Who cares if they choose who they have sex with? You can choose to have gay sex..maybe you would if hetero was frowned upon and made you have to deal with bigots. What is the problem?
It is not a defect. It is a variance.
It certainly is a defect. You are in denial. Being gay has absolutely no positive effect on the human species and it was not designed to operate in that function. Not to mention it goes against one of the most important and core instincts of a living organism: survival.
It certainly is a defect. You are in denial. Being gay has absolutely no positive effect on the human species and it was not designed to operate in that function. Not to mention it goes against one of the most important and core instincts of a living organism: survival.
So what if a heterosexual couple decides not to have kids? Are they defective?
So what if a heterosexual couple decides not to have kids? Are they defective?
Look kids someone who doesn't understand evolution!
or can't have kids. should they just be written off as defective? should they not be allowed to adopt because nature doesn't want them procreate?
If you can't have kids, then yes you are defective. Obviously something in your body went wrong.
Secondly, yes, they should be allowed to adopt. Nature doesn't choose who it wants to procreate or not. Defects are a part of nature too.
It certainly is a defect. You are in denial. Being gay has absolutely no positive effect on the human species and it was not designed to operate in that function. Not to mention it goes against one of the most important and core instincts of a living organism: survival.
Where did he equate homosexuality with bestiality?
Exactly. Title is dumb and misleading and downright incorrect.
I'd be interested to hear about what you think I don't understand.
There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals
"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"
Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.
A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.
Reasons why
Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.
It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.
Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
For your health
Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure.
Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see Evolution always increases fitness).
Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species.
conflicting statements back to back. cool.
this post is so awesome, I'm almost tempted to quote for my sig.
Manufactured outrage FTW! They seem to skip over the part where he says:Exactly. Title is dumb and misleading and downright incorrect.
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
It's not conflicting, but perhaps it should have been worded differently. My point was, nature doesn't go around and pick people to be defective. If you are, you were not hand selected by nature, you just were on the wrong side of the odds. Is anything in the universe ever 100 percent? Lots of animals are not born right... if it's 2 heads or 3 arms, or being gay. Birth defects seem to run in about 4% of births.
Sounds like there are several possibilities that would make it evolutionary advantages or at least neutral.
So just categorically stating it's against nature is basically just your opinion.
Why does anyone care what anyone says? This goes beyond this guy. We care sooo much about what other people's opinions are.
Except they are only defective because some random guy trying to justify his bigotry says so!
You can argue that people who are bigoted are defective...
Sounds like a lot of conjecture that is not backed by any evidence. I see a lot of "perhaps" and "possibility" in that article. Oh, but in some gull species it could be a benefit! Are you serious?
Shall we bring up the shit ton of reasons why homosexuality is negative?
Another voice of reason with critical thinking skills, nice to meet youI read what he said and I still don't see where he equated homosexuality with bestiality. He said they were both sins (in his opinion); I guess if you consider that "equating" then so be it.
I read what he said and I still don't see where he equated homosexuality with bestiality. He said they were both sins (in his opinion); I guess if you consider that "equating" then so be it.
It's not surprising there's a big outcry over his remarks but like others have said: