Thread: Homosexuality, how can it not be considered an abnormality?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Unfortunatly too many people seem to think this is true.

If you wished you could construct an ideal person, based on a certain range of variables, they would have a BMI of between 17-25 be between 5ft and 6ft 6inches, they would be hetrosexual, they would have 5 fingers(including thumb) on each hand and 5 toes. Of course a person could be 7 foot 6 inches, and live a normal healthy happy life, but this would be a medical abnormailty, a benign one, but nonetheless an abnormality. if a person exceeded 25 BMI they would be overwieght and under 17 underweight.

For the record these are rough estimates for the variables, the point i'm trying to make is that most people (well this is dreamviews so who knows) would accept being 7 foot 6 inches as a benign medical abnormality, but not homosexuality for some reason. Rather than accept this some people try to wriggle away from the truth by citing artifical insemination etc. The thing is, I Don't see why they are trying to cover it up, diabetics are not ashamed that they have a medical condition, so why should homosexuals be, and as a result try to pass it off as medically normal?

Wow. We can't do anything more to discredit you than you've just done yourself. First, if you wished to construct an ideal person, you would be a medical abnormality: a sociopathic eugenicist. One of humanity's greatest strengths as an earth species is the diversity of traits we are able to maintain without speciation. The very idea of an "ideal human" is inhuman. In terms of the normal distribution of traits within the species, a person who is 6' 6" is somewhat farther from the center than someone who is homosexual (not accounting for for other traits), and averaging out a number of traits, a homosexual could fall quite close to the center, while any number of heterosexuals would fall quite far away.

In any given population of one thousand humans, would it be "normal" if there were no homosexuals? In any city of a couple hundred thousand, would it be "normal" if there were no homosexual culture (in other words, no norms governing homosexuality)? No trait or behavior needs to be the single most common in order to fall within expected norms. Local cultural acceptance =/= normality.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You keep calling it a "preference." Well, by nature, I naturally don't prefer to eat grass, but I could acquire a taste for it. For so many gay people, though, they don't have to acquire that taste. They just naturally have it. Go figure. Now could they choose to acquire a different taste? Maybe. I could also eat grass three meals a day and never develop a taste for the stuff. And until I acquired that taste, if ever, I'd find it unpleasant as hell.

That's exactly how it is. Though lets use something less silly than grass, say broccoli. Some people like broccoli, some people don't. Some people don't like it but then like it later in life. Some like it if you add some butter. Some people just eat it and acquire a taste for it. Some people just really don't like it much. If you eat enough most people will eventually get used to it, and not hate it. Maybe its not your favorite thing but it isn't that bad.

All that said, its totally in ones power to either eat broccoli, or not eat broccoli. You can choose to eat it, or you can choose not to eat it.

Saying there is a gene that controls if you like or dislike broccoli seems weird though. It seems far more likely your preference is created by how you grew up, your exposure to it, and your regular diet.

As for the reason why most straight people don't even consider gay sex, and don't explore it? Well its not that they hate broccoli, but if you are eating steak, why would you bother trying the broccoli?

Originally Posted by Alric

That's exactly how it is. Though lets use something less silly than grass, say broccoli. Some people like broccoli, some people don't. Some people don't like it but then like it later in life. Some like it if you add some butter. Some people just eat it and acquire a taste for it. Some people just really don't like it much. If you eat enough most people will eventually get used to it, and not hate it. Maybe its not your favorite thing but it isn't that bad.

All that said, its totally in ones power to either eat broccoli, or not eat broccoli. You can choose to eat it, or you can choose not to eat it.

Saying there is a gene that controls if you like or dislike broccoli seems weird though. It seems far more likely your preference is created by how you grew up, your exposure to it, and your regular diet.

As for the reason why most straight people don't even consider gay sex, and don't explore it? Well its not that they hate broccoli, but if you are eating steak, why would you bother trying the broccoli?

