What is being homophobic?

[Abomination]

The groups that don't breed in other societies are still evolutionary dead ends. That particular member does not pass their traits on to the next generation. That is how it is a dead end. How could it be anything other than that? Certainly they might CONTRIBUTE to another member's genetic lineage by assisting them with raising the offspring or protecting the territory or whatever... but the fact remains they do not contribute their own traits to the mix.

Sorry to cut in (though I feel I have to say something just to prevent you from referring to people as "evolution dead ends" one more time) but your lack of knowledge about evolution is kind of embarrassing, and the fact that you're trying to use it to justify homophobia is kind of sickening.

As I explained in a later post - the act of homosexuality prevents children. Ergo, the homosexuals do not pass on their genetic lineage. This prevents that individual's lineage from evolving because it simply does not get to exist. The homosexual's lineage ends with them unless they perform an unnatural medical procedure OR engage in non-homosexual activities.

You need to show me how a homosexual male passes on his seed, how he contributes to the gene pool.

That is if you want to get down to the complete nitty-gritty of the human condition and how nature operates. Survival of the fittest, homosexuality removes itself from the system. Morally there is nothing wrong with it, ethically there is nothing wrong with it, from a NATURAL perspective it goes heavily against the flow.

It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with homosexuality in a societal sense, especially given how quickly the human race has been populating the earth - it's actually a good thing for it. But deep down inside the animal that is man, we know it is not how we are "designed" to operate.

Wow, you're absolutely right. Homosexuality removes itself from the system as part of natural selection and that's why homosexuality no longer exists and why this thread doesn't exist and why we're not talking about this in the first place.

No, the HOMOSEXUAL removes HIMSELF/HERSELF from the system.

And of course, only homosexuals can carry a homosexual gene. That's why all gay parents have gay babies and all straight parents have straight babies. In fact, the only reason that homosexuals have ever reproduced is because of societal pressures, which is why there are still gay giraffes and monkeys. They are worried that the other giraffes and monkeys will laugh at and/or stigmatise them for being gay, and so they enter into sham matings with the opposite sex. Have you ever seen a giraffe with a beard? I have, and it's tragic to behold.

Stop being obtuse.

 

[101flyboy]

I didn't get the totally repelled vibe from the OP. I got that he was disgusted at seeing the act of two guys kissing but I'm not convinced he's scared of it. But maybe I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic here.

He didn't just say kissing, though. He said the thought of two guys even thinking of kissing aka the inference a man showing affection towards another man. He said hand holding. He said it all. He's against affection between two men in any sense that could be construed as romantic, sexual. That's being repelled. He said it makes him want to have a seizure, not just that he's disgusted. That's repelled. That's panicking, really. Panicking, some SEVERE insecurity issues there, that the OP needs to address.

No one has ever called me the live and let live type before... That's a new thing for me!

Happy to be the first

But I see your point. I find it easier to not see them as friends or not friends, more like "this guy earns my respect through his opinions/comedy/politeness/etc. but he's not a friend. I like having a beer with this guy." I find it's easier to separate people like that in my life. I have three people I'd call "real friends" but a shit load of "Buds."

Yes. I'm very similar. I have a lot of acquaintances, a lot of people I'm friendly with. I can be friendly with someone who holds POV's that I fundamentally disagree with. But I'm also not going to call them when I need support towards something I'm dealing with that's stressful. I'm not going to make it a point to call them on a weekly basis. When we see each other, we're cool. When we chill, it's fun. They're just not one of my best friends.

There are plenty of people who need to get called out but it's hard to decide when to do it. A guy shouting racial slurs in a pub; is he a racist or a drunk who doesn't know what he's saying? I think it might have been here on The Escapist but I read a story about a guy and his friends talking about getting their fags from the car and a Canadian guy called them out. Good on him for doing that but he didn't judge the moment properly. The world is painfully complex and yet ridiculously simple...

