Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Question

Guest

Open to all opinions. No bashing, please. Keep it civil.

To start it off, here's my opinion: Homosexuality is a genetically favored trait. The argument is just this simple: Man is a social animal - it is our most basic evolutionary advantage. Sex has evolved beyond procreation to become a key tool for social bonding (not just in humans but in other higher primates). The community that accepts LGBT bonding has an evolutionary advantage over the one that does not.

So what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Guest

i tend to think its immoral for several reasons. one you can't produce children (at least not without scientific help). two, if you do have children i tend to think it would not produce a healthy environment for them. (a child needs a mother and a father inmo.) three, and most importantly it's one of the primary causes of the creation and spread of STD's. (may be wrong on this point haven't really researched it to be honest.)

i don't blame people for being that way, but if you must have sex with someone of the same gender, please do so responsibly. heck that should be true even with normal sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

(a child needs a mother and a father inmo.)

what says they NEED a mom and a dad. how about two moms or two dads? you can have a single mom, or a single dad, but two parents of the same gender...no?

I'm fine with it, personally. I still think its odd for me to see two guys kissing, but I'm getting more and more used to the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

I'm fine with it, personally.

yep.. same here.. although here in India this topic is still not very open.. i mean i think homosexuality was legalised only this year(too late...)... but well the people here are pretty ok about it.. except the highly religious ones..

what i don't understand is how is it beneficial from evolutionary point of view... and if tis not then how did it come to be evolved in the first place????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

my opinion (yes i'm strongly biased):

i agree with phillip all the way

but I also want to respond to seeksit's statement here

Sex has evolved beyond procreation to become a key tool for social bonding

since when does social bonding become more important than procreating and keeping the generations going on this world??? if one generation is too focused on itself, what is left for the next? and the next after them? homosexuality is just as bad as abortion: depriving the generations of their numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

since when does social bonding become more important than procreating and keeping the generations going on this world??? if one generation is too focused on itself, what is left for the next? and the next after them? homosexuality is just as bad as abortion: depriving the generations of their numbers.

Homosexuality will always be a secondary trait. It's pretty obvious (to those who accept evolution) that it cannot become dominant over procreation. But birth control is doing so much more than homosexuality to 'deprive the generations of their numbers'. How do you respond to heterosexual couples who choose to 'focus on themselves' and have no children?

@Tralala! - You're right to wonder why homosexuality is so wide spread among humans and higher primates (such as bonbobos). It's pretty strong evidence that it has some advantage. The advantage I see is that it diffuses tensions and conflict by providing a positive outlet, thus strengthening the positive emotional bond between members of a social group. A stronger, more coherent social group can out-compete others (for available resources).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

@Tralala! - You're right to wonder why homosexuality is so wide spread among humans and higher primates (such as bonbobos). It's pretty strong evidence that it has some advantage. The advantage I see is that it diffuses tensions and conflict by providing a positive outlet, thus strengthening the positive emotional bond between members of a social group. A stronger, more coherent social group can out-compete others (for available resources).

i see what u mean.... i guess its another way to check the exponential growth of population...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

i do not agree. here's my take on it.

homosexuality was not accepted yesterday but is moving to acceptance today.

the reason? it's the individual's choice. some say "i'm born that way"

Which one of these do you think is acceptable -

pedophiles - let's say someone's eight year old enters a relationship with a thirty year old man.

It's their choice.

objectum sexuals - i saw on tyra the other day a woman who married the eiffel tower. she has sexual

relations with objects. The audience were clearly disgusted. But... it's her choice (even from

young).

bestiality - not too long ago a man was caught committing such an act with a goat in my country. Everyone had

a fit. Yet, again it his choice.

Extreme examples, you say? maybe. but once upon a time, homosexuality was viewed in the same light.

When the world has such fickle morals, i wonder what i can look forward to the world accepting tomorrow.....

Edited by ana_stassia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

i do not agree. here's my take on it.

homosexuality was not accepted yesterday but is moving to acceptance today.

the reason? it's the individual's choice. some say "i'm born that way"

Which one of these do you think is acceptable -

pedophiles - let's say someone's eight year old enters a relationship with a thirty year old man.