But that's just the thing. There is still a combination of disposition and environment. Whilst broccoli preference can come from someone's environment, babies can dislike broccoli when offered them. Why? They are just being exposed to solid foods for the first time. A persons brain may naturally be configured so that they like or dislike broccoli for whatever reason.

Like most things, the truth lies in balance. There is truth to both sides of the nurture vs. nature argument and the nurture versus nature deal applies to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Alric

That's exactly how it is. Though lets use something less silly than grass, say broccoli. Some people like broccoli, some people don't. Some people don't like it but then like it later in life. Some like it if you add some butter. Some people just eat it and acquire a taste for it. Some people just really don't like it much. If you eat enough most people will eventually get used to it, and not hate it. Maybe its not your favorite thing but it isn't that bad.

All that said, its totally in ones power to either eat broccoli, or not eat broccoli. You can choose to eat it, or you can choose not to eat it.

Saying there is a gene that controls if you like or dislike broccoli seems weird though. It seems far more likely your preference is created by how you grew up, your exposure to it, and your regular diet.

As for the reason why most straight people don't even consider gay sex, and don't explore it? Well its not that they hate broccoli, but if you are eating steak, why would you bother trying the broccoli?

What if I'm allergic to broccoli?

Forget not that science has yet to label any specific cause of homosexuality. It may be genetic, it may be a factor of upbringing, or it could be an issue of fetal development. Who knows? But to assert that it is a choice with no evidence is not exactly a good idea...or logical, for that matter. Alric, you assert that it is a choice, I claim it is not. Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. I have cited arguments against your claim, arguing that so many people wouldn't actively choose the prosecution that the gay community faces, nor give up a life of blissful heterosexuality just for the hell of it. Your concept of controllable preference is your argument, but you are unable to prove it, or cite good, credible evidence for it. The genetics argument is debatable, I concede, but there is at least one scientist who has claimed to have discovered a gene at least in partial control of sexual preference, and that is more evidence than the loose concept of preference which you seem to have defined. Ball is in your court, mate, so to speak.

It is possible to be allergic to something and still like it, though hopefully you have enough sense to be careful about that sort of thing.

Everything about a person is based on a combination of experiences, and how they were born. I am not going to argue that. There are obvious factors that may lead you to prefer one thing or another. My point was that, at the end of the day the most important factor in determining who you are, is the choices you make. I don't believe any of that stuff saying being gay is totally and absolutely out of your control. Thats just a story determinist tell them self to escape responsibility for their choices.

Mario I never claimed that you can easily switch back and forth at will(though you could if you were bisexual right in the middle). People get all sort of bad habits, do stupid things, waste time doing things they know they shouldn't, and generally cause all sort of problems for them self. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they will. Just because its a good idea to do something, doesn't mean they will.

Just because you claim heterosexual life is easier and more fun, doesn't mean a person is going to do it. Though I am sure some people would disagree with it being easier and fun as well.

Either way, I never claimed a person just changes sexual orientation for the hell of it. In fact I stated multiple times it was more because of how a person grew up and social reasons, and past experiences.

Your evidence isn't really all that much, and you even admitted it. Since there isn't evidence either way, I just use common sense and logic.

I know that all people can physically feel pleasure from a member of the same sex.

I know humans are capable of deciding who they have sex with.

I know that humans have preferences on things they like and dislike, and the preferences are created through their experiences in life.

So logically there is no reason a person can't decide to have gay sex, then enjoy it. In fact, I believe most people who are able to overcome their inhibition would enjoy gay sex. There is no physical reason why they wouldn't. It is only logical that a person would enjoy sex, and people of the same gender are more likely to know how to pleasure their partner.

Since you are making the claim that being gay is mental condition, similar to mental disorders, in that they are forced upon people, you are the one that has the burden of proof. There is no logical reason to believe that there is a gay gene.

Gayness can be completely and entirely explained by the fact that sex feels good, and that having sex with the same gender doesn't change how good sex feels.