That's an interesting story regarding, guys innocently using the word fags and the Canadian getting offended. Different cultures have different views and responses when it comes to a whole host of issues. People need to know their surroundings in general, especially if you're traveling outside of your culture, know who you're around, and have the mentality that unless I'm in a safe space, don't say something that could cause problems to yourself. That's instinctual as much as anything else. It can be said it's being PC. I see it as being wise.

I've always thought that a persons' deepest and most guarded secrets come out when they're drunk. I wouldn't excuse a drunk guy using racial slurs in a pub. I'd see to it that he's kicked out of the premises. If he were a friend, I'd call him out the next morning on what he did. Maybe even record it if he doesn't remember. It's not a situation where I'd let him slide after he's sobered up. But that's just me.

 

[101flyboy]

Actually, a quick point I'd like to make here: I'm bisexual and I, along with someone else I know, have received ridicule from people in the gay community. This shit happens in every place you look. Not just to me, obviously. Straight people get shit and lesbians and gay guys don't always get along.

I'd say about 25% of gay men are VERY anti-bisexual. These gay guys tend to also be anti-trans and very often misogynistic, and definitely heterophobic. These gay men tend to be the ones who have this gay is the only way mentality. I'm GAY, fuck EVERYONE else. Bisexuals are half straight, they're not one of us. Bisexuals are liars, they aren't willing to admit they're gay. Women have a gash, they're disgusting. Straight women are annoying, they're users, they don't care about the gay community (aka Lady Gaga, Madonna, Cyndi Lauper. Many gay men refuse to trust these women or consider them true supporters, because they're straight women, no matter what they've done for the community). I've heard it all. I haven't seen too much of it, which I'm lucky to say.

It's a very defensive way of thinking born out of homophobia received. It's a constant attack mentality. The "gay men are bitches" stereotype is actually very real in many cases, just in general. It's hate towards everyone who isn't part of the tribe. That includes other gay men themselves. It's really sad. They have severe damage, and it's hard to blame them, because they're usually extremely weak, and insecure people. Luckily, it really isn't near the majority, although these evil wenches are very loud. Most of us realize that we're all in this fight together.

But it does drive home the point we all have our damage, our insecurities, our issues. No-one is perfect.

 

[Abomination]

snip

I fail to how how you jumped from any of this to:

But deep down inside the animal that is man, we know it is not how we are "designed" to operate.

Because on the soft science scale, that is melted marshmallow.

If you don't like the sight of homosexuals kissing then you are homophobic. You've already said that you never act on the homophobia beyond looking away, but then you've gone on to say that your homophobia is justified by genetics, that it is a natural-born response to witnessing something unnatural. If you were really comfortable with your homophobia then you wouldn't need to justify it with all the wobbly science.

Evolution is slightly more complicated than "members of the species that pass on their genes are natural, those that don't are unnatural". Try reading up on it a bit.

Someone asked me what is essentially "wrong" with homosexuality. In the grand scheme of things it stops/prevents/hinders the individual from passing on their genetic code - which is the primary goal of life. Continuation of the species. Since humans have ego, a sense of self, and homosexuality is an individual's trait and it prevents that individual from passing on their genetic code, that is how homosexuality can be a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing in this day and age, the gene pool is far far deep enough and the human population is more than capable of supporting itself a million times over.

I was asked for a negative thing about homosexuality. That is the negative thing about homosexuality. It serves as a barrier for potentially amazing individuals to pass on their genetic code to future generations.

 

[101flyboy]

I get a little uncomfortable when I see two guys embracing in real life, and I wish I didn't. But there's nothing I can do about it.

Repress the temptation to be uncomfortable; whenever it comes, try to fight through it or put it in the back of your mind. It will become a habit. Or just think of something pleasant when they embrace. Go to your happy place instead of thinking negatively. Talk to someone about it, like a gay friend, and release it off of your chest. I'm sure he'll be understanding.

