Beans Advert Pulled.

Tefal said:
* impairment of normal physiological function affecting part or all of an organism

I don't think homosexuality will fit with that definition very clearly at all. I believe this because homosexuality can be seen in many different species and these records of it being observed in humans for a long long time. Therefore I would say it can't really be described as abnormal.

Also as I said before being homosexual in no way means that you don't desire to have children. They're separate things so I don't see how you could say being gay would impair physiological function. If you did go by that definition that would that mean a lesbian couple who conceive through donor sperm were not ill? Or a gay man chooses to have a child with a women he doesn't love? Is he not ill either?

See what i mean about people getting up their own arse over terminology and ignoring everything else :/

If that's referring to my question it was simple enough! I asked because the term illness has many meanings/definitions. i.e. some people might say none Christians are ill. It's become to broard a word. ♦
 
okies disorder it is :)


/ol @ definition
Illness is suggestive of a poor state of health, or sickness.

A disorder is a "condition in which there is a disturbance of normal function". Which I guess is accurate, without the stigma. But who's ******* normal anyway.
 
Illness is suggestive of a poor state of health, or sickness.

A disorder is a "condition in which there is a disturbance of normal function". Which I guess is accurate, without the stigma. But who's ******* normal anyway.

Good point, no human being is perfectly balanced with all the correct amounts of whatever neurotransmitters/pheromones/etc they should have, pretty much because we are all equally imperfect, and that uniqueness is what makes us human.

We all have illnesses in that respect, be it being over extroverted, or liking bananas and marmite on toast, it's all down to our individual neurological make up.
 
I don't think homosexuality will fit with that definition very clearly at all. I believe this because homosexuality can be seen in many different species and these records of it being observed in humans for a long long time. Therefore I would say it can't really be described as abnormal.

Heart attacks can be found in many species too :/


It is not normal function because if it where to be "normal" ie majority of population exhibit the behavior, then that population would die out/decrease massively.

abnormal in this context does not mean a bit unusual it means it is detrimental to the organisms continued survival, and reproduction.

Also as I said before being homosexual in no way means that you don't desire to have children. They're separate things so I don't see how you could say being gay would impair physiological function. If you did go by that definition that would that mean a lesbian couple who conceive through donor sperm were not ill?


So gay animals can receive donor sperm?

Outside influence of technology does not change the condition.


If that's referring to my question it was simple enough! I asked because the term illness has many meanings/definitions. i.e. some people might say none Christians are ill. It's become to broard a word. ♦


But that would not be correct not being Christian does not impair your ability to function or reproduce.


Now can we get off the word illness and on to something more interesting
 
Good point, no human being is perfectly balanced with all the correct amounts of whatever neurotransmitters/pheromones/etc they should have,

There is no perfect balances only ranges which most people fall into, all of which are affected by environment etc.


pretty much because we are all equally imperfect, and that uniqueness is what makes us human.


No we are not, and no it isn't, other wise all animals count as human as they are unique, in fact almost everything counts as human.


We all have illnesses in that respect, be it being over extroverted, or liking bananas and marmite on toast, it's all down to our individual neurological make up.

No food cravings are more based on dietary needs, tastes are on neurological make up and experience, and also on old survival instincts, but do not impair function so are not illnesses.


And I think I'm, going to nuke you now.....
 
There are no health implications to being gay so illness is not a useful term. Disorder is far more accurate......if you insist on scientifically categorising it.
 
I cant believe this has turned into another gay thread, i would have thought the last one would have taught people how controvertial the subject is and how easy it is to offend people.
 
No we are not, and no it isn't, other wise all animals count as human as they are unique, in fact almost everything counts as human.

The genetic differences between 2 bees is far less than that of 2 humans. We are just more complex in general, especially given our sentience.

No food cravings are more based on dietary needs, tastes are on neurological make up and experience, and also on old survival instincts, but do not impair function so are not illnesses.

But what about being introverted? That can directly affect your chances of reproducing negatively. On the flip, being extroverted can positively affect it, in fact, even more so, as spreading ones seed does more for the continuation of the race than only having one set of offspring.

So introvertedness is an illness, and extrovertedness is a genetic advantage? (ps. I am aware those words do not actually exist :p)

As for the majority thing governing what is normal. Does that make native Americans/Inuits/Aborigines all sufferers of a racial illness? They certainly make up some of the smallest demographics of the human race.

And I think I'm, going to nuke you now.....

:D
 
I cant believe this has turned into another gay thread, i would have thought the last one would have taught people how controvertial the subject is and how easy it is to offend people.

You can't believe a thread on homosexual content in an advertisement turned into a thread discussing homosexuality?

No offense but are you mentally challenged?



If we stopped discussing things when they got offensive to some we'd never progress.
 
I cant believe this has turned into another gay thread, i would have thought the last one would have taught people how controvertial the subject is and how easy it is to offend people.

Quiet you! It's made home time come round much faster :p
 
I cant believe this has turned into another gay thread, i would have thought the last one would have taught people how controvertial the subject is and how easy it is to offend people.

You know what is going to happen when you throw something into a fire, but it's fun to do as people like watching stuff burn.

Example:
Tefal, its not an illness. *runs for popcorn and cover*
 
The genetic differences between 2 bees is far less than that of 2 humans. We are just more complex in general, especially given our sentience.

Want to back that up?

You know the most genetically complex organism on the planet is a fern with over 13000 chromosomes compared to your 48.



But what about being introverted? That can directly affect your chances of reproducing negatively. On the flip, being extroverted can positively affect it, in fact, even more so, as spreading ones seed does more for the continuation of the race than only having one set of offspring.

Have you not seen the shyness thread.


But yes extroversion is an advantage and shyness is a disadvantage, depends how you got the traits though, if you're shy from experience then it is a mental problem not genetic.



As for the majority thing governing what is normal. Does that make native Americans/Inuits/Aborigines all sufferers of a racial illness? They certainly make up some of the smallest demographics of the human race.

No as they are all basically identical in function except for a few minor differences.



Although what would be interesting is if it's down to the hormone levels in the womb not genetics. Which is quite a possibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom