Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't know if this has been discussed already (I tried searching but didnt find anything) so I apologize if this is something old.

My question being, why is homosexuality accepted as normal when it is unnatural?

Natural selection says that only those most capable of producing healthy offspring are the 'fittest' and thus the most fit will keep their genes in the gene pool while those infertile or simply too unhealthy to produce offspring will die and their genes weeded out. Should sexual orientation be genetic, then shouldn't homosexuals be the arch-enemy of natural selection, and be completely eradicated by millions of years of evolution?

It seems in nature that the whole purpose of living is to produce offspring that will survive, and homosexuals are incapable of producing offspring naturally and thus their behavior is un-natural. Why then are people being pushed to accept it as normal? Perhaps a clever way of keeping world population undercontrol... Anywho, what do you have to retort?

this really is based on wether or not you belive homosexuality is genetic or occures the way a person is raised. it would be a uniqe fail-safe for the benifet of evolution( if there are other genes that are not helpful to the human race) but I belive homosexuality is based on how people are raised.

The gene of homosexuality(if you are born gay) wouldn't be routed out by evolution. Because a large Majority of homosexual's parents would have more than one child. Meaning the gene would continue to the next generation.

The reason why...

Is people should have freedom to do whatever they want, I mean theres a reason why other laws are illegal because you need consent from the other person. So as long as the two people love each other they should be allowed to do what they want. Also youre argument is that its not natural because it doesnt produce babies or something like that? Well are you going to outlaw masturbating next or what?

Another thing, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years it just hasnt been accepted till now.

At 4/25/08 02:09 PM, Palomides wrote: Is people should have freedom to do whatever they want,

I tihnk your taking the thread the wrong way.

Because it doesn't hurt anyone?

No you just understand me wrong, people already have freedom to do whatever they want but they cant do things to other people unless they say its ok. Prove me wrong.

At 4/25/08 02:09 PM, Palomides wrote: The reason why...

Is people should have freedom to do whatever they want, I mean theres a reason why other laws are illegal because you need consent from the other person. So as long as the two people love each other they should be allowed to do what they want. Also youre argument is that its not natural because it doesnt produce babies or something like that? Well are you going to outlaw masturbating next or what?

Oh please. That's just an excuse so you won't have to offend people.

If you were to follow the natural means of evolution, homosexuality, though it occurs, would decrease the chances of reproduction. And last I checked, that falls into the relm of a negative/harmful mutation (if there is a 'gay gene').

But, you know, that if you take it literally and stopped "being nice" as to not hurt people's feelings.

Hmmm maybe we should start breeding humans so we have a super race of humans next? Everybody is filled with harmful genes so it really doesnt matter whether you consider this one bad or not.

Not everybody believes in evolution either and no I dont believe in christianity either.

Here is one, a very interesting explanation regarding male homosexuality. The same genes that increase the probability or tendency of homosexuality in males, also increase fertility in women. For women, these genes are highly useful, in some cases even necessary, in the Darwinian sense. The spread of these genes can be vital for any population, but when they emerge in males, it can lead to homosexuality. So if you want to reduce the chances of your future son becoming gay, make sure to marry a woman who's nearly infertile!

Either way, there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It's not like we generate them in a lab or something.

At 4/25/08 02:48 PM, Palomides wrote: Hmmm maybe we should start breeding humans so we have a super race of humans next? Everybody is filled with harmful genes so it really doesnt matter whether you consider this one bad or not.

I'm not calling it "bad" or that homosexuals should be discriminated against; I'm just calling it for what it is.

Not everybody believes in evolution either and no I dont believe in christianity either.

So let me get this straight.

If you're against homosexuality for religious reasons, you're a nut or 'that's not good enough'.

If you're against homosexuality for biological reasons, it's "Not everyone believes in evolution".

Shit.

Evolution is a religion.

At 4/25/08 03:06 PM, Palomides wrote: Evolution is a religion.

Wrong.

What do you mean wrong? Its a way of believing how the earth originated and not everyone believes it how is it not a religion?

Homosexuality would have died out a long time ago... Artificial insemination didn't develope untill recent history, and homosexuality has been discussed in the bible; so there is no possibility for homosexuality to appear in a genetics form; it's either a choice or a gene mutation.

