Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against homosexuality?

I can't find a single one. Basically, all I hear ad nauseum is that homosexuality isn't "natural." What is natural, however, is in the eye of the human beholder. Building skyscrapers and flying in planes isn't "natural." It may not be "natural" for heterosexuals to engage in any sex act other than copulation: after all, the penis and vagina were made for each other, right? Anything else is not natural.

If anyone's heard anything else that isn't raving lunacy, I'd love to hear it. I don't think the "natural" argument holds much water, but at least it's slightly more logical than the grunting, stupid "I just don't like gays" bigotry I hear come out of the mouths of most people.

it is frequently seen in nature and seems to serve multiple purposes

the argument that it is not "natural" is false and seems to me to be an inaccurate way of saying that it does not lead to reproduction, which may be true, however, there are plenty of perfectly natural activities in a state of nature that do not lead to reproduction

As a budding science student at Rutgers university, I truly am interested in what natural purposes homosexuality serves. It is in the best interest of species to procreate (ok, enough of our humanly religious "we must procreate" bullshit, but truly, evolutionary scientists agree that a species must procreate to continue existence. I mean, hell, the definition of a species is a population of organisms that can only produce fertile offspring with each other.)

But anyways, I see a few purposes homosexuality in nature serves, most notably the inability to pass recessive alleles down generations that would lead to diseases, as well as perhaps a more psychological community benefit. Any others you guys see?

By helping a relative raise her offspring, an individual can indirectly increase his own reproductive fitness.

For example, in Florida, scrub jays often cooperatively raise young.

If a daughter (and keep in mind a daughter shares half of her genetic material with parents) helps raise 3 offspring of additional offspring from her mother, she contributes .5x3= 1.5 total units of genes. There are some species of gophers, or some other ground rodent, that have completely non-breeding same sex partnered groups that help exclusively raise relatives young.

So, from an evolutionary standpoint, there might be a tipping point if sex ratios are very biased where it would be beneficial to be homosexual and help raise offspring--you still propagate your genes, after all.

take a course on basic evolution/biology if you must

Variation within a species' total gene pool is absolutely acted upon by natural selection.

Pressures and adaptations occur at the individual level and are then passed on and multiplied. Or not.

Edit fot typos

The unit of evolution is the gene or a population (this is a current debate as to which is the unit of evoution-- Dawkins says it's the gene in his book The Selfish Gene) and although natural selection does *act* on the individual in terms of reproductive fitness, natural selection changes the allele frequency of traits in the population's gene pool and not the individual.

I'm really not trying to be snarky, but this has been hammered into my head pretty hard by my genetics professors :hi:

Case in point: Idiot lights fire over gasoline can. Idiot died. Natural selection. Idiot was too stupid to be alive any more. It's as simple as that.

Then they die.

...they are too stupid to realize they shouldn't be reproducing in the first place.

it is in the best interest of species to produce a replacement population, it is not necessarily in the best interest of species to over-populate, crash, and burn, and start again

a certain percentage of population being homosexual serves the purpose of there is still bonding between individuals without too much production of young

more important for the longer lived species who can appreciate some quality of life, say higher primates, say parrots

it's certainly a valid strategy for many species for every individual to try to have as many babies as possible and not care if most of them get starved or squished, see cockroaches, but i don't think it's a good model for humans where in theory we would want every young one born to have a decent life -- we are not willing to say "oh well, survival of the fittest" and see the majority of young born die in infancy or childhood, therefore we need to look to other strategies that limit over-population, in a crowded society a gull or a parrot may bond with another of the same sex and be perfectly happy, long term harmony of the group can be just as valuable to survival of the species as popping out offspring

my understanding of it anyway

Wherein, he noted that if the human population keeps reproducing at the rate it has since the year 1900, the planet will not be able to substain the load. There is one reason for you to ponder. The book is highly informative and very interesting on many levels.

Typical neo-barf logic.

"Breathing doesn't lead to reproduction, therefore it's not natural!"

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins presented the benefits to a gene of increasing the chances of homesexuality as an unsolved problem, although he mentions a couple of theories (IIRC, one was to do with raising siblings and/or nephews or nieces, and another was that a homosexual beta male may have more chances to mate with females than other betas). Is there any more authority behind any one theory nowadays?

Homosexuality is natural and is practiced by a variety of species over different taxinomic groups.

Making sexuality a question of morals is something only found in religion.

You're right that sexuality is "natural" and occurs in species other than humans, but so are murder and rape. The thing that is more or less unique to humans is doing good, not doing bad; that homosexuality is natural is *not* an argument in its favour.

And I don't agree that making sexuality a question of morals is only found in religion. It's not even the case that making sexual orientation a question of morality if only found in religion - vide persecution of homosexuals under e.g. the Nazis (many of whom were religious, but whose persecution of homosexuals was largely for "eugenic", not religious, reasons, I believe) or various secular communist regimes.

... It's what lies at the root of the semi-literate "but they can't rerproduce" nonsense.

a perfect duty, would he? Been a long time, maybe he would have...

that don't follow.

The argument for biological reproduction seems to work better from imperfect duties - generally we will that the human species be propagated, and therefore if universalizing our maxim (in this case, "it is permissible to abstain from aiding in human reproduction") would prevent the propagation of the human species, we have an imperfect duty to reject actions based upon it, lest our will contradict itself.

But then, the leap from there to proscribing same-sex intercourse seems weak at best - not only does homosexuality not preclude procreation, but serving the propagation of the human species can be done in non-procreative ways as well; adoption, for instance.

Anyway, the "universal law" formulation is vague and ambiguous enough (especially as regards the content of maxims) that conclusions drawn from it tend to be fairly questionable; the true beauty and appeal of Kantian ethics lies in the "treat humanity as an end-in-itself" formulation. Here our conclusion is clearer and less questionable. In order to treat others as ends-in-themselves, they must share in the ends of our actions insofar as our actions regard them; otherwise we are merely treating them as means towards our own exclusive ends. Therefore, as long as same-sex intercourse is willing, one's partner shares in the ends of the action, and is satisfactorily treated as an end-in-himself or herself. We have no obligation to abstain.

was that homosexuals were child abusers. We all know that this blanket statement is very untrue; more child abusers are straight than homosexual. But this seemed to be the feeling about them, and I've seen this same misinformation spread even today.

Another thing I remember, and this from sneaking peeks at my father's "adult" joke books--was that homosexuals, especially gays, were made fun of as being weak and silly. The implication were they weren't "real men" somehow, and were not to be talked about--like dirty jokes.

