A Darwinian reason for homosexuality

[jachian]

If NinjaSurfer's ideas are exclusive and comprise all of the homosexual population, then yes.

But I feel like this discussion (not you, in this post, but some other posters) is being completely abstracted from any tangible experience and any prior studies of how preference mechanisms can be permanently changed in various mammal species simply through hormone alterations during the gestation stage.

I mean, it's pretty clear when I watch children who are in situations where being gay is dangerous and/or undesirable and try with great agony to conform / alter their preferences but can't... and who have also exhibited "gay traits" very very young in life... well, it ain't exactly a purely learned behavior. And these anecdotes are not even difficult to uncover; just hang out with gay people, especially those who had to grow up in restrictive religious environments, and ask them what their experiences have been...

If Ninjasurfer's ideas are correct, then there would be a difference between those two terms.

So I get you, the chemical/hormonal environment during the gestation stage seems to have a strong influence. I guess the question everyone is trying to figure out is whether this environment is a result of a person's genes or whether its an external influence(Something in the mother's body as a result of her lifestyle, diet, etc.)

Not that am equating drug addition and homosexuality, but we know of infants born with an addiction to certain chemicals because of the mothers lifestyle. We also know that infants that are not breast fed are more likely to have problems controlling their weight and more likely to experience type 2 diabetes as early as their 20s. Its this side of the picture that I think rarely gets any attention. There seems to be more focus on finding specific genes to account for the phenomena, which I think is unlikely to yield any useful insights.

There is also another phenomena that i have been observing lately that is not specific to homosexuals and is being increasingly observed in heterosexuals as well.
Its seems to me an many other people I've spoken to that children seem to be exhibiting sexual behaviour and developing secondary sexual characteristics at an earlier age. I remember me and most of the people my age did'nt begin thinking and talking about sex until about 14 or 15. now I see kids as young as 8, 9 or 10 become sexually active etc.

I've heard comments form a doctor friend of mine about girls getting their menstrual cycles at an earlier and earlier age than in the past. And she expressed serious concerns about this.

There is something bigger happening here and the issue of homosexuality it believe is just one piece of a larger picture.

 

[GeneralPatton]

It seems to me that it would be a natural selection type instrument that mother nature has imbedded. Unfortunately, since there are so many foolish ignorant people in the world who like to think that they know best for society, there type of people are now allowed to adopt children, and teach their lessons to offspring they were underserving to have in the first place. This circumvents the way nature had intended it, that a purely homosexual pair could not reproduce and thus they would be eliminated from the gene pool. Is not homosexuality that is seen in nature nothing other than a show of domination by the superior male? And the "violated" inferior male is usually cut from the pack and sentenced to a life as a "lone wolf" unless he can defeat another, usually older, pack leader? Natural selection worked wonderfully for millions of years, and now some inept humans think they can use a "workaround" to simply have their own desires realized.

 

[RedN]

how many decades has it been? the only difference is gays are more out, but theyve always been there through history.

if thered be a problem it shouldve come up now but... thing is theres still too many people who want to make babies for trivial reasons.

so its not really effective?

all ill say about sex is its not just to make babies. if anyone wants to do it just for that reason well...... whatever...

its actually more of a mutation.

these things happen during the time the baby is being formed as recent studies said... as my doctor said. it can be influenced by so many chemicals and its not just genetic

 

[GeneralPatton]

I personally take no real stand. However, I don't like to legislate around the laws of nature. Fuck all you want for all I care, but neither two men nor two women (or any other number of same sex peoples) were meant to have children. If they were, it would be naturally possible.

 

[RedN]

but some people are born to be incapable of having children... some rare women dont even ahve a pu***...

 

[GeneralPatton]

But that is the natural process of elimination. In those cases, I must admit I do sincerely feel badly for them.

 

[RedN]

so like the parents material was a bit inferior so they must be weeded out by natural selection?... -_- but how come the significantly insanely inferior humans are still allowed to breed and exist. i mean even mentally and developmentally disabled humans can still breed... - multiply(according to typical human standards ok)

 

[GeneralPatton]

so like the parents material was a bit inferior so they must be weeded out by natural selection?... -_- but how come the significantly insanely inferior humans are still allowed to breed and exist. i mean even mentally and developmentally disabled humans can still breed... - multiply(according to typical human standards ok)

Its not my system sweetheart, talk to mother nature if you don't like it! They can still breed and exist, however, taking it in context, are you likely to pick a mate who is inferior in all aspects? (which could include anything that makes one inferior, from physical deformity to mental inablility) I'm not just writing the guide as I go along, this is something we all just know within ourselves. We seek out a mate that pleases us. Rarely do you see a 100 pound woman with a 500 pound man, or vice versa. Arnold Schwartzenegger (whatever its mispelled I know) didn't marry a meek little indigent, he married Maria Shriver, who suited his fancy for at least a little while before he "searched elsewhere."

 

[RedN]

>_<` I guess mother nature wants my blood line to end since i cant have babies.
odd enough, they seem to find mates who are normal. and of course they tend to breed amongst themselves too.

yeah and i think he ended up with that ehm... mexican woman? ehm i saw a pic of it i think

just thinking about this too, gay men can actually spread their seed still through sperm donations. even violent and insane criminals huh?! ... i wonder...

 

[GeneralPatton]

Ah but you touch upon technology circumventing nature. Such donations have only recently been added to mans arsenal when trying to play god

And, mexican asian european italian it makes little difference, if they are not damaged goods. Do I sense a dislike of mexicans?

 

[RedN]

no its just the only memorable thing i remember about the woman he had an affair with. oh wait and she was a bit overweight. oh, im not saying these saying shes inferior, just that i remember what youre talking about.

as the days go by we get closer and closer to becoming gods in our own sense. if only laws and religion would stop hindering the full potential of man, we can achieve so much

i refuse to go with what nature sets. and if science can change things, then i am all for it

 

[Moocow]

You know someone is just really opinionated when they try to tell you what faceless forces of nature "meant" to do.

 

[GeneralPatton]

You know someone is just really opinionated when they try to tell you what faceless forces of nature "meant" to do.

Assuming that you're speaking to me, then I'd guess you aren't to fond of Darwin and his theories, nor do you get much time to watch the Discovery channel and see how the animal kingdom works unedited. I didn't propose that I was saying what the forces of nature "meant to do or wanted to do," just what they do.

And i do agree Red, without obstructionist religous zealots and other anti-technology protestors, there could be far deeper research into stem cells and possibly cures to currently incurable diseases.

