Yeah, cause THATS gonna be real easy.

The bolded portion is a very common misconception about evolution. Natural selection works on the level of the individual, not the group, and certainly not the species. While larger-scale selection pressures do exist, such as kin selection and even group selection, there is no evolutionary mechanism that protects the survival of the species at the expense of the individual. If a genetic predisposition to homosexuality was detrimental to the individual, it would be selected out of the gene pool entirely. However, if it assisted individual reproduction at the cost of the species, then the species would simply go extinct.

A similar example of this is the Runaway Genes Model of sexual selection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_evolution

However, it applies mostly to sexual selection. The homosexuality example wouldn't make sense because homosexuals are probably less fit than heterosexuals. However, I don't see how this is a problem for the rest of us heterosexuals: since our sexual preference predisposes us to mate with females, we are capable of generating offspring whereas homosexuals are not nearly as good at this.

Consider the following model for the persistence of homosexual genes. In males, the genes that predispose one to homosexuality, and make the individual less reproductively fit, might have a totally different effect in females. It might make males more effeminate (not in all cases of course), but it might also make females more demure, submissive, and generally sexy. So while males with the genes might be an evolutionary dead end, females who possess them will have increased fitness.

While I agree with your post in general, I definitely prefer another type of woman.

Good point. Dawkins makes a convincing argument that selection works on the level of the gene, too, in The Selfish Gene. Which I'm currently reading. Good stuff.

In school I was taught that asexuality meant having no sexual organs and reproducing without said sexual organs.

That's in amoebae and such life forms. Good ole binary fission.

Personally I think the human version of asexuality is a great concept, if incredibly difficult.

If I had a male child then I would be heavily disappointed if he turned out to be gay. As to disown him, I do not know if I would do that as I'm not in that situation, so I can't really say that I would. I would be more at ease, but still not totally supportive if my daughter became homosexual. It seems more "all-right" if it's two girls, for example when girls greet each other with a kiss, or change clothes in front of each other etc. If two guyes did that together it would be kind of strange and awkward. Also I'll have the comfort of knowing my daughter will not be taken advantage of by some guy or be with a differnet guy every weekend.

I think all of us would be dissapointed if our sons would turn out to be gay. Of course most people claim otherwise, but I think deep in our hearts we all feel the same way about it.

I'd probably be bummed about it for a short period and then just stop caring (and start making more children ...). Of course I wouldn't punish him or anything, that'd be pretty stupid. But dissapointed? Certainly.

I beg to be excluded from the "all of us". I see no reason why I should be disappointed. If that's his road to happiness, I'll support him as a matter of course.

I'm not saying you wouldn't support him, I'd support him as well ...

What I tried to say is that most people would be dissapointed because the chance of having grand children is significantly reduced, not because he is homosexual ... but of course people claim otherwise because they want to be "open minded" and stuff.

Ah, then I've misinterpreted you, sorry... but really, my living son would be far more important to me than hypothetical grandchildren that wouldn't even exist.

well, of course I made a mistae whe I said 'evolution "considers" people...' and I knew it would sound as if I were giving personality to the natural selection process, but the right words didn't come to mind.

And I mnow a lot of homosexuals who try to have children either by adopting them or by artificial methods, because they want to have kids. And here's my argument:

If homosexuality IS a choice of life —as most homosexuals say they are— and if you ARE homosexual, then by all means, ACCEPT the consequences of your choice of life, assume the responsability of your own actions: mammals breed by having sex with specimens of their opposite gender. That's biology. If you "decide" to be homosexual, you ARE implying that you dont' want to have intercourse with the opposite sex... unless you go back 2.000 years in time to Ancient Greece, were people were expected to have, at least, one children, no matter their sexual preferences.

But most homosexuals ted to dislike and even hate their "rivals", that is, people of the opposite gender. Most gays hate women, most lesbians hate men, and how on earth could they have any offspring? Artificial methods...

And no, I'm not saying that gays will become extinct; it's just that they are indeed "genetically unfit" for breeding.

Dolphins, some primates and humans are homosexuals because these are species which have sex for pleasure, and not just for bvreeding purposes. Tht's way there are homosexuals. Saying that they're genetically unfit for breeding is way different than saying that they sould go to the gas chamber. As long as they are productive members of society, killing them --or nayone else for whatever reason-- is just a waste of work force.

I don't have a problem with GLBT. I am against sexism and I believe that people can do what they want in their beds. Besides, the more homosexual guys appear the more women are left for the remaining straights

Untrue. Not the homosexuals I know. And I know a gay father who sired his son in the common everyday way.


Then what do you mean by "genetically"? You can only mean that their behavior is caused by genetic factors, and there's no proof of that. Surely you don't mean their sperm count.