Until quite recently, there were laws on the books making homosexual activity illegal--and so many many people stayed in the closet. If I remember correctly, in the 50s some people even thought homosexuality was a psychological disorder. My mother would talk about some of my father's gay friends who were seeing psychologists-but with the pressures of the time, I don't blame them.

This kind of prejudice and misinformation lingers on, I think, and makes people hold the feelings they have.

No, it isn't rational. But these feelings were widespread in the 50s--and, funny enough, I never heard them talked about in church at all.

All the stuff about people forgetting to get married and have kids ignores what horn dogs most guys are for women.

It occurs in every species. The other argument about it not being natural has to do with having babies. I need to inform people because evidently they don't know this. I am a lesbian. My uterus did not fall out. If I want a baby I can have one. The difference is, if I become pregnant it's because I have thought it out and decided I have something to offer a child, as opposed to becoming pregnant just because someone forgot to bring the rubbers.


(Well, I'm 52. If I become pregnant it's because another star flew over the East but you get my point. Gays and lesbians still have all reproduction options.)
Lee

I watched "The Children's Hour" last night. Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn, 1961. What a shock for me to realize how things were just 50 years ago. In that respect we have come a long way, but IMHO deep in the heart of those phobic, is a fear passed on through generations via extreme sexual repression. My point is that we are as a species evolving. My kids in high school have "gay" friends and "jock" friends and "stoner" friends and "geek" friends and "emo" friends.

Love is the answer to most everything, and I try really hard to love the unevolved, they are the true minority.

And that's the way it is.

Masturbation? Is that natural? Why spill your seed if it isn't to make more babies? Is it natural to have brazillions of sperm in 1 ejaculate? Yes! Spring pollen? Flowers? All sex things. All natural.

Defining "natural" is the problem since there are animals that also do most of the above. And plants.

Edited to add my answer to your question. No. To each his/her own, so long as consenting and no one gets hurt (unless consenting)

Some other primates too. It's a bonding behavior as well as a reproductive one.

Though there is often increased sex drive in women at or near ovulation, as well as some changes in lubrication and other physical responses that can make sex more pleasurable at that time.

It depends on the definition of that word. Nature is as nature does. I don't see any "natural" arguments against homosexuality.

you say -- not natural for people to have sex when not fertile either

this statement is not correct, many animals or at least many birds (my knowledge of mammalian sexuality is shaky) have sex when not fertile as a pair-bonding exercise

i have observed this for myself, many times, in birds who continue to mate even after they have quite large young in the nest or even fledged

and from widely different groups, raptors (birds of prey) and the parrots spring to mind -- large birds who we often catch doing the dirty if we look!

as far as masturbation, if there is a higher primate or bird that doesn't masturbate when partners are not available, i'm unaware of it

nature is large, lots of things are perfectly natural

it is the definition of "natural" that is the problem. I changed a period to a question mark in previous post as you misunderstood me, I wasn't being clear enough. We are in agreement. And no, there are no arguments against homo or hetero or a-sexuality. It is all ok.

Of course, I'm prejudiced.

I think there are some epidemiological studies that show lower life expectancy for homosexuals, but that's probably true of any oppressed minority.

The only concerted critics of homosexuality seem to be religious wack jobs.

... as they see fit.

You can make serious arguments about the harmful effects of certain forms of religion, drinking, diet, jobs, etc., but it isn't for our government or any other organization for that matter to dictate how people choose to live their lives.

Even if, hypothetically, you could prove beyond all doubt that homosexuality leads to an early grave for all those that participate in it, there is no sound reason (legal or otherwise) to forbid people from living their life they see fit.

I like the way the little people describe it, they are not average sized people. Homosexuals are not the average sexual orientation. Trans-gender and trans-sexual are not average. But a given individual's state is perfectly normal for them.

It's all superstition of one kind or another. Homophobia is no more rational and has no more basis in any reality than prejudice against left-handed people. (Which also used to be something that people were discriminated against and beaten for - hopefully in another generation at the very least society will feel equally stupid about past prejudice against gay people as they do about southpaw-hate.)

Our society is currently structured around binary gender roles. People who don't conform to that model change that balance. Individual freedom weakens a society's cohesive nature and necessarily changes the status quo.

For self-interest reasons--the more a society enforces binary gender roles, the more likely women are to get the shit end of the stick.

I'm just answering the OP

:)

If all homo and bisexuals were closeted and fulfilled the obligations of their gender roles, then they wouldn't have as strong an effect on societal patterns.

of possible gender roles that I don't know about?

lol

and you can pretend that's uncommon or something, but even in NYC it's pervasive.
And Tamer is talking about upsetting that apple cart. It's a totally valid point.

:hi:

freedom and self-determination, not blindly following some path assigned by the government based on what is between a person's legs. gender roles are for mindless lemmings, not for free, courageous individuals in what is supposed a land of liberty and respect for individual rights.

Open societies don't have such firm, clear cut, narrowly defined gender roles. Closed ones do. Open societies have a cohesive nature as much as closed ones do.

the difference between open and closed is generally along a continuum and fluctuates within subregions. For example, the US has a relatively closed society, but along the coasts, there is more movement, particularly with regards to immigration. This leads to more openness, and more liberal thinking as a result. However, within the rest of the country, society is more closed.

it's only used against people the advocate of it doesn't like.

who would argue against something they support? Nevertheless the destabilization of societal structure is a concern with a lot of issues.

absolutely controlled authoritarianism, run by a single person.

Am I crazy, or are you?:crazy::silly::crazy:

:)

No

It does put one at high risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably HIV/AIDS.

That's not necessarily an argument "against homosexuality", since with adequate precautions the risk can be substantially reduced.

And straight people who engage in unprotected anal sex (which not all gay men do) also have an increased risk of HIV transmission.

But those that stay in a monogamous relationship would not be at a higher risk.

still would put them at risk, but you are right about monogamy and members of any group being at risk if they do not practice monogamy. Absolutely correct.

unprotected anal sex provides a health risk, even for monogamous couples.

Many infectious diseases are spread both sexually and by other means -- including HIV. Therefore, one partner of a monogamous couple could obtain a disease by non-sexual means and then pass it on to his partner through anal sex.

Many women have gotten HIV from their partners who were drug addicts, in fact at one time women was the group with the highest rate of new HIV infections. I am not sure which group holds that distinction now.

