Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.
There's no reason to limit it to male homosexuality. Male and female homosexuality don't serve much purpose as far as evolution goes because children only get the genes from a single mother and father but a lot of things don't serve an evolutionary purpose and aren't defects and it's not like they can't conceive at all. They can still pass their genes down, just not mixed with their partner's genes.
If you reduce the purpose of life to survival of the species then you can eliminate a lot of unnecessary elements but life isn't worth living for survival on its own. People need to feel happy in their lives too. Even if you think homosexuality is unnecessary, they aren't causing harm to others so those people deserve to feel happy in their lives as much as anyone else who similarly isn't causing harm through the way they live.
And your implication is female homosexuality isn't a genetic defect? How can your position be one but not the other. If both are, then why not simply say, "Homosexuality is a genetic defect," unless you have a problem with gay men?
There's no reason to limit it to male homosexuality. Male and female homosexuality don't serve much purpose as far as evolution goes because children only get the genes from a single mother and father but a lot of things don't serve an evolutionary purpose and aren't defects and it's not like they can't conceive at all. They can still pass their genes down, just not mixed with their partner's genes.
If you reduce the purpose of life to survival of the species then you can eliminate a lot of unnecessary elements but life isn't worth living for survival on its own. People need to feel happy in their lives too. Even if you think homosexuality is unnecessary, they aren't causing harm to others so those people deserve to feel happy in their lives as much as anyone else who similarly isn't causing harm through the way they live.
Homosexuality may very well be necessary for the survival of a species if the species is using too many resources. I've always wondered if homosexuality might be higher in highly congested and/or areas where people are malnourished, as opposed to area and times where there is a need for more rampant procreation. One might also look into long-term genetic trends towards having less offspring or later in life to compensate for excessive population growth, a lack of resources, and longer life spans, but so far that seems more of a cultural choice than a biological one.
And your implication is female homosexuality isn't a genetic defect? How can your position be one but not the other. If both are, then why not simply say, "Homosexuality is a genetic defect," unless you have a problem with gay men?
It is slightly more complicated with women. For the most part they are all a little gay. You hear them saying to each other "oh, you look so cute in that outfit" and they always hug each other, just like gay men do, but for women it is considered normal. It is sort of intertwined with their innate sense of nurturing. I don't have a problem with gays of either gender, it is just my observation and opinion.
The Christians say it is a perverted lifestyle choice and the scientists say it is genetic. I'm just adding that I think male homosexuality is abnormal.
It is slightly more complicated with women. For the most part they are all a little gay. You hear them saying to each other "oh, you look so cute in that outfit" and they always hug each other, just like gay men do, but for women it is considered normal. It is sort of intertwined with their innate sense of nurturing. I don't have a problem with gays of either gender, it is just my observation and opinion.
:sigh: I see the concept of culture affecting how we interact with other in non-sexual ways didn't even cross your mind. Women saying, "oh, you look so cute in that outfit," has nothing to do with homosexuality. Adult Indian males often walk around with their best friends holding hands. This is bizarre to a Westerner because it's not part of our culture but it's not a homosexual act.
I'm just adding that I think male homosexuality is abnormal.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
It is slightly more complicated with women. For the most part they are all a little gay. You hear them saying to each other "oh, you look so cute in that outfit" and they always hug each other, just like gay men do, but for women it is considered normal. It is sort of intertwined with their innate sense of nurturing. I don't have a problem with gays of either gender, it is just my observation and opinion.
:sigh: I see the concept of culture affecting how we interact with other in non-sexual ways didn't even cross your mind. Women saying, "oh, you look so cute in that outfit," has nothing to do with homosexuality. Adult Indian males often walk around with their best friends holding hands. This is bizarre to a Westerner because it's not part of our culture but it's not a homosexual act.
Quote:
I'm just adding that I think male homosexuality is abnormal.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
1) Murder doesn't happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and laws are not natural, which is why we had to invent ways to help prevent certain killings from occurring.
2) Murder does happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and killing is natural, which is why we had to invent ways to prevent certain killings from occurring.
Take your pick, but either way I'll murder kill you in this debate.
1) Murder doesn't happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and laws are not natural, which is why we had to invent ways to help prevent certain killings from occurring.
2) Murder does happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and killing is natural, which is why we had to invent ways to prevent certain killings from occurring.
Take your pick, but either way I'll murder kill you in this debate.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
I'm not sure why you assumed that my use of the word abnormal meant that it it was simply less common. Blonde hair and blue eyes are perfectly normal physical attributes that are even somewhat predictable. No, I'm saying that it is similar to other inexplicable mental disorders that likely have some yet to be understood genetic component.
1) Murder doesn't happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and laws are not natural, which is why we had to invent ways to help prevent certain killings from occurring.
