- #1
RunToFreeForFly
- 13
- 0
I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
Our closest relatives, a species of chimpanzees, has sex all the time:RunToFreeForFly said:I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
1) The word is spelled 'disease.'RunToFreeForFly said:I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
Sure it does. It causes the same physical harm as impotency or a low sperm count. And I don't just mean having sex, I'm talking about the result of sex.chroot said:2) A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
I agree that that is most likely, but that's still problematic. Combined with what I said above, if homosexuality were simply a genetic trait, it should be quickly filtered out by evolution: homosexuals tend not to have heterosexual sex and as a result tend not to have offspring, so they don't pass on that trait.I have several gay friends. From what i can glean from their comments, it is a genetic predisposition. to me this means they wanted to be gay for this lifetime.
Excuse me? I think you'd have to explain this a bit. If you mean "it prevents a person from having a biological child," you're wrong.russ_watters said:Sure it does. It causes the same physical harm as impotency or a low sperm count.
Or, like the appendix or blue eyes, it will stay around forever, because it does not actually provide any negative selection pressure.if homosexuality were simply a genetic trait, it should be quickly filtered out by evolution
On the contrare, I know nothing of this subject, if it is or if it isn't. But when it comes to anything that relates to health, the human body, and genetic defects, I ask my mother, a nurse for countless years. She, along with the majority of her staff, believes that it is a genetic defect.dekoi said: Homosexuality is strictly caused by the environment they have been raised in, and the people with the most influence on them. It is not a gene. It has been studied for years, and not one scientist found valid proof for this. Homosexuality, whether it is women or men, is either the foolish experimentation of the sex drive, or emotional harm leading to sexual confusion.
chroot said:A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
arildno said:Our closest relatives, a species of chimpanzees, has sex all the time:Males+females, males+males, females+females, mothers+sons, etc.
They use sex as a language of emotion; reproduction is merely the by-product of some of those dialogues.
Kinda like humans, really..
Thank you for providing the name!Chrono said:I believe you mean bonobos, and you're right. They use sex as a social tool instead of just a means for reproduction. If a female wants to become a part of a particular group, all she has to do is initiate sex to the other females or males.
arildno said:Thank you for providing the name!
I am quite disgusted by those who try to portray human sexuality as primarily focused on reproduction.
It is simply false; anyone who has been in a love affair knows quite well the range of emotions/situations in which it felt "right" to have sex.
Sex goes far beyond reproduction, and those who prefer to have consensual&non-reproductive sex (as gays prefer) should not be discriminated against.
(Just for the record, of the several hundred intercourses a man&wife have during their lives, nets only 1.7 offsprings in average..
Perhaps they have sex for other reasons?)
arildno said:(This rather strange motive is probably the one getting a gay man and lesbian into the same bed occasionally..)
RunToFreeForFly said:I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
chroot said:1) The word is spelled 'disease.'
2) A disease is a condition which causes the bearer of the disease discomfort or physical harm. Homosexuality causes neither of these.
- Warren
Tom McCurdy said:in this sense of the definition could one interpt it to be that homosexuality causes the bearer discomfort in the sense of having to deal with a largly heterosexual public who isn't always nice about being "gay" Also in school being gay can very well cause you physical harm... so I guess in one interpatation according to your definiton it would be... but then so would a lot of other things ... like being short
You got it - but no, I'm not wrong. Certainly, I'll explain:chroot said:Excuse me? I think you'd have to explain this a bit. If you mean "it prevents a person from having a biological child," you're wrong.
Well, obviously blue eyes doesn't have "any negative selection pressure" associated with it. The appendix maybe - appendicitis. That may take a while to weed-out though.Or, like the appendix or blue eyes, it will stay around forever, because it does not actually provide any negative selection pressure.
Blue eyes is a recessive trait, that's why it resides in people (like me) who have brown eyes. But again, if having blue eyes interfered with your reproduction, they'd eventually be filtered out of the gene pool.Your argument is based on the idea that some subset of the population has a "gay gene" and doesn't reproduce, while all the rest of us don't have the "gay gene" and do reproduce. This is fallacious logic. Obviously, if heterosexual women can beget homosexual childen, the "gay gene" resides in the heterosexual population, too, like the genes for other genetic traits like blue eyes.
Could be - would that make it a birth defect?If it turns out that there is no gay gene and homosexuality is instead a result of fetal hormonal environment, it means that any child, regardless of genotype, could potentially become homosexual. It's effectively the heterosexual mother's "fault," since she provided the fetal hormonal environment.
That is, in essence, my view. But then, doesn't that mean we should try to investigate the particulars of this "fetal hormonal environment" so we can try to prevent it from happening? Perhaps its associated with a certain diet or chemical or whatever...Rarely are all of a women's children homosexual, however. Even if a woman is capable of causing the fetal hormonal environment that leads to homosexual children, she is also capable of having heterosexual offspring, and thus it provides her no evolutionary disadvantage. If normal, healthy heterosexual women can spontaneously have homosexual offspring, it essentially means that homosexuals have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever.
There are a lot of traits of humans that have been around "since antiquity" - that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate (fix?) some of them.This is consistent with thousands of years of demographics -- homosexuality has been around since antiquity, and likely will always comprise a segment of the population.
RunToFreeForFly said:I think it is. Gay people trend to do what organism suppose not do. organism should **** the opposite sex.
No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.Philocrat said:I think you people are blaming the gay people for something that is entire Nature's. No one controls what they turn out to be as far as reproduction is concerned.
Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems.It is impossible to call being gay a disease unless you are willing to show us the evidence. For there is nothing which logically rules out being straight also being a disease.
In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.This problem that people have is when it comes to defining the notion of 'NORMALITY'.
russ_watters said:No one here has said anything of the sort. Yes, I know: gays don't choose to be gay - everything I (and others) have said has been about natural causes. You cannot turn this into a gay-bashing thread because no one is doing it.
That said, given a choice ahead of time, how many pregnant women would choose to have gay children? Straight children? Given a choice, how many gays would be straight? Straights gay? Well, there is a difference, which I pointed out: reproductive problems. In this context, I define "normal" as feelings and behaviors which lead to reproduction: Ie heterosexual desires leading to heterosexual sex leading to procreation. Homosexual feelings lead to homosexual sex, which does not lead to procreation.
cyfin said:If homosexualitiy were genetic, the parents must have all contracted the disease in order to spread it to their childern. Another posibility is that somehow genetic mutations occurred throughout a large group of people with nothing in common. Both of these are highly unlikely.