It's difficult, a lot of people *know* they hold some negative bias towards several things where actually admitting said bias would end up with they being condemned. But it's important to have something, someway, to release whatever demons, discomfort, what's on your chest. It's the only way to start fresh, because we're all bottling up things that we end up internalizing. Discomfort is ultimately based on insecurity, which is based on fear. We all have our insecurities but we can't that fear dictate how we feel.

Most important thing is that you realize your issue is yours individually, unlike others here who make excuses. Eventually you'll get over your slight discomfort naturally. That's how it went for me, at least.

 

[Orekoya]

Evolution is slightly more complicated than "members of the species that pass on their genes are natural, those that don't are unnatural". Try reading up on it a bit.

Someone asked me what is essentially "wrong" with homosexuality. In the grand scheme of things it stops/prevents/hinders the individual from passing on their genetic code - which is the primary goal of life. Continuation of the species. Since humans have ego, a sense of self, and homosexuality is an individual's trait and it prevents that individual from passing on their genetic code, that is how homosexuality can be a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing in this day and age, the gene pool is far far deep enough and the human population is more than capable of supporting itself a million times over.

I was asked for a negative thing about homosexuality. That is the negative thing about homosexuality. It serves as a barrier for potentially amazing individuals to pass on their genetic code to future generations.

There is seven billion humans on this planet. The Earth (in it's current state) isn't ready to feed seven billion of us every day. We're already facing the dangers of marine ecosystem devastation from worldwide overfishing. If the primary goal of life is continuation then methods to prevent the dangers of overpopulation would be included. Another noticeable trait to emerge in support of that is the rate of spontaneous abortion has gone up, peaking to 30% natural self-terminations within the first trimester. Of course, that is a flawed argument from people who think life itself has goals.

 

[DarthSka]

I wouldn't say that's homophobic. I don't know if I would call it disgusting, but two men making out is not something that I'd really want to see either. I believe it's because it doesn't sexually appeal to us because we're straight, aka, not attracted to men. With two women, it would be different because, even though it is a homosexual act, it involves two of what we are sexually attracted to. So it's not a matter of it being wrong in our eyes, just not sexually appealing.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Case in point, I bet a lot of women find the idea of two guys getting it on quite sexy/arousing.

I've never met a woman who did, or was willing to admit that she would like to see two have sex, or do various other sexy things to each other. And I've met some strait women who said if they had to choose they'd rather watch two girls do it instead.

But Homophobia is about prejudice. It's not an actual fear of gay people or homosexuality in general.
What you have might be a sort of gut based fear reaction to seeing two guys in sexy situations, because the way you defined your reaction is pretty much the same way I react to seeing a spider and I suffer from Arachnophobia.

Just as long as you don't think gay people are lesser beings because they're gay, you're not homophobic. Even though you may actually be a little afraid of them... maybe... a little.

 

[Abomination]

Evolution is slightly more complicated than "members of the species that pass on their genes are natural, those that don't are unnatural". Try reading up on it a bit.

Someone asked me what is essentially "wrong" with homosexuality. In the grand scheme of things it stops/prevents/hinders the individual from passing on their genetic code - which is the primary goal of life. Continuation of the species. Since humans have ego, a sense of self, and homosexuality is an individual's trait and it prevents that individual from passing on their genetic code, that is how homosexuality can be a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing in this day and age, the gene pool is far far deep enough and the human population is more than capable of supporting itself a million times over.

I was asked for a negative thing about homosexuality. That is the negative thing about homosexuality. It serves as a barrier for potentially amazing individuals to pass on their genetic code to future generations.

There is seven billion humans on this planet. The Earth itself isn't capable of producing food to feed seven billion of us. We're already facing the dangers of marine ecosystem devastation from worldwide overfishing. If the primary goal of life is continuation then methods to prevent the dangers of overpopulation would be included. Another noticeable trait to emerge in support of that is the rate of spontaneous abortion has gone up, peaking to 30% natural self-terminations within the first trimester. Of course, that is a flawed argument from people who think life itself has goals.