It's their choice.

objectum sexuals - i saw on tyra the other day a woman who married the eiffel tower. she has sexual

relations with objects. The audience were clearly disgusted. But... it's her choice (even from

young).

bestiality - not too long ago a man was caught committing such an act with a goat in my country. Everyone had

a fit. Yet, again it his choice.

Extreme examples, you say? maybe. but once upon a time, homosexuality was viewed in the same light.

When the world has such fickle morals, i wonder what i can look forward to the world accepting tomorrow.....

There's a few problems with these arguments (though that doesn't stop them from being constantly revived :rolleyes: ).

"Homosexuality was not accepted yesterday," but it was accepted the day before. It was a common occurrence in Ancient Greece; then the Judeo-Christian world superseded the Greco-Roman world and used the Torah as a basis for outlawing it. So to say that it was always a sin before now is patently false.

As for pedophilia, objectumity(?), and bestiality, the most significant difference between them and homosexuality is mutual consent. A goat or the Eiffel Tower can't consent to a committed relationship with a person. As for children, they generally aren't considered able to make a binding consensual decision under the laws of most countries today, so that doesn't count either. So in none of those cases could both parties say that they agree under the law, while two adults of the same gender are perfectly capable of making such a commitment, making the situation different from those other cases. So long as we can guarantee that both sides in the relationship are in it of their own free will, it's a completely different thing from your examples.

In my view, if people want to be in a committed relationship with each other, I don't see what business I have with their consensual decision.

And regarding the "'m born that way" thing, I think that someone mentioned it in another thread, but why would two people choose to be gay if they can expect constant persecution and ostracization from their friends and family and the general community? From a simple logical perspective, it would be crazy for homosexuals to choose to be gay when they know that they could get killed for being so. If Uganda passes its death penalty law for being homosexual, do you think that all of the homosexuals living there will suddenly be "straight" because the price is death? If it's their own choice, then you would expect that they would. I find that very unlikely to happen if that bill becomes law... :( There is all sorts of evidence to corroborate the fact that it is a biological difference that creates these different sexual preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

"Homosexuality was not accepted yesterday," but it was accepted the day before. It was a common occurrence in Ancient Greece; then the Judeo-Christian world superseded the Greco-Roman world and used the Torah as a basis for outlawing it. So to say that it was always a sin before now is patently false.

true, homosexuality has been in the world for a while, as far back as the first century AD, yet they were, even then, referred to specifically as "homosexual offenders"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

In reply to dawh -

Funny you would mention ancient greece. From my research (correct me if wrong please), adult males would have homosexual relations with teenage boys. When the young boys came of age to get married, they would abandon such relationships and find a female mate. Personally, I would never use ancient greece to base my morals on. But, that is my opinion. Others have theirs.

I get your point on the flaw in my argument, however I would hardly say an object needs to give consent in the case of objectum sexuals. If someone wants to do some sexual act with a rock, does the rock know? care?

In the case of an animal, maybe it may have no objection... who knows? If it has objection then i accept your argument.

Also you stated that under law in certain countries, children aren't able to make a binding consensual decision. Laws change according to the topic we're discussing. Homosexuals were not allowed to marry. The law changed in some countries and now they are. Maybe, soon we will say it's the youth's right to make his/her own decision and change that law.

My whole point was really to say that in general homosexuality was not accepted (minus ancient greece of course).

But it is slowly becoming acceptable by all. So, when this is accomplished, other groups will rise and seek that equality as well. Maybe we won't accept it, but who is saying that our children or their children will when we are gone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm a pretty individualistic person (as far as philosophy of freedom goes) so I respect what others do and hope they respect what I do. I think homosexuality is great and it's great that it's becoming more accepted. It's a good facet of our ever-diversifying society and one helpful reprieve toward the imminent over-population/under-resource problem our planet is facing. I know quite a few gay/bisexual people and most are proud of it, because it's either the way they grew into it or biological or both, but either way it's part of who they are and for most of them, not hugely different from us straight people.