 

[dala]

Homosexuality doesn't have to result in any survival advantage, it just has to not be so disadvantageous that a given population dies out as a result of it. If there was a single dominant gene that caused homosexuality and did nothing else then it might theoretically be bred out of the population, but even then people would choose to breed for social or practical reasons.

As for this nonsense about what is 'natural,' people really need to leave their preconceived notions at the door. Homosexuality has been proved again and again to be perfectly natural, as evidenced in various species from ranging from birds to primates.

Even if it wasn't so clearly practiced by other species, its quite bizarre that you would single out a single human practice as 'bad' when we are constantly doing things quite differently than every other species on the planet. Or is there something inherently wrong with agriculture or wearing clothing or cooking food?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Speaking strictly from an evolutionary perspective, yes it's possible, and here's a mechanism.


Assuming 1) sexual preference is at least in part genetically inherited, and 2) there are separate genes for different sexual preferences that aren't mutually exclusive in expression, then being sexually attracted to the same sex (for a male at least) could help you pass on your genes by earning a male social capital (the oral route) that can be used in combination with "traditional" means like aggression/dominance (<- arguably the anal route) to suppress the urge or effectiveness of other males to mate as well as increase a given male's attractiveness to females.


This social capital could translate directly into labor (it's been shown that women prefer to mate with stereotypical muscley studs but have their children raised by subordinates). I scratch your back, you give me priority with the ladies.


This then brings up the issue of the refractory period. Men have one, women don't. "Scratching another man's back" actually takes him out of the game until he physically recovers, and the lack of a female refractory period could then allow for subordinate males to mop up and form emotional bonds, providing a caretaker for the child. If females recognize this, then they should select a male with the most subordinates.


Females could simultaneously be selecting for the best physical makeup, best child rearing, best access to resources, physical pleasure, etc., which would maintain the genes responsible for homosexuality at a given ratio in the male population. We could be becoming ants, except that our workers would be male.


The real unknown is the "purpose" of lesbianism, which could simply be the vestigial expression of a homosexual gene in females that results in a pleasureable outcome.

 

[GeneralPatton]

As for this nonsense about what is 'natural,' people really need to leave their preconceived notions at the door. Homosexuality has been proved again and again to be perfectly natural, as evidenced in various species from ranging from birds to primates.

Even if it wasn't so clearly practiced by other species, its quite bizarre that you would single out a single human practice as 'bad' when we are constantly doing things quite differently than every other species on the planet. Or is there something inherently wrong with agriculture or wearing clothing or cooking food?

So you somehow justify to yourself that it is natural for a group of (insert your own preference here) to attempt to mate homosexually and carry on its existance? And where in life is it so clearly practiced by other species. I'm pretty sure that other than asexual organisms, its still takes a penis and vagina to procreate. In the animal kingdom, there is no need for homosexuality as it doesn't earn attention grabbing headlines amongst birds and such........."This just in, Fred the Macaw comes out of the closet tonight on BirdWatch. In other news, Snookie the Parakeet was considered a lesbian, but announces she's pregnant." As I said, the only display of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is that of Dominance. Essentially, an "I own you" stamp so stay away from my bitches.

 

[Jennywocky]

So you somehow justify to yourself that it is natural for a group of (insert your own preference here) to attempt to mate homosexually and carry on its existance? And where in life is it so clearly practiced by other species. I'm pretty sure that other than asexual organisms, its still takes a penis and vagina to procreate. In the animal kingdom, there is no need for homosexuality as it doesn't earn attention grabbing headlines amongst birds and such........."This just in, Fred the Macaw comes out of the closet tonight on BirdWatch. In other news, Snookie the Parakeet was considered a lesbian, but announces she's pregnant." As I said, the only display of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is that of Dominance. Essentially, an "I own you" stamp so stay away from my bitches.

Uh....no. i think the bonobos use it as part of play and community building. And that's for starters.

 

[dala]

So you somehow justify to yourself that it is natural for a group of (insert your own preference here) to attempt to mate homosexually and carry on its existance? And where in life is it so clearly practiced by other species. I'm pretty sure that other than asexual organisms, its still takes a penis and vagina to procreate. In the animal kingdom, there is no need for homosexuality as it doesn't earn attention grabbing headlines amongst birds and such........."This just in, Fred the Macaw comes out of the closet tonight on BirdWatch. In other news, Snookie the Parakeet was considered a lesbian, but announces she's pregnant." As I said, the only display of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is that of Dominance. Essentially, an "I own you" stamp so stay away from my bitches.

Unless you are using some obscure definition of 'natural,' then yes, homosexuality is natural. In addition to the examples noted already in this thread, it has been observed in various bird species, who build nests, incubate eggs, and raise young together. It has been observed in elephants, who generally form long-term same-sex bonds while only visiting the opposite sex for one-time mating. Male giraffes have sexual relations with other male giraffes more often than females. For a general overview, see the wikipedia article.

Now tabloid news, on the other hand, that is unnatural.

 

[GeneralPatton]

Unless you are using some obscure definition of 'natural,' then yes, homosexuality is natural. In addition to the examples noted already in this thread, it has been observed in various bird species, who build nests, incubate eggs, and raise young together. It has been observed in elephants, who generally form long-term same-sex bonds while only visiting the opposite sex for one-time mating. Male giraffes have sexual relations with other male giraffes more often than females. For a general overview, see the wikipedia article.

Now tabloid news, on the other hand, that is unnatural.

LOL. I love people who quote Wikipedia. So many think it is the definative place to find answers, while it is quite frankly nothing more than a repository of shit anyone could add to at anytime. A great example of the fine quality of wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Bar


And the term you are looking for is communal breeding or cooperative breeding in birds, where the flock cares for the young. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality at all. Since you like Wiki, here's the link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_breeding

And the elephant thing, well, I should think it was self explanatory but since it apparently wasn't, i'll elaborate it in common terms. To assume that in some way that is homosexual is a blatant disregard for intelligence of the Elephantidae genus. How you come to the conclusion that because the elephants prefer the company of males running in a pack together, leaving child rearing to the females, somehow relates to homosexuality is literally beyond me. Does that mean that since the riders of Hell's Angels are all men that they are all homosexual? They tend to only visit females when they want some sort of sexual satisfaction.......are they all gay? I think not. Men hang out with men until they desire a sexual encounter. Fortunately for the rest of the breeding world, they can dump parenting responsibilities on the females and pack their shit and move on. No worries about some gavel happy judge taking everything you own so your previous partner can spend your money on anything they want.

