The natural illogical argument towards homosexuality

[Ronin13]

I was pondering something recently and wanted some thoughts on this from you guys here... This was partially inspired by a quote I read about two girls going to prom together in Indiana: "[Homosexuality serves] no purpose in life." So I got to thinking, and this is not intended to bash gays or anything, but instead to question societal norms. Since procreation is impossible between homosexual partners, then doesn't that make homosexuality naturally illogical? Meaning that in the natural order of things, homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose and doesn't make sense since you cannot (without help) reproduce with your partner. Just wondering... Natural law would dictate that homosexuality serves no actual purpose in life. Thoughts?

[Rucker61]

I don't think you get to pick.

[DeusExMachina]

It doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. Neither does owning a big screen TV and going to Walmart to buy cheesy poofs. However, in the scheme of liberty and the pursuit of happiness those are both big deals to some people.

Nice resume you got there on your signature. Hope it impresses somebody.

[Teufelhund]

Too many damn people here anyway.

[Kraven251]

It does serve an evolutionary purpose. It takes genetic material out of the pool.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

So you're saying to gay folks can't make babies. Hmm. That's revolutionary and mind blowing. Keep up the good work and well researched information.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness right?

[Ronin13]

It doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose. Neither does owning a big screen TV and going to Walmart to buy cheesy poofs. However, in the scheme of liberty and the pursuit of happiness those are both big deals to some people.

Nice resume you got there on your signature. Hope it impresses somebody.
Point 1- not talking about behavior or government- try looking at the bigger picture here- from a natural/evolutionary point of view...
Point 2- what was the point of that comment? Oh was that an attack on me? [goFyourself]

So you're saying to gay folks can't make babies. Hmm. That's revolutionary and mind blowing. Keep up the good work and well researched information.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness right?
Again, looking at this from a small minded perspective... And I guess some won't get it- sorry, I used "big words."

[Snowman78]

Ronin 13: Everyone is always hateing on you but I know you were in the service and I thank you for that.

[Flatline]

In some groups of animals gay animals with take over parenting roles when the parent animal dies. A similar sociological pattern exists in some native American cultures, where if the parent dies or is thought of as unfit by the community then often one of the gay adults will parent the child.

[Caithford]

Nature's method of population control. But seriously, what right to do we have to say "what you're doing is wrong" when it harms no one, and makes them happy?

[Inconel710]

Ronin you're navel gazing again. Homosexuality doesn't serve an evolutionary purpose, but it does allow getting your freak on without worry about children as a second order effect. That's probably the underlying reasoning for most bisexuals (getting their freak on). For those that are truly only attracted to the same sex, I guess it serves no evolutionary purpose and would result in the genetic cause (if any) being removed from the gene pool. What was the point of this again...

I don't hate you Ronin, just some of the conversations you start. Hate the sin, not the sinner. :)

[rondog]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/funnies/supergirl-batgirl.jpg

[Eggysrun]

homosexuality is a very natural thing, I did a college research paper last semester for my psychology class. I was convinced before writing the paper that it was a choice, or psychological but lo and behold I found out that it's very natural and there's plenty of science out there proving homosexuality being biological in nature.

[Dingo]

Well, I gotta stick up for Ronin here. I think he's had some good conversation-pieces on here, and he knows how to debate well without needing to bust out a tampon and some name-calling. As far as gays go... I'm split on that issue. My personal religious beliefs say it's wrong, plain and simple. The libertarian in me says go for it, so long as you're not ramming it down my throat. (No pun intended there... ;-)

Ultimately, I think what people choose to do with each other behind closed doors should remain entirely up to them, to sort out amongst their own beliefs. But I'll be damned if I think they ought to get special treatment for it. There's a difference between discriminating against someone for the color of their skin, and discriminating against someone for lisping, limpwristing, and over-using the word "fabulous".

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Since you weren't satisfied with my first response, wtf do you really will come about with this conversation?

[Sawin]

Too many damn people here anyway.

