NationStates Jolt Archive

A spin off from the "Good news in Vermont" thread. I want to see opinions and facts on what homosexuality actually is.

In my mind, it's definitely something biological, probably in the brain. I've heard some pretty far out and irrational explanations from left-wingers; one guy said it was a fetish, while another said it just "is" (sounds like something out of creationism to me >_<).

Normal?

I definitely think it's biological or neurological. I don't think it's genetic however, neither do I think it's determined by 'nurture'. I think that whatever happens in your brain to cause you to like the sausage instead of the vagoo is completely random, so there's nothing parents can do to 'prevent' it.

A spin off from the "Good news in Vermont" thread. I want to see opinions and facts on what homosexuality actually is.

In my mind, it's definitely something biological, probably in the brain. I've heard some pretty far out and irrational explanations from left-wingers; one guy said it was a fetish, while another said it just "is" (sounds like something out of creationism to me >_<).

You!

In all seriousness? I think for a minority it's probably a consumerist life-style choice, and those people are usually arrogant and stupid; for most homosexuals, it's neurological.

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

God gave us free will, and homosexuals make the choice

I definitely think it's biological or neurological. I don't think it's genetic however, neither do I think it's determined by 'nurture'. I think that whatever happens in your brain to cause you to like the sausage instead of the vagoo is completely random, so there's nothing parents can do to 'prevent' it.

That's the way I see it too.

Normal?

Pretty much this. A normal sexual behaviour that has been stigmatised by society because it was seen as 'immoral' or 'disgusting.'

It pretty much is part of a person's mind just like heterosexualty.

[obvious]The only big difference is that homsexuality is between two members of the same sex. [/obvious part]

It appears in lower animals. It is therefore normal.

</thread>

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

God gave us free will, and homosexuals make the choice

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Christianity? Sure pick up a bible

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

God gave us free will, and homosexuals make the choice

If it's so wrong, why do you dudes constantly sing and preach about how much you love this guy with a beard who lived two thousand years ago.

It appears in lower animals. It is therefore normal.

</thread>

Who cares if it's normal? I'm asking what causes it. We know that left-handedness is normal, but if I asked what causes it, you wouldn't say "IT'S JUST IS NOW SHUT UP YOU NAZI TOSSER!" like you do when I ask the same question about homosexuality, would you?

Christianity? Sure pick up a bible

You smoke the bible? What's it made of, hemp?:p

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

God gave us free will, and homosexuals make the choice

We have a place for people who actually buy that static, even in the face of all the evidence against that. There are plenty of doctors in white coats and the walls are nice and spongy.

Chemical imbalance in the brain or genetic defect, either way not a choice for most and thus the government shouldn't discriminate and unions should be legal before the secular state.


For a minority, I think it's something that is faked/exaggerated for that whole 'talk with a lisp, be girly, everything's fabolous and just really be out in your face about it.'

Who cares if it's normal? I'm asking what causes it. We know that left-handedness is normal, but if I asked what causes it, you wouldn't say "IT'S JUST IS NOW SHUT UP YOU NAZI TOSSER!" like you do when I ask the same question about homosexuality, would you?

I read this one study that says it's a change on the X chromosome.

Chemical imbalance in the brain or genetic defect, either way not a choice for most and thus the government shouldn't discriminate and unions should be legal before the secular state.


You probably shouldn't use the words 'defect' and 'imbalance', since that suggests it's inherently bad and unnatural, and I'm not sure that's exactly what you're trying to say.

You smoke the bible? What's it made of, hemp?:p

Now that bishops can't traffic children, I guess this is their new revenue-maker...

Now that bishops can't traffic children, I guess this is their new revenue-maker...

lol

I read this one study that says it's a change on the X chromosome.

I once saw a thing on TV where they analysed brain slices, and one part of the brain is different between males and females; when gay men's brains were analysed, that part was closer to straight female than straight male.

For a minority, I think it's something that is faked/exaggerated for that whole 'talk with a lisp, be girly, everything's fabolous and just really be out in your face about it.'

I've always wondered; why they heck do a lot of gays do that? My brain isn't typical either, but I don't act completely different from everybody else.

You probably shouldn't use the words 'defect' and 'imbalance', since that suggests it's inherently bad and unnatural, and I'm not sure that's exactly what you're trying to say.

Natural does not always mean good, while defect does not always mean bad.

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

God gave us free will, and homosexuals make the choice

So when did you choose to be heterosexual?

All the evidence suggests homosexuality is an innate trait of a percentage of the population, not a choice. As a Christian, you presumably believe that God created people with their various desires, and as God is good, not evil, I fail to see why xe would create someone with desires that were inherently sinful. Surely that would be a mistake, which you claim xe does not make. In brief, the fact that homosexuality is natural implies that it is not sinful.

I've always wondered; why they heck do a lot of gays do that? My brain isn't typical either, but I don't act completely different from everybody else.

Anyone that actually does that (aside from the possibility that the lisp is legit) is probably grabbing for attention. Given the negative reaction a lot of parents give, I suppose it's understandable.

I've always wondered; why they heck do a lot of gays do that? My brain isn't typical either, but I don't act completely different from everybody else.

Maybe they are real life trolls looking for kicks after having been banned in every internet forum ever, and every future forum ever.

I've always wondered; why they heck do a lot of gays do that? My brain isn't typical either, but I don't act completely different from everybody else.

I asked once, the answer is "fun".

Natural does not always mean good, while defect does not always mean bad.

I agree with the first, but not necessarily with the second... I can't think of any instance where "defect" doesn't mean anything negative.

I agree with the first, but not necessarily with the second... I can't think of any instance where "defect" doesn't mean anything negative.

Defection from America is always a good thing...

I agree with the first, but not necessarily with the second... I can't think of any instance where "defect" doesn't mean anything negative.

Autism is a biological defect, but yet people with autistic spectrum disorders can still live normal lives, and even have an advantage in some areas. That's an example of defect being not bad.

Biological attraction to the same sex.

Next question please.

Defection from America is always a good thing...
Stop trolling. How old are you, 12?
I agree with the first, but not necessarily with the second... I can't think of any instance where "defect" doesn't mean anything negative.
The CD4 Co-receptor on the immune cell is the primary way for the HIV virus to attach to the cell and inject its DNA into one's cell. Some human bodies have a defect in which they lack those CD4 Co-receptors. . . and thus are not receptive to the HIV virus.

Autism is a biological defect, but yet people with autistic spectrum disorders can still live normal lives, and even have an advantage in some areas. That's an example of defect being not bad.

I being one of them.

Just wish to bring this up, before you think of us as 'magical non-existing news-story propaganda'. I find it offensive as to how you refer to us as a group. We're far from unified in our behavior and standings, unlike homosexuals.

Stop trolling. How old are you, 12?


Don't play the troll card. You find the idea offensive because you're subjectively biased to how it sounds.

I being one of them.

Just wish to bring this up, before you think of us as 'magical non-existing news-story propaganda'. I find it offensive as to how you refer to us as a group. We're far from unified in our behavior and standings, unlike homosexuals.

I refer to Americans as a group, Republicans as group, Patients in the Sacred Heart Hospital as a group, and address the individual people as individuals.

What's wrong with that?

Autism is a biological defect, but yet people with autistic spectrum disorders can still live normal lives, and even have an advantage in some areas. That's an example of defect being not bad.

Considering that in most cases, they have serious difficulties living a "normal" life, both due to society's prejudices and their own problems at social interaction.
While I wouldn't call autism inherently negaitve, it's not exactly positive, either, I would say.

Don't play the troll card. You find the idea offensive because you're subjectively biased to how it sounds.
He finds it offensive because, with all likelihood, you're just doing it to get a shocked or angry response.

I refer to Americans as a group, Republicans as group, Patients in the Sacred Heart Hospital as a group, and address the individual people as individuals.

What's wrong with that?

Except in the cases of disorders like autism, have consideration to how it strikes a nerve with someone personally; an ideology is never personal unless you're completely deluded -- I think you play on this fact with some to get your own kicks. Hmmm...

I being one of them.

Just wish to bring this up, before you think of us as 'magical non-existing news-story propaganda'. I find it offensive as to how you refer to us as a group. We're far from unified in our behavior and standings, unlike homosexuals.

Don't get me wrong here, but the only aspect defining homosexuals as a group is their homossxuality. Much as with autism.
Other than that, homosexuals come in all shapes, sizes and flavours.

I being one of them.

Just wish to bring this up, before you think of us as 'magical non-existing news-story propaganda'. I find it offensive as to how you refer to us as a group. We're far from unified in our behavior and standings, unlike homosexuals.

Yeah, well, I also have an autistic spectrum disorder, so...

He finds it offensive because, with all likelihood, you're just doing it to get a shocked or angry response.

Because that's the cop out to avoid debate.

Nice one.

I asked once, the answer is "fun".
I've always wondered; why they heck do a lot of gays do that? My brain isn't typical either, but I don't act completely different from everybody else.
Yeah, it's basically real-life trolling.