And the giraffe. You actually have some scientific basis at this point, however, it pretty well wraps directly into what I have previously posted. I said it was a show of domination, and yet again using your wiki source, I quote
"After a duel, it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling.[59] In one study, up to 94 percent of observed mounting incidents took place between males. The proportion of same-sex activities varied from 30–75 percent. Only one percent of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females."
So using this evidence, after defeating an inferior male he mounts him, disrespects him in front of the others present, and pleases himself. I'd say quite the showing of dominance. In case you'd like it, linked; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe

Anything else you'd like me to debunk relating to the falsities of homosexual preference in the animal kingdon?

 

[dala]

I assumed from the utter ignorance you've shown throughout the thread that it would be most appropriate to link to a generalized article and allow you to follow through to the linked original sources.

First you say that homosexuality doesn't occur in other animals, then when faced with clear evidence you claim that that particular case doesn't count. I have given examples of one time encounters leading to sex, reciprocal relationships between individuals of differing status, and long-term, stable sexual relationships. Are you waiting on a bonobo in leather to pick up another bonobo at a gay bar?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Anything else you'd like me to debunk relating to the falsities of homosexual preference in the animal kingdon?

Your arguments for dominance as the sole or even a major component of homosexuality pidgeonhole evolution into a square peg (<-don't ask, it just came to me that way). Why are you restricting your arguments to anal sex and mounting behavior? All buggery and no fellatio?

 

[Fukyo]

I suppose this is a display of dominance too?

"Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own. "

The linked article also suggests the bisexual bonobos do it for community building, and this is theorized to be one of the possible reasons for homosexual behavior observed in animals. About the original premise in the thread that homosexuality had evolved as a population control; evolution doesn't need it per se, there's famine, disease, elements and conflict in abundance, but I'm aware it's hardly that straight forward. It doesn't necessarily have a clear-cut purpose and there is probably more than one cause at work.

Speaking of animals, how is their 'orientation' being defined anyway? Homosexual behavior is right if we're using the human terminology to refer to observable behaviors.

Spoiler

on a side note, one can find plenty of references to homosexual animal behavior outside of wikipedia, google schoolar for example.

 

[GeneralPatton]

I assumed from the utter ignorance you've shown throughout the thread that it would be most appropriate to link to a generalized article and allow you to follow through to the linked original sources.

First you say that homosexuality doesn't occur in other animals, then when faced with clear evidence you claim that that particular case doesn't count. I have given examples of one time encounters leading to sex, reciprocal relationships between individuals of differing status, and long-term, stable sexual relationships. Are you waiting on a bonobo in leather to pick up another bonobo at a gay bar?

I fail to see your point, assuming that i'm ignorant since I have placed all the information about the subjects at your feet, all you had to do was read it. I fully rebutted the information you provided, and showed you the difference between your assumed homosexual behavior and communal or cooperative breeding. (as a side note, this style of breeding is typically in species where either only the strong mate and reproduce and the rest care for the young, or it can occur when a certain percentage of a species isn't capable of mating, therefore to keep the species alive such methods are adopted) Those are not homosexual in any way. Then you try to tell me that because male elephants prefer the company of other male elephants in their travels that they are somehow homosexual, which is another falsity. I guess that when we men decide to get away from you women and retreat to a man cave to watch football we are then momentarily living in a homosexual setting, or perhaps when femals have a girls night out they are deciding to become homosexual for the night. (god forbid males get tired of trying to figure out the utter stupidity that females are enshrouded in most of their lives and want to "hang out with the boys" for a while to return to the world of sanity......which is not a shot at you or any woman for that matter, but a general statement that most men at some time in their lives will agree with) Your arguements are self extinguishing and quite frankly those of an ignorant person who sees only what they want to see and not what is truely there. You can argue this into the ground, but at the end of the day the answer still remains and is quite true, that if homosexuality became prevelant in any species then that species would become a detriment upon itself and most likely become extinguished. To quote Jurrassic Park, "are you insinuating that a group composed of all females will, breed?" And to strike down the way it worked in the movie, there animals are not genetically engineered with the DNA of a sex changing frog. (which is not some bisexual reference, but a method to keep a species alive designed by nature and quite functional)

I will admit that I had no idea what a bonobo was, and had to go and read it. I love how this selection is an endangered species that cannot swim and was cut off from the rest of the primate world via the congo river. Of course, in the sexual behavior section of your beloved Wiki, which I will give a couple wonderful examples from following; "Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male–male genital behavior." One of these acts, known as Penis fencing is where they appear to basically act like adolescent male humans in a dick measuring contest. There is no sex involved, basically it is what it's description says, literally sword fighting with thier penis. The other "rump rubbing occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back to back and rub their ball sacs together." So, in the second example what I have been saying all along is again verified, whereas after a show of dominance instead of alienating one member from the group which would most likely lead to his death in solace since only females may switch troops, they end the aggression by rubbing ballsweat on one another, most likely a way for the winner to mark the looser, however it is unknown seeing as there has been very little research on these particular primates. (most of which is 60 years old or older)

The bottom line is that none of these examples you provided did anything to show common place homosexual behavior in pairs as suggested. They did however manage to prove my point of dominance on several instances. I can continue to disprove you all day long as you like, but as I have said, in the end, as somewhat posed by another poster, trying to make homosexual behavior work in nature is nothing more than humans trying to prove you can fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[GeneralPatton]

Your arguments for dominance as the sole or even a major component of homosexuality pidgeonhole evolution into a square peg (<-don't ask, it just came to me that way). Why are you restricting your arguments to anal sex and mounting behavior? All buggery and no fellatio?

