Regarding Homosexuality
- Thread starter Kurokami
- Start date
Recommended Videos
if that were the case, then you'd have to include everyone who masturbates and everyone who doesn't want to have children at all into the whole dysfunctional thing, given that you seem to be using the ability to have children as your only yard stick...
*looks at my original post*Captain Pooptits said:
Nope, don't see me using the word Nazi or Racist or even Homophobic.
Heck, and 'racist' which would be wrong because homosexuality isn't a race...
WOW! THIS IS GREAT!
Captain Pooptits can see into a parallel universe where I used all three I bet!
You're name wouldn't happen to be Quinn Mallory would it?
Or maybe you're one of them 'Sliders' I've heard so much about!
Wait, you're neither?
Well...if you can't see or go into alternate universes yet you accuse me of calling the original poster a Nazi and/or racist...
Well Damnation!
I got trolled, son of a...
Look, it's just sex. Simple. Some people do it missionary and boring, some people like BDSM, some people like to do it up a girls ass, and some people like to do it with their own sex.Kurokami said:
People are only threatened by homosexuality because it's difficult to identify. You can tell if a person is black, posh, old, female etc, but not as easily if they're gay. And as the only "obviously gay" attitude is queer to us, we treat them like a different type of people.(mostly) men feel threatened because they can act girly and camp, and we take that as a sign of them wanting to sleep with us, when most of the time we are wrong.
I don't care how my friends fuck, I don't care how my parents fuck, and I don't care how the Queen fucks, so I don't see the need to identify homosexual people as anything other than normal people who have a different habit in bed to me
To a point, your right. But seeing how homosexuals can be as happy as anyone else, and that they have the right to be homosexual, then who the hell cares. I know they don't.
Also, speaking as a bisexual, how do you feel on us OP. I would like to hear you opinion.
Also, speaking as a bisexual, how do you feel on us OP. I would like to hear you opinion.
I'm not talking the 'seven sins' BS.Asuka Soryu said:
The OP posted about homosexuality being a 'dysfunction' because they can't have offspring, right?
Then ANYTHING that's not used or done purely as a means to further the species should be labeled a 'dysfunction' as it goes against THE LAWS OF THE JUNGLE.
As for sex, NOT having multiple partners is actually a dysfunction...because you're limiting your genes and the potential for your bloodline to succeed, just in case anything bad happens to the first batch or your (current) mate has inferior genetics.
First of all as a bisexual I don't want my post to appear homophobic either, just getting that out of the way first.
Yes, if you were to look at homosexuality from a purely cold and primitive system in which we ONLY regard primary function of an organ then yes, gays are not fulfilling the function of breeding. But then so aren't celibate people, or couples that are not fertile. Their function of passing on genes is not functioning, that purpose isn't being fulfilled.
However, let's look at this from a species perspective. This is a natural thing to do because if we're going to talk about function we need to look at the CAUSES of those functions, namely evolution. Natural selection in normal circumstances (plenty of food, etc.) generally supports species that breed fairly quickly, though I use the term in the context of mammals for this discussion. So up to a point yes, again gays aren't filling their requirement and thus are dysfunctional from that perspective.
Now here's where it gets a little trickier. While I said above that natural selection supports a high breeding rate, in reality it's a little more complex. What it really favours is a species ability to adapt to its environment. And humankind is in a changing environment. We have over six billion people living on Earth right now, and in forty years time it's predicted to hit around nine billion. That's a pretty unsustainable growth rate, and in nature when a species out breeds its ability to provide for itself, famine ensues and they either die off completely or the population sharply drops down to a much lower figure, neither of which is something people would generally want.
Now how do species get around the population issue? Natural selection again favours adaptation, and in areas with few natural predators and low food we find species that have slowed down their breeding rate, sometimes exponentially (the now endangered Kakapo in New Zealand is one example, which evolved a complicated mating system to avoid over breeding).