You probably shouldn't use the words 'defect' and 'imbalance', since that suggests it's inherently bad and unnatural, and I'm not sure that's exactly what you're trying to say.
They are the correct terms and I shall use them as such. Bad or good is dependent on one's viewpoint, where as chemical imbalance and/or genetic defect are simply what 'is'.

It's also my opinion that in the [near] future scientists will be able to target the exact cause of homosexuality and will be able to 'cure' it, rather like in the final X-men. Whether anyone should 'cure' it is, to borrow from President Obama, way above my paygrade. :p

The CD4 Co-receptor on the immune cell is the primary way for the HIV virus to attach to the cell and inject its DNA into one's cell. Some human bodies have a defect in which they lack those CD4 Co-receptors. . . and thus are not receptive to the HIV virus.

Ah, ok, I wasn't aware that this was regarded as a defect. I had only heard it referred to as a mutation or variation so far. Good point, though.

Yeah, well, I also have an autistic spectrum disorder, so...

Ah. You could've said. The way you were using it, I could've sworn you were a neurotypical using our existence to again justify your own personal standings when you couldn't give **** about us. That's what strikes my nerves most.

Yeah, well, I also have an autistic spectrum disorder, so...

Yes, everyone on the Internet is a gay person with Asperger's... :rolleyes:

Yes, everyone on the Internet is a gay person with Asperger's... :rolleyes:

Just because you don't like the idea that there's more of us than in your microcosm of an existence outside that door, doesn't mean we have to be made 'trolls' in your eyes.

Autism is a biological defect, but yet people with autistic spectrum disorders can still live normal lives, and even have an advantage in some areas. That's an example of defect being not bad.
No offense, but Autism is negative simply be definition:

Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.
Don't play the troll card. You find the idea offensive because you're subjectively biased to how it sounds.
No. You can always leave the US, as it's a free country. But defecting implies not just leaving, but treason and providing opponents and/or enemies with information and is thus illegal. And I can't exactly see how that could 'always be a good thing', as you said, Mr. Troll.

Yes, everyone on the Internet is a gay person with Asperger's... :rolleyes:

You have no idea how annoyed I get when nerds and geeks self-diagnose with Aspergers and then use it as an excuse to be morons.

Even though I self-diagnosed, but to be fair, Aspergers runs in my family and I have the same telltale signs as a relative who has been diagnosed.

And I never said I was gay.

Just because you don't like the idea that there's more of us than in your microcosm of an existence outside that door, doesn't mean we have to be made 'trolls' in your eyes.

I'm just noting that while the percentage of people with Asperger's in real life is very, very small, more than half of the posters on Internet forums claim to have Asperger's.

It's highly unlikely.

No offense, but Autism is negative simply be definition:

Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.

Meh. Mine's borderline, and it's given me a better memory, so I'm pretty happy with it.

No offense, but Autism is negative simply be definition:

Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.

No. You can always leave the US, as it's a free country. But defecting implies not just leaving, but treason and providing opponents and/or enemies with information and is thus illegal. And I can't exactly see how that could 'always be a good thing', as you said, Mr. Troll.

Okay Mr. Inverse-Troll, what makes the US empire automatically 'good' in it's own right? That being said, I'm not from the US; it's great that you're the master of presumptiveness.

Except in the cases of disorders like autism, have consideration to how it strikes a nerve with someone personally; an ideology is never personal unless you're completely deluded --
:confused:
I think you play on this fact with some to get your own kicks. Hmmm...
Stop striking at shadows please.
Because that's the cop out to avoid debate.

Nice one.

Cop out? Because I pointed out that, with all likelihood, the comment was meant to provoke a shocked response, giving no details as to why it would be good to defect from America, nor any reasons as to why it always good to do so, with the knowledge that Americans may be offended? You know, it might be nice if you had some consideration on how insulting and degrading someone's country can strike a nerve with them personally...

Meh. Mine's borderline, and it's given me a better memory, so I'm pretty happy with it.

Likewise.

Meh. Mine's borderline, and it's given me a better memory, so I'm pretty happy with it.

I have ADD and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weakne- Ooh! Squirrel! *chases*

I'm just noting that while the percentage of people with Asperger's in real life is very, very small, more than half of the posters on Internet forums claim to have Asperger's.

It's highly unlikely.

Aspergers is really difficult and tedious to diagnose, and my cousin's family had a lot of trouble getting her diagnosed, so it's very likely that Aspergers is under-recognised in general society.

to say homosexuality is normal would be wrong, due to the fact that if humans were more primitive homosexuals would have no means of reproduction thus meaning their line of genes would go kaput.

Homosexuality is a mutation/alteration of something genetic, or a possible abnormality in the functions within the brain. I'm not trying to imply being homosexual is bad, but it is most definitely not normal

Okay Mr. Inverse-Troll, what makes the US empire automatically 'good' in it's own right? That being said, I'm not from the US; it's great that you're the master of presumptiveness.

*Deep breath, deep breath*

He never said that. He was asking why you said the US was always bad. It's so great that, if TAI is the master of presumptuousness, you must be the god of Presumptuousness.

:confused:

Stop striking at shadows please.


Cop out? Because I pointed out that, with all likelihood, the comment was meant to provoke a shocked response, giving no details as to why it would be good to defect from America, nor any reasons as to why it always good to do so, with the knowledge that Americans may be offended? You know, it might be nice if you had some consideration on how insulting and degrading someone's country can strike a nerve with them personally...

You throw this 'with all likelyhood' and yet you've no base facts to deduce this except your own biases still, especially when considering your assertion that the US is automatically the 'best' of all world-evils.

I have ADD and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weakne- Ooh! Squirrel! *chases*

I have a vagina, and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknes-- ooh! Squirrel!

Okay Mr. Inverse-Troll, what makes the US empire automatically 'good' in it's own right? That being said, I'm not from the US; it's great that you're the master of presumptiveness.
:p You are fun.

Look, you said it was always a good thing to defect from America.

I then made my case why it's not good to defect from America.

You then get mad that I use America in my counter-argument to your comment about America. :p

Likewise.
I wouldn't be so certain, after reading the above. ;)

I have a vagina, and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknes-- ooh! Squirrel!

I think you have another issue lulz

It appears in lower animals. It is therefore normal.

</thread>

You're conclusion does not logically follow your statement.

What you are arguing, is that anything that has ever happened between any two living creatures ever must be completely normal.

I'd suggest some form of introduction to logic.

I'm not saying that homo. isn't 'normal' but rather pointing out that Milks did not provide any actual evidence to support his conclusion... but he set it up in a cause-effect logical argument....

:p You are fun.

Look, you said it was always a good thing to defect from America.

I then made my case why it's not good to defect from America.

You then get mad that I use America in my counter-argument to your comment about America. :p


I wouldn't be so certain, after reading the above. ;)

Stop deducing emotions from text, sounds like self-projection.

I have a vagina, and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknes-- ooh! Squirrel!

That just sounds wrong.

to say homosexuality is normal would be wrong, due to the fact that if humans were more primitive homosexuals would have no means of reproduction thus meaning their line of genes would go kaput.

Homosexuality is a mutation/alteration of something genetic, or a possible abnormality in the functions within the brain. I'm not trying to imply being homosexual is bad, but it is most definitely not normal

Well, it would depend greatly upon how you are using the term. Considering the fact that there is evidence of "lesser" mammals exhibiting homosexuality. I would say that having a percentage of any population that is homosexual definitely qualifies as normal.

Having said that, what was probably meant was natural.

You're conclusion does not logically follow your statement.

What you are arguing, is that anything that has ever happened between any two living creatures ever must be completely normal.

I'd suggest some form of introduction to logic.

That's true. Retardation happens in animals, but that doesn't mean we should brush it off as normal and not try to do anything with it.

I have a vagina, and I'm pretty happy with it. I've learned to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknes-- ooh! Squirrel!
ohmy GOD thats nasty!

Stop deducing emotions from text, sounds like self-projection.

Ok, so a real troll, then. I won't waste further time with you.

Ok, so a real troll, then. I won't waste further time with you.

You still haven't proven anything; I honestly don't care if you report me to the mods either, I've nothing to hide, and I'm utmost genuous in everything I offer when I say I believe it all, when I say I'm actually the one being traumatized to the point of panic by your inverse-trolling.

You still haven't proven anything; I honestly don't care if you report me to the mods either, I've nothing to hide, and I'm utmost genuous in everything I offer when I say I believe it all, when I say I'm actually the one being traumatized to the point of panic by your inverse-trolling.

How does that work?

For a minority, I think it's something that is faked/exaggerated for that whole 'talk with a lisp, be girly, everything's fabolous and just really be out in your face about it.'
There are plenty of hetrosexuals who are in your face about it as well, especially in Essex.

You throw this 'with all likelyhood' and yet you've no base facts to deduce this except your own biases still, especially when considering your assertion that the US is automatically the 'best' of all world-evils.