Homosexuality appearing in the Western World though, where overpopulation is not an issue as it is very seldom individuals die of starvation (when compared to other areas of the world), couldn't be a response to overpopulation. People don't turn to homosexuality to stave off overpopulation, there's not some cosmic entity that flips peoples switches on birth to handle the situation.

The way that evolution would come in to play is by the weak simply not surviving, not by people "turning" to homosexuality.

 

[Abomination]

Someone asked me what is essentially "wrong" with homosexuality.

See, I also have an answer for that. "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality."

In the grand scheme of things it stops/prevents/hinders the individual from passing on their genetic code - which is the primary goal of life. Continuation of the species. Since humans have ego, a sense of self, and homosexuality is an individual's trait and it prevents that individual from passing on their genetic code, that is how homosexuality can be a bad thing.

So now you're saying, against all the evidence, that homosexuality is nothing to do with genetics? It's just an individual quirk that pops up out of nowhere as part of our "sense of self"? And presumably the 1500 other animal species that practice homosexuality also do so out of a sense of self?

You've yet to back any of your theories up with evidence, but I'll go ahead and provide a bit of evidence to the contrary. Recent studies [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200906/could-homosexual-genes-be-naturally-selected] have shown that female carriers of the so-called "homosexual gene" (i.e. those who have at least one homosexual sibling, or a high rate of homosexuals in their family history) have a greater rate of reproduction than those without it. Therefore if there is a gene that "causes" homosexuality, it may actually be beneficial to the continuation of the species.

Though since this is all still in its early days, I'm not going to make any broad, definitive statements based on it.

I was asked for a negative thing about homosexuality. That is the negative thing about homosexuality. It serves as a barrier for potentially amazing individuals to pass on their genetic code to future generations.

Right ... so how to did you get from that to "and that's the scientific reason behind homophobia"?

I never said it was the scientific reason for homophobia. I was asked for what negative effect it can have.

I repeat. All it does is serve as a barrier to the individual passing on their genetic code.

I didn't get in to HOW people become homosexual. That isn't important because how someone becomes homosexual couldn't make homosexuality itself a bad thing.

The ego allows the individual to actually identify that they are homosexual. I doubt animals can, as they lack true sentience. One thing is for certain, it hinders them from passing on their genetic code.

 

[101flyboy]

Yes it damn well is. Liking X but not liking Y is called a preference.

Sexual ORIENTATION. Orientation is a preference? No. Orientation is an immutable state of being.

It isn't aversion because I am not forced to vacate the premises, it isn't discrimination because I do not judge or act upon my tastes. My gut tells me the action is the opposite of attractive to me. I am repulsed by it. It is simply a taste.

Homophobia isn't taste. It's a deep-seated feeling of, in this case, aversion (disgust=averse), of homosexuality. It's a thought process. It's an internalized way of thinking. Your internalized thought process is that male-male kissing=disgusting. Why is that the case? Based on your many postings it's because you think of sex when you see them kissing. That's projective disgust. You are projecting disgust on a harmless act because your mind is transfixed on male anal sex and male oral sex. And the messier aspects of male-male sexuality.

A kiss is not disgusting. You have internalized issues with male homosexuality. You think it's unnatural and wrong. Those are your own words. So your thoughts on male homosexuality are based on your feelings on the matter of homosexuality. That it's wrong and unnatural.

Your solution is to stare at people while they kiss? Your solution is for me to do something I flat out do not enjoy because I might upset someone? I should stare at people as they perform sexual PDA? What planet do you live on?

Why do you keep going to sexual PDA? You can't help yourself. You really can't. And it's sad because a lot of us can see right through it yet you're clearly not able to see yourself and how you're coming off.

You are paranoid with gay male sex. Try asking yourself why.