On that matter, Genetic disabilities in a tolerant society aren't looked down upon either. While something like 'Down Syndrome' is not a desirable trait for parents, [Likewise, i don't think there are any parents who WANT their children o be homosexual, no matter how tollerant they are, of course I'd take a homosexual child over a child with down syndrome any day; if i had the power to chose between one or the other] , it doesn't mean genetic deficiencies aren't 'tolerated'

At 4/25/08 02:31 PM, Memorize wrote:

If you were to follow the natural means of evolution, homosexuality, though it occurs, would decrease the chances of reproduction. And last I checked, that falls into the relm of a negative/harmful mutation (if there is a 'gay gene').

How do you know that homosexuality reduces a person's reproductive fitness? The average human has only a handful of kids, and therefore a person's reproductive fitness is more tied to their ability to raise and protect their children, not their ability to have sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex every waking moment.

So if a gay person had sex with someone of the opposite gender, say, 10 times, their reproductive fitness might not be too much lower than that of someone who isn't gay and has sex with someone of the opposite gender frequently.

Besides, the simple fact that more primative primates like bonobos have homosexuality, and humans have homosexuality too, shows that it isn't being weeded out of the population by evolution. If it did confer a significant evolutionary disadvantage, it wouldn't exist.

But, you know, that if you take it literally and stopped "being nice" as to not hurt people's feelings.

If being gay did in fact reduce reproductive fitness, we'd have to accept that it's tied to traits that are essential to our evolutionary survival, like intelligence or compassion, and can't simply be weeded out by evolutionary changes.

well you see, with the way the world is run today, there is no longer natural selection. well there is to a point, but nothing to wed out the peoply who dont belong here.

Its stupid to think there is a "gay" gene which completely controls if someone is homosexual or not. One of the current and more accepted explanation for homosexuality, other than simply being a lifestyle choice, is that hormonal levels in the mother's womb was somehow altered and caused certain physiological changes in the child. Then the enviroments comes to play too.

At 4/25/08 01:42 PM, TitusRevised wrote: My question being, why is homosexuality accepted as normal when it is unnatural?

Natural selection says that only those most capable of producing healthy offspring are the 'fittest' and thus the most fit will keep their genes in the gene pool while those infertile or simply too unhealthy to produce offspring will die and their genes weeded out. Should sexual orientation be genetic, then shouldn't homosexuals be the arch-enemy of natural selection, and be completely eradicated by millions of years of evolution?

It seems in nature that the whole purpose of living is to produce offspring that will survive, and homosexuals are incapable of producing offspring naturally and thus their behavior is un-natural. Why then are people being pushed to accept it as normal? Perhaps a clever way of keeping world population undercontrol... Anywho, what do you have to retort?

1. define natural (in a way that wouldn't make the way modern man lives unnatural).

2. explain why we must abide by what is "natural".

3. survival of the fittest, i.e. the strongest survive, is a highly innacurate description of natural selection.

4. homosexuals are neither incapable nor unwilling to reproduce.

At 4/25/08 03:34 PM, Palomides wrote: What do you mean wrong? Its a way of believing how the earth originated

unbelievably wrong.

and not everyone believes it how is it not a religion?

i believe i exist and that all the people around me are individual sentient beings, not everyone believes this, therefore it is a religion.

At 4/25/08 03:41 PM, Al6200 wrote:

How do you know that homosexuality reduces a person's reproductive fitness? The average human has only a handful of kids, and therefore a person's reproductive fitness is more tied to their ability to raise and protect their children, not their ability to have sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex every waking moment.

Average human today.

Anyway, I never said it reduced reproductive fitness. Only that it would reduce the occurance or 'Reproductivity' (I love making up words).

But you see what you're doing, right?

You're rationalizing it. Because it's no secret that homosexuality literally opposes the laws of nature, you try to justify it by any means possible in order to prevent, as I said, "hurting people's feelings".

So if a gay person had sex with someone of the opposite gender, say, 10 times, their reproductive fitness might not be too much lower than that of someone who isn't gay and has sex with someone of the opposite gender frequently.