The best? What the hell is wrong with you? Normally, I try not tog et so pissed over a simple debate, but when you start pulling random words out of your own ass and claim the other poster said it, it tends to strike a nerve with me, personally.

And the reasons that I believe you were, and still are, trolling goes as follows:

1. First off, anyone with any amount of common sense would know a statement such as that would be offensive. Not trolling in itself, but when grouped with other reasons...

2. You gave no details as to why, and merely portrayed the US as 'The Great Satan', saying it's always good to defect. Blanket statements always make good arguments, right?

3. You've spent the last few pages (one page for me, using 40 posts per page), completely avoiding the question, and instead trying to make the posters referencing and attempting to debate you look like fools, when you only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool. It's what happens when you falsely claim someone made a comment they did not when the source material is right next to it!

4. Ever hear of this thing in psychology called projection? You've spent the last page calling people trolls, and claiming 'cop outs'. And, once more, with absolutely nothing to back this up.

And learn how to spell would you? Using large words does not make you look the least bit intelligent when you spell them wrong.

You still haven't proven anything; I honestly don't care if you report me to the mods either, I've nothing to hide, and I'm utmost genuous in everything I offer when I say I believe it all, when I say I'm actually the one being traumatized to the point of panic by your inverse-trolling.

Generous in what you offer? What the heck? And you're being traumatized by an INTERNET DEBATE?

Grow up. Please.

The best? What the hell is wrong with you? Normally, I try not tog et so pissed over a simple debate, but when you start pulling random words out of your own ass and claim the other poster said it, it tends to strike a nerve with me, personally.

And the reasons that I believe you were, and still are, trolling goes as follows:

1. First off, anyone with any amount of common sense would know a statement such as that would be offensive. Not trolling in itself, but when grouped with other reasons...

2. You gave no details as to why, and merely portrayed the US as 'The Great Satan', saying it's always good to defect. Blanket statements always make good arguments, right?

3. You've spent the last few pages (one page for me, using 40 posts per page), completely avoiding the question, and instead trying to make the posters referencing and attempting to debate you look like fools, when you only succeeded in making yourself look like a fool. It's what happens when you falsely claim someone made a comment they did not when the source material is right next to it!

4. Ever hear of this thing in psychology called projection? You've spent the last page calling people trolls, and claiming 'cop outs'. And, once more, with absolutely nothing to back this up.

And learn how to spell would you? Using large words does not make you look the least bit intelligent when you spell them wrong.

Yes I have heard of it; and I must say, you're pretty good at it. Now please stop wasting my time, you're compromising my well being with your bellicose slanders.

You still haven't proven anything; I honestly don't care if you report me to the mods either, I've nothing to hide, and I'm utmost genuous in everything I offer when I say I believe it all, when I say I'm actually the one being traumatized to the point of panic by your inverse-trolling.How does that work?

Well, let's see... This is the definition of a troll according to Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
So an inverse troll would be someone who does the opposite?

Well, let's see... This is the definition of a troll according to Wikipedia:

So an inverse troll would be someone who does the opposite?

An inverse troll is someone who camouflages their argument to look like a non-troll but has the base intents of trolling.

What you're thinking of is a 'converse'-troll.

There are plenty of hetrosexuals who are in your face about it as well, especially in Essex.

Huh?

Yes I have heard of it; and I must say, you're pretty good at it. Now please stop wasting my time, you're compromising my well being with your bellicose slanders.
In order for it to be slander, it has to be false, and it has to be spoken. You're accusing me of libel, which it is not, because everything in that post is either a well-founded opinion, or factually true.

An inverse troll is someone who camouflages their argument to look like a non-troll but has the base intents of trolling.

What you're thinking of is a 'converse'-troll.

No, I was simply being facetious.

An inverse troll is someone who camouflages their argument to look like a non-troll but has the base intents of trolling.

What you're thinking of is a 'converse'-troll.

If you're going to argue with someone over the definitions of English words, please, learn the meanings of said words before you try to argue with other people about them.

In order for it to be slander, it has to be false, and it has to be spoken. You're accusing me of libel, which it is not, because everything in that post is either a well-founded opinion, or factually true.

You forgot to add 'in my warped world' at the end; that would've been your first factual opinion all day. Now I'm asking you to stop it, before I accuse you of full trolling, and not just the inverse-stuff I've theorized about certain people on this forum.

You forgot to add 'in my warped world' at the end; that would've been your first factual opinion all day. Now I'm asking you to stop it, before I accuse you of full trolling, and not just the inverse-stuff I've theorized about certain people on this forum.

And how does THAT work?

You forgot to add 'in my warped world' at the end; that would've been your first factual opinion all day. Now I'm asking you to stop it, before I accuse you of full trolling, and not just the inverse-stuff I've theorized about certain people on this forum.

Accusing someone does not make the accusation true. Also, you once more attempt to portray me as saying things I most certainly did not. I never said anything about an *ahem* 'factual opinion' (oxymoron?). I said I had a few well-founded opinions, and said a few factually true things in the post before that one.

An inverse troll is someone who camouflages their argument to look like a non-troll but has the base intents of trolling.

What you're thinking of is a 'converse'-troll.

No, what we're thinking is "holy christ look at this absurd troll Taboksol."

I mean, honestly, some of your posts in this thread are almost the very definition of trolling:

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Now that bishops can't traffic children, I guess this is their new revenue-maker...

Defection from America is always a good thing...

Sorry to have nothing more substantive to contribute, but
In my mind, it's definitely something biological, probably in the brain.
made me laugh hysterically for quite a few minutes.

And how does THAT work?

Sorry, I meant 'founded opinion' I guess.

As a closing comment to all of the stuff I've said; just leave this dead horse to rot. I've already requested for you to stop it, you've refused. I'm not backing out of this if you continue to reply. You are provoking me by doing this. Get back to speaking about homosexuals.

I don't believe this; I finally make a decent thread with legitimate conversation and it gets driven off topic by a debate on what a troll is.

made me laugh hysterically for quite a few minutes.

It seems like something so obvious that it's not worth mentioning, but the last time this conversation came up I had people yelling at me, going "IT'S NOT BIOLOGICAL! IT JUST IS! HOMOSEXUALS ARE WIRED JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE!".

I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't said that yet. I wrote what I wrote because I expected it to come up.

I don't believe this; I finally make a decent thread with legitimate conversation and it gets driven off topic by a debate on what a troll is.

For that I apologize, just please; continue. I can't be bothered with this.

As a closing comment to all of the stuff I've said; just leave this dead horse to rot. I've already requested for you to stop it, you've refused. I'm not backing out of this if you continue to reply. You are provoking me by doing this. Get back to speaking about homosexuals.

Your requests are not orders for me to follow. If you insult people, demean their countries, and accuse them of libel and trolling for pages on end and expect them to drop it at your command, you have some serious problems.

I, however, am going to drop it, partially because it is highly unlikely that you will respond to any further posts, and partially because the odds are even worse that you will post a response to such a post without displaying the behavior you have for the past few pages.

Your requests are not orders for me to follow. If you insult people, demean their countries, and accuse them of libel and trolling for pages on end and expect them to drop it at your command, you have some serious problems.

So far, it appears that there are quite a few members here who do exclusively that as their method of argument.

Well, it would depend greatly upon how you are using the term. Considering the fact that there is evidence of "lesser" mammals exhibiting homosexuality. I would say that having a percentage of any population that is homosexual definitely qualifies as normal.

Having said that, what was probably meant was natural.

Well you could look at homosexuality as a natural selection type thing then, those members of the species that are homosexual don't pass on their genes.

Regardless homosexuality is the exception, not the rule and thus not normal.

To FO: Sorry, last off topic post before I let you return to your debate/discussion.

So far, it appears that there are quite a few members here who do exclusively that as their method of argument.

I haven't seen many here who do that, it's one of the reasons I frequent this forum, almost exclusively.

Well you could look at homosexuality as a natural selection type thing then, those members of the species that are homosexual don't pass on their genes.

Regardless homosexuality is the exception, not the rule and thus not normal.

Now there's a good question - what is the biological and genetic bonus for being homosexual?

Is there an answer in sociobiology? It seems to be a failure to pass on genes (short of modern technology such as artificial insemination).

Well you could look at homosexuality as a natural selection type thing then, those members of the species that are homosexual don't pass on their genes.

Regardless homosexuality is the exception, not the rule and thus not normal.

I believe one study showed that the more brothers (I think it was brothers, although it could have been siblings) a male has, the more likely it is that he will be gay.

(1) It has been proven time and time again that homosexuality is biological. It is NOT a choice, it is NOT evil, it is NOT sinful, it is NOT related to the fictitious demon satan, it is NOT related to the dead demon jehovah, and it does NOT prevent gay people won't having straight sex from time to time to produce children.