Originally Posted by Alric

Everything about a person is based on a combination of experiences, and how they were born. I am not going to argue that. There are obvious factors that may lead you to prefer one thing or another. My point was that, at the end of the day the most important factor in determining who you are, is the choices you make. I don't believe any of that stuff saying being gay is totally and absolutely out of your control. Thats just a story determinist tell them self to escape responsibility for their choices.

Brush up on the nature vs nurture argument. There ARE genes that have been linked to a person's predisposition, personality, etc. Some very interesting results have been obtained by studying genetically identical twins separated at birth. There is much more to a person than their upbringing and the choices that they make. Genetics play a definite factor. As for determinism, if you look at things on the atomic scale, us, our thoughts and actions, are nothing more than the end products of a complex series of predictable chemical reactions. Thoughts are formed when ions on fixed courses interacting with everything around them on fixed courses jump the synapse and transfer a chemical signal. Determinism isn't all that unlikely, it seems. As for escaping responsibility, I certainly beg to differ. While I do subscribe to the determinist philosophy, I do take full responsibility for my actions. Who are you to jump in and generalize a group of individuals whom you know relatively little about? As for the choice factor, I'm sure if a person was hell-bent on turning gay they might be able to brainwash themselves into thinking they are gay. But, I retain my stance that the vast majority of people who are gay didn't come to be that way by knowingly and wittingly making the active choice to become so.

Mario I never claimed that you can easily switch back and forth at will(though you could if you were bisexual right in the middle). People get all sort of bad habits, do stupid things, waste time doing things they know they shouldn't, and generally cause all sort of problems for them self. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they will. Just because its a good idea to do something, doesn't mean they will.

People get bad habits, sure, but they won't intentionally make life harder on themselves. You wouldn't throw yourself into a cauldron of boiling oil, would you? You have everything to lose and nothing to gain. There would have to be a clear benefit that meets or exceeds the sacrifice. People who develop bad habits do so because they get something out of it. People hooked on drugs perceived they would have an awesome time, then got addicted. People who bite nails do so because, at least on some level, the benefits outweight the losses. What I ask of you is this: why would a straight person, who is by definition a person attracted to the opposite sex and not attracted to the same sex, flip-flop wittingly and intentionally? It is logically unsound. Why give up what you know and love for something you don't like, with no obvious benefits?

Just because you claim heterosexual life is easier and more fun, doesn't mean a person is going to do it. Though I am sure some people would disagree with it being easier and fun as well.

Apparently, you haven't witnessed exactly what many members of the gay community go through. Estrangement from their families is a traumatizing experience, first of all. And for those fortunate enough to have families that accept who they are, there's always the ever-present social stigma, and lord help you if you live in the south. Compound all this with the ever-present remarks like "you're gay" and "don't be a fag," and it gets to you. It is by no means an easy life. Humans, by nature, take the path of least resistance. Why would anyone, yet alone the relatively large amount of gay people out there, choose this kind of life?

Either way, I never claimed a person just changes sexual orientation for the hell of it. In fact I stated multiple times it was more because of how a person grew up and social reasons, and past experiences.

Ah, so in other words, it's because of factors outside the direct control of the individual. Now we are getting somewhere.

Your evidence isn't really all that much, and you even admitted it. Since there isn't evidence either way, I just use common sense and logic.

Common sense and logic? Where? I see a lot of non-logic and contradictory statements, but a glaring lack of sound logic. If you want to speak in terms of logic, it is illogical to assume a positive statement with no evidence to back up that statement. In this case, that statement is: "homosexuality is a choice that people actively make." This statement, to date, has no supporting evidence, while the negative does.

I know that all people can physically feel pleasure from a member of the same sex.

You can also feel pleasure from the palm of your hand.

I know humans are capable of deciding who they have sex with.

I know that humans have preferences on things they like and dislike, and the preferences are created through their experiences in life.

So logically there is no reason a person can't decide to have gay sex, then enjoy it. In fact, I believe most people who are able to overcome their inhibition would enjoy gay sex. There is no physical reason why they wouldn't. It is only logical that a person would enjoy sex, and people of the same gender are more likely to know how to pleasure their partner.

