'Homosexuality Isn't Natural or Healthy'

[calpoon]

population control has always been a factor. as has resource manangment. I think you are mistaken.

it's projected that the natural resources of Phoenix, AZ on it's own are sufficient enough to support a population of around 1,000 people.

take a look at the history of the polynesian islands, central america, the american southwest, greenland, australia. all of these societies faced total or near catastrophic collapse because of those factors, and that was people using only stone age technology.

 

[Imagine]

population control has always been a factor. as has resource manangment. I think you are mistaken.

Not in terms of evolution. In fact, evolution in a competitive scenario ensures that those most suitable to survive can reproduce. If an area cannot sustain a population (which essentially means the food supply is not sufficient), starvation will set in and reduce the population to a manageable level. This happens all the time, easily seen in the relationship between predators and herbivores. If we were to view homosexuality as a sort of preemptive measure, there is a problem. First of all, it must be a genetic trait. Second, if it is genetic, it must be passed down. The very nature of this gene would be self-destructive, if it manifest itself in order to prevent reproduction, it will not be carried on to the next generation. It would make itself extinct fairly quickly in the long run.

 

[nukenitro]

Not in terms of evolution. In fact, evolution in a competitive scenario ensures that those most suitable to survive can reproduce. If an area cannot sustain a population (which essentially means the food supply is not sufficient), starvation will set in and reduce the population to a manageable level. This happens all the time, easily seen in the relationship between predators and herbivores. If we were to view homosexuality as a sort of preemptive measure, there is a problem. First of all, it must be a genetic trait. Second, if it is genetic, it must be passed down. The very nature of this gene would be self-destructive, if it manifest itself in order to prevent reproduction, it will not be carried on to the next generation. It would make itself extinct fairly quickly in the long run.

well the idea of it being a genetic trait that can be passed down through a family and skip generations is not that far fetched. some scientists have made findings where the part of the brain that controls pleasure is significantly larger in homosexual men. abnormalities like that can only be caused by pollution and genetics

 

[calpoon]

it's pointless to argue. all of the people that don't hold any predjudice are just going to say, "yeah. so what?" and the people that have anti-gay agenda are going to use unscientifically supported (but nicely scientfically sounding) theory to back up thier biggotry.

they use(d) "science" to justify racism and sexism and now sexuality. I don't want to listen to your science anymore.

 

[Perilypos]

I don't care whether homosexuality is "natural or healthy". If it is unhealthy, it is homosexuals who bear the risk and I don't think I am either obliged or competent to save them against their own will.

All those scientific and pseudo-scientific theories, either pros or cons, stink to me and however I respect science and its importance, I am strongly unwilling to allow scientists and pseudo-scientists to manipulate human lives by means of their (sometimes crazy) theories (healthy life style, social engineering, population control, etc.).

Personally, I have no problems with homosexuals unless they try to establish themselves as an oppressed political minority and unless any of them insists in trying to start relationship with me or another heterosexual.

 

[Imagine]

well the idea of it being a genetic trait that can be passed down through a family and skip generations is not that far fetched. some scientists have made findings where the part of the brain that controls pleasure is significantly larger in homosexual men. abnormalities like that can only be caused by pollution and genetics

But the entire point of natural selection is that traits that maximize the chances of reproducing are what will be carried on. A gene that is specifically designed to do the opposite shouldn't survive. I've read the reports about male homosexuals brains, though from what I understood all they've found is that the area that deals with erotic stimulation resembles that of a female brain than that of a male. This is not necessarily a genetic trait or mutation, a brain can develop based on external stimuli as well. Being gay could very well be a purely social issue.

it's pointless to argue. all of the people that don't hold any predjudice are just going to say, "yeah. so what?" and the people that have anti-gay agenda are going to use unscientifically supported (but nicely scientfically sounding) theory to back up thier biggotry.

Did I say I was anti-gay at some point? I might also point out the irony of accusing others of being prejudiced given your own prejudice about those who don't agree with your opinion.

-

Actually, I'm going to share a theory about it. Sex, to a large extent, has developed into more than a tool for reproduction. It is also a way to ensure bonding between the parents, which is necessary in a species where a child is such a large investment as in humans (upwards 15 years). Children of parents that raise the child together have a greater chance of surviving. One could argue that the same could be applied to a society or flock. Homosexuality would in that case much like heterosexuality be means for keeping a group together. This would explain why it exists and solve the problem of the self-eradicating gene (essentially, we're all more or less bisexual with some having preferences one way or another, which is also what many in the field of humanities claim). Strict homosexuality (and for that matter, strict heterosexuality) is then simply the extreme manifestation of the trait.