(2) No, I'm not gay. Yes, I do have asperger's -- I self-diagnosed myself based on a TV autism special (specifically, I realized that it fit me REALLY well), and a doctor confirmed it a few years later. Yes, doctors tend to overdiagnose (justa s they overdiagnosed ADD and ADHD in previous years), but it doesn't magically mean that autism is fictional.

(3) They've multiple nonharmful mutations. Two of the main ones are skin color (originally everyone had dark skin, but since having light skin instead is harmless, it's been passed on quite a bit) and lactose tolerance (originally all humans were lactose-intolerant, but since lactose tolerance is beneficial, it spread enough that a quarter of the world is lactose tolerant).

Now there's a good question - what is the biological and genetic bonus for being homosexual?

Is there an answer in sociobiology? It seems to be a failure to pass on genes (short of modern technology such as artificial insemination).

Population control is one answer.

I believe one study showed that the more brothers (I think it was brothers, although it could have been siblings) a male has, the more likely it is that he will be gay.

Yeah, I think it's a sort of inbuilt biological population control method, if you will.

Population control is one answer.

Wait, so you're saying your genes are permanently removing themselves out of some altruistic motive?

Two of the main ones are skin color (originally everyone had dark skin, but since having light skin instead is harmless, it's been passed on quite a bit)

Actually, I read something saying that the light skin came first, as it was what was under the fur that our ancestors lost.

Wait, so you're saying your genes are permanently removing themselves out of some altruistic motive?

It really isn't altruistic, only so many people can survive in one area, the genes of the mother are being passed on, and already have been, so that point doesn't matter, perhaps it's a long-term (here meaning two or more generations in the future) method of preserving what others have already been born.

Wait, so you're saying your genes are permanently removing themselves out of some altruistic motive?

Doubtful, but not every mutation is a good one. Also there's no reason homosexuals can't breed regardless. Most in other species don't, most in humans probably do, or have in past. Social pressures et cetera.

Well you could look at homosexuality as a natural selection type thing then, those members of the species that are homosexual don't pass on their genes.

Regardless homosexuality is the exception, not the rule and thus not normal.

But if they help their relatives (that share most of their genes) to bring up their offspring they would increase their own fitness and hence natural selection would favor it. They same thing as altruism basically.

If one speak of genes one should also realize that it is very rare that a behavior corresponds to one gene. To therefore find the "gay gene" is highly unlikely. It could be 10 or a 100 genes that if combined in certain ways make a human homosexual.

If one in a very simplified example have 10 "gay genes" that if all are combined make you homosexual, but if you have 1, 4, or 9 just give you an advantage with women the "gay genes" would be selected for.

Wait, so you're saying your genes are permanently removing themselves out of some altruistic motive?

It could be that somehow, biology knows when there's too many people in the family, and makes a homosexual in order to lessen the number of offspring that will be produced.

Doubtful, but not every mutation is a good one. Also there's no reason homosexuals can't breed regardless. Most in other species don't, most in humans probably do, or have in past. Social pressures et cetera.

Well, evolution doesn't know that we think.

Actually, I read something saying that the light skin came first, as it was what was under the fur that our ancestors lost.

Really? I thought it was the other way around. Still, the new skin color is a mutation, but not a harmful one.

Really? I thought it was the other way around. Still, the new skin color is a mutation, but not a harmful one.

Yeah, if you shave an animal, white skin underneath. But your point still stands.

Well, evolution doesn't know that we think.

True but sexuality isn't a binary thing. I'm probably a 5 on the kinsey scale. Meaning I'm not particularly interested in women, but that doesn't mean I never would. 4, 5, and 6 would probably self identify as gay.

It could be that somehow, biology knows when there's too many people in the family, and makes a homosexual in order to lessen the number of offspring that will be produced.

That would mean that biology has a sentinel mind, which there is no proof of. Also, since it is a good strategy to have a lot of offspring (that survives and also have offspring) this seems very unlikely.

True but sexuality isn't a binary thing. I'm probably a 5 on the kinsey scale. Meaning I'm not particularly interested in women, but that doesn't mean I never would. 4, 5, and 6 would probably self identify as gay.

It probably would depend on the woman. It's not as though you would sleep with every man, either - a selection criteria is usually involved.

It probably would depend on the woman. It's not as though you would sleep with every man, either - a selection criteria is usually involved.

Yeah but for purposes of this discussion I merely felt the need to point out there's little that precludes me or any other homosexual from passing on our genes.

Also, since it is a good strategy to have a lot of offspring (that survives and also have offspring) this seems very unlikely.

It's not a good strategy for the overall population.

IT'S NOT BIOLOGICAL! IT JUST IS! HOMOSEXUALS ARE WIRED JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE!

Sorry, I just had to FO

IT'S NOT BIOLOGICAL! IT JUST IS! HOMOSEXUALS ARE WIRED JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE!

Sorry, I just had to FO

It doesn't matter if it's biological or not. Doesn't change a thing.

IT'S NOT BIOLOGICAL! IT JUST IS! HOMOSEXUALS ARE WIRED JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE!

Sorry, I just had to FO

Actually, they've done studies in rats (I think rats) where changing a gene flips them from straight to gay. I don't have the URL handy, but if you think I'm a liar I suppose I could look for it.

Yeah but for purposes of this discussion I merely felt the need to point out there's little that precludes me or any other homosexual from passing on our genes.

But like I said before, nature doesn't know that you have a say in it. If homosexuality is nature's way of population control, then nature didn't take into account the fact that sentient animals might decide to have straight sex and reproduce despite being gay.

Actually, they've done studies in rats (I think rats) where changing a gene flips them from straight to gay. I don't have the URL handy, but if you think I'm a liar I suppose I could look for it.

Well, if it's biological, there's always a way to change it.

It's not a good strategy for the overall population.

But natural selection don't work on the population, but on the individual.

If you manage to have a lot of offspring you will gain from it and hence natural selection will favor the strategy. A consequence of this might be that others will not be able to have as many offspring's, but that doesn't matter for the individual with the most offspring.

But like I said before, nature doesn't know that you have a say in it. If homosexuality is nature's way of population control, then nature didn't take into account the fact that sentient animals might decide to have straight sex and reproduce despite being gay.

I think you underestimate nature.

Homosexuality occurs in other species besides humans, people. Some male dogs choose to exclusively hump other male dogs, and some just hump anything in sight. For them it seems to just be attraction. There's no analyzing" this is a boy, and well I"m a boy is this really right...why is it wrong?" While there is a tendency for there to be biological differences in people identifying to be born gay/lesbain there is research stating that there is also a genetic link. In species of rams that mount other rams the anterior commisure and sections of the hypothalamus are enlarged, this is true in humans as well. Women while carrying male sons have been shown to develop an immune reaction to the androgens in the male conceptus, which some hypothesize have something to do with the brain develops in the child. It is then possible to pass these traits on down to the next generation since the hormone levels can change the instructions in the DNA that's passed to the child of the next generation. It is also shown that people who have certain hair swirls and finger lengths are more likely to be gay, but it isn't always that way in every case. Each person is different, and each is entitled to life to the fullest, whether it's with someone of the same sex or not. The person one falls in love with is the same person whether they are equipped with a male set of gonads or a female set. Hopefully people aren't so shallow as to say they only love a person because of a pair of tatas or a rod attached to a sperm sac.

Anyone that actually does that (aside from the possibility that the lisp is legit) is probably grabbing for attention.

...or maybe that's just how they are.

:rolleyes:

My question is: How does evolution explain it?

homosexuality is when 2 men have sex because not enough women are around 'consenting'

My question is: How does evolution explain it?

that some men are 'born' gay. are u really that unfamilar with evolution?

My question is: How does evolution explain it?

Homosexuality does not cause organisms to die before they reach reproductive age. Homosexuality does not render organisms incapable of reproduction. Ta-da, explained.

Homosexuality does not cause organisms to die before they reach reproductive age.

In the South....

Homosexuality does not render organisms incapable of reproduction.

In essence. Homosexuality has been a common occurrence in animals since the beginning, but it seems to me that anything which involved sole attraction to copulation in a non-reproductive manner would be mostly rooted-out by now. Not bisexuality, but homosexuality, since homosexuality discourages the passing-on of genes.

My question is: How does evolution explain it?

As I wrote in another post it could be that homosexuality is dependent on several genes (if homosexuality is genetically, but lets say that for the sake of the argument), if these genes individually gives an advantage they will remain in the population.

Eg. Homosexuality is dependent on ten gene variants. If each one of them could give you an advantage they will be selected for.

Also, since heterosexuality/homosexuality is not a black/white issue but different grades of gray some homosexual will be able to have sex with the opposite sex and therefore have offspring.

In essence. Homosexuality has been a common occurrence in animals since the beginning, but it seems to me that anything which involved sole attraction to copulation in a non-reproductive manner would be mostly rooted-out by now. Not bisexuality, but homosexuality, since it discourages passing-on genes.

evolution isnt intelligent it doesnt better itself if it was intelligent they would call it intelligent design but they dont becuz its not. learn to keep up wtih the program.

that some men are 'born' gay. are u really that unfamilar with evolution?