Evolution on a whole is pretty simple. The strong survive, the weak die, and changes occur as needed to advance a species. Now, thats the dumbed down version, but essentially it sums it up as whole. Homosexuality is not a natural way to progress a species at all, and prior to humanity making things so that "everyone is a winner" or "everyone gets a prize for participation" the fact was that the weak or untalented were doomed to a life of basic obscurity and those with talents and desirable genes were the ones who got what they wanted, of course with occasional luck the weak could get into the "A" group. (for lack of better description, we'll use an "A" and "B" reference to the desired place in society and the undesired level) Typically, adolescents have a need to be wanted, or cool, and hang with the "A" crowd if they can manage to get in their ranks. The "B" crowd and lower levels (I won't digress into the lower levels, we'll use two for this purpose) are seen as undesirable for the purpose of this arguement. Most will aim for at one time or another getting into "A" crowd, if for nothing else than social status. (I know that this is somewhat conflicting with the personalitly profiles of the people on this site, but this is just an example for the sake or arguement) Typically, the "A" crowd has the desirable females and that's what the males want to be around, which in school age the role will tend to be filled by the "jocks" because of their physical superiority at the time. Granted, this may change later in life and intelligence may supercede physical prowess, but at this point we are talking the middle to high school age individual. This leads to a lacking in development of the "B" grade males, as they have not been able to pursue the females of choice (while there are exceptions!) and therefore become behind in social interactions. Granted that most of the time there is an inherent switch in profiles later in life. The point of this rant is quite simply, that without some vocal minorities screaming that everyone deserves to play, the weak would be left out which would allow the stong to continue to progress without intervention, leading to a greater developed species. This is very well noted in black athletes. And i'm diving into this not as a racial discussion, but one of genes. During slavery, blacks were bred for superiority of strength to make them better servants able to do more work in the same amount of time. This inadvertantly led to larger, more adept black males in the future (which is now the present, for example Shaquille O'neal) who are much more well adapted to sports requiring toned physique. This is seen throughout professional sports. This effect was achieved through selective breeding.

Anyway, I am beginning to lose track and rant now. The bottom line is that, without intervention, which allows the meek to "play the game" then nature would eliminate a lot of undesirable traits.

 

[RedN]

i havent read any of whats on top really but whatever

if we humans are to continue simply doing what is 'natural', then I will worry for the future of our species. feeding you all for one. its just so ... sentiments on what is natural when almost everything we interact with is not... i mean, the way we talk here is this a natural thing??? we have a mouth right? werent we supposed to communicate with that and not through cables and plastics? talk about hyp...

if its all just about your pen** being inserted in a vagi**, then seriously theres no need for foreplay, no need for kissing, no need for oral sex, your fingers or hell why are you people masturbating huh???... uhm... im sorry its just a bit i dont know... this view on what is natural.

in the end its not who is naturally strong or the best, its the one who is most capable of surviving, even through sheer luck out of circumstance. i mean why can a cockroach survive when a trex cant? its not always the best that survives.

 

[Minuend]

Evolution on a whole is pretty simple. The strong survive, the weak die, and changes occur as needed to advance a species. Now, thats the dumbed down version, but essentially it sums it up as whole.

Well, no. It's survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom, it usually doesn't pay off to be strong per se. The key is appearing strong. Most animals hiss and puffs at each other and one escapes. Even small injuries could be fatal, so a fight is better avoided. Intimidation is key. Also adaptions like colour and immune system is often more important than strength. Evolution is not a simple process, there are many factors.

Yeah, I didn't read any more since the first sentences were this inaccurate.

 

[GeneralPatton]

Well, no. It's survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom, it usually doesn't pay off to be strong per se. The key is appearing strong. Most animals hiss and puffs at each other and one escapes. Even small injuries could be fatal, so a fight is better avoided. Intimidation is key. Also adaptions like colour and immune system is often more important than strength. Evolution is not a simple process, there are many factors.

Yeah, I didn't read any more since the first sentences were this inaccurate.

Yea, quite inaccurate.
"Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection"
"The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. In broad terms, individuals that are more "fit" have better potential for survival, as in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". "

Definately inaccurate. What was Darwin thinking, I never should have quoted him

 

[GeneralPatton]

if its all just about your pen** being inserted in a vagi**, then seriously theres no need for foreplay, no need for kissing, no need for oral sex, your fingers or hell why are you people masturbating huh???... uhm... im sorry its just a bit i dont know... this view on what is natural.

in the end its not who is naturally strong or the best, its the one who is most capable of surviving, even through sheer luck out of circumstance. i mean why can a cockroach survive when a trex cant? its not always the best that survives.

The term strong is applied, as based upon the species. A cockroach need not be the size of a trex to be considered stong. Some of the oldest cockroachs known however, are the largest of the species. And luck does play a role, albeit a smaller role than fitness.

As for the foreplay thing, this is something that while pleasureable, is completely unecassary for continuance of a species. In terms of advancement of the species or procreation, then no foreplay is not necassary, although in terms of today's society it seems to have become normal and desired by females. This debate is more about evolution and Darwin than pleasure though Red, and I have no inclination to anger you on the pleasure side of the topic

 

[Minuend]

Yea, quite inaccurate.
"Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection"
"The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. In broad terms, individuals that are more "fit" have better potential for survival, as in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". "

Definately inaccurate. What was Darwin thinking, I never should have quoted him

Heh, you didn't read those, did you?

Survival of the fittest.

Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

Actually, this is a change in what they used to say. But my point is still the same, regardless of what they call it now.

 

[GeneralPatton]

Heh, you didn't read those, did you?



Actually, this is a change in what they used to say. But my point is still the same, regardless of what they call it now.

Yet the title of this thread is? A Darwinian reason

The object of the discussion was that of Darwinian thought. Did I read them, yes I did, thouroughly. You can attempt to disect these theories and manipulate quotations to suit your purpose, but fact still remains. While physical attributes of strength contribute greatly, only the strong survive has more than one meaning. The strong are also mentally sly, such as certain species of birds who leave their eggs in the nest of other birds who raise them as their own. The propogation of the species continues with minimal effort. In this case, the strongest is the slickest. The traits of the strong are not only physical, but mental as well. Scientific theory is challenged and altered until nothing remains of the first theoretical equation a lot of times, however Darwin's theories still remain to this day. While there are multiple offshoots of it, including
Darwinism (book)
Modern evolutionary synthesis
Neo-Darwinism
Neural Darwinism
Social Darwinism
Darwin Awards
Pangenesis - Charles Darwin's hypothetical mechanism for heredity
Universal Darwinism

the basis remains the same.

 

[Minuend]

Did you notice when you changed your mind and started agreeing with me?

 

[GeneralPatton]

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm full fledged saying that evolution is based upon Darwin's theories, which are that of natural selection, and that there is no place for homosexuality to advance any species. You've done a relatively decent job at diverting the conversation from the first thought processes, however the basis remains. Homosexuals are eliminated over time because they don't fit in with natural selection.

 

[RedN]

They dont seem to be dwindling in numbers...