As conservative as I am, I've taken this premise into consideration the past few years and grown to not give as much of a damn about their gay marriage efforts. At this point, I figure it's a fight we'll never win, so just turn the other cheek and let'm. They're not having babies, so If by doing so, we reduce their outspokenness and bullishness, all the better as far as i'm concerned.

[Dingo]

Just realized I missed the entire point of the post... natural or not? I have to go with "not". But in the same sense that nature doesn't deliberately throw in birth defects, handicaps, mental issues etc. Doesn't make those people worth any less as humans, but it doesn't fit into nature's plan either.

For whatever difference this makes, my best friend is a 48 year old lesbian (let the jokes fly). She's about as hardcore bulldyke (a term she refers to herself with) as you can get, but she is also one of the most compassionate, hardworking, passionate, and fun people I've ever known. I'm entering into a business relationship with her in the near future, we've spent countless hours shooting the shit about everything under the sun, and I prefer her company to just about any of the other friends I have. I don't think any one thing about your personality or choices defines you completely as a human being.

Oh, and she happens to be an emphatic pro-2A person as well, so that alone would be enough for me. :-)

[Sawin]

... My personal religious beliefs say it's wrong, plain and simple. The libertarian in me says go for it, so long as you're not ramming it down my throat. (No pun intended there... ;-)

Ultimately, I think what people choose to do with each other behind closed doors should remain entirely up to them, to sort out amongst their own beliefs. But I'll be damned if I think they ought to get special treatment for it.....

Couldn't have said it better myself, although I personally have all sorts of qualms with "affirmative action" and being PC to appease a loud-mouthed minority.

[Ah Pook]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/funnies/supergirl-batgirl.jpg
Yeah but they never are that cute in real life, are they?

[Great-Kazoo]

Yeah but they never are that cute in real life, are they?

My dyke[ish] client and her red headed girl friend could give these 2 "super" hero's a run for the money.

[Jamnanc]

Gaia theory is the idea that the earth has some sort of consciousness. So, Mother Earth can influence behavior of the rest of the cosmos which we are all part of. Since humans are the bane of the earth, homosexuality has been inspired by her to lower the population of humans. She's being nice instead of wiping us out with a plague. This is the best I can come up with off the cuff. I read too much scifi as a kid.

[Dingo]

I heard that theory too before. Don't subscribe to it myself, but it does sort of make sense that we're all smaller cellular structures in a larger organism. That weather is a sort of metabolic process. Fun to contemplate anyway.

[Ronin13]

Dingo is 100% correct... as long as no one is forcing you to do something against your will why would we all care what one another does behind closed doors. I didn't mean it to mean "It's not nature's way therefore it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed," don't take my point to be that, but instead just food for thought (perhaps some distraction from the current gun control crap, too) and a very interesting perspective on things... then again, the behind closed doors idea- can it be a point to be made that they keep it there and not do their overtly sexual and 'in-your-face' stuff in public? I'd say the same goes for straight couples as well- that's why we have indecency laws, and no one should be made a "special exception."

[Clint45]

Just leave the queers alone. This is a non-issue and not important, and posts like this viewable to the general public make gun owners appear to fit the stereotype of bigots and racists. Focus on more important things. If a few lesbians want to smoke pot and play nekkid Twister covered in olive oil in the privacy of their own home, I support their right as Americans to do so.

[rondog]

Yeah but they never are that cute in real life, are they?

I've seen some young ladies walking together down the 16th St. Mall in Denver that would blow your mind....

[Inconel710]

Just leave the queers alone. This is a non-issue and not important, and posts like this viewable to the general public make gun owners appear to fit the stereotype of bigots and racists. Focus on more important things. If a few lesbians want to smoke pot and play nekkid Twister covered in olive oil in the privacy of their own home, I support their right as Americans to do so.


Since the majority of the posts seem to be along the lines of "Meh", how does this thread fit into a bigoted stereotype?