2) Murder does happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and killing is natural, which is why we had to invent ways to prevent certain killings from occurring.
Take your pick, but either way I'll murder kill you in this debate.
The point is that natural doesn't mean right.
We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.
We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.
What a good thing, too!
1) No one ever said it did mean it's right. Right is something we invented with our morals, ethics, codes and laws. They are infinitely malleable and each person has to chose their own path because society — sometimes for better, sometimes for worse — has to prohibit what is natural. That's why much of the Bible is outdated and contradictory to its newer books.
2) Are we really elevated? Is a serial killer an elevated life over a dog that saves Timmy from that well*?
3) Animals can suppress that urge, too. Animals have clearly been shown to respond to operant conditioning.
4) If we're so evolved would we really need all these rules or magic to rule our lives? I think humans just have a superiority complex.
* Timmy was never once trapped in a well in any of the 571 Lassie episodes.
1) No one ever said it did mean it's right. Right is something we invented with our morals, ethics, codes and laws. They are infinitely malleable and each person has to chose their own path because society — sometimes for better, sometimes for worse — has to prohibit what is natural. That's why much of the Bible is outdated and contradictory to its newer books.
2) Are we really elevated? Is a serial killer an elevated life over a dog that saves Timmy from that well*?
3) Animals can suppress that urge, too. Animals have clearly been shown to respond to operant conditioning.
4) If we're so evolved would we really need all these rules or magic to rule our lives? I think humans just have a superiority complex.
* Timmy was never once trapped in a well in any of the 571 Lassie episodes.
Moral code is another debate. Is it learned, or inherently in us?
Moral code is another debate. Is it learned, or inherently in us?
There are innate codes in living things, but those derive from genes, which means they will change, depending on the success of the gene, compounded by possible mutations. There are also codes in the Universe which, as far as we know, cannot change.
But when Ruth got caught in the trap she did send Lassie to get the C-clamp, telling her it was next to the sink. Damn, Lassie was smart! Heck I can't find the mustard in the fridge.
LOL
I have plenty of customers who communicate worse and understand human language less than Lassie.
We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.
What a good thing, too!
1) No one ever said it did mean it's right. Right is something we invented with our morals, ethics, codes and laws. They are infinitely malleable and each person has to chose their own path because society — sometimes for better, sometimes for worse — has to prohibit what is natural. That's why much of the Bible is outdated and contradictory to its newer books.
2) Are we really elevated? Is a serial killer an elevated life over a dog that saves Timmy from that well*?
Sure. That dog would never have saved Timmy without human training.
3) Animals can suppress that urge, too. Animals have clearly been shown to respond to operant conditioning.
Sure. But all animals have is instinct. We've progressed a little further.
4) If we're so evolved would we really need all these rules or magic to rule our lives? I think humans just have a superiority complex.
Who said we're evolved? You mean inferiority complex.
* Timmy was never once trapped in a well in any of the 571 Lassie episodes.
I've always wondered if homosexuality might be higher in highly congested and/or areas where people are malnourished, as opposed to area and times where there is a need for more rampant procreation.
I doubt the evolutionary process has an awareness at that level to make those changes. There's obviously adaptation to the surrounding environment over a long period of time but I'd say sexuality is more down to odds. With billions of people mixing genes with all sorts of varying conditions, it will lead to variations in sexual attraction with the dominant attraction being the one that favors reproduction. It occurs in the animal kingdom (of which humans are just another species) at random too.
Blonde hair and blue eyes are perfectly normal physical attributes that are even somewhat predictable. No, I'm saying that it is similar to other inexplicable mental disorders that likely have some yet to be understood genetic component.
If it was something mental then it would mean this determined all sexuality. It's true that people don't exhibit any sexual attraction until their minds reach a certain stage of development but it's not just any single element that determines it. There was a study suggesting there are both genetics and environmental factors like birth conditions leading to homosexuality:
and a very high percentage (70-90%) of mothers abort their children when this is detected. The above Guardian article said that a genetic test for homosexuality might in fact lead some parents to abort their child. That sounds terrible but it's been done for even having an undesirable gender:
Where do you draw the line between a defect and simply a rare biological occurrence? It would have to be deciding that the condition was harmful.
To reach a conclusion that homosexuality is a disorder would be making the decision that being that way is detrimental to their life and in need of correction. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect people except for reproduction and heterosexuals choose not to reproduce. Tim Cook is the CEO of the world's most valuable company, he's healthy and seems pretty happy. You couldn't possibly call his sexuality a disorder when it has done him absolutely no harm whatsoever.
I doubt the evolutionary process has an awareness at that level to make those changes. There's obviously adaptation to the surrounding environment over a long period of time but I'd say sexuality is more down to odds. With billions of people mixing genes with all sorts of varying conditions, it will lead to variations in sexual attraction with the dominant attraction being the one that favors reproduction. It occurs in the animal kingdom (of which humans are just another species) at random too.