And I dont think any can tell if one type is fit with natural selection or not. Only time and circumstance will as Ive been saying. And those change and by location. Maybe if we were in africa where homosexuals are being mass executed ehm... but here in america... and still, its not gonna go away. As I said all along as well, they just wont show it.

Its not like small pox you know...

If homosexuals can find a place in society and they do, they will not go away - and they are being sustained. Homosexuals afterall are 'created' by heterosexuals... they dont need to breed to procreate.

If its true that natural selection is eliminating homos, can anyone here give a declining number in homosexuals? Unless something radical and outside the current board comes into play, theyre not gonna be eliminated.

Add:
and yeah, its not happening to the benefit of our species. but not all changes in evolution are for the benefit of a species, it is afterall at the end of it just a mutation that is allowed to continue. I would buy it that homosexuality may be a mutation at most.

thinking about it though, i think currently medical science classifies homosexuality and any of its derivatives as a psychological disorder - used to be mental I think?

yeah im just tired and im not thinking right...

 

[GeneralPatton]

Its definately a disorder, for sure. I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was in their best interest. As for the decline in numbers, well, certain 3 letter diseases were most rampant upon them before they decided to be Bi and bring them into the general population (the most common theory i've heard of the origins were that of beastiality being the cause)

 

[Agent Intellect]

Bottom line about homosexuality*:

There is a biological explanation for homosexuality, whether it be genetic or uterine development (see my other posts in this thread). The only reason someone would argue against this is because forcing the issue to be a matter of free will puts it in the realm of morality - an ancient morality (Leviticus) that is almost entirely not followed aside from a few choice passages.

Homosexuality is probably not all that beneficial from a natural selection standpoint. This doesn't not make the phenomena illegitimate from a biological point of view - there are still plenty of genetic explanation for the phenomena.

If you find homosexuality disagreeable with your personal sensitivities, then don't engage in homosexuality. If other people do, it doesn't affect you at all, so get over it.

Even IF homosexuality was a choice wherein people decided (via free will) to go against all of their innate "natural" (finger quotes and sarcasm) urges and deal with homophobic bullshit for no other reason than their personal choice... what the fuck would that matter to you anyway? Who are you to question that "choice" (or more realistically, their subjective experience)?



*from someone who has close homosexual and transsexual friends, but is also a biology aficionado and biochemistry major.

 

[RedN]

uhm... HIV had nothing to do with gender (there was a conspiracy theory though taht it was man made and homosexuals in new york were the initial test subjects). i mean you can get it by sharing injectibles, drugs taht homosexuality has nothing to do with this and they did not bring it into the heterosexual population.

and the decline in population due to HIV uhm last i remember the african americans have a very high count on this so... whatcha sayin... then... and you are aware its origin is in africa, as reported. ehm... ...

that dont ask dont tell, so its cool for a guy to tell how he ravaged a hooker but its a crime to say that you kissed your male partner if you were male. ehm... maybe in the best interest of homophobic individuals. and you know something, a lot of homophobes are actually closet gays... according to some studies

 

[crippli]

Is 'natural selection' relevant anymore, especially in the west? From what I have heard, there is sperm available at almost every street corner, and even a pet veterinary can inseminate. For guys(with money) there are plenty of willing surrogates. Homosexuals are surely not eliminated. Quite often lately there has even been shortage on the sperm marked for gay women, and one have had to ask the men(gay?) to step up and donate more at the clinics.

What I find interesting in some of the research is the degradation of the Y chromosome. And from what I wrote above, it's almost so one can see it with the bare eyes.

The human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence. With a rate of genetic loss of 4.6 genes per million years, the Y chromosome may potentially lose complete function within the next 10 million years

In a few million years could be the end of Y chromosome due to natural selection. What happens then? Can we make do with XX chromosomes?

--
With today's technology. This setup should work fine. two couples. Two men and two females. All homosexuals. They will surrogate and give sperm too each others, and divide the kids fairly or with money compensation as there is more work and risk for the females. All 4 will have their own kids.

I can not see that having kids is of any difficulty for homosexuals. all that is needed is collaboration, masturbation and a little doctor work. Besides this it will go on as usual.

Plenty of happy children.

 

[BigApplePi]

Its definately a disorder, for sure. I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was in their best interest. As for the decline in numbers, well, certain 3 letter diseases were most rampant upon them before they decided to be Bi and bring them into the general population (the most common theory i've heard of the origins were that of beastiality being the cause)

Here is a question. Why would anyone be anti homosexuality if it doesn't affect them directly? I'm not talking disease or promiscuity. Heterosexuals can have that too. I'm not talking family as homosexuals can have family if they want to and the population is seven billion anyway. So other than those, why would anyone be anti homosexuality?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Evolution on a whole is pretty simple.

So is particle physics. It's just dust, right?

The strong survive, the weak die, and changes occur as needed to advance a species. Now, thats the dumbed down version, but essentially it sums it up as whole. At this point I'm already asking myself whether or not it's worth the effort to continue responding. No. It doesn't. Not in the least. You're in Spencerland, and I'm not sure there's any hope. It seems the walls are caving quickly.

Homosexuality is not a natural way to progress a species at all,

"Progress"?

Commence talking out of ass... NOW! and prior to humanity making things so that "everyone is a winner" or "everyone gets a prize for participation" the fact was that the weak or untalented were doomed to a life of basic obscurity and those with talents and desirable genes were the ones who got what they wanted, of course with occasional luck the weak could get into the "A" group. (for lack of better description, we'll use an "A" and "B" reference to the desired place in society and the undesired level) Typically, adolescents have a need to be wanted, or cool, and hang with the "A" crowd if they can manage to get in their ranks. The "B" crowd and lower levels (I won't digress into the lower levels, we'll use two for this purpose) are seen as undesirable for the purpose of this arguement. Most will aim for at one time or another getting into "A" crowd, if for nothing else than social status. (I know that this is somewhat conflicting with the personalitly profiles of the people on this site, but this is just an example for the sake or arguement) Typically, the "A" crowd has the desirable females and that's what the males want to be around, which in school age the role will tend to be filled by the "jocks" because of their physical superiority at the time. Granted, this may change later in life and intelligence may supercede physical prowess, but at this point we are talking the middle to high school age individual. This leads to a lacking in development of the "B" grade males, as they have not been able to pursue the females of choice (while there are exceptions!) and therefore become behind in social interactions. Granted that most of the time there is an inherent switch in profiles later in life. The point of this rant is quite simply, that without some vocal minorities screaming that everyone deserves to play, the weak would be left out which would allow the stong to continue to progress without intervention, leading to a greater developed species. This is very well noted in black athletes. And i'm diving into this not as a racial discussion, but one of genes. During slavery, blacks were bred for superiority of strength to make them better servants able to do more work in the same amount of time. This inadvertantly led to larger, more adept black males in the future (which is now the present, for example Shaquille O'neal) who are much more well adapted to sports requiring toned physique. This is seen throughout professional sports. This effect was achieved through selective breeding. Ass-talking over in 3...2...