Are you really that unfamiliar with grammar?

Are you really that unfamiliar with grammar?

i have a LD whats ur excuse?

i have a LD whats ur excuse?

Failure to read the answer anywhere, which is why I asked.

As I wrote in another post it could be that homosexuality is dependent on several genes (if homosexuality is genetically, but lets say that for the sake of the argument), if these genes individually gives an advantage they will remain in the population.

Eg. Homosexuality is dependent on ten gene variants. If each one of them could give you an advantage they will be selected for.

A fine answer that would be, were homosexuality dependent on several genes.

Also, since heterosexuality/homosexuality is not a black/white issue but different grades of gray some homosexual will be able to have sex with the opposite sex and therefore have offspring.

But the prominence of the trait would attenuate.

A fine answer that would be, were homosexuality dependent on several genes.



Few things are dependent on one gene. Eye color for example are dependent on the genes at at least three different places on the chromosomes. That a complex behavior like sexuality would only be dependent one gene seems unlikely...

Few things are dependent on one gene. Eye color for example are dependent on the genes at at least three different places on the chromosomes. That a complex behavior like sexuality would only be dependent one gene seems unlikely...

But is it even genetic? and if it were, would it still not have been rooted-out by now? Peacocks all ended-up with huge tail feathers merely to acquire mates.

I being one of them.


suuuure you are.

Yeah, well, I also have an autistic spectrum disorder, so...

suuuuure you do.

But is it even genetic?

We don't know. The most likely explanation, to me, is that sexuality is determined by a combination of factors, including genetics.

and if it were, would it still not have been rooted-out by now?

No. I already answered this. Unless something about sexual attraction to one's own gender intrinsically prevented all reproduction in any organism carrying those genes, there's no reason it would be "rooted out."

In essence. Homosexuality has been a common occurrence in animals since the beginning, but it seems to me that anything which involved sole attraction to copulation in a non-reproductive manner would be mostly rooted-out by now. Not bisexuality, but homosexuality, since homosexuality discourages the passing-on of genes.

*ahem*

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

No. I already answered this. Unless something about sexual attraction to one's own gender intrinsically prevented all reproduction in any organism carrying those genes, there's no reason it would be "rooted out."

Moreover, considering that it appears, at least in part, to not be hereditary, it's most likely random.

Which means that evolution doesn't have a way to really select AGAINST it.

*ahem*

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

Evolution does not eliminate traits unless:

A: They are killed-off.

B: They are not passed-on via reproduction.

Of course, if it is a neurological trait, then none of this applies.

But is it even genetic? and if it were, would it still not have been rooted-out by now? Peacocks all ended-up with huge tail feathers merely to acquire mates.

Well, someone in this tread posted info from a twin study that showed that both twins where more likely to be homosexual compared to normal siblings which normally is an indication that a behavior to some degree is genetically.

Of course the environment probably can play a role but since I have never heard of a study that has found a environment that increase the chance to be gay it is hard to say what role it play.

No. I already answered this. Unless something about sexual attraction to one's own gender intrinsically prevented all reproduction in any organism carrying those genes, there's no reason it would be "rooted out."

It would have disappeared over the years. If only (random example) 1 in 5 homosexuals reproduced, would not their numbers become smaller? Like I was saying about peacocks without gigantic tail feathers.

It would have disappeared over the years. If only (random example) 1 in 5 homosexuals reproduced, would not their numbers become smaller? Like I was saying about peacocks without gigantic tail feathers.

only if it was a trait that was exclusively passed on by heritage. There are birth defects that result in sterilization.

By definition that CAN NOT be passed down.

Yet it still exists.

only if it was a trait that was exclusively passed on by heritage. There are birth defects that result in sterilization.

By definition that CAN NOT be passed down.

Yet it still exists.

And my question would still apply to sterilization. Perhaps mutation is the answer?

Moreover, considering that it appears, at least in part, to not be hereditary, it's most likely random.

Which means that evolution doesn't have a way to really select AGAINST it.

Indeed. It's fairly clearly not 100% genetic. But if there is a genetic component, and if that genetic component inherently prevented an organism carrying those genes from reproducing, evolution could select against that. Whatever genetic component there may be clearly doesn't prevent reproduction, though, seeing as we can come up with plenty of examples of organisms (human and otherwise) that boink members of their own gender and still successfully reproduce.

It would have disappeared over the years. If only (random example) 1 in 5 homosexuals reproduced, would not their numbers become smaller? Like I was saying about peacocks without gigantic tail feathers.

Yes and no. Ignoring for the moment that I'd be willing to bet that 1 in 5 number is waaaaaaaaaay off, your logic still only works if homosexuality is determined by a single gene, and if that gene does nothing but make an organism carrying it homosexual. If that were the case, and if your figure were remotely accurate, then yes, the prevalence of homosexuality would decrease over time. The fact that it hasn't might be your first clue as to how silly the premise you'd be working from is. Very few things are controlled by one single gene, and the likelihood that something as complex as sexuality would be is in itself infinitesimal. When you consider that there's no particular evidence that gay people have gay children and straight people straight children, the odds that a single gene could determine such a thing descends from "infinitesimal" to "zero." Even if sexuality is purely genetic - which, again, I very much doubt - it would have to be determined by a combination of several genes, and unless each of them alone is disadvantageous, there's no reason any of them would decrease in number in the population at large.

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.

For some reason, it's apparently "cool" to support this garbage, even though the far reaching consequences of allowing this psychiatric disorder to continue in America and all over the world would be vast and unpredictable.

There is plenty of scientific research that shows that gays merely want attention and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex just because they CHOOSE to.

Saying that homosexuality is a not a choice is just ridiculous. Don't call me a neo con or Christian or anything like that because I'm not. I just believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle choice.

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.



Interesting since most that are infected by AIDS are heterosexuals...

Interesting since most that are infected by AIDS are heterosexuals...

That's only because there are a higher number of heterosexuals than homosexuals in the world.

If you looked at it on a percentage basis, it would be quite easy to see that pound for pound, the AIDS rate in gays is a lot higher.

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.

Unprotected sex spreads STD and HIV, the vast and overwhelming majority of unprotected sex is undertaken by heterosexuals.

For some reason, it's apparently "cool" to support this garbage, even though the far reaching consequences of allowing this psychiatric disorder to continue in America and all over the world would be vast and unpredictable.

Homosexuality has existed as a fact of human life since the first evidence of human society, the "consequences" of homosexuality are far from unpredictable if such consequences exist at all.

There is plenty of scientific research that shows that gays merely want attention and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex just because they CHOOSE to.

There is no such evidence, this is a lie.

Saying that homosexuality is a not a choice is just ridiculous. Don't call me a neo con or Christian or anything like that because I'm not. I just believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle choice.

I believe being a bigot and homophobe is a poor lifestyle choice. But the question that arrises is why do you care so much what other people do with their private lives ?

That's only because there are a higher number of heterosexuals than homosexuals in the world.

If you looked at it on a percentage basis, it would be quite easy to see that pound for pound, the AIDS rate in gays is a lot higher.

Have data for that?

You said that homosexuality spreads AIDS. Since it is mostly heterosexuals that have AIDS and hence spread AIDS your original claim is false.

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.

For some reason, it's apparently "cool" to support this garbage, even though the far reaching consequences of allowing this psychiatric disorder to continue in America and all over the world would be vast and unpredictable.

There is plenty of scientific research that shows that gays merely want attention and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex just because they CHOOSE to.

Saying that homosexuality is a not a choice is just ridiculous. Don't call me a neo con or Christian or anything like that because I'm not. I just believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle choice.

(1) Homosexuality is not morally wrong; telling people that they'll burn in hell if they don';t follow a clearly false religion is morally wrong.

(2) As I've said, they've proven that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

(3) HIV is not spread by homosexual sex nearly as much as (say) sex without condoms.

(4) The only garbage I see here is when people make ridiculous claims (such as "oh noes condoms are tainted with hiv!!!111") to advance their beliefs.

It is by NO means a choice, nor is it abnormal. There have been studies that have shown that homosexuals' brain waves function far differently than heterosexuals', clearly showing that it is not a choice. I did not choose to find interest in females, it just happened, I didn't wake up one day and decide "I'm going to be straight!" And I'm pretty sure that none of you have either.


There is plenty of scientific research that shows that gays merely want attention and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex just because they CHOOSE to.

Please show me what study you are talking about, because that is simply not true.

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.

You believe that homosexuality spreads STDs more so than any other sexuality? Homosexuality isn't a disease.
Your concept has been proven wrong a good while ago. Once again, I would like to know where your information is from.

That's only because there are a higher number of heterosexuals than homosexuals in the world.

If you looked at it on a percentage basis, it would be quite easy to see that pound for pound, the AIDS rate in gays is a lot higher.