"This fish is dead. My mother is dead. Therefore, my mother is a fish." Logical fallacy. People choose who they have sex with. Preferences determine who people choose to have sex with. Therefore, people choose preferences. Logical fallacy. Would it feel good, physically speaking? Sure. But so does the palm of your hand, and I'm not falling in love with that and getting married, am I? Homosexuality transcends mere physical pleasure, and requires a strong love of members of the same sex, which basically requires a total rewiring of the brain.

Since you are making the claim that being gay is mental condition, similar to mental disorders, in that they are forced upon people, you are the one that has the burden of proof. There is no logical reason to believe that there is a gay gene.

Am I claiming it to be a mental condition or disorder? If so, then by extension, being straight would also have to be a mental condition. And I never said that there was a gay gene. If you had been paying attention, you would know this. What I said is that it could be any number of factors, genetic or otherwise, beyond the control of the individual and more nature than nurture. Things like brain development, hormone levels received in the womb, etc. Science has yet to identify a specific cause, and until such time, I will not make assertions on the matter. What I will do, though, is keep in mind perfectly reasonable and logical alternatives in the way of a person's nature, which science HAS shown affects a person's mannerisms and preferences greatly. Could it be genetic? Possibly. The human genome is more complicated than we yet understand. It could be a combination of unidentified genes, even. It could be neural development in the womb. Nobody knows. But, to assert that homosexuality is determined purely by a person's upbringing with an equal lack of evidence is illogical. Further claiming that homosexuality is an active choice an individual makes is still more illogical.

Gayness can be completely and entirely explained by the fact that sex feels good, and that having sex with the same gender doesn't change how good sex feels.

As I stated above, homosexuality runs deeper than just "feeling good."

Just to correct the argument at the beginning of this thread, suggesting homosexuality is beneficial to a species to resolve conflict etc.

Homosexuality is defined by wiktionary as: "Sexually attracted solely or primarily to other members of the same sex"

Therefore, it is NEVER an evolutionary advantage for a creature to be homosexual as there is a far less chance of procreation. Merely, an acceptance and/or willingness to participate in what could be considered homosexual acts would be beneficial for some species.

With humans, homosexuality reduces the chances of procreation to almost zero (non-zero because of in vitro etc.)

therefore, I believe homosexuality is abnormal ( at least from an evolutionary standpoint) - as it greatly inhibits the individual's chances of procreating.

Evolution ≠ Procreation

If a species were in dire need of multiplying, social structure would evolve differently.

Evolution has self-regulating features. Variety might be more important to a society
or a species then just to spawn as much offspring as possible. It's an oversimplification
to reduce the mechanisms solely to procreation, while it is an important factor, it's not
the only one and further to the point: individual ≠ collective

To quote from the sources I posted earlier:

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"

Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.

A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...sexuality.html

And Taosaur already put it quite well:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're all making an error common to discussions of evolution, applying a narrow, simplistic caricature of "survival of the fittest," little different from creationists arguing that the origin of species requires organisms with half a wing. As several people have mentioned, we do not by any stretch know that homosexuality is evolutionarily counterproductive, and studies suggest a variety of means by which homosexuals make their communities more adaptive and/or promote the propagation of their own genome via siblings and close relations.

Appeals to evolutionary pressures are typically pretty weak and tenuous once we start talking about human behavior, and human sexuality is no different. Regarding pzyro's comment above, that reasoning does create a bit of a paradox, because we have to ask: if it's such a detrimental trait, why has it persisted? As was pointed out earlier in the thread, once we start viewing things from a selfish gene perspective, it becomes far from clear whether we can label this trait as severely maladaptive. Several theories have in fact been offered about how even strict homosexuals might break even in terms of inclusive fitness. Like most evolutionary just-so stories, these theories are difficult or impossible to refute.