Anyway, I am beginning to lose track and rant now. The bottom line is that, without intervention, which allows the meek to "play the game" then nature would eliminate a lot of undesirable traits.

Uh... Sounds good to me! Righto!

 

[pjoa09]

@GeneralPatton

I don't know how it didn't strike you that a lot of species have homosexuals within them. You just read the article "Homosexual behavior in animals". There are over 20 subtopics for homosexuality. You'd have to refute homosexuality on 20 subtopics. Including the American Bison who just has anal sex with his male friend. Denying this is like saying the world is flat, IMO.

As for bonobos, its not a dick contest. I don't know but my dick contests didn't involve a naked guy trying to fuck my dick face front. It's gay gay. You can youtube up the videos. You will see it. It's not 'Hey, yo wassup' in anyway.


I will stand by one thing, homosexuality is a choice. A male can screw another male but it's not repulsing for them to have sex with a female. I just don't think that is possible. They may adopt a child in order to remain faithful to their homosexual partners but in the wild, other animals do have sex with females too. I don't think there is any exclusivity in it.

 

[BigApplePi]

Mutation reason for homosexuality

Here is another way to express what I tried to say earlier:

Mutations in general are good if some of them result in adaptability. Mutations are random variations in genes. Homosexuality is a mutation of a kind. Homosexuality is a variation in sexual interest. If we go with the gene mutation correspondence, we want variation in sexual interest in the same sense incest is NOT variation. Homosexuality is variation that could go too far. Most mutations fail.

Does this make sense? I hope what I'm after here gets across.

 

[Sanctum]

I think Homosexuality is merely a product of conditioning. We are taught that men are suppose to be a certain way, you know the macho type. When a child is growing up and he doesn't display those traits, or just has lower testosterone then most he feels like he should be gay. As time goes on there is more of an emphasis on the Macho type guy exemplified in media, in turn, there will be an increase in homosexuality among those who feel like they could never be what society wants them to be. From then on these people condition themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex. I got this idea from a friend of mine who is a male dancer, hes not gay but he said that it was important for him to learn how to control his boners while dancing with the girls, which he has accomplished, if this is possible then making yourself attracted to someone that your naturally not suppose to be is possible.

 

[Vrecknidj]

...Homosexuals are eliminated over time because they don't fit in with natural selection.

This isn't necessarily the case. Any trait, even one which results in the complete destruction of an organism's ability to pass on its genes, can be successful. All that has to happen is that that organism's capacity to transmit its genes through its relatives remains in tact.

Just consider the hypothetical case of human homosexuals in a population who happen to not have children of their own, but who always engage in support of their kin such that their siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc., all have offspring who receive benefits they wouldn't have otherwise received without these very beneficent homosexual relatives. If this population out-reproduces another population that lacks such homosexuals, and, if homosexuality is "genetic" (not that I'm claiming here that it is, after all, the only thing a gene does is code for proteins, so, there's really no gene that is "for" any phenotypic trait whatsoever), then this population will continue to thrive and produce homosexuals even though the homosexuals in that population do not themselves reproduce.

See the work of Robert Trivers, but especially W.D. Hamilton.

Dave

 

[GeneralPatton]

Bottom line about homosexuality*:

There is a biological explanation for homosexuality, whether it be genetic or uterine development (see my other posts in this thread). The only reason someone would argue against this is because forcing the issue to be a matter of free will puts it in the realm of morality - an ancient morality (Leviticus) that is almost entirely not followed aside from a few choice passages.

Morally it is wrong, and logically it is wrong. Thats the bottom line.

uhm... HIV had nothing to do with gender (there was a conspiracy theory though taht it was man made and homosexuals in new york were the initial test subjects).

I never said it had anything to do with gender if I recall. I said that homosexuality expedited the spread. And I give the "'government made aids" conspiracy bullshit about the same amount of credit to the "the government flew the planes into the twin towers on 9-11.

that dont ask dont tell, so its cool for a guy to tell how he ravaged a hooker but its a crime to say that you kissed your male partner if you were male. ehm... maybe in the best interest of homophobic individuals. and you know something, a lot of homophobes are actually closet gays... according to some studies

Well, you have to realize that most military men are conservative (republican whatever you wanna call it) and share the whole morals and family values POV and quite frankly, if I was one of them and we had a homosexual in our squad I wouldn't really be all that inclined to act if something happened that spilled his blood. (and you can all flame me for that statement all you want, I say that becuase thats the way I see it) Sometimes that disease doesn't surface for years after contracted, and I'll be damned if i'd be willing to risk contracting it. However with don't ask don't tell no one knew, so at least the unity of the squad would have been maintained (and I have many military friends, and they are quite intolerant of this)

Is 'natural selection' relevant anymore, especially in the west? From what I have heard, there is sperm available at almost every street corner, and even a pet veterinary can inseminate. For guys(with money) there are plenty of willing surrogates. Homosexuals are surely not eliminated. Quite often lately there has even been shortage on the sperm marked for gay women, and one have had to ask the men(gay?) to step up and donate more at the clinics.

Natural selection will be relevant as long as their is life on this planet, or any other for that matter. And previously in this thread we have already covered this, saying that prior to technology intervening and man taking genetics and the "god complex" into his own hands, nature's way was the way it was supposed to be.

Here is a question. Why would anyone be anti homosexuality if it doesn't affect them directly? I'm not talking disease or promiscuity. Heterosexuals can have that too. I'm not talking family as homosexuals can have family if they want to and the population is seven billion anyway. So other than those, why would anyone be anti homosexuality?

There are many reasons. For one, being that it is a lifestyle I simply don't approve of and have absolutely no respect for, I don't appreciate it being taught in school health programs and being slathered on Nickelodeon, a childrens channel. I don't want my children taught that this is ok, because it's not. I find it unacceptable that gay marriage be allowed for multiple reasons, one of which is the tax benefits that come with marriage. Marriage and the tax breaks that come with it were designed by church, and then sanctioned by the Federal Government. So, it violates the principles on which the benefits of getting married served for normal Man and Wife couples.