Sure, but odds, as in alterations in our genes is how we evolve to adapt to potential future needs of an environment. Each "organism" has the goal of survival. This could be the goal of gene or the goal of a community or species. For this reason it's entirely there are triggers that alter how we, for lack of a better word, unconsciously react to out environment over the longterm. This means that more or less homosexuality, sterility, and or asexuality could be beneficial to a species depending on their resources. We have no model for this occurring but we have no models for most of these topics. We need a lot more and time before we rule out the possibility that the desire for the species to procreate can't be altered by congestion, food, water, war, stress, climate, etc. over at the longterm. All we know is that there are definitely cultures that grown out of the necessity to survive.
You couldn't possibly call his sexuality a disorder when it has done him absolutely no harm whatsoever.
He seemed to indicate that his sexual orientation had caused him great difficulties in his early life in Alabama, although those issues were greatly influenced by social conditions in that region. There is a lot science that has yet to unfold in this area. I call it a disorder, but I'm neither a scientist nor a doctor so it is just an opinion.
Comments
There's no reason to limit it to male homosexuality. Male and female homosexuality don't serve much purpose as far as evolution goes because children only get the genes from a single mother and father but a lot of things don't serve an evolutionary purpose and aren't defects and it's not like they can't conceive at all. They can still pass their genes down, just not mixed with their partner's genes.
If you reduce the purpose of life to survival of the species then you can eliminate a lot of unnecessary elements but life isn't worth living for survival on its own. People need to feel happy in their lives too. Even if you think homosexuality is unnecessary, they aren't causing harm to others so those people deserve to feel happy in their lives as much as anyone else who similarly isn't causing harm through the way they live.
And your implication is female homosexuality isn't a genetic defect? How can your position be one but not the other. If both are, then why not simply say, "Homosexuality is a genetic defect," unless you have a problem with gay men?
Homosexuality may very well be necessary for the survival of a species if the species is using too many resources. I've always wondered if homosexuality might be higher in highly congested and/or areas where people are malnourished, as opposed to area and times where there is a need for more rampant procreation. One might also look into long-term genetic trends towards having less offspring or later in life to compensate for excessive population growth, a lack of resources, and longer life spans, but so far that seems more of a cultural choice than a biological one.
Male homosexuality is a genetic defect. It serves no evolutionary purpose. It is nothing to be ashamed of, but it is nothing to be proud of it either.
Got a scientific source for that genetic defect claim?
Lots of things serve no evolutionary purpose, but that's hardly a complete measure of worth in personhood.
And your implication is female homosexuality isn't a genetic defect? How can your position be one but not the other. If both are, then why not simply say, "Homosexuality is a genetic defect," unless you have a problem with gay men?
It is slightly more complicated with women. For the most part they are all a little gay. You hear them saying to each other "oh, you look so cute in that outfit" and they always hug each other, just like gay men do, but for women it is considered normal. It is sort of intertwined with their innate sense of nurturing. I don't have a problem with gays of either gender, it is just my observation and opinion.
The Christians say it is a perverted lifestyle choice and the scientists say it is genetic. I'm just adding that I think male homosexuality is abnormal.
:sigh: I see the concept of culture affecting how we interact with other in non-sexual ways didn't even cross your mind. Women saying, "oh, you look so cute in that outfit," has nothing to do with homosexuality. Adult Indian males often walk around with their best friends holding hands. This is bizarre to a Westerner because it's not part of our culture but it's not a homosexual act.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and
Lou GehrigStephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.It is slightly more complicated with women. For the most part they are all a little gay. You hear them saying to each other "oh, you look so cute in that outfit" and they always hug each other, just like gay men do, but for women it is considered normal. It is sort of intertwined with their innate sense of nurturing. I don't have a problem with gays of either gender, it is just my observation and opinion.
:sigh: I see the concept of culture affecting how we interact with other in non-sexual ways didn't even cross your mind. Women saying, "oh, you look so cute in that outfit," has nothing to do with homosexuality. Adult Indian males often walk around with their best friends holding hands. This is bizarre to a Westerner because it's not part of our culture but it's not a homosexual act.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
Murdering people is natural.
Go figure.
There are two ways to look at that.
1) Murder doesn't happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and laws are not natural, which is why we had to invent ways to help prevent certain killings from occurring.
2) Murder does happen in nature. Murder is an unlawful killing, and killing is natural, which is why we had to invent ways to prevent certain killings from occurring.
Take your pick, but either way I'll
murderkill you in this debate.Skip to the :40s mark.
Btw I'll go with number 2.