However, anal sex poses a much higher risk than vaginal sex. There are two reasons for that. One is that the anus is much more likely to be damaged during sex than is the vagina, and the damage provides an opportunity for the entry of micro-organisms.

Also, the anus is likely to contain more pathogens than the vagina.

HIV infections have been many African nations with mostly straight people transmitting the infections. And here in America, the biggest threat in recent years has been that many African American people are at risk. HIV/AIDS is not only a gay disease, it's a human disease and should be treated as such. Your argument was debunked as long ago as the late 80's and early 90's. Please get a new encyclopedia set or read some more information about HIV/AIDS. You too might be at risk and not even know it. Anyone could be at risk of contracting that horrible wretched disease.

Where did I say that HIV/AIDS is ONLY a gay disease?

Unprotected anal sex poses a high risk of transmission of many infectious diseases. That is a fact, and it was never "debunked" as you say.

I don't need you to lecture me about the causes of HIV/AIDS transmission. I'm a public health physician, and I ran a public health program for the prevention of HIV/AIDS transmission for several years. As part of that program I supervised a gay man who was a "health educator" who went out to the gay community to give presentations on how they could prevent transmission of the disease.

I never said unprotected sex of any kind could or would prevent an HIV infection. I said the idea of HIV/AIDS being a "gay disease" was debunked because straight people can and do get infected too. I pity the people in your area if you are the public health physician, because your prejudice toward gay men can cause many other people to contract HIV if you don't point out that everyone is at risk if they have any kind of unprotected sex, with lesbians being the lowest risk, but still at risk.

The OP asked if there was any non-lunatic, non-religious argument against homosexuality. By your definition, if you were to apply it equally, would be an argument against all sexual contact regardless of sexual orientation. You are acting as if gay men are the only ones who could possibly contract the disease by stating your argument against homosexuality in this way. And your obsession with anal sex, when the disease can be contracted vaginally as well is another calling card. Still, your talking point is so prejudiced against gay men, in particular, that it makes it just another right wing talking point. Do you not realize that?

The bottom line is this: anyone who has unprotected sex, no matter what their sexual orientation, can contract HIV. So, how is HIV transmission an argument against homosexuality in particular? Would you debate using that same argument against heterosexuality?

Now, I may be biased as TFC is my dad, but your post is extremely offensive none-the-less. I can almost guarantee that TFC has done quite a bit more than you, or almost anyone on this site in terms of saving lives within the gay community. First of all, not once did he say "unprotected sex of any kind could or would prevent an HIV infection", I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Also, not once did TFC say that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease". As an Epidemiologist, he is more than aware that anyone is capable of contracting HIV/AIDS. He was simply pointing out that unprotected anal sex greatly increases your chances of contacting the virus, and gay men are a demographic that is a good deal more likely than the population in general to have that type of sex. And it's extremely immature to talk about an "obsession with anal sex" when he is being forced to mention it over and over again in defense of his own truthful words. No one is debating that HIV/AIDS can be contracted by a myriad of sexual contact, and no one is debating that anyone is capable of contracting it. Still, there is nothing that TFC said that is incorrect in the slightest. The reactionary comments I've been reading make me extremely embarassed.

worthy of the outrage and shame. Geez, talk about reactionary. You take the cake when it comes to reactionary.

You call my father prejudiced against gays and suggested he has an obsession with anal sex when it's your ridiculous arguments that have him going over the same material over and over again. My dad has done far more for the gay community then you ever will. That is a fact, and you continuing to make these comments is beyond the pale. If you can't win an argument, you attack the messenger, you did it before and you're doing it again. I'd suggest either adding something substantive to your argument or apologizing. I know, of course, that that's too much to ask for.

You still haven't answered my question. Neither has your father. Kinda makes me wonder who can't win the argument here.

And which of your questions haven't I answered? Is it where I said I'd never make an argument either way to try to affect a person's sexual orientation?

against homosexuality. If that's not what you are trying to do here, then why are you here? My question still remains: Would you make the same argument against heterosexuality? That's the question I can't seem to get you and your family to answer. It's not much of an argument against homosexuality. You could claim it's an argument against promiscuity and unprotected sex, but not against homosexuality.

I would not make an argument either way to affect a person of any orientation. That means homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you had read my previous posts, you would have known that, but I suppose that's too much to ask for. My dad is probably away from his computer now, but I'm fairly certain he feels pretty much the same way. My dad posted his comment because it IS an argument. Not necessarily a good one, or one that he would use, but it's foolish trying to act like it's not an argument.

Is that there aren't any legitimate arguments against homosexuality.

I have never implied that only gay men can get HIV. NEVER

All I said was that anal sex poses a high risk for the sexual transmission of HIV and other diseases. It is far riskier than vaginal sex, for the reasons I've explained. That's not because I have an obsession with anal sex -- it is a medical fact, and it was part of my job to educate people about that.

I am NOT prejudiced against homosexuals.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other about my answer to the original question. My answer was not in any way meant to imply that people should not be homosexuals or have homosexual sex.

If someone asked if there was any argument against eating candy, I would say yes, and I would express the reasons. That doesn't mean that I'm prejudiced against people who eat candy. In fact I eat it myself.

since spending a life time of celibacy cloistered in a monastery is less likely to lead to HIV infection, isn't that an argument against heterosexuality?

It's not an argument that's likely to cause many people to take up a life time of celibacy (certainly not me), but it's an argument.

It's saying that living a life of celibacy is good in the fact that it pretty much eliminates your chances of obtaining an STD. One argument against living in a monastery is that you never get to have sex. The 2nd part of the argument for me completely overrides the first, and that's a big reason I'm not living in a monastery now. So, it may not be much of an argument, but it's an argument. Understood? Nah, of course not.

from what I read in a study a few years back. It's still not a very good argument, like you said, so why argue it so vehemently? It's still an argument against unprotected promiscuous sex, not homosexuality. To say that not having sex at all pretty much eliminates the risk would have been a big surprise to a young boy like Ryan White or many children born in Africa with HIV. Who could they have possibly been having sex with in the womb?

The OP requested an argument. It did not request an argument that you, yourself would use, just an argument. Most things in life have pros and cons. Pros and cons are arguments FOR and AGAINST things. The CONS of living in a monastery far outweigh the PROS for me, hence I don't live in a monastery. I'm not arguing any of these arguments vehemently, I'm simply saying it's an argument. That's something you can't seem to get through your head, and I'm tired of repeating myself. You've used about every logical fallacy in the book trying to cut me and my dad down and I've had enough of it.

if you and your dad hadn't brough the logical fallacy up as an argument in the first place. I didn't bring any logical fallacies to the table. Your dad did. You still haven't answered my question and your condescending tone and attempts to throw me off of my original question show an obvious loss of debate on your side, not mine here.