My problem here is that it should be more readily observable in other social animals, apes specifically. It is not, as far as I know, and there are no norms for them to worry about.

 

[Bigoldowls]

A person's sexuality is decided before they are born. In the same manner as a person's gender, hair/eye colour etc.

With homophobia you often find that those who instigate and orchestrate it are themselves gay.

 

[ChefChiTown]

What about if a heterosexual man tries to start a relationship with a lesbian woman? That happens all the time. "She hates men, but I can change all that" says the misogynist.

That's soooo true. One of the guys I used to work with spent a good 2 years trying to get a lesbian to go out with him (aka - have sex with him) and he actually got MAD about it when she denied him.

 

[thorsif]

As far as im concerned, God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve

 

[Supafly]

Bush's Choice for Top Doc Compared Human Genitalia to Pipe Fittings and Said Homosexual Practices Can Cause Injury or Death

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3251663&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Well, the ultimately deadliest thing that can happen to humans (and animals, btw) is being born. Because if you count the deaths by homosexuality, sports, war, being a musician, marrying, having kids, the number of the people born who die are by far the largest

So when is Bush going to act there :thumbsup:

 

[Yankeefan21325]

A person's sexuality is decided before they are born. In the same manner as a person's gender, hair/eye colour etc.

With homophobia you often find that those who instigate and orchestrate it are themselves gay.

See the republican party as a perfect example. Their all turning out to be gay.

 

[dustin102987]

bleh, it's natural in that there have been homosexuals since the dawn of man. as for nature itself, it's unnatural since the everything strives for survival, and homosexuality doesn't help that.

 

[SkiSki]

I disagree with gay marriage. But I don't really care about gay sex, because I feel that what people do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own business. However, when they want to get married, now their influencing our children's minds and trying to force everyone to accept them. But, I don't pay that much attention to homosexuals because they are attention seekers and by complaining about their lifestyles and protesting them gives them what they want. They just want everyone to aknowledge them, so they have parades and demand rights to get that aknowledgement. You don't see heterosexual parades, do you? And when you look at it, there is much more evidence that homosexuality is unnatrual as to that it is natural. I mean, come on! Men can't make babies with other men, only a man and a woman can do that. Now, I understand that now days there is ways homosexuals can get children, but at the beginning of time, only a man and woman could do it. And since the whole purpose of sex is to reproduce, and seeing as how homosexuals can't reproduce, doesn't that raise suspision right there that it is unnatural? Also, some people have told me that I am intolerant because I disagree with homosexual marriage. They say its like being racist. I don't understand how though, race is different from sexuality, I am not against people for their skin colour, but I can be against them for unnatural sexuality. Anyway, those are my opinions.

 

[YMIHERE]

And since the whole purpose of sex is to reproduce, and seeing as how homosexuals can't reproduce, doesn't that raise suspision right there that it is unnatural?

Who says the whole purpose of sex is reproduction. How about man who are biologically unable to produce viable sperm or woman who biologically can't get pregnant. Should they stop having sex because it's unnatural. Sex can be done just for the fun of it without reproducing. It can be a bonding experience between lovers. Sex has many purposes besides reproduction.

It's unnatural not to have homosexuals in any given population.

 

[CADDYMAN]

I have no idea if it is healthy but again any lifestyle straight or gay that someone has unprotected sex is I believe unhealthy.

Why should only straight people be allowed to be married ?

This isnt a christian institution or any other religion and they should have to make commitments like any hetero couple has to.

I know lots of gay couples thruout my life who have been together as long as i can remember and they deserve the right to be wed or however you decide to describe this union.

And natural......its obviously been going on before they started keeping any sort of records and when its all said and done.

FREE WILL

Something that should never be lost

CAD

 

[shayd]

I have no idea if it is healthy but again any lifestyle straight or gay that someone has unprotected sex is I believe unhealthy.

Why should only straight people be allowed to be married ?

This isnt a christian institution or any other religion and they should have to make commitments like any hetero couple has to.

I know lots of gay couples thruout my life who have been together as long as i can remember and they deserve the right to be wed or however you decide to describe this union.

And natural......its obviously been going on before they started keeping any sort of records and when its all said and done.

FREE WILL

Something that should never be lost

CAD

I'm with you here. What's wrong with them getting married?

Is being gay unnatural? I'm far from an expert here, so my input is minimal. But why not let them get married? Is gay marriage unnatural? I don't know, but judging from the fact that marriage itself is a social construct, I'd say by definition marriage of any type might be unnatural. So I don't see a problem with it, they want to get married, let 'em, they're people too.