So is particle physics. It's just dust, right?

OK I'll bite and play into your attempted sense of humor. The basics of evoltion are what I stated. They can be stated in just a couple sentences, and could be taught to a middle school student in a short amount of time to a degree that they could understand and carry on a conversation about. Particle physics takes months and years to get a simple grasp on. So, if you want to compare a peanut butter sandwhich dinner to a 4 course gourmet meal, yes.

At this point I'm already asking myself whether or not it's worth the effort to continue responding. No. It doesn't. Not in the least. You're in Spencerland, and I'm not sure there's any hope. It seems the walls are caving quickly.

Are you like 15 or something? You seem to be searching for something that you either don't understand or don't have the ability to comprehend.

Commence talking out of ass... NOW!

Everything I said there is true. People are so concerned about everyone being equal and recieving the same amount of appreciation and awards, that it stunts the growth of individuals who are gifted in what they do, since they do it extremely well but the moron who doesn't understand it at all get an award to. As a matter of a fact, that system has a name........communism.

I don't know how it didn't strike you that a lot of species have homosexuals within them. You just read the article "Homosexual behavior in animals". There are over 20 subtopics for homosexuality. You'd have to refute homosexuality on 20 subtopics. Including the American Bison who just has anal sex with his male friend. Denying this is like saying the world is flat, IMO.

It's being portrayed here that homosexuality in nature is as prevelant as it is in SanFransico. It's not. And the Bison actually makes a fabulous example for my point. Their split society (males only coming near females to breed and then leaving to wander solo or in small group) had nearly lead to their extinction (I realize that over harvesting did a number on them) I believe I saw at Ted's Montana Grill the other night (thats Ted Turner, the largest land owner in the US or perhaps even the world, who keeps bison herds on his ranches, and serves Bison meat at that resturaunt) that there are fewer than 15,000 left in the wild of North America, most of which are not even pure blooded Bison.

Mutations in general are good if some of them result in adaptability. Mutations are random variations in genes. Homosexuality is a mutation of a kind. Homosexuality is a variation in sexual interest. If we go with the gene mutation correspondence, we want variation in sexual interest in the same sense incest is NOT variation. Homosexuality is variation that could go too far. Most mutations fail.

I don't believe that it is genetic, mutation or not.

I think Homosexuality is merely a product of conditioning.

Finally someone I agree with. My point was that homosexuality does nothing to further the human species, and that by circumventing the way nature would have naturally eliminated certain weak bloodlines, and then giving them children to raise under those conditions is wrong not only morally, but also scientifically since it's possible that the bloodline of an adpoted child was one of benefit to the species but the conditioning from the environment led the child to believe that they should be and act like their parents could cause humanity to loose out on possible great genetics.

This isn't necessarily the case. Any trait, even one which results in the complete destruction of an organism's ability to pass on its genes, can be successful. All that has to happen is that that organism's capacity to transmit its genes through its relatives remains in tact.

Just consider the hypothetical case of human homosexuals in a population who happen to not have children of their own, but who always engage in support of their kin such that their siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc., all have offspring who receive benefits they wouldn't have otherwise received without these very beneficent homosexual relatives. If this population out-reproduces another population that lacks such homosexuals, and, if homosexuality is "genetic" (not that I'm claiming here that it is, after all, the only thing a gene does is code for proteins, so, there's really no gene that is "for" any phenotypic trait whatsoever), then this population will continue to thrive and produce homosexuals even though the homosexuals in that population do not themselves reproduce.

While I do get what you're pointing out, I don't think that the small amount of exposure we are talking about there is enough to warp the childs mind. I have friends who have gay relatives (the token gay uncle or whatever) and typically they don't spend that much time around them, and even if they do they go home to their parents every night, a mother and a father.

In the end I can see that most of you have closed minds to your already formed opinions. An undisputable fact is simply that homosexual individuals do not contribute to the furthering of humans at the end of the day. Saying that it is someones choice, thats fine call it what you want to. I can also get on the interstate going the wrong way if I want to chance it, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I personally take no issue with the people as long as they don't expose my children to it. Just like I agreed with the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Don't tell meaning don't verbally tell me, and don't give me visual clues.

 

[pjoa09]

It's being portrayed here that homosexuality in nature is as prevelant as it is in SanFransico. It's not. And the Bison actually makes a fabulous example for my point. Their split society (males only coming near females to breed and then leaving to wander solo or in small group) had nearly lead to their extinction (I realize that over harvesting did a number on them) I believe I saw at Ted's Montana Grill the other night (thats Ted Turner, the largest land owner in the US or perhaps even the world, who keeps bison herds on his ranches, and serves Bison meat at that resturaunt) that there are fewer than 15,000 left in the wild of North America, most of which are not even pure blooded Bison.

It's quite a regional thing. I am sure the whole world isn't San Francisco. You just deferred from the point. You are claiming that homosexual behavior is against evolution not living in solitude. Lots of animals live solitary lives(i.e. orangutan) and have no problem doing their role in passing on their genes. I am pretty sure the uncontrolled hunting of Bisons was what brought them close to extinction.

 

[redbaron]

Morally it is wrong, and logically it is wrong. Thats the bottom line.

Explain why.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

OK I'll bite and play into your attempted sense of humor. The basics of evoltion are what I stated. They can be stated in just a couple sentences (<-I'm assuming that's how you learned it? ), and could be taught to a middle school student in a short amount of time to a degree that they could understand and carry on a conversation about. Particle physics takes months and years to get a simple grasp on. So, if you want to compare a peanut butter sandwhich dinner to a 4 course gourmet meal, yes.

Let me help you with that.

Spoiler

At this point I'm already asking myself whether or not it's worth the effort to continue responding.

Ne ftw.

Are you like 15 or something? You seem to be searching for something that you either don't understand or don't have the ability to comprehend.

See posts 96, 93, 81, 79, 76, and 65. I'll let the forum be the judge.

Everything I said there is true. As a matter of a fact, that system has a name........communism.

So McCarthy, you don't know what communism is either, confusing meritocracy with feel-good materialism. Tsk tsk.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Morally it is wrong,

That's interesting. Let's break this down based on moral schools of thought.