I think there are a couple reasons why I'm hesitant to label homosexuality as an "abnormality." For starters, it begs the question: what isn't an abnormality? If we're defining an abnormality simply as any trait held by <50% of the general population, this would also mean that it's abnormal to drink milk, own a car, be black, etc. You can see how this renders the term as pretty meaningless. (It becomes a real nightmare when we start to talk about traits for which there is no majority. ) Second, my understanding of homosexuality is that it's not really as simple as being a binary trait, and that it's more of a fuzzy gradient. So then the question is, at which point is someone gay enough to be "abnormal"? Do they have to refuse straight sex altogether? Is it okay if they're bisexual? What if they generally prefer the opposite sex, but are at least a little attracted to their own sex? Is there any possible non-arbitrary criterion for abnormality here?

So I guess if the idea of abnormality here is simply to point out that people who self-identify as homosexuals are less common than people who don't, sure, I can accept this definition of abnormality, but I'm not really sure what doing so buys us?

There is a benefit to it, and the benefit would be having gay sex, and having really close relationships with other gay people. Obviously being gay isn't a purely negative things.

To make it clear, I never said that genes have no effect on a person, only that a person isn't born gay or straight. The genes may play a role, but the majority factor isn't genes, but your experiences in life.

Its kind of like saying genes are the cause of heart attacks. Yea, genes can play a factor but its not the cause. The cause is more things like poor diet and health. Which are under peoples control.

I should make one thing clear though. I am not talking just about conscious choices, but also subconscious choices, since your subconscious is still apart of you. So even if you do not make an active choice, people make subconscious choices all the time.

As for feeling pleasure from your palm, yea of course you can. Which is why some people masturbate so often. I am willing to say people masturbate because it feels good too, and not because there is a masturbating gene.

As for totally rewriting your brain, that is silly. Going from straight to gay is a fairly minor jump, all things considered. A person is physically capable of having pleasure from the same sex. People love and feel compassion for the same sex all the time. You know guys have guy best friends all the time. All the elements are there for a person to be gay. Which is why some times when memebers of the same sex work and stay close together for long periods of time, they some times become gay.

Alric, have you never had a crush? An unwanted erection? Some people can't seem to think about homosexuality without envisioning a penis thrusting in and out of an anus, whipping up a thick froth of santorum.

Homosexuality =/= buttsecks

Attraction and arousal generally precede any kind of sexual encounter, and they are not voluntary systems, particularly in adolescence when you have zero experience of riding them out. To quote Woody Allen, "The heart wants what the heart wants."

Originally Posted by pzyro

therefore, I believe homosexuality is abnormal ( at least from an evolutionary standpoint) - as it greatly inhibits the individual's chances of procreating.

This point has been covered about six times in this thread already.

What you're presenting is a caricature of evolution with little bearing on how it operates in the real world. Genes will propagate by any means necessary, and we see enormously varied 'strategies' for doing so in nature; personally reproducing is not the only way to see to it that your genes are represented in the next generation. If a gay man or woman's resources are available to siblings, nieces and nephews, increasing their odds to survive and reproduce, the genes win. If a gay household adds stability to the community, improving everyone's odds, the genes win. Even if a gay individual feels compelled to relocate in search of potential mates, creating ties with a new community and thereby increasing the odds that 'breeders' will follow, introducing the genes of the gay person's family and community to new territory, the genes win.

While it's safe to say that homosexuality reduces an individual's odds of reproduction (though nowhere near zero--homosexuals often reproduce under the same conditions as heterosexuals: adolescent confusion, and social pressure to marry whether you like it or not), we simply don't know how it impacts the presence of the individual's genes and traits in subsequent generations. In tracking the patterns of evolution, the micro scale of genes and the macro scale of whole populations are at least as significant, if not more so, than individuals.

P.S.(EDIT): I owe most of my grounding in evolution to one book read in my teens, Carl Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. If you want a clearer understanding of how evolution actually operates, and if you like monkeys, find a copy.

I see- in the same way ants produce some infertile offspring for the good of the colony, it may be important for there to be a certain number of homosexual humans in a given society for its proliferation.

I concede.

