by Thomasdam 36 Replies latest social family
I am no more hostile toward homosexuals than I am toward any other disabled person, but I also refuse to CELEBRATE homosexuality as some "fabulously" admirable trait.
I have to agree. I really don't care about someone's sexuality. It only pisses me off when either they, or some band-wagon jumper, insists that I take some sort of stand or make some sort of statement of support or opposition to their life style.
I doubt that anyone can argue that homosexuality is in any way a positive trait when viewed evolutionarily.
Google is your friend!
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-evolutionary-paradox-of-homosexuality/
A couple of theories in the article express possibilities of benefit in having individuals expressing homosexual behavior.
YES.
While a certain percentage of various types of mammals might be demonstrably homosexual, I doubt that anyone can argue that homosexuality is in any way a positive trait when viewed evolutionarily.
What does that have to do with tolerance? So let's recap: you think that it's ok for parents to teach their kids that homosexuality is wrong because from an evolutionary perspective, it offers no advantage? It hardly gets more idiotic than that.
The reason why it's wrong for parents to do this, is because being homosexual has nothing to do with right or wrong. To use your own demented analogy, if someone is born without a limb, it's not wrong...or right. It's just the way it is, and that person should be accepted.
Homosexuality would only be wrong, if you try to map it to some bronze age religious dogma. Homosexuals just drew a different card from the nature deck, and they are just the way they are. It's not wrong, or right. It's just their nature.
Vanderhoven - I assume your thoughts about sex within the marriage bonds extend to the gay marriage as well, in so much as having sex only with your committed/married partner?
Nathan - "I am no more hostile toward homosexuals than I am toward any other disabled person". Equating homosexuality to a disability is the most homophobic, ridiculous, backwards comment I have read on the subject in a very long time, and your comments to Littlerockguy are equally ridiculous.
Redvip2000 - thank you for your common sense response
The hypotheses about whether homosexuality could have an evolutionary explanation are very unconvincing IMO. The 'benevolent uncle' theory and the 'sexy sisters' hypothesis seem far-fetched.
Similarly the idea that something is 'natural' because it happens in non-human animals is a strange argument. Animals commonly get up to all sorts of antics we rightly condemn in humans. Actually homosexuality is very rare in the natural world. Bi-sexuality is common where beta-males have no access to females. Some domesticated sheep are a notable exception.
I think it is a mistake to try to provide biological justification for homosexuality. Even if it is simply a lifestyle choice (and I'm sure it isn't that) there is no reason to condemn people for their sexuality as long as it is consensual.
Not too long ago being left-handed was considered a defect that some societies viewed as evidence of evil influence and a strongly held religious view was that "the darker races" were inferior (which led to laws against intermarriage).
When these sorts of topics are informed, not by religion, but by science and higher learning,many "conditions" and/or states of being that, in times past were roundly condemned (to the point of execution), are accepted as perfectly normal. We also know enough about psychology to realize that it is possible to treat people in such a way that they become convinced they are defective and disabled. The opposite is also true: When we treat people with respect and dignity and do not pry into their personal lives, we empower them to stand next to us as our equals.
Well said Steve2
public schools teaching many times that Homosexuality is OK
So yes its wrong to teach children that Homosexuality is wrong by religious means or otherwise.
Its there and has been for thousands of years and probably will be, being prejudice and intolerant to differences or variations in genetic human biology is stupid and unjust.
This is an awkward issue.
In instances where the parents teach their children extremist ideas - e.g. violence to gay people - the state can step in and remove children from bad parents.
But what about parents teaching their children that homosexual relationships are wrong?
I disagree with that viewpoint, but there's nothing that can be done, really.
It would be ridiculous for the state to step in if parents were teaching their own children that homosexual relationships are wrong.