Sure, but so are blue eyes, blonde hair, basketball player-height, supermodel body types, and Lou Gehrig Stephen Hawking disease, and some genetic aspect in every single one of, especially if you consider how far outside the norm our species compared to every other species on this planet… yet all these things and more are natural.
I'm not sure why you assumed that my use of the word abnormal meant that it it was simply less common. Blonde hair and blue eyes are perfectly normal physical attributes that are even somewhat predictable. No, I'm saying that it is similar to other inexplicable mental disorders that likely have some yet to be understood genetic component.
The point is that natural doesn't mean right.
We are elevated above animals by our ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Killing is a natural response by animals for any number of reasons. We humans have many natural instincts that we have to suppress.
What a good thing, too!
There wouldn't be anybody left to post on here.
Be together. Not the same.
1) No one ever said it did mean it's right. Right is something we invented with our morals, ethics, codes and laws. They are infinitely malleable and each person has to chose their own path because society — sometimes for better, sometimes for worse — has to prohibit what is natural. That's why much of the Bible is outdated and contradictory to its newer books.
2) Are we really elevated? Is a serial killer an elevated life over a dog that saves Timmy from that well*?
3) Animals can suppress that urge, too. Animals have clearly been shown to respond to operant conditioning.
4) If we're so evolved would we really need all these rules or magic to rule our lives? I think humans just have a superiority complex.
* Timmy was never once trapped in a well in any of the 571 Lassie episodes.
Moral code is another debate. Is it learned, or inherently in us?
But when Ruth got caught in the trap she did send Lassie to get the C-clamp, telling her it was next to the sink. Damn, Lassie was smart!
[VIDEO]
Heck I can't find the mustard in the fridge.
There are innate codes in living things, but those derive from genes, which means they will change, depending on the success of the gene, compounded by possible mutations. There are also codes in the Universe which, as far as we know, cannot change.
LOL
I have plenty of customers who communicate worse and understand human language less than Lassie.
I doubt the evolutionary process has an awareness at that level to make those changes. There's obviously adaptation to the surrounding environment over a long period of time but I'd say sexuality is more down to odds. With billions of people mixing genes with all sorts of varying conditions, it will lead to variations in sexual attraction with the dominant attraction being the one that favors reproduction. It occurs in the animal kingdom (of which humans are just another species) at random too.
If it was something mental then it would mean this determined all sexuality. It's true that people don't exhibit any sexual attraction until their minds reach a certain stage of development but it's not just any single element that determines it. There was a study suggesting there are both genetics and environmental factors like birth conditions leading to homosexuality:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
Tourettes would be considered a mental disorder:
[VIDEO]
There are some causes of increased risk listed here:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/tc/tourettes-disorder-topic-overview
Downs Syndrome is a physical disorder that happens due to conditions during birth:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/down/conditioninfo/Pages/causes.aspx
and a very high percentage (70-90%) of mothers abort their children when this is detected. The above Guardian article said that a genetic test for homosexuality might in fact lead some parents to abort their child. That sounds terrible but it's been done for even having an undesirable gender:
http://www.economist.com/node/15606229
There was a story about a black woman who gave birth to albino children who said they get taunted at school:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210632/Meet-black-Brazilian-mother-albino-children.html
Where do you draw the line between a defect and simply a rare biological occurrence? It would have to be deciding that the condition was harmful.
To reach a conclusion that homosexuality is a disorder would be making the decision that being that way is detrimental to their life and in need of correction. Homosexuality doesn't negatively affect people except for reproduction and heterosexuals choose not to reproduce. Tim Cook is the CEO of the world's most valuable company, he's healthy and seems pretty happy. You couldn't possibly call his sexuality a disorder when it has done him absolutely no harm whatsoever.
Sure, but odds, as in alterations in our genes is how we evolve to adapt to potential future needs of an environment. Each "organism" has the goal of survival. This could be the goal of gene or the goal of a community or species. For this reason it's entirely there are triggers that alter how we, for lack of a better word, unconsciously react to out environment over the longterm. This means that more or less homosexuality, sterility, and or asexuality could be beneficial to a species depending on their resources. We have no model for this occurring but we have no models for most of these topics. We need a lot more and time before we rule out the possibility that the desire for the species to procreate can't be altered by congestion, food, water, war, stress, climate, etc. over at the longterm. All we know is that there are definitely cultures that grown out of the necessity to survive.
Stranger things can happen: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1445989?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104980031497
You couldn't possibly call his sexuality a disorder when it has done him absolutely no harm whatsoever.
He seemed to indicate that his sexual orientation had caused him great difficulties in his early life in Alabama, although those issues were greatly influenced by social conditions in that region. There is a lot science that has yet to unfold in this area. I call it a disorder, but I'm neither a scientist nor a doctor so it is just an opinion.