT IS _MADE INTO MUCH.KKK: NO. I’m NOT TRYING to be offended. I AM offended by attitudes (YOURS here?) that tries to make much more out of “gaydom” than it socially “has to” be.
It certainly shouldn’t be made into much….
And, in my world….one is—TO A DEGREE—either a part of the solution or a part of the problem. I see your nitpicking defense of the terms abnormal & faulty as being little more than a straddling-of-the-fence degree…w/ overtones of skirting the edge of being a “problem”. I say this because of the where-there’s-smoke-there’s-probably-a-fire (even be it a very—and unintended—small one.
Yer strong defense of a position that is a plank in the platform of the true & strongly overt bigots is something I see as a very mild: while not actually joining in the fray-of-bigotry; it is (unintentionally?) lending “support” to such bigotry. A rational person who desires to be clearly seen as being a part of the solution wouldn’t be so argumentative overly something as petty as nomenclature about what to use when discussing what “causes” a person to be Gay.
Note: I’m going to continue this post in a second one. If I don’t, this one will be so totally compressed into a continuous wall of text w/ no paragraph breaks.