Prove it.

Edit: BTW, way to move the goalposts. ;)

Prove it.


It's impossible to prove since there simply isn't the data to prove it. It's just another one of those lies which homophobes comfort themselves with to justify a completely irrational hatred. :rolleyes:

It's impossible to prove since there simply isn't the data to prove it. It's just another one of those lies which homophobes comfort themselves with to justify a completely irrational hatred. :rolleyes:

Prove it. ;)

Prove it. ;)


Prove this :D

Prove it. ;)

Since what is being said simply isn't true, and there are no facts proving that it is true, however there are facts showing that its false.

Proved.

Since what is being said simply isn't true, and there are no facts proving that it is true, however there are facts showing that its false.

Proved.


I dunno, there aren't really any "facts" as such which show it to be false, there just aren't any facts at all to show it to be true. Reliable data doesn't exist in any appreciably large enough quantities to make a pronouncement.

But to use no data to back up a arbitrary theory ( which is what SobreCapitalistCreated did ) and call it proved is lying.

But as for the substance of the OP, I'm of the opinion that even if homosexuality isn't genetic there must be an evolutionary reason that it exists. After all homosexuality has been shown to exist in other species.

In the end though I don't think it really matters if its a choice or something your born as.

Recent attempts to find physiological "causes" such as brainwaves e.t.c. are slightly sinister since they all seem to end with the question " if we can find a physical reason for homosexuality can we find a means of physically stopping it from occurring ? ".

What seems not to be being asked is "if there is a physiological or innate cause for homosexuality, why has our species ( and others ) developed this particular propensity, and is there a vital evolutionary reason for its existence ? "

We know for instance that most human emotions have an evolutionary "reason" to exist and that they have specific evolutionary outcomes which have contributed to the success of our species. Since homosexuality seems to be as old as our species is, it seems impossible that it could have no purpose evolutionarily speaking.

I have never understood why anyone cared. Why is blue my favorite color instead of red, or green, or purple? Why does my mom love lima beans, while I can't stand them? Why do some people find little tiny rat dogs cute while I just want to kick them or feed them to real dogs? These might be interesting questions to ponder, but I doubt I'm going to get a research grant for any of them.

I have never understood why anyone cared. Why is blue my favorite color instead of red, or green, or purple? Why does my mom love lima beans, while I can't stand them? Why do some people find little tiny rat dogs cute while I just want to kick them or feed them to real dogs? These might be interesting questions to ponder, but I doubt I'm going to get a research grant for any of them.

Do you pay attention to the US Government, those are EXACTLY the things you get Government Grants for, lol :p

Homosexually is a morally wrong lifestyle that spreads AIDS and other undesirable STDs.

For some reason, it's apparently "cool" to support this garbage, even though the far reaching consequences of allowing this psychiatric disorder to continue in America and all over the world would be vast and unpredictable.

There is plenty of scientific research that shows that gays merely want attention and decide to be attracted to members of the same sex just because they CHOOSE to.

Saying that homosexuality is a not a choice is just ridiculous. Don't call me a neo con or Christian or anything like that because I'm not. I just believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle choice.

See, this is a fine example of well-researched trolling. Not only is the spelling and grammar standard, but the pre-emptive "don't call me a neo con" is just a nice extra touch.

Saying that homosexuality is a not a choice is just ridiculous. Don't call me a neo con or Christian or anything like that because I'm not. I just believe that homosexuality is a poor lifestyle choice.

Ill call you a troll.

Do you pay attention to the US Government, those are EXACTLY the things you get Government Grants for, lol :p

Really? Okay, I'm about to do some experimenting!

Now, where can I get five toy poodles, a car battery, 30 feet of insulated wire and a bucket of green paint?

Christianity? Sure pick up a bible

Just as I thought. Bible thumpers have graduated to being Bible smokers. It was only a matter of time.

I've heard some pretty far out and irrational explanations from left-wingers; one guy said it was a fetish, while another said it just "is" (sounds like something out of creationism to me >_<).

I hear a lot of irrational explanations from right-wingers. Some say its a choice, which makes one wonder why they chose to be heterosexual or whether they are omnisexual but due to moral/social constraint choose only to have heterosexual relations. Other say its due to inferior races, real Aryans/Blacks/whatever can't be gay. Then there's the demonic possession explanation. Satan wants you to be gay.

Autism is a biological defect, but yet people with autistic spectrum disorders can still live normal lives, and even have an advantage in some areas. That's an example of defect being not bad.

No offense, but Autism is negative simply be definition:

Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.

A defect is by definition a negative. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defect) Autism on the other hand can be seen in many cases to represent different trade-offs. Whether the trade off is positive or negative varies.

I don't understand why a lot of gay guys REALLY act like gay people in movies and TV shows.

If it's so wrong, why do you dudes constantly sing and preach about how much you love this guy with a beard who lived two thousand years ago.

HAHAHAHAHA.

I don't understand why a lot of gay guys REALLY act like gay people in movies and TV shows.

It's probably the same reason why a lot of straight men and women act like non-homosexual characters in movies and TV shows.

You know, that whole mass media having an enormous influence on society thing.

Or, maybe it's magic.

I don't understand why a lot of gay guys REALLY act like gay people in movies and TV shows.

Why exactly is this any more of an enduring mystery than any other personality trait?

If it's so wrong, why do you dudes constantly sing and preach about how much you love this guy with a beard who lived two thousand years ago.

And why did He hang around with 12 other guys, and the mere MENTION of a Heterosexual Relationship sends the whole congregation into a spiral of Controversy and Denials? :rolleyes:

And why did He hang around with 12 other guys, and the mere MENTION of a Heterosexual Relationship sends the whole congregation into a spiral of Controversy and Denials? :rolleyes:

Might be the hooker thing.....

So when did you choose to be heterosexual?

All the evidence suggests homosexuality is an innate trait of a percentage of the population, not a choice. As a Christian, you presumably believe that God created people with their various desires, and as God is good, not evil, I fail to see why xe would create someone with desires that were inherently sinful. Surely that would be a mistake, which you claim xe does not make. In brief, the fact that homosexuality is natural implies that it is not sinful.

Note: the following comments are not intended to express an opinion on homsexuality one way or another. Their sole purpose is to critique the illogic of the above argument. I'm sure their are plenty of other, stronger arguments you can use to defend homosexuality.


That disclaimer aside, this really seems illogical to me. By that logic, if a human, or an animal for that matter, desires something, is it not automatically good? By that logic, if a man feels a desire to rape a woman (or a child), that desire is good. If someone has a desire to kill themselves or another, that is good. Do you see my point? Or is their something I'm simply not understanding here?

Elaborate please.

Chemical imbalance in the brain or genetic defect, either way not a choice for most and thus the government shouldn't discriminate and unions should be legal before the secular state.


For a minority, I think it's something that is faked/exaggerated for that whole 'talk with a lisp, be girly, everything's fabolous and just really be out in your face about it.'

Ah. Another homophobe conservative.

Yeah, it's basically real-life trolling.


They are the correct terms and I shall use them as such. Bad or good is dependent on one's viewpoint, where as chemical imbalance and/or genetic defect are simply what 'is'.

It's also my opinion that in the [near] future scientists will be able to target the exact cause of homosexuality and will be able to 'cure' it, rather like in the final X-men. Whether anyone should 'cure' it is, to borrow from President Obama, way above my paygrade. :p

Maybe everyone will switch to bi.

But you assume. Being gay may come as a genetic bundle, many genes are connected. You remove the 'gay genes', something else comes off too. Like how high intelligence is tied to schizophrenia. Scientists in future may try to raise IQ levels but that may have unintended consequences.

Plus theres always the fraternal birth effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

OR they may find a cure for homophobes like you.

In the South....



In essence. Homosexuality has been a common occurrence in animals since the beginning, but it seems to me that anything which involved sole attraction to copulation in a non-reproductive manner would be mostly rooted-out by now. Not bisexuality, but homosexuality, since homosexuality discourages the passing-on of genes.


Genes for gay men make women fertile

Evolutionary theories tend to be controversial, but the latest explanation for the development of homosexuality also seems pretty illogical at first glance.

According to a group of Italian researchers, the genes that make men gay evolved because they actually make their female relatives more fertile.

The team discovered that the mothers, aunts and sisters of gay men tend to have more children than those women related to straight men.

And that, they say, is why nature decided to preserve a trait that would normally prevent the genetic line furthering itself through children.

Their findings, published today, show that female maternal relatives of gay men have more reproductive success than their counterparts who are related to heterosexuals.

The difference is not seen in female relatives on the father's side.

The "Darwinian paradox" of gayness has puzzled scientists for decades. If male homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals reproduced less than heterosexuals, the trait should eventually disappear.

Because this is clearly not the case, many people insist that there is nothing genetic about gayness.

Critics of the genetic explanation argue that homosexuality must be the result of nurture rather than nature.