Originally Posted by pzyro

I see- in the same way ants produce some infertile offspring for the good of the colony, it may be important for there to be a certain number of homosexual humans in a given society for its proliferation.

I concede.

At least you're teachable We don't know that homosexuals have a positive evolutionary impact, but there is evidence to support it. I edited in a book recommendation in my last post.

Originally Posted by Alric

Some like it if you add some butter.

:3c

reproducing is not the only way to see to it that your genes are represented in the next generation

I think someone needs some 1st grade science education

Another point, A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation.

To the guy who said anyone can get pleasure from gay sex, well to enjoy sex you need to be aroused, and most people don't get aroudes by the same sex.

Everyone seems to be missing the point that in the case of gay men, their father passed on his hetrosexual genes, yet his son turned out gay. If a set of parents are both 179cm and their child is 179.1cm tall, that is a minor deviation that is not to be considered a major medical abnormality, almost no difference at all, but to go from hetrosexual to homosexual in a single generation is a massive change, and clearly shows that something major has happened along the path.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a benefit to it, and the benefit would be having gay sex, and having really close relationships with other gay people. Obviously being gay isn't a purely negative things.

All benefits that can be achieved in a heterosexual relationship.

To make it clear, I never said that genes have no effect on a person, only that a person isn't born gay or straight. The genes may play a role, but the majority factor isn't genes, but your experiences in life.

What arbitrary silliness. That is an assertion made with no evidence to back up your claim. Truthfully, we don't know what causes homosexuality, but to assert that you know for a fact that it is caused by a person's experiences is ludicrous. Homosexuality is an unexplained phenomenon, and attempting to explain it without experience or evidence will get you nowhere. I cited several perfectly plausible candidates beyond the genetic factor that could lead a person to have homosexual tendencies from birth.

Its kind of like saying genes are the cause of heart attacks. Yea, genes can play a factor but its not the cause. The cause is more things like poor diet and health. Which are under peoples control.

Again, what arbitrary silliness. You are making an analogy with zero evidence. I could equally assert that homosexuality is like skin color: there is a gradient, but people don't typically move within it.

I should make one thing clear though. I am not talking just about conscious choices, but also subconscious choices, since your subconscious is still apart of you. So even if you do not make an active choice, people make subconscious choices all the time.

My argument is that it isn't an active choice; that is to say, a choice within the direct control of the individual. Subconscious decisions may very well play a part, but the conscious individual (I claim) does not.

As for feeling pleasure from your palm, yea of course you can. Which is why some people masturbate so often. I am willing to say people masturbate because it feels good too, and not because there is a masturbating gene.

But you do understand that there is more to sexual preference than something just feeling good, right? That is the point I was trying to make. Your hand can bring you great pleasure, but you don't fall in love with it. Sexuality is more complex than just a bit of friction.

As for totally rewriting your brain, that is silly. Going from straight to gay is a fairly minor jump, all things considered. A person is physically capable of having pleasure from the same sex. People love and feel compassion for the same sex all the time. You know guys have guy best friends all the time. All the elements are there for a person to be gay. Which is why some times when memebers of the same sex work and stay close together for long periods of time, they some times become gay.

Everything is there...minus the desire to. If you don't like the idea of screwing dudes, hanging out with a couple of dude friends isn't likely at all to change your mind on the matter. And again, it's the question of is it "become" or is it "realize." Self discovery is an interesting little path, and many of us don't really know ourselves until later in life. Perhaps hanging out with some good friends would help you realize something about yourself, but it is debatable whether or not a person actually becomes gay.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think someone needs some 1st grade science education

And someone needs a college-level biology education. There are numerous ways in which a person may pass on either their own genes or else genes they favor and select.

Another point, A species with 0% homosexuals will flourish more than a scoiety with homosexuals using up resources but not contributing to the next generation.

Please define "flourish." If you mean "rapidly become overpopulated, hit the maximum carrying capacity, and stagnate," then yes, that species will flourish. But, as we have seen before, homosexuals don't "waste" resources, and in many species, play a critical part. Either way, we're bounding toward overpopulation at about the same rate, really.