But it doesn't satisfy one of the two explicit qualifiers listed in the OP's subject line.

That sums the cause of this subthread up perfectly.

But my question to your reply to the OP is still, would you use the same logic against heterosexuality?

The GLBT population is not at a higher risk to STDs than any other population. Unprotected sex is an equal risk. Regardless of sexual identity. Your OP is a familiar right wing talking point which makes me place you on mental notice.

Your example works better when applied to the IV drug user population, since the bodily fluid that contains the highest concentration of HIV is blood. If you are actually concerned about the health of the greater population, spend more time fighting for clean needle exchanges.

And if you were to simply look at the numbers, African American women are increasingly becoming the population infected with HIV. Maybe you should check your facts before posting an ignorant statement.

I guess that means, per the poster's argument, that everyone should be a lesbian.

Or, at least Kate Winslet.

Unprotected anal sex poses a much higher risk of transmission of many disease than vaginal sex. The reason for that is that the anus is much more likely to be damaged and allow the transmission of infectious agents during sex than is the vagina. Also, the anus has more infectious organisms in it to begin with.

Go ahead and place me on "mental notice" for noting a scientific fact. This may or may not be used as a right wing talking point, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I am a public health physician who has practiced public health for over 30 years, and you don't prevent the spread of disease by avoiding inconvenient facts because you're afraid that some people may not like them.

Furthermore, I did not say that I feel that gay men shouldn't have gay sex. The OP asked a question and I answered it. People should be aware of the risks that their activities present.

I'm an HIV Health Literacy Educator.

The demographic has shifted and African American women are the group with the highest infection rates in the United States. In fact, 92% of our clients are heterosexual and from communities of color. No one would deny that promiscuous, unprotected anal sex is a means of transmission, but to say that there are health reasons to be against homosexuality is a a talking point that could be lifted off of Fred Phelps' website. Not to mention, Africa sure must have a large homosexual population to account for such a high concentration of HIV infections.

And as a gay man who has been in committed relationship for 10 years, as well as being friends with other gay and lesbian couples who also are in long-term relationships, none of us are worried about getting any STDs.

you ought to know that a statement like "unprotected sex is an equal risk regardless of sexual identity" is misleading, as is the statement that gay men are not at higher risk than any other population.

Gay men are at higher risk because anal sex carries with it a high probability of damage to anal tissue, which allows the passage of micro-organisms -- a much higher risk than one gets with vaginal sex. Anal sex also poses a risk because of the pathogens carried in the anus. Yes, it's not their sexual identity that poses the risk, it's unprotected anal sex.

With regard to "talking points", I specifically said in my original post:

"That's not necessarily an argument "against homosexuality", since with adequate precautions the risk can be substantially reduced."

Is it possible that right wingers might use the fact that anal sex poses a health risk to tout their anti-homosexual agenda? I suppose it's possible, though those aren't the arguments that I have seen them use. But that certainly is not a reason for those responsible for public health to keep quiet about it.

Have you ever read "And the Band Played on"? It was written by a gay man, who is now dead from AIDS. It's an excellent book. It contains a great deal of anger -- NOT over the fact people exaggerate the health risks posed by anal sex, but over the fact that not enough attention was paid to that fact, and because of that thousands of gay men are now dead because they weren't adequately educated about the dangers that they face.

keep it coming. :freak:

And gay men always do?

Hoo boy...

:sarcasm:

Jeez, I think I need to post a PSA:

Most community colleges offer a class in Human Sexuality. If everything you know about sex came from dirty movies, playground jokes or red state health classes, you owe it to yourself to take it.

:toast:

Could you please point it out to me?

was an argument against homosexuality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you think that AIDS is an argument against homosexuality?

First and foremost, I believe everyone should be able to live and love as they see fit. I believe in true equal rights, and believe that people of all sexual orientations should be entitled to the same rights, including marriage. I believe that "civil unions" are a copout, but I supports certain politicians who support "civil unions" because sometimes I don't have a better choice. I'd like to see more gays represented in politics.

Seeing as I believe everyone is entitled to love as they wish, I wouldn't dare try to influence a person's sexual orientation by providing an argument either for or against any orientation. The OP asked for arguments which are not crazy or based on religion, which are against homosexuality. Homosexual men are at a greater risk of obtaining HIV/AIDS than the population in general. There are many things that a gay man can do to greatly reduce that risk, but as a group, this remains true. So, would I use that fact as an argument against homosexuality? No, I already said that I believe that people should be able to love as they choose and I'd never try to argue one way or another in terms of trying to persuade a person's orientation. However, could someone use that example as an argument against homosexuality? Yes, it is an inarguable statement, so if a person wanted to use it to argue against homosexuality, he/she could. He/she would be arguing that the personal freedom of a person to love as they wish is not as important as protecting them from a particular elevated risk. It's an argument I believe is absolute bullshit, but it's an argument none-the-less.

So, it's an argument that could be used, just not by me. And TFC made it quite clear that he would not use it against homosexuals either. So what's your beef exactly?

Saying that is a broadbrush generalization about gay men. This may surprised you but many gay men are in committed monogamous relationships. And the point is still that the argument regarding HIV is an argument against unprotected promiscuity, at best, and not an argument against homosexulity. To say otherwise at this point in a thread that asks for arguments against homosexuality would be ridiculous. Oh, wait a minute, that is what you and your father already did. See the contention here? That argument holds water if and only if the point being made is against unprotected promiscuity. I'd say gay men have had it drilled into their heads by now that unprotected sex is dangerous, but that still doesn't account for the huge amounts of new cases of HIV/AIDS in African countries in recent years. I know they can't all be gay men over there. So, the facts still remain that it is unprotected sex that increases the risk in the sex catergory, not homosexuality.

I never knew that many gay men are in committed monogamous relationships. Please tell me more! /sarcasm
You seem to understand that unprotected sex is dangerous. What you definitely do NOT understand is that unprotected sex amongst gay men is more dangerous. To say otherwise is doing a damned disservice to the gay community. You repeating the same information over and over again is not constructive. You're arguing way over your head. Of course unprotected sex increases risk, so does anal sex.