My solution is to get over your discomfort and act normally. Normally, aka, as if you would when an opposite sex couple were kissing, or lesbian couple were kissing. Repress whatever internalized issues you have, stop making excuses for them, and make it a point to just be comfortable, even if you're not. Make it a habit. And you'll be over your discomfort.

This disgust at homosexual sexual PDA does not stop me from associating, having friends or interacting with homosexuals. I will never tell them to stop, tell them they shouldn't do it or make my disgust apparent. You are right, it is on me... but there is nothing morally wrong with it.

And I more or less clearly said the problem isn't with you, it's with your mentality. Morally wrong, no, simply wrong. Incorrect, is actually the better word. Irrational completely.

You really have no clue if your disgust is apparent or not. That's something for your "gay friends" to answer to. When I see people kissing, I look down but don't look away. I don't fidget, I don't pretend to be discomforted. I just let them kiss and enter my own zone. Maybe I'll use my phone while they kiss. Going to go out of your way to look away IS a reaction. Is it an aggressive one? No. It's a reaction in the same. It can easily be noticed. And picked up on.

You are really reading too far into that and taking it far too personal. I could not look at them for any number of reasons, maybe I just don't like PDA - they couldn't POSSIBLY know why, unless they partook in observing me while I observed others engage in PDA... but that's just like going out of their way to upset themselves.

Given the fact 99.9% of same-sex couples have to deal with reactions like yours daily when in public, excuse me for being a little skeptical about you believing they "wont have a clue" what you're thinking. Making it a point to look away is a reaction, and it's a negative one. Gay people aren't stupid. If I noticed you doing that, I'd immediately see it as you thinking that what I'm doing is gross. And I'm not the only one. There is, again, a reason why same-sex couples tend to be hesitant about showing affection. It's not something that just happens to be the case.

No. Flat out no. I am not scared of male homosexuals. I do not discriminate against them. I do not remove myself from their presence or request/wish they do the same for me. I just do not enjoy watching them engage in PDA.

You said you found a gay couple showing some basic loving affection endearing. Now you're saying "I don't enjoy watching them engage in PDA". Before, you said it was disgusting. You keep bringing up sex when it has nothing to do with the subject. You're all over the place. Stick with one story.

I never said you were scared of male homosexuals. In fact I never called you a homophobe, I said your mentality is homophobic. I've written several times what homophobia entails.

No, you've essentially stamped your feet and screamed "It's wrong because society".

LOL. I didn't do anything anywhere near the sort. I did say society is changing it's view on homosexuality and same-sex affection is becoming more open, free and accepted. And the reason for that is because there is nothing wrong with it, whatsoever. So if you see people moving away from your way of thinking, going out of your way to more or less state your way of thinking is unchangeable, natural and totally OK is going to cause some protestation. When other straight people on this very page say they are either totally uncaring or only slightly uncomfortable. They are not disgusted. So why are they not disgusted, yet you are disgusted. That's something you need to ask yourself.

Who said anything about panic mode?

Needing to look away to avoid a harmless kiss is panic mode. That's you needing to take action to protect yourself from the dreaded same-sex male kiss.

It's weird you have such an obsession with how someone else thinks. That's it, how someone THINKS. Not how they act or treat someone else, just how they think. I certainly admit it is MY problem - not yours. So you need to stop trying to make it your problem and just accept that people find things disgusting that you find enjoyable or neutral.

It's not about what you think. It's about you defending your homophobia as totally OK and calling homosexuality unnatural. And saying you "turn and look away" when two guys kiss yet say you don't make any reaction. And then getting defensive when called out on all of this. No-one is personally attacking you. You made statements, and people are responding to said statements.

No, I have no issue with homosexuality.

Oh, really? So then you have no issue with two men showing basic affection of one another without finding it disgusting, or unnatural, correct?

 

[Abomination]

I never said it was the scientific reason for homophobia.