[Ronin13]

Since the majority of the posts seem to be along the lines of "Meh", how does this thread fit into a bigoted stereotype?
The fact that Clint used the term "queers." [Coffee]

[BushMasterBoy]

You mean you never had sex with a desperate lesbian...[ROFL2]

[Dingo]

I think I definitely am an honorary lesbian. I just... really love having sex with women!

[Ronin13]

You mean you never had sex with a desperate lesbian...[ROFL2]
I certainly don't have that kind of good fortune... :(

[SA Friday]

Ronin, based on your OP:

p squared + 2pq + q squared = 1

This is the mathematical and biological reason double recessive genetic traits still remain in the population. If an albino trait can remain in the gene pool, clearly a trait grossly adverse to the survival of an animal within the food chain, drastically reducing it's ability to reach an age of reproduction. Then why couldn't the trait of homosexuality, genetic or not, still remain within humans? Regardless of its possibility as a phenotype, it still stands to reason a trait that has been proven to be part of the human society since 3000 BC has some reoccurring aspect that goes deeper than simple choice and can never be eradicated from society, regardless of the rantings of any major religion.

[HBARleatherneck]

the plot thickens.

stay tuned.

[waxthis]

You mean you never had sex with a desperate lesbian...[ROFL2]


Oh I have...[Coffee]

[clublights]

In before Melvin gets in and causes this to get locked with his pure hate speech........

Much like my " how does gay marriage hurt" thread from months back .....
Once you take the bible outta the argument.. there is no argument

Most folks just don't care.

Now to hold to the Topic...

I agree with others.. perhaps the natural argument is to keep them from breeding ( tho just about every Lesbian I know has a kid.....) Not to breed homosexuality out I don;t think it will work that way ... but more as an over population control .. or other traits .

Besides.. for every gay guy couple.. is two more chicks for me . [Coffee]

[Rucker61]

http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/11098_brokeback2.jpg

[Dingo]

I already have a bad case of carpal tunnel... that would make it so much worse.

[clublights]

http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/11098_brokeback2.jpg


I'd watch that movie.. at home.. alone ... with the blinds drawn ...

[Ronin13]

I'd watch that movie.. at home.. alone ... with the blinds drawn ...
Personally, I wouldn't- seeing that list they won't show much skin, and the one that would (Mrs. Berry) I am probably the only guy who thinks "meh, she ain't that hot..." I'd rather see this be made by Vivid or something... [Coffee]

[USAFGopherMike]

[QUOTE=Dingo;936585]Ultimately, I think what people choose to do with each other behind closed doors should remain entirely up to them, to sort out amongst their own beliefs. But I'll be damned if I think they ought to get special treatment for it. QUOTE]

This ^. I don't care, just don't think you're special or expect everyone to give you special treatment or make exceptions for you.

[buffalobo]

Naturally occurring aberration. Just like a certain percentage of humans have blue eyes or are left handed.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

[brobar]

I know several heterosexual couples with absolutely no desire to procreate. Nobody thinks it is weird or against nature for them to be together. Just like I have no problem with heterosexual couples who don't *want* kids... I have no problem with homosexual couples who can't *have* kids.

[Sawin]

Ronin, based on your OP:

p squared + 2pq + q squared = 1

This is the mathematical and biological reason double recessive genetic traits still remain in the population. If an albino trait can remain in the gene pool, clearly a trait grossly adverse to the survival of an animal within the food chain, drastically reducing it's ability to reach an age of reproduction. Then why couldn't the trait of homosexuality, genetic or not, still remain within humans? Regardless of its possibility as a phenotype, it still stands to reason a trait that has been proven to be part of the human society since 3000 BC has some reoccurring aspect that goes deeper than simple choice and can never be eradicated from society, regardless of the rantings of any major religion.

SA Friday wins. Everyone shut up now, before you get angry at each other or say something that you'll regret later when you run for office, apply for an LEO job in JeffCo, or for some other reason...

The fact that albino's still exist, albeit far more rarely than homosexuals, proves the point that despite how illogical, or "against" the sake of humanity you think any particular trait is, you can be quite certain that other traits that don't "advance" humanity have lasted the test of time and evolution, too....