Also, apparently you have no idea what a broadbrush generalization is. Either that, or you're using it in an intellectually dishonest manner and you know it. That's like saying it's a broadbrush generalization to say that heterosexual relationships are more likely to result in a pregnancy than homosexual relationships. Really, I'd suggest some brushing up on your logic.

I know it will cause major internal conflict for you to answer this question, but I'll ask anyway:

Do you believe that gay men who have unprotected sex are more at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than straight men who have unprotected sex?

good idea unless both are committed to a monogamous relationship, regardless of orientation. Being born in Africa also increases risk. I's that an argument against African children?

I'm kind of embarassed I have to spell this out for you, but you force me to.

1) Unprotected, casual sex is a bad idea as it increases the chances one will obtain an STD.

2) Unprotected, casual sex amongst homosexual men is even more dangerous due to the type of sex they have.

3) Regardless of the fact stated in 2), I wouldn't try to convince any person that they're loving the wrong person. It's simply a no brainer that people of any orientation should have protected sex to help eliminate the risk.

I suppose I could write this down again a dozen different ways, but it still wouldn't get through to you.

1) agreed - regardless of sexual orientation.

2) as a gay man, what kind of sex do I have? I'll bet you couldn't even begin to imagine it. Why generalize against gay men?

3) what about a monogamous relationship? All bets are off there.

as for your last line, maybe it's you who needs getting through to.

It is more risky to be an African Child. Not that I am against Children in Africa. Some of my best friends....


getting a bit much, eh?

I will never get HIV.

That's great. It would be even better if the whole world followed your example, AIDS would be gone within a generation. Unfortunately, not everyone is as responsible as you and your partner. That's why AIDS still exists.

I would look at HIV/AIDS as more of a global issue: which population is actually the most infected with HIV?

Seriously. Does Africa really have that many gay people having unprotected anal sex?

Africa's AIDS crisis is mostly a protection/education issue.

Not against homosexuality.

And in more ways than one.

Problem is education, not homosexuality.

I would also make an argument for protected sex. I would not make an argument for or against any person's sexual orientation. None of that means that a particular sexual orientation isn't more susceptible to certain STDs than an other.

That's where scientists have pretty much agreed is the birthplace of HIV. This virus has been around for almost 70 years, if not longer. SIV, mutations, blah, blah...another day, another thread. And once urbanization happened in the Congo, where the birthplace of HIV has been traced to, infection rates skyrocketed because of heterosexual sex. Not to mention, when the polio vaccine was introduced to Africa, it was before disposable needles were invented. So glass needles were used over and over again on different populations.

Another one I can debunk...ever heard of "Patient 0"? The gay male flight attendant accused of spreading HIV. TOTAL myth.

What I'm saying is that it's a lack of materials and lack of education that has prevented the spreading of AIDS in Africa from slowing. I know very well that it's heterosexual sex in Africa that has made the AIDS crisis there what it is today.

No it isn't. Depends on who they have sex with.

There is no 'depends' in population statistics. Either something is or isn't. Really, I can't describe how foolish you sound.

OK. Have you ever heard that old joke about there are 3 kinds of lies? Lies, damned lies and statistics>

"What you definitely do NOT understand is that unprotected sex amongst gay men is more dangerous. "

No it isn't. Depends on who they have sex with. If a person has sex with someone with +HIV, they are in more danger than if they had sex with someone non-HIV positive. You disagree and say I sound foolish. Wow. Simply wow.

I'm talking about groups of people as a whole. Such as all gay men, all straight men, all gay women, all straight women? Capishe?

Back to the OP of Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against homosexuality? and Time for change's "There are some health arguments. It does put one at high risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably HIV/AIDS. " and your continued contention that being a homosexual puts you more at risk for STDs.

Homosexuality does not increase risk for certain STDs. Types of sexual behavior increases risk, not homosexuality. Behavior, NOT orientation. There is a difference between behavior and orientation. Multiple sexual partners also increases risk. Sex with infected people increases risk. Behavior, NOT orientation. Do the "group of people as a whole" of homosexuals increase their risk by being homosexual? No. Capishe?

You seem to agree with me that unprotected anal sex increases one's chances of obtaining HIV/AIDS. I'm not so sure that you'll agree with me that gay men are more likely to have unprotected anal sex than the population in general, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, because of that, and because there is a larger per capita pool that sexually active gay men have to draw from in terms of HIV/AIDS infection, being a gay man puts you at more of a risk of obtaining HIV/AIDS.

Of course, there are things that anyone can do such as getting tested and wearing protection that reduce your risk, but that does not deny anything that I or TFC has said with regards to risk.

what is their chance of contracting HIV from each other?

What was suggested was that gay men have more unprotected anal sex than the population in general, hence the words "higher risk" were used. No where were the words "exclusive risk" or "only at risk" used. Christ, talk about shooting the messenger. Perhaps I'm a racist because I once told a group of friends that African Americans are at a higher risk for Sickle Cell Anemia. Of course, I would never say such a thing in mixed company, wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression. You know, there are real enemies out there.

just a quick scan of the post titLes tips me off that this is gonna be a totaL



:bounce:

:spray:

Bless you heart. ;)

The infection demographic has shifted over the last 25 years. Gay men are no longer the ones being infected at the highest rate. In fact, the infection rate has steadily declined, albeit a blip in an increase I believe last year. It is women of color who are being disproportionately infected. And the same thing is happening to them as did gay men 25 years ago: no one is paying attention.

I again, would argue with you that the population that is most likely to transmit HIV are IV drug-users who share their works, since there is immediate blood to blood contact. Have you noticed the high co-infection rate with HCV? I have. With the whole anal sex discussion, there has to be many more factors involved such as amount of fluid and point of entry for transmission to occur. There is a big difference between exposure and transmission.

It's because in any epidemic, once it reaches its peak, there are so few uninfected persons left that the rate has to go down.

"only gay men get it, so why do I have to be careful?" For instance. Or "there is treatment now so I don't have to be careful." And sometimes those in a previously higher infected group have changed their behavior to offset the method of infection.

are openly identifying as homosexual.

If I'm reading your post the way I think I am, are you saying that since most gay men are infected with HIV, that lends itself to a decrease in the number of reported infections?

If I am reading your post incorrectly, could you please clarify?

And yes, I understand why other groups are being infected. IV drug use and vaginal intercourse.

In particular, unprotected anal sex.

That needed to be said and you said it better than I could have.

Types of sexual behavior increases risk, not homosexuality. Behavior, NOT orientation. Period.