"But deep down inside the animal that is man, we know it is not how we are "designed" to operate."

And we're not, because that's not how we reproduce.

That doesn't mean it explains how homophobia comes about as there are many reasons for why someone would discriminate against homosexuals. The only "natural" reason I can think of would be for a parent to be upset with their only offspring should they become homosexual and thus hindering the continuation of their genetic stock. But the child is under so such obligaion anyway... so what the parent thinks is moot.

 

[101flyboy]

Unappealing=A normal reaction towards something you're not interested/attracted towards.

Disgusted=A negative condemnation of something you find inherently incorrect.

I find two women kissing unappealing. Many straight men here have said they find two guys kissing unappealing. You don't look to see it, you'd prefer not to see it, but if you see it, you see it, and it's not a big deal.

You can find something unattractive and unappealing yet not disgusting. That is a more severe condemnation. That is homophobia. It doesn't mean said person is homophobic, however. It's not just about sexual orientation. Sexual orientation doesn't mean you find other orientations disgusting, you find basic affection between two people of a different orientation disgusting.

 

[101flyboy]

Anyone debating from the sex is for procreation position is really not worth engagement. They really are not.

 

[101flyboy]

That doesn't mean it explains how homophobia comes about as there are many reasons for why someone would discriminate against homosexuals. The only "natural" reason I can think of would be for a parent to be upset with their only offspring should they become homosexual and thus hindering the continuation of their genetic stock. But the child is under so such obligaion anyway... so what the parent thinks is moot.

This could also be a very valid reason:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

 

[Abomination]

Yes it damn well is. Liking X but not liking Y is called a preference.

Sexual ORIENTATION. Orientation is a preference? No. Orientation is an immutable state of being.

Orientation defines preference.

I am getting sick of the constant quote juggling so I'll summarize again.

Yes SEXUAL PDA, one can tell the difference between non-sexual PDA and sexual PDA. There is intense kissing and simple affection. When heterosexuals and lesbians cross into sexual PDA I just find it gauche. When homosexual men do it I find it disgusting/makes me uncomfortable. You seem to associate me with saying SEXUAL PDA as me watching two gay men have open intercourse, that is not the case, so I have been accidentally mixing the two.

I dislike observing it. My reasons are my own because you clearly seem obsessed with thinking you know them better than I do and accusing me of being something I am not.

This is not homophobia, I just do not enjoy watching two men have a snog.

I turn my head, but because I do not turn my head you've gone into... looking DOWN instead of to the side, using your phone or any other pointless gesture that isn't the same as mine. It has the same damn effect. You are no longer looking. How about I look at my phone instead, does that make you happy? Does that meet your 'acceptable thought process quota'? What an arbitrary restriction.

People not looking at others while they perform any form of PDA is not something to judge others upon because it could happen for any damn reason, ones that are personal. If someone is offended by someone NOT looking at them while they're kissing someone else of whatever gender then that offended individual needs to get the fuck over it.

 

[Orekoya]

Evolution is slightly more complicated than "members of the species that pass on their genes are natural, those that don't are unnatural". Try reading up on it a bit.

Someone asked me what is essentially "wrong" with homosexuality. In the grand scheme of things it stops/prevents/hinders the individual from passing on their genetic code - which is the primary goal of life. Continuation of the species. Since humans have ego, a sense of self, and homosexuality is an individual's trait and it prevents that individual from passing on their genetic code, that is how homosexuality can be a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing in this day and age, the gene pool is far far deep enough and the human population is more than capable of supporting itself a million times over.

I was asked for a negative thing about homosexuality. That is the negative thing about homosexuality. It serves as a barrier for potentially amazing individuals to pass on their genetic code to future generations.