Anyway the STD argument is bs IIRC, but that's just a justification, not the real reason people don't like it. People don't like it because it's different, and I admit that often the idea is aversive to me, but I still respect everyone for their sexual orientation no matter what it is.

Regarding having sex with (1) inanimate objects, (2) animals, and (3) children:

(1) to be perfectly honest I don't care. Let Mrs. Eiffel Tower have at it all she wants. If it conflicts with france's laws so be it haha, either way this is such a small thing and probably only half-true in the first place. But even if there was a solid 10% sub-population that was into inanimate objects (what about dildos and other sex toys? The only difference between them and a rock is that they are designed specifically for the purpose), even if so, so be it. I don't care and it's a tiny strange issue lol

(2) bestiality is another weird thing, maybe less rare, I don't know. But yes as with children there is a consent issue here. If you somehow knew the animal was intelligent enough to be aware of it and was also into cross-species relations (highly unlikely), then I guess, um, go for it. Regardless of the morality of it I would hope animal brutality laws cover this to some extent. Either way I don't see how this affects anything haha

(3) I know that dawh said "law" but he meant (or at least I mean) it's more than law, it's innate human sense of morality, that until we've reached a certain point of intellectual and physical maturity we're not ready to consent to that kind of thing. I don't think you need to worry about homosexuality opening a floodgate of "pro-molestation" laws

In short it's ridiculous that homosexual wasn't "legal" until a short time ago, along with a lot of other ridiculous laws like marijuana illegality (though thankfully that's starting to change), etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If a topic makes me want to vomit, does that mean I should stop reading? Phillip, you posted first. Let's begin!

i tend to think its immoral for several reasons. one you can't produce children (at least not without scientific help).

Where is the immorality in this? People can be born with conditions rendering their reproductive systems incapable of proper function. These people can't procreate. Are they immoral?

two, if you do have children i tend to think it would not produce a healthy environment for them. (a child needs a mother and a father inmo.)

I have friends that can personally testify that the environment a child placed in when adopted by or given birth to by homosexual parents is hardly different from children with heterosexual parents. If ANYTHING, said children will be more open minded, and less likely to discriminate against their peers based on arbitrary attributes such as sexual preference.

...So.. if your parents get a divorce, would it make sense to take you away from them to live with a married couple? You need a mother and a father, after all. Forget the desires of the child and the bond it has created with its biological parents.

three, and most importantly it's one of the primary causes of the creation and spread of STD's. (may be wrong on this point haven't really researched it to be honest.)

I'm sorry, Gawd made STDs. ;)

In all seriousness, dude, HIV didn't even originate in humans. It came from primates a while back and was eventually transferred to humans in the 20th century. AIDS is MUCH more of a problem in Africa than it is within the gay community. Should we ban an entire continent from having sex because they're immoral because they have STDs? (Remember, your words.)In fact, let's ban hospitals from administering drugs IV/IM and pharmacies from handing out diabetic syringes, because, GMOZ!! DRUGGIES! THEY'LL GET STDS!!!one11!!1111.

(I'm totally not undermining how bad STDs are here, I'm just pointing out that there's a LOT more to it than some people screwing around with each other.

i don't blame people for being that way, but if you must have sex with someone of the same gender, please do so responsibly. heck that should be true even with normal sex.

Yeah, first sensible thing you've said.

Personally, let people do whatever they want so long it infringes upon the rights of no other person.

Oh, gay marriage? Totally for it. Please stop using your gawds to justify heartless discrimination for something that existed as a form of tribal affinity way before your church decided to claim it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

since when does social bonding become more important than procreating and keeping the generations going on this world??? if one generation is too focused on itself, what is left for the next? and the next after them? homosexuality is just as bad as abortion: depriving the generations of their numbers.

It's not but it's much more complicated than that.

Social bonding is important with animals where alpha male is the only one that has the right to copulate with the females in that particular tribe/pack. With social animals there is a strict hierarchy that has to be respected or else...

By social bonding all other males are incorporating themselves in the existing hierarchy, and depending how good they are at it (grooming, rubbing genitals etc.) they are granted, by the alpha male, to mate with some females and pass on their own genes.