[SuperiorDG]

So are you saying that if I have a vasectomy I should also loose my right to get married? Or is it you just have a personal problem with gay marriage?

[hatidua]

So are you saying that if I have a vasectomy I should also loose my right to get married? Or is it you just have a personal problem with gay marriage?

In most instances it's likely the latter. Much like a Catholic person I know who told me that my choice not to have children was "against gods plan". Yeah, whatever.

[wreave]

I just hope that everyone who was so up in arms just last year about the vote for gay marriage in the Colorado Senate, which had the votes to pass, is happy. The votes were there in the Senate, it was obvious the people were in favor of it, but a shrill minority insisted on killing the bill in committee. Twice.

So, the people voted in legislators who would support gay marriage. As a result, we got:

1. A gay marriage bill that does not contain protections for conscientious objectors. Last year's bill did, so a religious leader who did not wish to perform a gay marriage ceremony could not be forced to or face a discrimination lawsuit. This year, they have the votes, and didn't have to put in that clause, so they didn't. So not only did the shriekers delay gay marriage by a full, what, nine months? But they also got a bill that is far worse.

2. The rest of the votes in the Colorado House/Senate to do whatever they want. The magazine capacity bill won't even be the worse of it.

So, if any of you reading are the folks who were up in arms about last year's gay marriage bill, I hope you're happy, and thank you.

[missionxo]

Ronin13 only asked a question looking for opinion that's it. Sorry but I don't see anything offensive about it.

[husky390]

I could care less what people do or are as long as it isn't harming me, my family or against the law. If someone is homosexual, great. Be homosexual. I don't care. But they should not receive special treatment or protections for it. Hell, one could argue that a guy who can take it in the rear is quite possibly tougher than most of us.

Now, here's where it gets hypocritical. The people who fight so hard for the rights of homosexuals in our State Government, are the same people who are fighting so hard to restrict our Constitutional 2a rights, and that pisses me off.

[Southbridge]

I was pondering something recently and wanted some thoughts on this from you guys here... This was partially inspired by a quote I read about two girls going to prom together in Indiana: "[Homosexuality serves] no purpose in life." So I got to thinking, and this is not intended to bash gays or anything, but instead to question societal norms. Since procreation is impossible between homosexual partners, then doesn't that make homosexuality naturally illogical? Meaning that in the natural order of things, homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose and doesn't make sense since you cannot (without help) reproduce with your partner. Just wondering... Natural law would dictate that homosexuality serves no actual purpose in life. Thoughts?

You seem to be making an earnest request so I will do what I normally don't do and talk about religion and philosophy on the interwebs. What appears to be happening in your post is a fairly common thing that is happening during the modern discussion about homosexuality which is to conflate the Aristotelian-Thomistic idea of natural law with the idea that morality is somehow found in nature. The idea that morality is found in nature is simply ridiculous for so many reasons: animals and humans are substantially different things, it lends itself to proportionalism or at least some weird assumed relationship between existence and moral goodness, etc. Natural law, on the other hand, is the argument that things are meant to act according to their design/blueprint. Therefore we can look at the nature of things and determine how that thing ought to act, be treated, etc. From this idea of natural law we look at the way things are and then strive to help those things fully realize what they are in their essence. It may seem like a semantical distance to many people but it really is quite important and is the original basis for many of the moral taboos we continue to have in society such as the taboos agains lying and assault.

As an aside I saw another poster on here mention that there must be a biological basis for homosexuality. That may be true in a physiological sense but not in a genetic sense. The idea for a genetic basis for homosexuality has been disproved in several studies that tracked hundreds of identical twins where one twin is homosexual while the other is heterosexual. I provide this brief little comment just to help whomever posted about this originally to have more fodder for thought when investigating any biological basis for homosexuality.

I make this comment not to state any position in regards to homosexuality. I did this solely to answer Ronin's question because I believe my education and background in this field can be a helpful contribution for his thinking.

[ANADRILL]

This whole thread is babylon...

[SA Friday]

This whole thread is babylon...
Babylon still exists. I've been there.