There is seven billion humans on this planet. The Earth itself isn't capable of producing food to feed seven billion of us. We're already facing the dangers of marine ecosystem devastation from worldwide overfishing. If the primary goal of life is continuation then methods to prevent the dangers of overpopulation would be included. Another noticeable trait to emerge in support of that is the rate of spontaneous abortion has gone up, peaking to 30% natural self-terminations within the first trimester. Of course, that is a flawed argument from people who think life itself has goals.

Homosexuality appearing in the Western World though, where overpopulation is not an issue as it is very seldom individuals die of starvation (when compared to other areas of the world), couldn't be a response to overpopulation. People don't turn to homosexuality to stave off overpopulation, there's not some cosmic entity that flips peoples switches on birth to handle the situation.

The way that evolution would come in to play is by the weak simply not surviving, not by people "turning" to homosexuality.

First off, starvation isn't the only problem associated with overpopulation. Secondly, did you perhaps not notice the last sentence where I called all of that a flawed argument? Because I really meant that. My response was flawed in response to the statement's flawed logic. Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Finally: that's not how evolution works. It doesn't just kill off things; evolution certainly doesn't punish anything for being weak. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary changes can happen to any number of the species; they don't even have to happen identically or universally to all members of the species.

 

[Abomination]

First off, starvation isn't the only problem associated with overpopulation.

A lack of resources or a prevalence of toxic environment genereated by overpopulation. Essentially, a lack of space to grow or things to consume. Starvation of one kind or another.

Secondly, did you perhaps not notice the last sentence where I called all of that a flawed argument? Because I really meant that. My response was flawed in response to the statement's flawed logic. Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Not in the immediate generation it isn't wrong. But generations down the line could suffer from not inheriting a particular trait that could have been passed on by an individual that was homosexual.

FRinally: that's not how evolution works. It doesn't just kill off things; evolution doesn't punish anything for being weak. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary changes can happen to any number of the species' population; they don't even have to happen identically or universally to all members of the species.

Evolution is only realised at reproduction. If an individual was too weak to reproduce (as in died before it got the chance) then it did not contribute to evolution. If the individual does not reproduce it can not pass the traits it developed or its parents developed on to another. If no traits are passed on then no evolution took place. Its evolutionary path met a dead end.

 

[chikusho]

But the sight of two GUYS kissing makes my brain have a fucking seizure.

I don't appreciate seeing ugly people kissing either, that doesn't make me cacophobic.

I repeat. All it does is serve as a barrier to the individual passing on their genetic code.

Your junk doesn't magically stop working just because you prefer to stick it in a dude rather than a girl.
You can father/give birth to a child just the same no matter what you're turned on by.
Committing a "non-homosexual act" doesn't change the homosexuality part of the people participating.
By your logic "not wanting to have a child" is more unnatural than rubbing your genitals on someone of the same sex.

 

[Orekoya]

Life itself does not have goals; life has no endgame. Therefore in the grand scheme of things having someone's sexuality stop/prevent/hinder any individual from passing on their genetic code isn't essentially "wrong".

Not in the immediate generation it isn't wrong. But generations down the line could suffer from not inheriting a particular trait that could have been passed on by an individual that was homosexual.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like nonsensical speculation from a game of 'what if' to try and find a reason why it's "wrong". If such a particular trait did exist and was beneficial enough for reproducing, then I'm sure it'll find a way to attach itself to more individuals than just those whose sexuality stops/prevents/hinders them from passing on their genetic code.

FRinally: that's not how evolution works. It doesn't just kill off things; evolution doesn't punish anything for being weak. Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary changes can happen to any number of the species' population; they don't even have to happen identically or universally to all members of the species.

Evolution is only realised at reproduction. If an individual was too weak to reproduce (as in died before it got the chance) then it did not contribute to evolution. If the individual does not reproduce it can not pass the traits it developed or its parents developed on to another. If no traits are passed on then no evolution took place. Its evolutionary path met a dead end.

Evolution is not realized at reproduction; it is an accumulative process - up to the current generation, which homosexual are also a part of, and onwards to future generations.