Ok, I said that in the heat of battle. It's just that labeling someone as "genetically unfit" raises some red flags for me.
I won't say anything to how you seem to view humans primarily as work force. That would derail the thread.

Personally I think if you wanna be gay or bi or lesbian or anything along those lines, DO IT. Society has become more acceptable (though not much) to this lifestyle. I predict that society will grow more so in the near future... as for my beliefs... well... I dont mind splitting a gay's skull in a pit or your's for that matter.

I have a problem with homosexuals. It's not the type of problem that involves hate, but I can't stand homosexuals.
It might be that I disslike the more obvious and "out-there" gays ; the way they are. I think it might just be a natural instinct to dislike them and withdrawing from being near them. I also don't enjoy talking alot with them, but I can often surpass that.
As for Bis, I'm slighlty more open minded about them. From the moment they're more into women, that is.
As for all that involves women, it's not cool if they're hot EXCEPT when they're bi.

I kind of missed the boat on the half-asleep discussion I was having.

But basically I wanted to say that I find it very unlikely that homosexuality will be 'bred out' in any capacity.

Yup, that's it.

However, I have another topic:
Why is it that gays seem to be so drastically more promiscuous than heterosexuals? Christ, I've had a few gay friends in my time, and they were such sluts! I couldn't stand it. Why is that?

My theory on that has always been that men in general are pretty much up for sex whenever, and gay guys have the opportunity for fulfilling that urge more or less whenever it strikes them, with much more ease than a straight guy attempting to court a woman. There tends to be a certain boundary between straight men and women that needs to be crossed slowly through friendly association, i.e. if you approach a woman somewhere you most likely want to nail her (and she may want the same), but its usually not acceptable to be up front with it. On the other hand its common for gay guys to make their intentions known from the beginning: "I wanna fuck, I know you wanna fuck, so lets do it". I can't speak for anyone else here but I know that if it was that easy with women i'd have no shame in being one promiscuous motherfucker.

On the subject in general, I have no problem with homosexuality. I don't believe its a choice, any more than being straight is a choice, and I don't think its "wrong" because I don't believe in any objective system of right and wrong.

And I don't see why some people in this thread hold the unlikelihood of procreation a reason to condemn homosexuality. I could give a fuck about the perpetuation of the species, not least because there's no threat of human cessation any time soon (not from failure to reproduce, at least).

And the question of whether it is "natural" or not is ridiculous. No way of thinking or behaving is unnatural that arises 'naturally' from the mental strata of the human brain, which is a morsel of sapience that allows the universe to perceive itself. Because the mind is an extension of this universe, it follows that its products are too. There is no natural or unnatural, there just is.

live and let live, i say. there is no use caring about this kind of thing.

Same thing here. I support same-sex marriages and such either.

I'm ok with homosexuality. They pay taxes like everyone else, they fight in our military, they are responsible for good music, and like every other minority they provide material for comedians that I like. Louis CK has a great piece about homosexuality (a few in fact). I was kind of hoping this thread would be more volatile, though.

I'd recommend you "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris, a zoological study of the human animal. Short and quite interesting. He states that any sexual behavior which does not lead to the preservation of the species would be 'unnatural', biologically speaking,

Thankfully if they come out of the closet they are kicked out tho, The last thing we need is a bunch of fags running around flaunting gay pride in our armed forces.

A man or woman's sexual preference does not dictate how well they serve in the armed forces.

I have a friend who is gay, he's a legend but I'm yet to meet a straight male who he doesn't annoy the absolute shit out of. He's basicaly just a really happy person who's a lot of fun to hang out with.
I can see why guys would be a bit cautious of gay guys, it doesn't matter at all to me what colour or sexuality anyone has, as long as you don't piss me off, or try to make me behave like you.
I guess I have a bias towards females, I tend to get along with guys much better and I generally enjoy their company more, the conversation is more interesting and there's nowhere near as much bitching. That's not to say I won't make an effort to get to know a chick.
The only people I'd tell to fuck off straight away before I've met them are emos, the really cliche ones who think that because my clothes are black I must have things in common with them. I'll admit, SOME of them are okay, like my friends sister, she looks like a fucking retard but she's a smart kid and a damn happy one at that. I probably won't be too nice to really skanky looking girls aswell.
Well enough of my rant. I'll stop ... for now.

Yes yes if some queer is willing to take a bullet for Uncle Sam then by all means all the power to him. However the moment he starts flaunting his homosexuality he would be kicked to the curb and out of the service as he should be.

Ermmmm... Wait, what? How do you know this, then?


So if they tell people that they are homosexual, then they're flaunting their homosexuality and deserve to be forced out of the army? Or do you believe that men who tell some other people in the army that they love some woman should also be sent out for 'flaunting their heterosexuality'?