In this example homosexual behavior and procreation are in cohesion.

However I think that there is a significant difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality. One does not need to be a homosexual to practice homosexual behavior and vice versa, if one does not practice homosexual behavior (refuses to for whatever reason - fear of being condemned and rejected) but doesn't feel like being heterosexual either (has no interest in woman sexually, if the ONE in question is male :lol:) is in fact a homosexual. :wacko:

I hope you get what I mean :)

Edited by andromeda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

homosexuality is just as bad as abortion: depriving the generations of their numbers.

ever heard of over population? read the "among the hidden" series, or at least the first book by Margret Peterson Haddix. I know it's fiction, but at the same time, the world wont be able to support 100 trillion people. And they aren't depriving - they acually balancing the population. ever notice how forests are now not as much, just a few trees surrounded by apartments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

homosexuality is just as bad as abortion: depriving the generations of their numbers.

If by just as bad, you mean completely harmless, YOU'RE RIGHT. WELL REALIZED.

Let me put it this way. Fetuses aren't children, they are potential children. Gametes aren't children, again, they are potential children. By not engaging in sex every moment of the day, you, are preventing the conception of potential children. This, by your argument, is just as bad.

Now, here's why abortion is.. justifiable. Your fetus isn't human, it's a parasite. By definition, a parasite is an organism that lives in or on another, and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. This is precisely what a fetus is. The mother has to give up HER body the same way she does with the presence of a tapeworm, for instance. Now, I mean, for the most part, fetuses and mothers enjoy a positive mutual relationship, so I'm not trying to impose some sort of negative connotation on it as is usually normal with the word "parasite". However, the parasitic partnership of a fetus to a woman means that its survival requires her consent. If she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. More info. here.

Homosexual relationships? Still all about consent. By consent, in instance of the mother or the gay partners, the humans rights of no one are being transgressed. The unborn have no right to life. That sounds harsh, but.. it's true.

Peace brought up a good point with population control. I read Beyond the Betrayed in.. second or third grade, I think. Scary stuff. However, statistics show that societies that have a same death rate as birth rate are the most successful, and this is definitely true with planned parenthood and responsible breeding (limiting yourself to a few kids and not having 982394850). For gawd's sake, stop treating every bundle of cells like it's special!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

true, homosexuality has been in the world for a while, as far back as the first century AD, yet they were, even then, referred to specifically as "homosexual offenders"

Um, I'm not sure where you get your data, but Grecian society had already been superseded by the Romans by the first century AD. Evidence for homosexuality dates back to at least the Fifth century BC and I'm curious where it was "specifically [referred to] as 'homosexual offenders.'" Have you seen the police reports from the first century or something, because if you have, I'd like to see them too.

Just because you heard or read something somewhere at sometime doesn't mean that it's true. For all I know, what you say could be true, but you're the first person who's ever mentioned it to me and I'm guessing you don't know from first-hand experience, so you must have heard it from someone else, but as you failed to mention your source, I'm a little skeptical to take your word for it.

In reply to dawh -

Funny you would mention ancient greece. From my research (correct me if wrong please), adult males would have homosexual relations with teenage boys. When the young boys came of age to get married, they would abandon such relationships and find a female mate. Personally, I would never use ancient greece to base my morals on. But, that is my opinion. Others have theirs.

Yes, it's true that Grecian men had relationships with adolescent boys (and I certainly wasn't advocating for such relationships), but I wasn't arguing for Greek morality, I was merely contending with your statement that homosexuality was always frowned upon by the general populace until recently. That argument is patently false and to argue thus is ignoring the facts.

I get your point on the flaw in my argument, however I would hardly say an object needs to give consent in the case of objectum sexuals. If someone wants to do some sexual act with a rock, does the rock know? care?

In the case of an animal, maybe it may have no objection... who knows? If it has objection then i accept your argument.

Also you stated that under law in certain countries, children aren't able to make a binding consensual decision. Laws change according to the topic we're discussing. Homosexuals were not allowed to marry. The law changed in some countries and now they are. Maybe, soon we will say it's the youth's right to make his/her own decision and change that law.