There are not sexual orientations which are more prone to particular sexual behaviors? It's really foolish to make these arguments. Everyone is aware that behavior effects risk, but demographic information doesn't lie.

Behavior increases chance of STDs. Casual unprotected promiscuous sexual behavior increases chances of STD transmission. However, homosexuality does not = casual unprotected sexual behavior.

I not once suggested that homosexuals are more likely than the population in general to have casual unprotected sex. I said gay men are more likely than the population in general to participate in unprotected anal sex. Let's assume that gay men, gay women, straight men and straight women all have the same rate of protected sex, let's assume they have the same rate of monogamous sex as well. The fact still remains that gay men are more likely to have anal sex. So, if you have a population of straight men who engage in unprotected, non-monogamous sex, and a population of gay men who engage in unprotected, non-monogamous sex, the gay population is going to have a higher infection rate of HIV/AIDS. Casual, unprotected sex is a bad idea whether you are straight or gay, but it's even more dangerous if you are a gay man. That is all that is being said here. It is not homophobic, it simply is.

Edited to remove superfluous text.

Or are you just blathering. It's called all other things being equal. You just make yourself look foolish by posting these snarky replies. Do you have anything of substance to add?

Follow through what has been said here and get to my conclusion, my point. See if you can understand it or if you want to just post another personal attack.:

OP "Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against homosexuality?"

Time for change "There are some health arguments. It does put one at high risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably HIV/AIDS. "

Uppityperson "Wrong, homosexuality does not increase risk for certain STDs. Types of sexual behavior increases risk, not homosexuality. Behavior, NOT orientation. Period. "

EOTE "So, what you are saying is that... There are not sexual orientations which are more prone to particular sexual behaviors? It's really foolish to make these arguments. Everyone is aware that behavior effects risk, but demographic information doesn't lie."

UP "Behavior increases chance of STDs. Casual unprotected promiscuous sexual behavior increases chances of STD transmission. However, homosexuality does not = casual unprotected sexual behavior."

ETOTE "Let's assume that gay men, gay women, straight men and straight women all have the same rate of protected sex, let's assume they have the same rate of monogamous sex as well. The fact still remains that gay men are more likely to have anal sex....Casual, unprotected sex is a bad idea whether you are straight or gay, but it's even more dangerous if you are a gay man. That is all that is being said here. It is not homophobic, it simply is."
----------------------------------
You are assuming things, and saying things are facts, leading to conclusions that are suspect. Behavior increases risk. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, but your behavior. There is not a health argument against homosexuality, but against certain behaviors. There is a difference between behavior and orientation. Do you understand this?

Do you understand that there is a relationship between sexual orientation and the type of sex one is likely to have?

Homosexuality does not increase risk for certain STDs. Types of sexual behavior increases risk, not homosexuality. Behavior, NOT orientation. There is a difference between behavior and orientation. Do you understand this?

than non-sexually active people? I'm awaiting your answer.

And no, I don't understand what you posted, because it's not true. Behavior AND orientation increase risk. Not one or the other.

STD=sexually transmitted disease. This is one that is transmitted sexually. So, if you don't have sex, you probably won't be as apt to be exposed to an STD than if you were sexually active. OK. Now, just by having sex, does this mean you are more at risk of obtaining an STD? No. How is that? You have sex, why aren't you at risk of getting an STD? What if you have sex only with someone who, wait for it, does NOT have an STD. Are you at more risk than if you didn't have sex with them? No!

Is JackBeck more at risk for getting and STD in his committed monogamous sexual relationship than JudyBlow, who is out fucking whomever she can to make enough money for her next bit of crystal meth? But he is a homosexual! He must be!

By the way, this was sarcastic writing. How you write is condescending type. Condescension doesn't go over very well since anyone can claim they are anything online. Just a bit of advice.

I'll ask the question again: Is the sexually active POPULATION more at risk of obtaining an STD than the non-sexually active POPULATION?

This is a very simple yes or no question.

It depends on whom they have sex with. Previously you said Sexually active People.

This is like saying apples taste better than oranges. Maybe, maybe not, depends.

What I never said was: "Is a sexually active PERSON..." That is a question that is impossible to answer. What I asked, was not.

Your "father" says there are health issues about homosexuality, you write homosexuals are more at risk, . Now you claim people and population are the same thing? You are disingenuous and I am about done with you.

Sexually active people, it means the same thing as the sexually active population, does it not?

How do the terms "Sexually active people" and "the sexually active population" differ?

are two seperate groups then? I think you mean "People" ARE individuals, being plural and all. And once you're dealing with people, as opposed to "person", you're dealing with a population. So what is the difference between the "American People" and the "American population". Are there those in the population who are not part of the American people. Are there American people who are not part of the population? If you answer "no" to both of those questions, they are in fact the same.

I guess nothing that is normal or natural can have any arguments for it or against it, they simply exist. I'm done with this thread.

"woohoo"

That's the problem about generalizing, it's generally WRONG

That's the problem about generalizing, it's generally WRONG. Thank you TommyO. This is all pretty amazing. Incredible. Appalling. Thank you.

That's the amazing thing. I'm a gay man who rarely engages in anal sex (and when I do it's protected), but the stereotypes and generalizations really "bust my buttons."

gay? Talk about demographics that repudiate your claims.

Africa has a very high incidence of HIV/AIDS because information on protection as well as protection itself is in very short supply. I don't claim to know the percentage of the African population which is gay, but homosexuality isn't a primary cause of the AIDS crisis in Africa. It's primarily an education issue. Kind of like how many missionaries sent to Africa teach abstinence only education. Once again, do you have anything substantive to add?

What is a question of yours that I haven't answered?

of arguing for the sake of arguing, you'd know. Now, I guess you'll never know because you won't listen. I'm not asking again. You crawl back through this hell of a thread (thanks to you overreacting to a little disagreement) and find it. It's not my responsibility to read replies made to you. That's your responsibility. You have tons of people telling you that the original assertion made by your dad did not meet the criteria the OP asked for (non-lunatic in this case), which negates the argument, unless your dad or you in this case are willing to state that the same argument can be made against heterosexuality. There's your hint.

And I've answered all of yours, thank you. And I find it laughable all the talks of my personal attacks when I've been called everything from homophobic to a lunatic by others.

your dad's argument was. There is a difference. Debating the point is quite a bit different than a personal attack, such as questioning one's math abilities knowing nothing about that person. And I still say I'm not wasting my time answering you if you don't answer me. You act discourteous and get the same snub in return. It's called karma and yours is overdue.