To the guy who said anyone can get pleasure from gay sex, well to enjoy sex you need to be aroused, and most people don't get aroudes by the same sex.

Bada. Fucking. Bing. Thank you, mate. For the vast majority of straight people, that sexual attraction simply isn't present, and so, gay sex is not desirable nor pleasurable. Maybe from a friction-only standpoint, but from an emotional and mental standpoint, it isn't. Contrary to what some may think, men don't think exclusively with their penises.

Everyone seems to be missing the point that in the case of gay men, their father passed on his hetrosexual genes, yet his son turned out gay. If a set of parents are both 179cm and their child is 179.1cm tall, that is a minor deviation that is not to be considered a major medical abnormality, almost no difference at all, but to go from hetrosexual to homosexual in a single generation is a massive change, and clearly shows that something major has happened along the path.

Two brunettes give birth to a blond child. A man with blue eyes marries a woman with brown eyes and has a blue-eyed son. I am a product of such a relationship. It's called a recessive gene, mate. Most traits carry at least two alleles, or options, if you will. Most often, one allele will be dominant and mask any trace of the recessive allele. However, in the formation of gametes, one allele will be selected and another excluded from any one gamete, so it is very possible for a person with brown hair to spawn a blond-haired child. Likewise, the same MAY apply to homosexuality. There is still much we don't understand about human genetics, and seeing as how sexuality does appear to be more of a fuzzy gradient than a black-and-white set of rules, it may be closer to the genes for skin color in interaction (in which there are a total of six genes that code for skin color), or it could be some freaky genetic factor we've never encountered before, or none of the above. More research must be performed in the field to draw any conclusions.

for the same reason that cancer is an abnormality. Just cause it exists doesnt mean we should accept it.

Nature is about survival of the fittest, homosexuality doesnt agree with the laws of nature.

Is there an echo in here?

Originally Posted by JamesLD

for the same reason that cancer is an abnormality. Just cause it exists doesnt mean we should accept it.

Nature is about survival of the fittest, homosexuality doesnt agree with the laws of nature.

Crispy fried Christ, doesn't anybody read anymore? I do believe this specific point has already been dealt with in the thread. If you switch to 200 posts per page mode and do a quick find search for "cancer," it should be among the first results you find. But, because you won't, I'll go ahead and do it for you (aren't I nice?).

Over 1,500 animals can contract cancer. I assume you also share my view that cancer is not medically beneficial/abnormal?

You missed this

Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

There seems to be an evolutionary benefit from homosexuality that occurs quite often in nature.

We are subjected to the evolutionary process as well - behavior is also quite different from cancer growth.

I'm not considering it an abnormality at all and that's how I'm reasoning at this point.

This was posted by Dajo, post #7. First page of the thread. First half of the first page of the thread.

my bad, ill be sure to read next time. i saw the thread and it was the first idea that came to mind.

and damn, you sure went out of youre way to say that what i said had already basically been posted. DuB basically summed that up with his post, and without coming off as a total douche.

Aye, I did go overboard, but it hasn't been simply you who has been restating arguments from out of the blue. It was more intended to be a scathing public service announcement than an attack against you in particular, though I do see quite well how it may be construed as such. My apologies.

that makes sense, my apologies as well.

This whole argument is stupid. Human beings set our own priorities. This is why not everyone agrees with the OP that being gay is a "malfunction" comparable to a disease. Living is one of the highest priorities, so of course something inhibiting life is considered a "malfunction," on the other hand reproduction is not the highest priority we have as is made obvious by the condom industry and the pill, regardless of the thoughts of those who seem to think that evolution has a "will" and treat people who "believe in evolution" as people who "believe in a philosophy." Evolution isn't a guidebook.

For people who want their own kid, being gay "might" be seen as a malfunction, but hell gay people can still fuck people of the opposite sex, it happens everyday. On the other hand, someone who doesn't want to have kids might see being straight as a malfunction as they can't enjoy sex without worrying about having kids.