But would a species with no critical thinking make the connection?

Besides, the simple fact that more primative primates like bonobos have homosexuality, and humans have homosexuality too, shows that it isn't being weeded out of the population by evolution. If it did confer a significant evolutionary disadvantage, it wouldn't exist.

C'mon. Stop putting words in my mouth (no, it's not a pun...)

I didn't say it would die out. I did say that if the 'Gay Gene' were true considering how reproduction works, then it's an undesirable trait.

If being gay did in fact reduce reproductive fitness, we'd have to accept that it's tied to traits that are essential to our evolutionary survival, like intelligence or compassion, and can't simply be weeded out by evolutionary changes.

Never said it would be weeded out.

Gay people have different brains then straight people ( this is a fact ).
perhaps they just aren't meant to reproduce or they are a 'flaw' of nature.

At 4/25/08 01:42 PM, TitusRevised wrote: I don't know if this has been discussed already (I tried searching but didnt find anything) so I apologize if this is something old.

My question being, why is homosexuality accepted as normal when it is unnatural?

Natural selection says that only those most capable of producing healthy offspring are the 'fittest' and thus the most fit will keep their genes in the gene pool while those infertile or simply too unhealthy to produce offspring will die and their genes weeded out. Should sexual orientation be genetic, then shouldn't homosexuals be the arch-enemy of natural selection, and be completely eradicated by millions of years of evolution?

It seems in nature that the whole purpose of living is to produce offspring that will survive, and homosexuals are incapable of producing offspring naturally and thus their behavior is un-natural. Why then are people being pushed to accept it as normal? Perhaps a clever way of keeping world population undercontrol... Anywho, what do you have to retort?

We just got over genetics in biology. There are actually a lot of diseases that are harmful to humans but haven't been weeded out over time, because relative to a lot of other species, humans only evolved a short time ago. That's one of the main reasons people have so much lower back pain, because the skeleton ours was modified from (a primates) wasn't adapted well enough for upright movement, and all the bugs haven't been worked out by evolution.

It all depends on the gene, too. If it's double recessive , than there's likely to be a high number of carriers for it, and it may never be weeded out of the population. I don't know much about the genetics behind homosexuality though.

Hope that helps :D

At 4/25/08 05:09 PM, Memorize wrote:

Anyway, I never said it reduced reproductive fitness. Only that it would reduce the occurance or 'Reproductivity' (I love making up words).

Reproductive fitness is "reproductivity".

But you see what you're doing, right?

You're rationalizing it. Because it's no secret that homosexuality literally opposes the laws of nature, you try to justify it by any means possible in order to prevent, as I said, "hurting people's feelings".

There are no fundamental laws of nature. Organisms that reproduce - do reproduce and become more common. The fact that homosexuality exists today suggests that it is the consequence of a successful or not harmful evolutionary strategy.

Also, even if homosexuals didn't reproduce at all, it would still be possible for them continue through the population. This might seem shocking to some people, but we see it a lot throughout nature. None of the workers in a bee hive themselves reproduce, yet their actions aid the hive and allow the queen to reproduce. Since the workers are genetically related to the queen, and the Queen survives based on the worker's success, the workers themselves are reproducing, even though they never engage each other sexually.

Likewise, if having homosexuals benefited a society, it's conceivable that they stay in the gene pool even if they themselves do not produce fertile offspring.

So if a gay person had sex with someone of the opposite gender, say, 10 times, their reproductive fitness might not be too much lower than that of someone who isn't gay and has sex with someone of the opposite gender frequently.

But would a species with no critical thinking make the connection?

They wouldn't necessarily need to...

Besides, the simple fact that more primative primates like bonobos have homosexuality, and humans have homosexuality too, shows that it isn't being weeded out of the population by evolution. If it did confer a significant evolutionary disadvantage, it wouldn't exist.

C'mon. Stop putting words in my mouth (no, it's not a pun...)

What words did I put in your mouth? :/

I didn't say it would die out. I did say that if the 'Gay Gene' were true considering how reproduction works, then it's an undesirable trait.

Yet if homosexuality wasn't an effective reproductive strategy in some sense

Besides, how is increasing one's reproductive ratio tied to morality? It's conceivable that a rapist might have a very high reproductive ratio, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that their behavior is "desirable" or ethical.