Like unreality pointed out, when I said laws I was referring to the laws on the books as written by humans, but I was also referring to the underlying fact that as children's brains are still developing, we recognize that they cannot be expected to be able to make competent judgment for themselves until they have reached some degree of maturity. And I think that is perfectly reasonable decision. Until they reach a certain stage of development, children do need a certain amount of direction from their elders. So it's disingenuous to say that homosexuality is analogous to any of those things that you mentioned. My point is that to try to treat all of those behaviors as similar and equally likely to be accepted is extremely prejudiced because there are some fundamental differences in how those behaviors can (or cannot) be justified morally and legally.

My whole point was really to say that in general homosexuality was not accepted (minus ancient greece of course).

But it is slowly becoming acceptable by all. So, when this is accomplished, other groups will rise and seek that equality as well. Maybe we won't accept it, but who is saying that our children or their children will when we are gone?

It's a little curious that you seem to think that Ancient Greece doesn't count in this equation, when other ancient cultures do...Would it be reasonable for me to argue that most of the world believes in Islam today (minus the Americas, Eastern Asia, India and Europe)? It's not an honest argument if we can just ignore large portions of the population since it doesn't agree with the truth we want.

It seems that most of the people here arguing against accepting homosexuality are trying to make arguments that don't involve references to a holy book, but I wonder, would most of you be here arguing against it if there was no mention of homosexuality in any way in said holy text? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

dawh, i really don't intend on arguing back and forth with you on this topic. In my opinion as i stated, ancient greece is one of the worst examples to establish such a point upon. Regardless of if accepted there or not, greece does not speak for the entire world.

...Would it be reasonable for me to argue that most of the world believes in Islam today (minus the Americas, Eastern Asia, India and Europe)?

(Quite similar to your question -

Would it be reasonable for you to argue that homosexuality was accepted in the past (minus everyone besides greece?)

I would much rather you give me an example where i can trust the judgement of the people in such land. Somewhere known for persons getting involved in all types of questionable conduct will not help to give you ground on this matter.

So it's disingenuous to say that homosexuality is analogous to any of those things that you mentioned. My point is that to try to treat all of those behaviors as similar and equally likely to be accepted is extremely prejudiced because there are some fundamental differences in how those behaviors can (or cannot) be justified morally and legally.

Did i say that they were similar? They are merely behaviours we would consider unacceptable presently but may be subject to change later on. My argument was based upon the fact that in all cases (forget pedophilia if you wish) the individual chooses his/her sexual preference. Why shouldn't they fight for their rights as well?

It seems that most of the people here arguing against accepting homosexuality are trying to make arguments that don't involve references to a holy book, but I wonder, would most of you be here arguing against it if there was no mention of homosexuality in any way in said holy text?

Were you expecting a no? In answer, YES I would. Notice, that throughout all of our arguments no-one mentioned any 'holy text' or any 'gawds' as izzy mentioned. Honestly, from since I've first heard about homosexual relationships, I've never agreed with it. To me, it is just not natural. I could have been in my late teens when i saw that it was spoken about in the bible.

(not related to homosexuality -

on a side point, do you think that killing is wrong? I'm sure you do. Did a holy book tell you that?)

Please, do not act presumptuously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Were you expecting a no? In answer, YES I would. Notice, that throughout all of our arguments no-one mentioned any 'holy text' or any 'gawds' as izzy mentioned. Honestly, from since I've first heard about homosexual relationships, I've never agreed with it. To me, it is just not natural. I could have been in my late teens when i saw that it was spoken about in the bible.

(not related to homosexuality -

on a side point, do you think that killing is wrong? I'm sure you do. Did a holy book tell you that?)

Please, do not act presumptuously.

