Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[purfishx]

 

Sorry, that phrasing wasn't meant to insult. But surely you can't deny that homosexuality is not normal?

 

It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it definitely isn't normal.

 

If it was, than our population would have dwindled to nothing a long time ago.

That just seems like a kind of insulting statement. Like has been said, many people believe it is perfectly natural. There just happen to be a lot more heterosexual people. There happen to be a lot more white people in the U.S.A., would you say being black is not normal? What about being jewish?

 

 

 

race vs. sexuality isn't a good comparison.

[eias]

 

Sorry, that phrasing wasn't meant to insult. But surely you can't deny that homosexuality is not normal?

 

It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it definitely isn't normal.

 

If it was, than our population would have dwindled to nothing a long time ago.

That just seems like a kind of insulting statement. Like has been said, many people believe it is perfectly natural. There just happen to be a lot more heterosexual people. There happen to be a lot more white people in the U.S.A., would you say being black is not normal? What about being jewish?

 

 

 

race vs. sexuality isn't a good comparison.

 

I agree with you,and i agree that race vs sexuality isn't a good comparison,but yet i see that you compared that it IS normal,but there's more people that are Heterosexual than Homosexual,so it's like having more white people in the US than black people,which i believe is a wrong though.

 

 

 

I believe that humans themselves decides whether they are Homosexual or not,it's something instinctual,it's not about the genetics.

[Zierro]

Well animals have homosexual sex all the time - but at the most, they can only be considered bisexual since they have hetero sex as well. I'd have to agree that being gay is unnatural, but I don't think that could be used as an argument as to if it can be considered wrong or not.

[Omar]

It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong.

 

 

 

But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right.

 

 

 

I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool.

 

Until further mutations occur elsewhere.

 

Aaaargh for gods sake we are not a biological aberation, did you really not consider how insulting that would sound?

 

There is no evidence at all that it is any form of abberation, there are no biological prices to pay for being gay with the possible exception of slightly greater increased risk of passing infection during sez, but that risk is present in hetero behaviour, thats just the nature of sex.

 

There is far more evidence that it is an evolved trait to increase the number of care givers without dependants in a social group (Much like male frogs changing sex when there arent enough females in a group). Its a functional behaviour pattern.

 

In the idea that the species is meant to spread, it's not meant to be like that. But if the species keeps growing so much, it'll end itself. EdgedThesis is saying that gays could be evolution's solution to this, to keep human virulence optimal. In other words, the same thing as you, I think.

[Wizz]

Harrinator are you saying that homosexuality is a result of overpopulation?

[EdgedThesis]

It's a biological aberration. From that stand-point, it'd be seen as wrong.

 

 

 

But seeing as how increasing human populations is stretching our resources taut, it may be very, very right.

 

 

 

I say leave the gay people alone. If it is a genetic problem, then the malfunctioning code will be eliminated from the gene pool.

 

Until further mutations occur elsewhere.

 

Aaaargh for gods sake we are not a biological aberation, did you really not consider how insulting that would sound?

 

There is no evidence at all that it is any form of abberation, there are no biological prices to pay for being gay with the possible exception of slightly greater increased risk of passing infection during sez, but that risk is present in hetero behaviour, thats just the nature of sex.

 

There is far more evidence that it is an evolved trait to increase the number of care givers without dependants in a social group (Much like male frogs changing sex when there arent enough females in a group). Its a functional behaviour pattern.

 

In the idea that the species is meant to spread, it's not meant to be like that. But if the species keeps growing so much, it'll end itself. EdgedThesis is saying that gays could be evolution's solution to this, to keep human virulence optimal. In other words, the same thing as you, I think.

 

 

 

I was wrong in saying it was a 'problem', though. Sorry again.

 

He brought up a good point that it may be an evolved trait to increase the amount of care-givers within any given society, but I have a question:

 

How is this trait meant to spread throughout the population?

 

 

 

Are you saying evolved evolved? As in, genetics?

 

Or a just change in general human psyche because of such huge numbers? (Hey, or maybe there's a bio-trigger with each and every one of us, just waiting to be pulled?)

 

 

 

If it's the former, how is this newer, more efficient gene group meant to spread and take effect in further generations?

[Omar]

I'm not saying anything. Just throwing a hypothesis out there, and a vague one at that. Could be a bio-trigger or just an effect of society.

[Racheya]

I don't have anything amazing to add to this discussion but just my opinion really.

 

 

I hate the idea that people think sexuality is a choice and say that homosexual people should just change.

 

 

I just can't believe that people still have to argue this crap. This is the modern day people :wall:

[Nenga]

 

Sorry, that phrasing wasn't meant to insult. But surely you can't deny that homosexuality is not normal?

 

It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it definitely isn't normal.

 

If it was, than our population would have dwindled to nothing a long time ago.

That just seems like a kind of insulting statement. Like has been said, many people believe it is perfectly natural. There just happen to be a lot more heterosexual people. There happen to be a lot more white people in the U.S.A., would you say being black is not normal? What about being jewish?

 

 

 

race vs. sexuality isn't a good comparison.

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

[purfishx]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

[Zierro]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

 

 

I don't know how you're supposed to "choose" what turns you on. :?

[ThurinEthir]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Ever talked to a homosexual person?

 

Also:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519

 

http://www.livescience.com/health/08061 ... ality.html

 

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ ... e-gay-gene

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641

 

 

 

Of course, it still could be a choice. But with all that evidence, it doesn't look too likely. (And once again, nothing better than simply asking homosexual people...)

[magekillr]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

 

 

Show me proof that it isn't. Oh, you don't have any; just words from a man named Paul, not Jesus.

[EdgedThesis]

^Thanks for answering my questions. Dunno whether that was your intention--but meh, those links were useful. :thumbup:

 

 

 

Whoops, was directed at Penguingeek.

[assassin_696]

I read an interesting explanation of why homosexuality as some sort of genetic trait (and not a specific gene) might be preferentially selected for. If the gene (for want of a better word, since there will be no single 'gay gene') improved fertility in women but increased homosexual tendencies in men then it could have an advantage. I found this interesting because homosexuality seems like a counter-intuitive thing to be preferentially selected for, although I suspected there was some deeper reason why.

 

 

 

On a slightly more idealistic note, to those who insist it isn't a choice: if you've ever fallen in love with someone, did you make a conscious choice to do so? It doesn't matter what sex the person is. This is partly rhetorical, because in my own experiences being attracted to someone isn't something that you can switch on and off, it's not a choice you can make. Yes, there are choices that you make that perhaps lead you to being more or less attracted to someone, but at the fundamental level I don't think that there's much choice involved. If this is the case for heterosexual attraction why should it be different for homosexual attraction?

[Serpent Eye]

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

 

 

I never at any point in my life decided that I would be gay.

 

 

 

/proof.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

And as far as the argument about overpopulation goes... homosexuality isn't something that sprung up suddenly when the world population hit 5B. This is something that has always been a part of society - even way back in history, when the world wasn't overpopulated. It's a silly argument. Gay people didn't suddenly beam down from space to save the planet from exhausting its resources.

[Omar]

It's not an argument, it's just something I threw out there. But yeah, I kind of looked over history.

[Shinjula]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Easy, animals exhibit homosexuality and they dont have free will.

[Flodder450]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Easy, animals exhibit homosexuality and they dont have free will.

Ie seen homosexual animals on tv once... :-#

[Nenga]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Soz I wasn't checking OT most of yesterday. Have you ever talked to a gay person? They'll tell you that it just sort of happened. When they turned 12 they didn't just say: "I'll like the same gender as me for the rest of my life." You can't control what you find attractive anymore than you can control time itself.

[Racheya]

 

 

 

 

 

1. I fixed your quote tags

 

 

 

2.it is a very good argument if we are saying homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't choose what color your skin is.

 

 

 

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

Soz I wasn't checking OT most of yesterday. Have you ever talked to a gay person? They'll tell you that it just sort of happened. When they turned 12 they didn't just say: "I'll like the same gender as me for the rest of my life." You can't control what you find attractive anymore than you can control time itself.

 

CENSORSHIP AND HISTORICAL REVISIONISM HERE.

Edited July 24, 2010 by meol

[Boris5000]

I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, My auntie and one of my cousins are both gay (not with eachother).

[Plugpoint]

There's nothing wrong with it imo. Some of my closest guy friends are gay, doesn't bother me at all :thumbsup:

[Sly_Wizard]

Show me proof that it isn't. Oh, you don't have any; just words from a man named Paul, not Jesus.

 

 

 

The onus is one you to prove that people are born gay, not for someone to prove that they aren't. Srsly. I hate the disenginuity of the "Well, prove that they aren't!" response, because 1.) it doesn't even attempt to answer the question initially posed and 2.) it doesn't even attempt to conform to the scientific method which I thought people were so big on. I guess that's only when it suits them.

 

 

 

On a slightly more idealistic note, to those who insist it isn't a choice: if you've ever fallen in love with someone, did you make a conscious choice to do so? It doesn't matter what sex the person is. This is partly rhetorical, because in my own experiences being attracted to someone isn't something that you can switch on and off, it's not a choice you can make. Yes, there are choices that you make that perhaps lead you to being more or less attracted to someone, but at the fundamental level I don't think that there's much choice involved. If this is the case for heterosexual attraction why should it be different for homosexual attraction?

 

 

 

If, say, a forty year-old male "falls in love" with a fifteen year-old female and vice versa, you'll discredit their feelings of love and any semblence of the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument. It's funny, yet ironic at the same time. Either you apply the same standards of love to everyone or you discredit it all together. And since you don't, and won't, apply the same standards of love to all people, then you're only other option is to discredit all issues of love. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.

 

 

 

I never at any point in my life decided that I would be gay.

 

 

 

/proof.

 

 

 

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

[assassin_696]

If, say, a forty year-old male "falls in love" with a fifteen year-old female and vice versa, you'll discredit their feelings of love and any semblence of the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument. It's funny, yet ironic at the same time. Either you apply the same standards of love to everyone or you discredit it all together. And since you don't, and won't, apply the same standards of love to all people, then you're only other option is to discredit all issues of love. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.

 

 

 

Don't set up strawmen and assume that i'd discredit that love. The only reason I'd consider discrediting it is because the child is unlikely to be of an age where she can reasonably decide whether or not to reciprocate, and so the adult might take advantage. However I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the forty year old's feelings weren't genuine. Besides, the comparison is not appropriate and I disagree with your final statement. Clearly you can apply different standards to people of different maturities in life.

 

 

 

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

 

 

 

Why equate theft to biological attraction? They're clearly not appropriate to compare.