[Dingo]

...conflate the Aristotelian-Thomistic idea of natural law...............
.....it lends itself to proportionalism ...........
......It may seem like a semantical distance to many people ..............
......That may be true in a physiological sense but not in a genetic sense..........

I provide this brief little comment just to help whomever posted about this originally to have more fodder for thought when investigating any biological basis for homosexuality.



I can obfuscate the conversational sparring match with ostentatious frivolities of speech in addition to esoteric (dare I say, anachronistic) references which lend suggestion to my intimate familiarity with a thesaurus and/or encyclopedic volume, but that would be neither germane, nor expedient to the erstwhile topic at hand.

And I dislike being sesquipedalian for it's own sake.

If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought.
Dennis Roth

[asmo]

As I have said before: some dudes like to have sex, and spend their lives, with other dudes. Get over it.

[Southbridge]

I can obfuscate the conversational sparring match with ostentatious frivolities of speech in addition to esoteric (dare I say, anachronistic) references which lend suggestion to my intimate familiarity with a thesaurus and/or encyclopedic volume, but that would be neither germane, nor expedient to the erstwhile topic at hand.

And I dislike being sesquipedalian for it's own sake.

If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought.
Dennis Roth

Dennis, exceptionally clever. I give you points for veiling your dislike in a quiant veneer of intellectualism. I especially like the claim that Aristotelian-Thomism is esoteric especially since it is at least the precursor if not arguably the foundational basis for all modern thought. Your critique hits its high point with that nice little truism at the end there. All complex thoughts really ought to be expressed in cave paintings if you ask me, let alone a lot of words. But really unless you care to engage the actual points I made your statement is the only frivolous one. You wonder why in one of the others threads in the GD some college kids thought Pearl Harbor was a response to us dropping the atomic bombs? Because books have too many words and it is easier to smoke a joint.

[EDIT] Also at the very least you could have nailed me for saying semantical distance instead of semantical difference.

[Dingo]

Dislike? Nah. I don't know you. All I'm saying is that CS Lewis would have a field day with that post from a writer's standpoint.

[Southbridge]

Dislike? Nah. I don't know you. All I'm saying is that CS Lewis would have a field day with that post from a writer's standpoint.

You're a CS Lewis man? I will definitely respect that. Having gone through philosophy academically as opposed to reading through the discipline I tend to speak in a way that is drastically different than Lewis because I am more used to having to deal with advisors as opposed to a general readership. But if my style is being critiqued against his then I will get off my high horse. [Beer]

[EDIT] Also if you are interested in why Lewis started to write children's novels instead of continuing his academic writing read about the debate between him and Elizabeth Anscombe, who was also concidentally a Thomist.

[Dingo]

Ok, swords down and glassed raised... I have a soft spot for literary folks. :-) I'm topically familiar with the "Anscombe Legend", but it's sort of a debate that will never be completely settled. She herself said that his general attitude in the aftermath was one of conceding that she'd skewered his causality platform, that it needed revision, and was less of the devastated apologetics corpse that his friends and the popular media were dramatizing him to be.

[Dingo]

Apologies to the OP - didn't mean to hijack the thread.

[lllRorlll]

Its like this post just turned into reddit.
say something that isnt pro gay or anti god... And youll get burnt at the stake.

How to be a liberal- chapter 1:
if someone poses a question, or states an opinion that doesn't line up with your views -attack them as a person.
-the end-

[ben4372]

Nature's method of population control. But seriously, what right to do we have to say "what you're doing is wrong" when it harms no one, and makes them happy?
Does this apply to folks wanting to bang/marry a cousin or sibling?

[Dingo]

Does this apply to folks wanting to bang/marry a cousin or sibling?

Eh... probably should draw the line there, because the union would undoubtedly produce a democrat.

[Great-Kazoo]

Ok, swords down and glassed raised... I have a soft spot for literary folks. :-) I'm topically familiar with the "Anscombe Legend", but it's sort of a debate that will never be completely settled. She herself said that his general attitude in the aftermath was one of conceding that she'd skewered his causality platform, that it needed revision, and was less of the devastated apologetics corpse that his friends and the popular media were dramatizing him to be.