If being gay did in fact reduce reproductive fitness, we'd have to accept that it's tied to traits that are essential to our evolutionary survival, like intelligence or compassion, and can't simply be weeded out by evolutionary changes.

Never said it would be weeded out.

Fair enough, but I'm just pointing out that it's not an undesirable trait from the standpoint of evolution, since it still exists.

At 4/25/08 05:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/25/08 03:34 PM, Palomides wrote: What do you mean wrong? Its a way of believing how the earth originated

unbelievably wrong.

and not everyone believes it how is it not a religion?

i believe i exist and that all the people around me are individual sentient beings, not everyone believes this, therefore it is a religion.

I love how you just come in and give a one liner "unbelievably wrong" you dont give a reason.

religion = A theory on how our modern earth came to existence. If you dont think this way than reply with more than stupid sarcasm.

At 4/25/08 05:22 PM, Al6200 wrote: There are no fundamental laws of nature. Organisms that reproduce - do reproduce and become more common. The fact that homosexuality exists today suggests that it is the consequence of a successful or not harmful evolutionary strategy.

assuming it is a hereditary anomally. there are a number of geneteic and non-genetic conditions that are non-hereditary and non-contageous.

At 4/25/08 05:25 PM, Palomides wrote: I love how you just come in and give a one liner "unbelievably wrong" you dont give a reason.

*sigh* evolution has absolutley nothing to do with the creation of the universe, earth, or life. this is like 101 information.

religion = A theory on how our modern earth came to existence.

are you trying to pass that off as a definition for religion?

At 4/25/08 05:29 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/25/08 05:25 PM, Palomides wrote: I love how you just come in and give a one liner "unbelievably wrong" you dont give a reason.

*sigh* evolution has absolutley nothing to do with the creation of the universe, earth, or life. this is like 101 information.

religion = A theory on how our modern earth came to existence.

are you trying to pass that off as a definition for religion?

Again with the stupid sentences of proposed knowledge superiority.

Yes as my definition, if you dont find that its incorrect then ill assume that Im right but right now all youre doing is giving short answers attempting to chip at my credibility.

religion = A theory on how our modern earth came to existence.

are you trying to pass that off as a definition for religion?

If you really try hard, you could probably find a way to distort the definition of theory to include myths.

:)

At 4/25/08 05:22 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Reproductive fitness is "reproductivity".

If by "Reproductive Fitness", you mean 'The ability to Reproduce', then no.

Also, even if homosexuals didn't reproduce at all, it would still be possible for them continue through the population.

Haven't we been over this?

This might seem shocking to some people, but we see it a lot throughout nature. None of the workers in a bee hive themselves reproduce, yet their actions aid the hive and allow the queen to reproduce. Since the workers are genetically related to the queen, and the Queen survives based on the worker's success, the workers themselves are reproducing, even though they never engage each other sexually.

You're comparing the way one particular species is set up compared to us. It doesn't work.

Likewise, if having homosexuals benefited a society, it's conceivable that they stay in the gene pool even if they themselves do not produce fertile offspring.

Key word: If

What words did I put in your mouth? :/

1) I made no mention of our species evolving towards homosexuality.
2 As a result: I made no mention of evolution working to homosexuality's extinction.

Yet, you bring it up.

Yet if homosexuality wasn't an effective reproductive strategy in some sense

Yet if... what?

Where's the rest of the sentence?

Besides, how is increasing one's reproductive ratio tied to morality?

See?

Where the hell are you coming up with this irrelevent stuff?

Homosexuality an evolutionary outcome? Morality?

wtf?

It's conceivable that a rapist might have a very high reproductive ratio, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that their behavior is "desirable" or ethical.

Because it would be forcing oneself onto another.

It also isn't a normal behavior.

Fair enough, but I'm just pointing out that it's not an undesirable trait from the standpoint of evolution, since it still exists.

Yes. It is undesirable.

As is any other genetic defect that evolution isn't capable of getting rid of.

So what are you going to argue next? That Down Syndrome isn't undesirable because evolution hasn't "weeded it out"?