The researchers, led by Dr Francesca Corna from the University of Padua, handed out anonymous questionnaires to 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men in northern Italy.

They were asked to provide information about their sexual orientation and about their siblings, first cousins, parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

Analysis of the replies showed that the maternal relatives of homosexuals had higher reproductive success than those of heterosexuals, and that the difference did not appear in the paternal line.

The research is published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research

Not having studied the subject thoroughly, my guess is it's a complicated mix of genetics and environment.

But you assume. Being gay may come as a genetic bundle, many genes are connected. You remove the 'gay genes', something else comes off too. Like how high intelligence is tied to schizophrenia. Scientists in future may try to raise IQ levels but that may have unintended consequences.

Plus theres always the fraternal birth effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

OR they may find a cure for homophobes like you.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research


I'd read about this before, I'm wondering if the results of this study will lead to further insights.

It kind of answers the questions I asked in my earlier post about an evolutionary purpose to homosexuality.

I've always wondered if there was a link to chimp behaviour where groups of males live in seclusion from the main troop and some simply stay in these groups seemingly uninterested in seeking out females as some of the other members of these groups do from time to time.

I'm not certain whether anything other than playful sexual contact goes on between the "homosexual" members of these all male groups but it wouldn't surprise me if more than that went on, especially among Bonobo chimps.

I don't understand why a lot of gay guys REALLY act like gay people in movies and TV shows.

Roughly how many gay people do you know?

I'm not certain whether anything other than playful sexual contact goes on between the "homosexual" members of these all male groups but it wouldn't surprise me if more than that went on, especially among Bonobo chimps.

What do you mean exactly by "playful" sexual contact? Do you mean more than incidental contact, or the formation of serious "relationships", or exclusive homosexuality? (I am fascinated by bonobos and have read about them for a number of years, so I'm very curious about your question)

I don't understand why a lot of gay guys REALLY act like gay people in movies and TV shows.


You know what's even crazier? A lot of straight people act like straight people in movies and TV shows, too! What's more, a lot of white people act like white people in movies and TV shows! I just don't understand it!

Well, some of the gay people on TV are three steps beyond "stereotype". A bunch of my friends are gay/bi, and (for those of you who watch Will & Grace), they act a LOT more like Will than Jack.

On a random note, this topic's title keeps making me think of that one song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOGflCsfefo&feature=related) with slightly different lyrics. >_>

What do you mean exactly by "playful" sexual contact? Do you mean more than incidental contact, or the formation of serious "relationships", or exclusive homosexuality? (I am fascinated by bonobos and have read about them for a number of years, so I'm very curious about your question)


Well in Bonobos exclusivity ( so far as I know ) is the exception but in other chimps is more common I believe. And in these all male groups one sees a range of sexual behaviours from the merely casual and boisterous and exploratory to more "personal" and exclusive seeming interactions.

I think the term "relationship" is misleading since chimps have different kinds of relationship to humans in any case, but certainly chimp-relationships seem to exist between males. The frequency of this behaviour is far far less among chimps than homosexuality is among humans, but I think that's not surprising considering some of the key differences between us and them.

What it could suggest is the "fraternal birth effect" phenomena combined with some other evolutionary factors ( in my completely un-expert opinion maybe social ones, given the complicated nature of human societies ) might have caused the frequency of this seemingly not entirely uncommon primate behaviour to have been selected for.

to the guy who said it is a choice. From a female who was a lesbian in high school, but got married for 12 years to the opposite sex had two kids. i will tell you it IS NOT a choice. we are now divorced and i am back into a very comfortable loving relationship with the same sex. So i do not want to hear it is a CHOICE, nor do i want to hear about the Adam and eve crap...

to the guy who said it is a choice. From a female who was a lesbian in high school, but got married for 12 years to the opposite sex had two kids. i will tell you it IS NOT a choice. we are now divorced and i am back into a very comfortable loving relationship with the same sex. So i do not want to hear it is a CHOICE, nor do i want to hear about the Adam and eve crap...

To play devil's advocate:

What if it was a choice? What if I decided to have sex exclusively with women? Why would that be any less legitimate than being "biologically" lesbian? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of consenting sexual partner? Genetics gave me brown hair, but no one has ever tried to sell me on the idea that it's immoral to get highlights.

Who cares if it's normal? I'm asking what causes it. We know that left-handedness is normal, but if I asked what causes it, you wouldn't say "IT'S JUST IS NOW SHUT UP YOU NAZI TOSSER!" like you do when I ask the same question about homosexuality, would you?



couldn't really tell you what causes it.I know that i always was a lesbian from as far back as i can remember. was i treated differently by my parents growing up. i was always a tom boy, hanged with the guys in school, always closer to my brothers and father than my sister and mother. i have heard some doctors say it is a chemical imbalance but i am not sure personally. i think what is most important is that people should realize that homosexuals are no different than hetersexuals , we just do different things behind closed doors- which in reality is personally no ones business who anyone sleeps with.

To play devil's advocate:

What if it was a choice? What if I decided to have sex exclusively with women? Why would that be any less legitimate than being "biologically" lesbian? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of consenting sexual partner? Genetics gave me brown hair, but no one has ever tried to sell me on the idea that it's immoral to get highlights.

Highlights are only put in by people who are unhappy with what God has given them. If you truly believed that God loved you and wanted you happy, you would be satisfied with the body that he gave you, and not color or cut your hair*!

Also, if God didn't want you to have pimples, you wouldn't have them. Clearasil is the Devil's work, attempting to destroy the beauty of God's handiwork. Deoderant destroys the pleasant smell that God has granted the human body to produce.

Please repent and let your body be what God meant it to be!

*Also, all bluehairs should be executed as witches. Seriously - that's creepy.

To play devil's advocate:

What if it was a choice? What if I decided to have sex exclusively with women? Why would that be any less legitimate than being "biologically" lesbian? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of consenting sexual partner? Genetics gave me brown hair, but no one has ever tried to sell me on the idea that it's immoral to get highlights.


I have to agree, I'm interested in the evolutionary aspects of Homosexuality purely from a esoteric point of view. Choice or not is not relevant to how people should be treated by the society they live in.

On choice though, if it were a choice ( and I'm not saying it is by the way ) there would likely be some evolutionary pay off for making that choice and having the ability to make it in the first place which would suggest another evolutionary reason for being able to make the choice.

The point someone made about clusters of genes earlier is important because lots of attributes of our species arise from these clusters, behaviours ( and the ability to make choices leading to behaviours ) are frequently coded for in clusters, so really the only difference is that some clusters might code for a more conscious ability to engage in homosexual acts and other clusters make homosexuality non-optional from the point of view of the emotional health of the individual concerned.

This would explain why some people seem to be more sexually ambiguous than others or why some people are able to have sex ( which they enjoy ) with members of a sex they do not normally have sex with but only occasionally. The rainbow of sexual preference could be explained in this way.

Choice is simply another word for "behaviour which is less strongly coded for" while in others this behaviour is far more strongly coded and therefore not a choice, regardless of whether this behaviour is homosexual or heterosexual.

So some people would have a cluster of genes which would make homosexual behaviour possible but not probable, some would have a cluster which made it probable but not frequent, and others could have a cluster which made it highly unlikely they would want to angage in heterosexual sexual behaviour at all ( with a lot of room for grades in between of course ) .

Probably a recessive gene, or else there wouldn't be any population.

Say I just read that Alaska and some other similar state like Florida want to outlaw bestiality.

So then, if they have already outlawed homosexuality, if you did the deed with an animal of the same gender as yourself, would that be compounding a felony?

Genetic, but also changeable. It's also a part of what makes you you, however, so gays shouldn't have to change.

Choice is simply another word for "behaviour which is less strongly coded for" while in others this behaviour is far more strongly coded and therefore not a choice, regardless of whether this behaviour is homosexual or heterosexual.

So some people would have a cluster of genes which would make homosexual behaviour possible but not probable, some would have a cluster which made it probable but not frequent, and others could have a cluster which made it highly unlikely they would want to angage in heterosexual sexual behaviour at all ( with a lot of room for grades in between of course ) .

^This, almost.

I don't where did you find your scientific reports but homosexuality it's not a biological fact, it's a way of classify by the gender of the partner. As I know, the gender of the partner is not a biological fact. In the brain you could maybe some light preferences in sexual practices but no more. If it was biological so anybody could say "that baby will be gay", but nobody could ever say that cause it's not scientificly possible.

never believe scientific reports about DNA. There is more genetic combinaisons than people on earth, so if you take a group of 1000 peoples (whom 200 gays), the probability to find any genitic common point between those 200 is near of 100%. But if you make the same comparaison with 1000 other peoples, you'll find totally others results, that a statistic facts.

And most part of our genes are not active so you cannot base any serious theory over that. The nature is not made from genes, it's made from random.

never believe scientific reports about DNA. There is more genetic combinaisons than people on earth, so if you take a group of 1000 peoples (whom 200 gays), the probability to find any genitic common point between those 200 is near of 100%. But if you make the same comparaison with 1000 other peoples, you'll find totally others results, that a statistic facts.