But *why* have you never agreed with it? Not killing people is an evolutionary trait of altruistic behavior, something ingrained in all of us to up our chances of reproductive success. I mean.. I guess this also holds true with heterosexual relationships, but so along as it hurts no one (very untrue for killing people), why do you care? Name one reason why you think it's wrong, or one way it hurts someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest
Did i say that they were similar? They are merely behaviours we would consider unacceptable presently but may be subject to change later on. My argument was based upon the fact that in all cases (forget pedophilia if you wish) the individual chooses his/her sexual preference. Why shouldn't they fight for their rights as well?
Whether a sexual preference for homosexuality (or any of the other examples given) is chosen or not is beside the point, although there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not. Your argument doesn't work because it is a slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality today, paedophilia tomorrow? This is nonsense. Paedophiles may fight for the right to have sex with children, but they would lose. The reason, as previously pointed out, comes down to the principle of consent, or the simple fact that it does harm. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is practised as sex between consenting adults. It does no harm. See the difference?:duh: The morals of the world can and do change, but that doesn't mean the change is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

But *why* have you never agreed with it? Not killing people is an evolutionary trait of altruistic behavior, something ingrained in all of us to up our chances of reproductive success. I mean.. I guess this also holds true with heterosexual relationships, but so along as it hurts no one (very untrue for killing people), why do you care? Name one reason why you think it's wrong, or one way it hurts someone.

As you would have noticed, I was not making a comparison. I was making a point.

Anyway, I've never agreed with it partly because i did not grow up in a society that embraced it. I've always known a relationship to be between one man and one woman. Just look at the make up of the human body. Clearly, it was not made so that male and male or female and female should go together. I know they try to make up in... other ways, but even as a straight woman, I would never try that option. (if you know what i'm talking about)

Someone said this before, but also there is no way they could ever reproduce. Only a female can carry children. (even the pregnant man that made news a good while back was not biologically a man). In addition only men carry the male Y chromosome. The man and woman work as a team - there is no other way.

My reason has nothing to do with hurting people as you were saying with killing. For example, a person who lies may not hurt someone, however, no one needs to tell us that it is wrong. It's the same with smoking and overdrinking. (though others may not have a problem with it. i saw the comment on marijuana) That's really the way I feel about homosexuality. No-one told me. I just don't like it. Don't get me wrong, it's the practice that is the problem for me. That doesn't mean that if I actually meet a homosexual I would turn up my nose and look down on them. As a matter of fact, I have family members that have that preference and I have never treated them any different than I did before finding out.

I don't expect you to understand my thoughts. I am simply giving my opinion. I will not change it as i'm sure you won't change yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Honestly, from since I've first heard about homosexual relationships, I've never agreed with it. To me, it is just not natural. I could have been in my late teens when i saw that it was spoken about in the bible.

who defined normal? your mom and dad? please - what is "normal" - then tell my WHY. why is _____ "normal". is cookies normal? but with milk, it's still normal, but your adding milk, no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

Whether a sexual preference for homosexuality (or any of the other examples given) is chosen or not is beside the point, although there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it is not. Your argument doesn't work because it is a slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality today, paedophilia tomorrow? This is nonsense. Paedophiles may fight for the right to have sex with children, but they would lose. The reason, as previously pointed out, comes down to the principle of consent, or the simple fact that it does harm. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is practised as sex between consenting adults. It does no harm. See the difference?:duh: The morals of the world can and do change, but that doesn't mean the change is bad.

Thank you for educating me on the slippery slope fallacy. That's new information I will keep in mind.

To tell you the truth, I am tired of explaining. I did not say it will happen. I said it may happen. (meaning maybe or maybe not) Last i checked, 'will' and 'may' did not mean the same thing. With regards to the paedophilia topic, i did not push the point further, if you noticed, so there was no need for you to address that topic again. Really, I'm typing too much today. Speaking about 'principle of consent' or doing 'harm', you can look at my previous post if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest

who defined normal? your mom and dad? please - what is "normal" - then tell my WHY. why is _____ "normal". is cookies normal? but with milk, it's still normal, but your adding milk, no problem.

First of all, does the blank mean 'anything in particular'? Anyway, no one has to define normal. We learn what is normal by the patterns we observe around us. Maybe if i had grown up with two mothers or two fathers I might have accepted homosexuality. Who knows? To me it just isn't normal. We all have different standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As you would have noticed, I was not making a comparison. I was making a point.