I have nothing against people with different sexual preferences and I believe gays should have rights like the rest of us, but I just don't like it when gay people are openly gay around me. Situations like two gays kissing passionately in front of me (which happened to me a while ago) and gays dressing up in very tight clothes while moving and talking like a bitchy girl (which I've also witnessed, multiple times) disturb the fuck out of me.
If there's a gay person who's acting like any normal man around me, I wouldn't mind at all. Hell, I'll even befriend him if he's a cool guy. But when they go over-the-top gay it makes me very uncomfortable.

If you're a good person, you're a good person, regardless of who you like to fuck. What consenting adults do to each other is none of my business.

Like many others I don't care for gay people who centre their whole life around the fact that they are gay. Sexual preference is not that big a deal to me, and I find it a bit of a turn off when people go out of their way to make it one.

One thing I really do hate though is the phenomenon of girls pretending to be gay to turn guys on. It seems to be trendy for girls to kiss their friends, or grab each others breasts in front of guys they're flirting with. I bet they'd all run a mile if you put a pussy in front of their face and told them to eat.


On the issue of gays having children I really don't care, as long as they are good parents then why should it matter if their kid has two mums, or two dads?? There are plenty of children being abused and mis-treated by their hetrosexual parents, I'd be more worried about the kids living with alcoholics, drug addicts and pedophiles than the ones with gay parents.


Whether it is natural or not, well that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

I've been noticing that too ... you won't hear me complain about it though.

...Wait, WHAT?
You think they *choose* to be attracted to the same sex?


Evidence?


Question: were they male gays, or female gays? If they were male, then you have the answer to your question. /s

i know gay people too and as long as they don't try to rape me in my sleep or drug me to fuck me i'm fine with them taking it up the ass

Culled. Bringing that kind of inanity into the Symposium is not acceptable.

Yeah, that was pretty gay.

Too gay.
As for me, I think I have already posted my thoughts, but I still must say I am regularly repulsed by public shows of affection, involving kisses and hands-on-ass, that kind. We know you're gay, just hide it a little.

Would that bother you if it was a straight couple or a lesbian couple?

Yes as current policy states they would be removed if said person admitted or engaged in homosexual acts. It is this way because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline"

I do not think you could make much of a valid argument on how heterosexual relations are reputation damaging.

One of my best friends identifies herself as a lesbian, and women are indeed the main source of her attractions. Interestingly, though, she rarely finds herself attracted to men, and when it happens it's usually a 'comfort thing'. I read an article about a recent study that questions the possibility of bisexuality in men, essentially supporting the assertion of many gay men that 'you're either straight, gay, or lying.' For women who identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual, men are sometimes a sexual attraction because of feelings of comfort, being protected, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html

I'm sure my friend would be disappointed in me for my position on gay marriage, and that's why I don't talk with her about it, but I cannot support gay marriage. There's certainly no good reason for gays to be barred from marriage if marriage is about love. I just think that marriage should ideally be about kinship relations.

I don't have a particularly well defined stance on homosexuality and how the issue should be handled is highly related to the sort of society that it occurs in.

One thing that I do find interesting though is the way causation is assigned when discussing the subject, especially when you look at the groups involved in the argument. Sure there will be some generalizing, but for simplicity's sake let's talk in extremes here. On one hand you have the radical pro-gay crowd who are generally drawn from the ranks of the "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever buzzword is in at the time. These are the people who argue that just about everything, from gender roles to poverty to intelligence to race, is "socially constructed" and who completely eschew biological determinism - yet interestingly enough their most common defense of homosexuality runs along the lines of "they were born that way" and are thus deserving of the same "rights" as heterosexuals.

Conversely, when one looks for the foremost (secular) critics of homosexuality the most obvious candidates are the "radical right" or "racists" or - once again - whatever catchphrase is in vogue at the time. Now, interestingly enough, these folks who are the most stalwart defenders of genetic determinism tend to blame cultural/societal changes for the apparent surge of homosexuality since the last quarter of the 20th Century. They also use arguments like "gays are recruiting" or that gay adoption will create gay children, which really does reflect a social constructionist line of thinking.

I'm not sure where I stand precisely, if anything I view it as something of a non-issue. I do however find it amusing that both sides often grossly betray their supposed worldview when it suits them, although to be fair the "progressive" stance is a lot more perplexing. In any case, homosexuality isn't really all that important. It only effects around 1-2% of the (Canadian) population. At least according to Statistics Canada:



http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm

I only find it disturbing when it's a male homosexual couple, and mildly disturbing when it's a lesb couple. A straight couple making out ? Nothing wrong with that, to my eyes.

For statistics, I have nothing against homosexuals, and I feel stupid for evenhaving to say it.