And most part of our genes are not active so you cannot base any serious theory over that. The nature is not made from genes, it's made from random.

what?

Note: the following comments are not intended to express an opinion on homsexuality one way or another. Their sole purpose is to critique the illogic of the above argument. I'm sure their are plenty of other, stronger arguments you can use to defend homosexuality.


That disclaimer aside, this really seems illogical to me. By that logic, if a human, or an animal for that matter, desires something, is it not automatically good? By that logic, if a man feels a desire to rape a woman (or a child), that desire is good. If someone has a desire to kill themselves or another, that is good. Do you see my point? Or is their something I'm simply not understanding here?

Well observed, sir. It just disappoints me that none of the homophobes could spot that problem with the argument. I would note, incidentally, that this argument is solely to defend homosexuality on Christian grounds - it's my weapon against people who say that God condemns it. In all circumstances which matter, such as before the law, separation of Church and State makes this irrelevant.

Anyway, I obviously cannot avoid the attack by saying that some behaviours, despite being desires, are still wrong, because that then can be applied to homosexuality as well. However, I think there are two ways of slicing things that leave homosexuality fine, but murder and rape wrong.

The first is by looking at harm. We note that the two fundamental commandments are to "Love God, and love your neighbour". As a result, behaviour which acts contrary to this - motivated by hate, not love - is what is being condemned here. However, homosexual desires and actions are not. They are based (roughly speaking) on love for other beings, not hatred of them. By contrast, murder and rape, by causing harm to other beings, are not motivated by love, and are thus contrary to these commandments.

Secondly, I contend that sexual attraction is a fundamental characteristic of each person, in a way that a desire to murder is not (in almost all cases). In other words, murder (and the desire thereof) is a relatively common feature in humans, but it is not an innate natural trait of humans in the way that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is. And while `artificial' (for want of a better term) desires may be morally good or bad, humans are created* with certain fundamental traits, and no loving God would make these traits wrong.

*No, I'm not a Creationist.

Anyone can have the word, I reckon.

Chemical imbalances, bad experiences with the other sex, rebellion against mainstream social conservatism for purposes of creating a stereotypically liberal image. I wouldn't say that it is has to be some sort of psychological disorder though.

What if it was a choice? What if I decided to have sex exclusively with women? Why would that be any less legitimate than being "biologically" lesbian? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of consenting sexual partner? Genetics gave me brown hair, but no one has ever tried to sell me on the idea that it's immoral to get highlights.

But it is. Anything that can make you happy and does not harm anyone else, but is not explicitly sanctioned by some funny guys in a robe is *by definition* immoral, wrong, evil and so on.

At least that's what the funny guys say.

I don't believe it's natural. Not for the same reason as Christians, though.

It is chiefly prevalent in developed nations. Occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, it is seen in the Third World. When there's a blue moon.

Why is it so prevalent in the developed world, but rare in the Third World?

Just a random injection.

Why is it so prevalent in the developed world, but rare in the Third World?


Gay sex happens quite a lot in the third world actually.

Why is it so prevalent in the developed world, but rare in the Third World?

...because liberatory social movements have won visibility in the developed world?

I don't believe it's natural. Not for the same reason as Christians, though.

It is chiefly prevalent in developed nations. Occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, it is seen in the Third World. When there's a blue moon.

Why is it so prevalent in the developed world, but rare in the Third World?

Just a random injection.

Social acceptance. You (like many others) confuse visibility with prevalence.

Homosexuality has been present throughout human history: look at the Greeks, the ancient Romans, many tribal systems, and so on. What does change is the public acceptance of homosexuality. In some societies, it is massively opposed, even criminalised. Despite this, it still occurs - take Oscar Wilde in Victorian Britain, for example. In the past few decades, the social stigma against homosexuality in the West has decreased quite a bit. It's still there, but it is less powerful than it was. As a result, homosexuals have felt more able to identify itself, and its public profile has correspondingly increased.

That it is natural can be easily seen: thousands of species, some very closely related to humanity, demonstrate homosexual behaviour.

Of course, it's also worth noting that you don't live in the third world. Your impressions formed of it are thus very different to the ones you form of the society you live in (likely America). After all, the newscast is not going to report homosexuality if the topic is a famine, is it?

I don't believe it's natural. Not for the same reason as Christians, though.

It is chiefly prevalent in developed nations. Occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, it is seen in the Third World. When there's a blue moon.

Why is it so prevalent in the developed world, but rare in the Third World?

Just a random injection.



This is false. Homosexuality is not more prevalent in developed nations. Public awareness and openness about sexuality is more common in some cases compared to less developed countries.

But actual occurrence of homosexuality is uniform throughout human society, developed or otherwise.

Some less developed states with cultural biases against homosexuality doctor studies or even fabricate them to pretend that homosexuality is less common in their populations, some even just plain lie about it without the pretence of a fake study. Though this is by no means the truth for all less developed states.

Homosexuality may be more visible in some developed states but it is not more common.

Abnormal, Immoral, and most importantly A CHOICE! God doesn't make mistakes, and in the begining there was ADAM & EVE, not ADAM & stEVE.

Ok. Let's assume God doesn't make mistakes (because he chooses to do so, I'd guess, because he CAN make mistakes. He's omnipotent!)
He made Adam and Eve. In the beginning.
There's no need to introduce the idea of a God making mistakes to ask: who grants you he didn't change his mind? Because God CAN change is mind. He is omnipotent! (And actually the Bible hints that He did, at least in two occasions: the sacrifice of Isaac and the New Covenant - Christ, that is).

Btw: various examples of homosexuality in animals hint that homosexuality happens. So, it must be something neurological I'd guess.

Anyway, choice, nature, genetics, development, social factors: who gives a damn? If John and Clark next door like to have sex together, who are we to say they should not? They're not damaging anyone, so they're free to do so.

Keep in mind that some backwards countries have strict laws against homosexuality. If Hassan Q. Randompersian has sex with another guy, he will have committed a capital offense under Iran's backwards laws and can be executed. It doesn't, however, prevent him from being attracted to guys even though all his sex is with females.

In the beginning.
Who grants you he didn't change his mind? Because God CAN change is mind. He is omnipotent, you know.

Ah, but he is also infallible, so he can't change his mind, as that would imply that he was either wrong before changing his mind or wrong after doing so!

Ah, but he is also infallible, so he can't change his mind, as that would imply that he was either wrong before changing his mind or wrong after doing so!

That depends on which religion your talking about. Some do not believe god is infallible. And don't forget Christianity always has the neat get of jail free card of "God moves in mysterious ways" to explain anything which seems self contradictory :p

Ah, but he is also infallible, so he can't change his mind, as that would imply that he was either wrong before changing his mind or wrong after doing so!

Both of you assume every rule God makes is made on the basis of right/wrong. Maybe he just had a personal dislike, and then decided he didn't want to act on it?*

*not Christian, by the way.

Ah, but he is also infallible, so he can't change his mind, as that would imply that he was either wrong before changing his mind or wrong after doing so!

Perhaps then He did not change His mind, but merely entered stage 2 of his plan, which required different actions and rules than stage 1. As He of course Had known all along, being Allknowing of course.

Both of you assume every rule God makes is made on the basis of right/wrong. Maybe he just had a personal dislike, and then decided he didn't want to act on it?*

*not Christian, by the way.

Allowing God to have personal dislikes would be pretty destructive to most flavours of Christianity.
So... expect a visitt from the men in purple soon.

Allowing God to have personal dislikes would be pretty destructive to most flavours of Christianity.
So... expect a visitt from the men in purple soon.

They haven't caught me yet! :D

But anyway...God is much more human than most Christians would like to believe--or so I've noticed.

They haven't caught me yet! :D

But anyway...God is much more human than most Christians would like to believe--or so I've noticed.

Much more human... or much more demonic? :eek:

Probably both.

Gay sex happens quite a lot in the third world actually.

Donkey sex, too.

Donkey sex, too.

A fair amount of that happens in the developed world too :p

A fair amount of that happens in the developed world too :p

So can we summarise this as "humans just fuck things - wherever they live" , concede that that is natural and all - and then start to focus on the question which sex acts should be considered bad ;) ?

So can we summarise this as "humans just fuck things - wherever they live" , concede that that is natural and all - and then start to focus on the question which sex acts should be considered bad ;) ?

Indeed. I imagine that the primary criteria for making such a judgement is consent. If those taking part in the fuck consent to it ( or can reasonably be considered to have been able to consent to it ) then it seems fair to assume that it's OK ( mind you bad is a loaded term applied to certain acts, and only a partially accurate description of others ).

Mind you that introduces nasty minded attempts to decide that certain acts cannot be consented to. Of course that reasoning is false though since the act does not define the ability to consent, the ability to consent defines the act.