I'd say this point has been settled anyhow. There are no non-lunatic arguments against homosexuality. While there definitely are non-lunatic arguments against unprotected sex and promiscuity (again unprotected,) the argument your dad made fell apart. It's as simple as that. The sooner you realize it, the better. If you keep your extreme reactionary anger up at this rate, you are going to do some damage to your own circulatory system. That cannot be a good thing. A physician's son should know that. Face it, your dad's argument wasn't an argument against homosexuality, but an argument against uprotected sex, which anyone of any sexual orientation can have, although hopefully not.

Of all the questions of yours that I've answered. You've still yet to answer the one question I asked of you.

all my "t's," so I don't know why you didn't answer my question. That's the way life works. You don't answer my question and you expect me to answer anything you ask at this point? Hahaha, not happening.

I've gone through your questions and explained myself ad nauseum. Then you accuse me of avoiding your question. I've read and reread every one of your posts to me and I've responded to them all. I'll do something you're determined to deny me, I'll repeat my question again. This is a yes or no question, there are no shades of grey.

Do you believe that gay men who have unprotected sex are more at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than straight men who have unprotected sex? This is not a question of Joe Homosexual vs. Joe Heterosexual, this is about the population in general.

"Do you believe that gay men who have unprotected sex are more at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS than straight men who have unprotected sex?"

Gay men who have unprotected anal sex are in just as much risk of contracting HIV/AIDS as heterosexual women who have unprotected anal sex.

:shrug:

Heterosexual woman who have unprotected anal sex typically do so with heterosexual men. Because heterosexual men are statistically less likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS, heterosexual women who have unprotected anal sex are less likely to contract HIV/AIDS than a gay man who has unprotected anal sex.

Infected sexual partner is an infected sexual partner. Anal sex is anal sex. Doesn't matter if the recipient is male or female, if it is homosexual or heterosexual. Why can't they understand this? I'm done here. Thanks for being here hooligan.

What makes a gay man more susceptible to receiving AIDS from receiving unprotected anal sex compared to a woman receiving unprotected anal sex is that the woman is most likely having sex with a heterosexual male and the gay man is likely to be having sex with a gay male. Because gay men have a higher rate of infection compared to straight men to begin with, the gay man is at a greater risk. This is a very simple concept.

How are women of color getting infected? From gay men?

Because HIV/AIDS is very rarely passed on from woman to woman, it would make very little sense that women of color are being infected from other women. Also, because gay men tend not to have sex with women so much, it would make sense that women of color are disproportionately being infected with HIV/AIDS because of heterosexual men. None of this contradicts anything I've said previously though. I'm heading home now. It will be a while until I can respond.

women of color having sex with men are heterosexual and they don't have the same risk as those gay sexers do. Those gay HIVs are sooo much more infective than the hetero HIV is, see? :sarcasm:

dang, I forgot, I am done here, getting way too something. Continue on Jack and thanks.

seeing the response right above yours.

I'm pretty much done, as well. Heroes is coming on and I have my husband to hang with. Maybe we'll have some unprotected homo sex later just for fun to see who gets an STD.

The original question which started this latest sarcastic point of yours had to do with how women are getting infected with HIV. My son explained that very well.

But that has little to do with why anal sex poses an extremely high risk of HIV compared to vaginal sex.

The reason that the rate of HIV infection in gay men is being surpassed by other groups is simply that, as with all other epidemics, once the prevalence of infection gets high enough, the pool of high risk individuals that remain is so small that the rate necessarily has to decrease. And another factor may be that they're taking more precautions now than they did earlier in the epidemic.

Anyhow, it's impossible to argue with sarcasm, so this will be my last post on this thread.

And it also beats insults, assumptions and passive aggressive whining too. Not that I am accusing anyone of this, just writing about what sarcasm beats.

I'm glad you noticed.

not sure which of both of us mellowed, in ways, or got more firm, in ways. But onward.

But I've found that we agree more than disagree. He's a true ally.

And then I'll leave this thread because it's taking too much time.

1. Unprotected anal sex (on the receiving end) with an HIV infected man carries at least 200 times the risk of HIV infection as unprotected vaginal sex with an HIV infected partner.

2. I've already said this, but I'll say it one more time because it seems to be stirring up an awful lot of animosity. There is a semantic misunderstanding about what I meant when I made my first response to this post. The phrase "argument against homosexuality" is rather vague. As I said in post 101, I interpreted the question very broadly, and I answered it just like I would a question on whether there are any arguments against anything else, such as eating candy. If there are any risks involved, then the answer is yes, there are arguments against it.

3. There is a health issue with regard to male homosexuality -- and that has to do with unprotected anal sex. Yes, I know that anal sex is practiced by heterosexual couples too. And yes, I realize that not all gay males practice anal sex. But certainly gay males do it more frequently than heterosexual couples, and that's why they're at higher risk for HIV infection. And what's just as important it is extremely rare that a woman spreads HIV to a man through sex, simply because she has no HIV infected organ that she can insert into a man's rectum.

4. None of this is meant as an "argument against homosexuality" in the sense that either I or my son (and he's said this several times) would think of trying argue against rights for homosexuals or try to argue them out of being homosexual, or anything of that sort. Anyone who thinks that that is what I meant misunderstood me completely. No competent public health professional would ever imply that gay men shouldn't have gay sex. I have never seen a public health professional make that argument, and I certainly would never do it, nor would my son.

5. For a few years of my life my job involved developing and running education programs to prevent the spread of AIDS. Since a very large portion of the HIV infected population were gay men, the programs focused on that. I hired a gay man to do a lot of that education. I also went to gay bars, etc. (after being invited) to talk to them about how HIV was spread, why unprotected anal sex posed such a high risk, and ways that they could reduce their risk. These are the kinds of education programs recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).

6. None of this means that I am anti-gay or prejudiced against them. Nor is my son, and I think he's made that abundantly clear.

Demographic information doesn't lie. Which is why women of color disproportionately account for all new infections in the United States.

I never claimed that gay men created a plurality of new infections. I simply compared their rate of infection to the population in general. I don't see where we are in disagreement here.

that gay men, when compared to the g.p., account for the most cases of those infected with HIV?

You've already established that African American women are the most disproportionately affected with HIV/AIDS compared to the general population, I don't dispute that at all. However, that does not dispute that gay men are also disproportionately affected with HIV/AIDS as well, if not to the same extent.

That is what you claim. That is what we are in disagreement with.

If women of color disproportionately account for all new infections in the United States, does that mean women of color are also more at risk?