So in reality, our evolutionary goals, and as a result our purpose, has altered somewhat. It can't just be simplified into breeding anymore, because that's no longer necessarily our main purpose as individual members of the species. It's still important, we can't have a population with just older people after all, but we can't just overpopulate the planet and expect resources to magically appear out of nowhere either. And while we may not have the huge stretch of time and generations to see a biological change in people, the good news is we don't have to. We have brains that can comprehend this stuff right now, so we can effect social change consciously. So in this more comprehensive way gay, infertile and celibate people aren't dysfunctional at all, quite the opposite. They may have been dysfunctional in the past, but now they are helping humankind adapt. It may not be statistically effective but they are putting downward pressure on the rate our population is increasing by. Not to mention sometimes providing for children without parents through adoption.
If nothing else, remember this. Among mammals, plenty of animals never get to breed, especially if they live in groups with large, divisive social structures. And while this means one organ they have isn't going to be used for its intended purpose, when looking at the species as a whole you can see that they aren't dysfunctional creatures, they're filling a role within that species, often a necessary one. Even if it's simply not bearing young it can be a vital one in certain environments, like the one humans are facing in the decades to come.
Yes, if you were to look at homosexuality from a purely cold and primitive system in which we ONLY regard primary function of an organ then yes, gays are not fulfilling the function of breeding. But then so aren't celibate people, or couples that are not fertile. Their function of passing on genes is not functioning, that purpose isn't being fulfilled.
However, let's look at this from a species perspective. This is a natural thing to do because if we're going to talk about function we need to look at the CAUSES of those functions, namely evolution. Natural selection in normal circumstances (plenty of food, etc.) generally supports species that breed fairly quickly, though I use the term in the context of mammals for this discussion. So up to a point yes, again gays aren't filling their requirement and thus are dysfunctional from that perspective.
Now here's where it gets a little trickier. While I said above that natural selection supports a high breeding rate, in reality it's a little more complex. What it really favours is a species ability to adapt to its environment. And humankind is in a changing environment. We have over six billion people living on Earth right now, and in forty years time it's predicted to hit around nine billion. That's a pretty unsustainable growth rate, and in nature when a species out breeds its ability to provide for itself, famine ensues and they either die off completely or the population sharply drops down to a much lower figure, neither of which is something people would generally want.
Now how do species get around the population issue? Natural selection again favours adaptation, and in areas with few natural predators and low food we find species that have slowed down their breeding rate, sometimes exponentially (the now endangered Kakapo in New Zealand is one example, which evolved a complicated mating system to avoid over breeding).
So in reality, our evolutionary goals, and as a result our purpose, has altered somewhat. It can't just be simplified into breeding anymore, because that's no longer necessarily our main purpose as individual members of the species. It's still important, we can't have a population with just older people after all, but we can't just overpopulate the planet and expect resources to magically appear out of nowhere either. And while we may not have the huge stretch of time and generations to see a biological change in people, the good news is we don't have to. We have brains that can comprehend this stuff right now, so we can effect social change consciously. So in this more comprehensive way gay, infertile and celibate people aren't dysfunctional at all, quite the opposite. They may have been dysfunctional in the past, but now they are helping humankind adapt. It may not be statistically effective but they are putting downward pressure on the rate our population is increasing by. Not to mention sometimes providing for children without parents through adoption.
If nothing else, remember this. Among mammals, plenty of animals never get to breed, especially if they live in groups with large, divisive social structures. And while this means one organ they have isn't going to be used for its intended purpose, when looking at the species as a whole you can see that they aren't dysfunctional creatures, they're filling a role within that species, often a necessary one. Even if it's simply not bearing young it can be a vital one in certain environments, like the one humans are facing in the decades to come.
It's not as amazing as, I don't know, geology, but most of them thar 'smartie pants' tend to agree that being homosexual or bisexual or asexual or heterosexual or...whatever...isn't at the same level as being 'differently enabled' (or w/e the PC version of retarded is now).ravensheart18 said:
If you look at certain animal cultures, swans for example, you can see certain evolutionary benefits to homosexuality. Baby swans adopted by homosexual swan parents have a considerably higher survival rate. I don't know whether such benefits existed in a developing human society, but if they did, then homosexuality was a natural thing and part of our culture.
I think it comes with the suggestion everybody?s function is to reproduce and bare children, anybody who doesn?t is dysfunctional and there is something wrong. The thing is, we are a social animal, we live in large groups, and there are a lot of roles we can take on. Not everybody does need to have a child and all things considered it?s probably beneficial if there is a portion of people who don?t, for one reason or another.