Isn't that a homosexual metaphor, for you being submissive? [LOL]

[Irving]

Damn, I was planning to leave some snarky comment about Albinos and SAFridah seriously stole my thunder.

[Great-Kazoo]

Damn, I was planning to leave some snarky comment about Albinos and SAFridah seriously stole my thunder.

Aw do it anyway. it's for the Children

[Melvin]

Let starfish troopers and connoisseurs eau de anchovette live in peace. But for crying out fuckin' loud quit trying to sell them as normal.
And I am sure we can count on all "enlightened" around here to show the same compassion and understanding for all the other deviants as they come creeping and slithering out from under their rocks demanding they be treated "equally" as they pursue their idea of happiness. I know we can count on this gathering of tolerant souls to not turn hypocrite when a deviance they weren't programmed to accept suddenly presents itself demanding recognition and equality under the law.[LOL]

[jscwerve]

I could care less what people do or are as long as it isn't harming me, my family or against the law. If someone is homosexual, great. Be homosexual. I don't care. But they should not receive special treatment or protections for it. Hell, one could argue that a guy who can take it in the rear is quite possibly tougher than most of us.

Now, here's where it gets hypocritical. The people who fight so hard for the rights of homosexuals in our State Government, are the same people who are fighting so hard to restrict our Constitutional 2a rights, and that pisses me off.


As for your first statement, I do believe that there should not be any special treatment at all. At the same time, they should be afforded the exact same things the rest of us have.

As for the second statement, for the most part yes, that is true, by the governing bodies. That being said, I do know quite a few gay folks, a couple of couples that I know. Both have been together for years and have very stable relationships.

Of course they live in the D controlled part of our state. I, through conversation of facts and rational thought today, got all of them to send letters to their reps today against this upcoming gun control legislation. There is actually common ground with the gay community (the ones I know anyways) as to the current battle over guns is a fight for our rights, just as their fight is, fighting for our basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone. I am very thankful to have friends that support my cause, as I have supported theirs in the past. I can't lump them into a box as many do as I have known them for years, have been shooting with them, shared many times with their families, and count them as good friends with a different type of life.

Is it logical, to me, no. Is it immoral, to me, as I am not religious in any way, no. Do I agree with it, doesn't really matter. I know these people to be very moral and good. I take a more libertarian stance on the issue as, I would like people to be able to live how they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others, and be happy. No matter what I believe is the correct way of life.

[spyder]

That's looking at it from a very narrow perspective, very. In today's world, you don't need to "have" kids as there are thousands if not millions of children that need good homes. If one of those gay couples can provide it, they made the world a better place, and a gave a child a better life. In this day and age, looking down on someone for who they choose to have in their bed shows the lack of common sense that person has, and frankly it is better to look down on that kind of ass hat, than someone who is just trying to be happy. I feel bad for stupid people.

[Melvin]

I feel bad for stupid people.
= I feel bad for myself

[centrarchidae]

Let starfish troopers and connoisseurs eau de anchovette live in peace. But for crying out fuckin' loud quit trying to sell them as normal.
And I am sure we can count on all "enlightened" around here to show the same compassion and understanding for all the other deviants as they come creeping and slithering out from under their rocks demanding they be treated "equally" as they pursue their idea of happiness. I know we can count on this gathering of tolerant souls to not turn hypocrite when a deviance they weren't programmed to accept suddenly presents itself demanding recognition and equality under the law.[LOL]


Hey, if seven old dudes want to strip naked and rub each other with olive-oil-soaked photographs of Labrador Retrievers while chugging Maul's Kansas City-style Barbecue Sauce spiked with Everclear and Ex-Lax while demanding that Karl Rove simultaneously declare his rectal love for all of them at once, followed by sitting in a circle-jerk at Peaberry Coffee where the last one to have any fun has to fill out their joint tax return, what do you care? It's (supposed to be) a free country.