"If women of color disproportionately account for all new infections in the United States, does that mean women of color are also more at risk?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. I guess I'm a racist now too.

or at least a health reason to not be.

Avoiding a particular disease or affliction WOULD be an argument for controlling those biological features. An argument against that would be that you'd prefer to be yourself. If I could reduce the chance of contracting a disease by modifying my biology, I would. If it meant that I had to change who I was as a person, I probably wouldn't.

Anymore than they try to understand why the
sun rises.

My two cents on the subject.
BHN

why the sun appears to rise. We also fully understand rainbows and why the sky is blue...

By the same token, sanity requires the working mind to ponder everything. A great example of insanity is the blind acceptance of any philosophy that that would defy reason and logic.

;-) I call this my messed up gay-dar (don't know how this is really spelled). Oh well, I'm old now and not looking for a man, so I guess I have no argument. :7

Not a one.

in which I would ever willingly engage in sex with another man (I'm not a homophobe, I'm just making a point). I assume gay males feel the same way about females. That they have no desire for them. And nothing would ever change that. So, really, all arguments are utterly pointless and useless. It is what it is. You cannot argue with reality. You can only deny it. At your own peril.

We get it. You don't want to have sex with another man.

But how about contributing to the original post...

"Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against homosexuality?"
My response is unequivocally no. The point of my little post was to point out the impossibility of trying to reason with or alter our base instincts. We are who and what we are hardwired to be. It's not a choice.

We rented "the ali g show" tonight. In the second season there is a skit where Sasha Cohen's character "Bruno" was interviewing an evangelical from Jonesboro Arkansas. As you can imagine, the pastor was visibly tense. Bruno asked if giving the pastor a lap dance would excite him. The pastor's response was no, because it was not permitted by the bible. Not because he was straight. Not because Bruno wasn't his type. Only because it wasn't permitted. As if he had a choice. Which is what I hear from the fundies. That it is a "lifestyle choice". All I intended to do was illustrate how ridiculous that line of attack is. I see it was clumsy as well as possibly offensive, and that was not my intention in the least.

that it wasn't "natural" because the main reason Nature gave all species the desire to mate was for procreation and continuation of the species. Then, after I found out that homosexual behaviour had been observed in all higher species in captivity and most in the wild (we just have "caught" the rest of them in the act, yet) I had to think about it some more.

Then, I realized that homosexuality was Nature's own "hedge" against over-population. Which means it is perfectly natural and serves an important natural purpose!

Lesbians can have as many kids as they want. And gay men can impregnate women as well.

And if we chose not to do the above, we adopt the millions of children that sex discordant couples give up for adoption or put in foster care. Not to mention the children taken away from abusive families.

Your post blatantly negates the clear fact that homosexuals contribute to the family construct just as equally as straight families.

We don't "hedge" anything. Sometimes, we just pick up the irresponsible or unfortunate pieces of children destroyed where we legally can.

Here is my very amateurish hypothesis. While homosexuality is not adaptive (i.e., contribute to the continuation of the species), it seems that genetic plasticity and variability is adaptive. In other words, it is the variation that is important because there may be a circumstance when it may become adaptive -- even if that circumstance is difficult to imagine.

My second hypothesis is this. Unfortunately, I do believe that homophobia is somewhat genetic. I think that, for many people, the idea of same sex relationships is as repulsive as the incest taboo. The function of the incest taboo seems clear. Perhaps homophobia is less clear, but homosexual relationships and desires may interfere with heterosexual desires and, therefore, homophobia itself is "natural." I hope I am wrong about this one, but . . .

as I was an only child and gay. But they were cool about it; I was fortunate.

My mother is not a grandmother and will never be one yet her two children are heterosexual (and she's more than fine with that). So that argument is out the window!

Additionally, if gay or lesbian couples are so inclined and live in a state that's not too insane, having children through IVF, surrogacy and/or adoption is possible. Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious; I'm just countering this particular argument.

As I said, my parents were absolutely great. But in their minds they probably fugured it was because of my orientation. I would never have had kids anyway, I am terrible with them, can't even have a conversation with them. I didn't even like them when I was a kid!

I mean, who wants to see two guys kissing?

That's usually the argument that people use. And obviously, these people have no problem with lesbians. I frankly cannot understand the visceral reaction that straight men have when the thought of gay sex (or gay kissing, even) is mentioned, even among otherwise tolerant people.

..even if it's silly. Men's outward sexual persona is a much greater part of how they view themselves than it is for women, I think. Women are definitely more sexualized, but men feel a great pressure to be "macho," and part of being macho is rejecting anything remotely gay. Personally, I'm tired of the use of "gay" as the epithet du jour for anything distasteful. I usually relegate people who do that on a regular basis to the cro-magnon side of the evolutionary tree.

IF our basic problem with the Environment is Over-population, Homosexuals can't reproduce, AND they might even help out some babies who are already here by adopting them.

<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=500834&objectid=10425714>

Homosexuality occurs under all kinds of conditions in societies (animal and human).

Some anthropological studies have found in early societies that there was a correlation between homosexuality and resource uses. If overpopulation and resource scarcity became more common the incidence of homosexuality might rise slightly. The reverse might be true in a society where there is plenty.

The reality is that nobody knows why people are gay, anymore than they know why they are straigt.

The only possible logical reason why you might not want to allow homosexuality as a species is if the species were indeed truly on the absolute verge of extinction. Mind you, I'm not saying that is true or right--I am just trying in my imagination to imagine a possible "logical" reason why you should be against homosexuality. I don't think at this particular moment in human history this will be a problem--so in the real world I see no reason not to accept and give full equality to all people and their sexuality.

I heard it cost $thousands.

might have problems with homosexuality. I guess someone needs to drag them off to a Zoo a few times. Maybe explain to them how animals behave.

It's what's behind the lunacy.

except I like women (but that's my thing) and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is kinda dull.

against acceptance of Homosexuality is that all the guys would start up with the other guys at puberty and wouldn't bother with the whole mess of wooing and winning a woman....I suppose that would be lunatic, but I believe that there are more than a few guys out there that would have "gone the other way" had it not been so expressly forbidden - including the co-worker....

As for me, I can't think of any rational basis for hating the GLBTQI folks.....

had a whale of a time with other guys.

that i know of -- it never slowed them down chasing girls all over either.

on the down low -- i was a popular youngster with straight young men.

In any real world way.

Then we could have a problem keeping the species alive. But there's always artificial insemination.