I shouldn't even have to ask about ethical egoism. Is there some argument that shows that homosexuality is not in the best interest of the individual homosexuals? You claimed that HIV spread because of homosexuals, but this is not the case. HIV spreads because of sex, whether one is a homosexual or not. The spread of HIV has more to do with sexual health and sex education than it does sexual orientation - there is nothing inherent about homosexuality that makes it more liable to spread HIV than heterosexuality.

From a utilitarian point of view, homosexuality does not increase aggregate suffering, but oppressive and homophobic cultural hegemony does. Homosexuals in a homosexual relationship increase their own pleasure but do not decrease the pleasure of those around them. The only way that a homosexual relationship would decrease the pleasure of those not involved in the relationship is if the relationship was already concluded to be immoral and those around them felt that the immorality caused them suffering, but this would require the conclusion of immorality to have already been reached without any justification, making it circular - "it's immoral because it decreases my pleasure because it is immoral."

From a deontological point of view (Kantian), the idea of universalized homosexuality is a red herring, but one that is no different from the moral precept that concludes abstinence is morally good - would one universalize abstinence, as well? What a Kantian ethics view of homosexuality would say is that it would not be immoral to universalize that other people can choose to be homosexual if they please (I don't agree that homosexuality is a choice, but I'm looking at it purely through the lens of Kantian ethics here). However, it would be immoral to universalize a law that allows for the abolition of rights based on sexual preference as this would be treating people as a means to simply satisfy the sensibilities of oneself - it would be analogous to making it illegal for people to wear blue shirts since you don't want to see people wearing blue shirts. This would require that it be morally justified that laws can be made solely based on the sensibilities of a subset of the population.

From the point of view of virtue ethics, how does homosexuality take away from a persons virtue? Does it somehow offset them from the virtuous mean?

From the point of view as God/god(s) as moral arbiters, there are many problems. The first being that the majority of religious moral codes are not followed, only a few being chosen based on the individuals sensibilities. The second being that no God/god(s) are known to exist, and if any do exist that nobody knows for sure which ones or how exactly they wish for us to conduct our lives. And even if we did know which God/god(s) existed and how they wanted us to conduct our lives, that would not even make what they say morally right eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

and logically it is wrong.

I'd be interested both in what you mean by logically wrong and perhaps a demonstration of how homosexuality is logically wrong, perhaps in the same manner as the following:

Homosexuality = individuals being sexually and/or romantically attracted to people of the same sex.
Some individuals are sexually and/or romantically attracted to people of the same sex.
Therefore homosexuality exists.

If you are not a homosexual, then don't engage in homosexual relationships.
You are not a homosexual.
Therefore you do not have to engage in homosexual relationships.

If homosexuality is detrimental to society, then the presence of homosexuals should hinder or prevent those requirements that must be satisfied for society to persist.
The requirements for society to persist are fulfilled.
Homosexuals exist.
Therefore homosexuality does not prevent the normal functioning of society.

 

[BigApplePi]

First GeneralPatton let me thank you for your fine service during WWII.

BigApplePi: Here is a question. Why would anyone be anti homosexuality if it doesn't affect them directly? I'm not talking disease or promiscuity. Heterosexuals can have that too. I'm not talking family as homosexuals can have family if they want to and the population is seven billion anyway. So other than those, why would anyone be anti homosexuality?

There are many reasons. For one, being that it is a lifestyle I simply don't approve of and have absolutely no respect for, I don't appreciate it being taught in school health programs and being slathered on Nickelodeon, a childrens channel. I don't want my children taught that this is ok, because it's not. I find it unacceptable that gay marriage be allowed for multiple reasons, one of which is the tax benefits that come with marriage. Marriage and the tax breaks that come with it were designed by church, and then sanctioned by the Federal Government. So, it violates the principles on which the benefits of getting married served for normal Man and Wife couples.

I agree that a certain number of homosexuals live a different lifestyle. I have multiple reactions to that. I'm fond of my own (hetero) lifestyle. I like the support of those who have the same lifestyle as mine. However I recognize there are different lifestyles alien to my own. My influence over theirs is limited. If I want to feel comfortable, I associate with own own. If I want to venture out, I can take an interest in others lifestyles or cultures. I will disapprove only if they try to impose or otherwise interfere with me. In general people with different lifestyles make life more interesting and I'm willing to take that interest, certainly not to suppress theirs. If they come into conflict with me, I will address that as needed.

BAP: Mutations in general are good if some of them result in adaptability. Mutations are random variations in genes. Homosexuality is a mutation of a kind. Homosexuality is a variation in sexual interest. If we go with the gene mutation correspondence, we want variation in sexual interest in the same sense incest is NOT variation. Homosexuality is variation that could go too far. Most mutations fail.

I don't believe that it is genetic, mutation or not.

I'm afraid homosexuality is not homosexuality. By that I mean there are different kinds. Some are purely environmental as you might find in a prison. Some has to do with brain differences. It is known that the brains of women have differences from men, but I'm no expert on that. There is also a sexual uncertainty in sex organs said to occur in one percent of the population. This is often detected at birth. So you see, a person on growing up may not be able to clearly say they are of one sex or the other ... an unfortunate situation. Are we to discard or isolate these people from our population or accept them and learn about them?

 

[Obrens]

I agree that a certain number of homosexuals live a different lifestyle. I have multiple reactions to that. I'm fond of my own (hetero) lifestyle. I like the support of those who have the same lifestyle as mine. However I recognize there are different lifestyles alien to my own. My influence over theirs is limited. If I want to feel comfortable, I associate with own own. If I want to venture out, I can take an interest in others lifestyles or cultures. I will disapprove only if they try to impose or otherwise interfere with me. In general people with different lifestyles make life more interesting and I'm willing to take that interest, certainly not to suppress theirs. If they come into conflict with me, I will address that as needed.

I suppose you would say a culture in which weaker, women, those of lower caste... are oppressed is not in the moral right. You might even say the same for a lifestyle that, say, has a destructive effect on the environment. Homosexuality, in GeneralPatton's opinion has a destructive effect on our species. He's not really against homosexuals, he just thinks the phenomenon of homosexuality should disappear or at least not be promoted the way it is being promoted today. That's all assuming I get what he's saying right. Well, that's the kind of reasoning I've encountered before... to be more specific, that's what my mom thinks.
Well I didn't really plan to reply to this thread since I'm not sure of my own opinion, but I had to react to your: "I will disapprove only if they try to impose or otherwise interfere with me," which I think we can now agree you were wrong about. At least that was the purpose of my first two sentences.