Really? I hadn't noticed. :P

Anyway, I've never agreed with it partly because i did not grow up in a society that embraced it. I've always known a relationship to be between one man and one woman.

Wow bro, way to be for equality. I mean, I know some people are just entirely incapable of thinking for themselves, but if you grew up in a society where the norm was severe racism, putting down woman, etc. you wouldn't stop for a sec and go "Man.. maybe this isn't right." I love how the golden rule means absolutely NOTHING to you. Would you be one of those people fighting for something because it's what you grew up with and are selfishly comfortable with, not because it's right?

Just look at the make up of the human body. Clearly, it was not made so that male and male or female and female should go together. I know they try to make up in... other ways, but even as a straight woman, I would never try that option. (if you know what i'm talking about)

..Maybe we just haven't finished evolving and aren't hermaphroditic yet, which, evolutionarily speaking, is the best form an animal can be? There's a logical fallacy you're employing here, but I can't remember what it's called, so can't provide a link, unfortunately. It's basically something along the lines of thinking that because something appears to be designed some way, it's meant to be used that way. Like the Bananaman asserting that the banana was designed to be eaten by humans because of how perfectly it fits in our hands. I mean, I'm not denying that the reproductive organs can be used to procreate, but they aren't primarily used as such. Like many things, they have multiple uses (urinating for instance) and can be pushed into multiple orifices. If someone's primary goal is reproduction, then yeah, a man-woman relationship would be ideal, but relationships are also about love, and just sex. Both can be married out in male-male, male-female, and female-female (and, multiple people) relationships, so I don't see the problem. Oh, and as for it "not being normal", Google homosexuality in animals sometime.

Someone said this before, but also there is no way they could ever reproduce. Only a female can carry children. (even the pregnant man that made news a good while back was not biologically a man). In addition only men carry the male Y chromosome. The man and woman work as a team - there is no other way.

You're assuming it is the job of every person in the world to carry out the continuation of humanity. It's NOT. Some people don't want to have babies, some people can't have babies. They shouldn't be punished for this. Telling someone they have to be with a partner of the opposite sex so they can have kids isn't far off from eugenics. You are FORCING people to do something they don't want to do. I can't really see you carrying out a crusade against single people, so just leave gays alone, yeah? Also, adoption. I'm going to assume you have a problem with that, but honestly, it helps.

My reason has nothing to do with hurting people as you were saying with killing. For example, a person who lies may not hurt someone, however, no one needs to tell us that it is wrong. It's the same with smoking and overdrinking. (though others may not have a problem with it. i saw the comment on marijuana) That's really the way I feel about homosexuality. No-one told me. I just don't like it.

Actually.. I get the feeling you, I, and practically everyone else have been bombarded with a "KILLING, SMOKING, DRINKING, AND DOING DRUGS ARE BADDDDDD" campaign since primary school. Unfortunately, that's how our society works (ie brainwashing, though it's not always negative) and not a lot of thinking is left up to the individual.

Don't get me wrong, it's the practice that is the problem for me. That doesn't mean that if I actually meet a homosexual I would turn up my nose and look down on them. As a matter of fact, I have family members that have that preference and I have never treated them any different than I did before finding out.

[/color=purple]Hmm, how to word this without getting too graphic. Basically, unless you're having only missionary sex... there's really nothing to be uncomfortable about. If you know what I mean. I mean, I can't change the fact that you're uncomfortable with it, but it's still an irrational discomfort. I'm not saying you should go out and screw some other chick, but at least sympathize with knowing it's not a choice, and that there's nothing wrong with what you're putting where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

First of all, does the blank mean 'anything in particular'? Anyway, no one has to define normal. We learn what is normal by the patterns we observe around us. Maybe if i had grown up with two mothers or two fathers I might have accepted homosexuality. Who knows? To me it just isn't normal. We all have different standards.

so, you were saying it isn't normal TO ME, right? and yes, ___ means anything in particular.

If you anyone is interested in answering my next odd question, is normal alwasy better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...