Eh, did you bother reading the article? They didn't use in vitro fertilisation, but they did use a sperm donor, obviously. If science managed to allow one woman to impregnate another then it'd be all over the world.tghm1801 said:
"Melissa Keevers (27) and Rosemary Nolan (21) used a sperm donor to conceive and were surprised when their doctor said they would be having five babies."
Homosexuality is not a dysfunction, and to call it such is frankly rather insulting. Especially saying that it is only so because it prevents childbearing.
Having children is only one aspect of life. It is not the end all to it, or to sexuality. And nothing about being homosexual prevents you from being a genetic donor to a child, or wanting to have children or the capability to have children. It's more like being a red head or left handed.... both of which are perfectly natural and normal, but people have been discriminated against and hated for being such, much like being homosexual is today.
Science and studies have pretty much shown conclusively that homosexuality is perfectly natural and in a certain percentage of the population useful, as it prevents overcrowding and provides 'excess adults' for child raising purposes. Any of this talk about it being unnatural or dysfunctional is just bigotry and hatred.
Having children is only one aspect of life. It is not the end all to it, or to sexuality. And nothing about being homosexual prevents you from being a genetic donor to a child, or wanting to have children or the capability to have children. It's more like being a red head or left handed.... both of which are perfectly natural and normal, but people have been discriminated against and hated for being such, much like being homosexual is today.
Science and studies have pretty much shown conclusively that homosexuality is perfectly natural and in a certain percentage of the population useful, as it prevents overcrowding and provides 'excess adults' for child raising purposes. Any of this talk about it being unnatural or dysfunctional is just bigotry and hatred.
I've heard that argument before and there's a glaring problem with it. If Nature did go about controlling population counts like this, a far more efficient solution would be having the stillborn rate increase rather than the homosexuality rate increase. I'm not saying it would be better if all gays never existed, I'm just saying that if Nature used the stillborn method, there would be fewer individuals competing for resources, all of whom could procreate.Batsamaritan said:
Buying expensive clothes though does make you a more attractive potential mate. Also, many people don't want children since they are unable to support them at the time. People's opinions often change over time.AngloDoom said:
God. I hate that phrase. "It's how people work" or any variation of it. I'm sure when women didn't have a vote that was "how society worked". I'm sure when slavery was legal that was "how society worked". I'll just bet that gibbets and guillotines and crucifixion and impalement and blacks not being allowed to marry and men selling their misbehaving wives or children into forced labour and executions for entertainment were all how society worked. At the time. That's not an excuse to say "Oh shoot, its just how we work, better go along with it."Spinozaad said:
No offense meant. But try to keep an open mind, I suppose. Because there is nothing like slapping a big ol' "Them and us" on something to spark up a war, or a raid, or a hate crime. If we could all think of the world as one big "Us", maybe then...
I'm sorry, I had to stop typing as I just vomited up blood due to the corniness of that statement. Corny or not though, I think it's true.
ANYWHO, more OT:
Sure, you could say that being gay is a dysfunction. I totally understand the biological outlook on that. But who cares? You could call iPhones abominations to Nature, but does it matter? Nature is actually pretty cool about these things. Seriously, it doesn't mind. I'm sure recreational sex is dysfunctional, but it's also pretty swingin' (from what I've heard, I'm still quite young and innocent)
I mean, I'm gay, but I don't mind it being called a Dysfunction. Arguably, you could say that all human civilization is a dysfunction. But really, the term is redundant, because Nature doesn't quite have a point. Sure, Natural Selection has refined organisms to survive and reproduce in a successful matter, but not on purpose. It just sorta "happened that way". So in the end, I don't believe there is a function that homosexuality can be contrary to. To be honest, the only way it could be "truly" dysfunctional is if it actually posed a threat to the survival of all humans.
Please do. If there's been a medical miracle out there then I'd sure like to know about it.tghm1801 said:Crap, I got the wrong article.Chatney said:
The other day I saw one - these two lesbians in Australia are having a baby actually with each other. Let me try and find the article