Originally posted by Bardock42
Wrongy though.
No, I was and still am correct...whether or not everyone else excepts that is a different story. If a sexual organism cannot reproduce due to a genetic abnormality(abnormality is used in this instance because the vast majority of the human species is heterosexual), then the organism is sexually retarded. In this instance, the vast majority of human homosexuals can reproduce...but they do not because they are homosexual...therefore, homosexuality is a form of sexual retardation. Sexual reproduction is retarded by homosexuality. If it is genetic, then it is a negative mutation...meaning it does not make the species stronger, more numerous, etc.
Originally posted by dadudemonHis analogy I was referring to was not making that point though. So regardless of whether you are right or wrong, I was not wrong in disagreeing with him, so I don't really see the point of bringing forth this point in this way.
No, I was and still am correct...whether or not everyone else excepts that is a different story. If a sexual organism cannot reproduce due to a genetic abnormality(abnormality is used in this instance because the vast majority of the human species is heterosexual), then the organism is sexually retarded. In this instance, the vast majority of human homosexuals can reproduce...but they do not because they are homosexual...therefore, homosexuality is a form of sexual retardation. Sexual reproduction is retarded by homosexuality. If it is genetic, then it is a negative mutation...meaning it does not make the species stronger, more numerous, etc.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay...so how does any of that address the reality that this is all based on the supposition that homosexuality is a genetic function? This is the basis of the entire argument and so far, has not been proven for humanity. Also, you are not arguing the same point. I have made it quite clear in the past that I don't subscribe to any one set of ideals on the being of homosexuality in humans.Basically, I was letting Bardock42 know that his argument against that other person's argument was flawed.
Also, homosexuality is an abnormality in more ways than one. (Usually.) You associate the word abnormality with a negative connotation, when it fact, it shouldn't in this instance.
I am not addressing the issue of genetic v. choice. I have done so before and do not feel the need to do so again. I am addressing the matter of homosexuality being genetic, and what effect that actually has on the reality of a person's life. Homosexuality does not effect one's ability or desire to reproduce. Reproduction is irrelevant to the genetic side of the debate, despite yourself and Urizen thinking it has some dis/advantage. I also do not think that use of the term "abnormal" can be applied to ones genetics in regards to homosexuality, because it does not adversely effect the biological functions of the body. The basic hormonal reactions one has is another matter.
Originally posted by Bardock42
His analogy I was referring to was not making that point though. So regardless of whether you are right or wrong, I was not wrong in disagreeing with him, so I don't really see the point of bringing forth this point in this way.
Sure it is a genetic difference...like brown eyes or blue eyes...you are right...but you missed his point of the genetic difference actually being similar to a retardation...
Originally posted by Devil King
I am not addressing the issue of genetic v. choice. I have done so before and do not feel the need to do so again. I [b]am addressing the matter of homosexuality being genetic, and what effect that actually has on the reality of a person's life. Homosexuality does not effect one's ability or desire to reproduce. Reproduction is irrelevant to the genetic side of the debate, despite yourself and Urizen thinking it has some dis/advantage. I also do not think that use of the term "abnormal" can be applied to ones genetics in regards to homosexuality, because it does not adversely effect the biological functions of the body. The basic hormonal reactions one has is another matter. [/B]
We are not talking about the same thing, then. You are talking about individual functions as they relate to genetics...I am referring to individual genetics as they relate and fucntion to the entire species that he individual belongs to.
You are indeed correct with your assessment...and I personally think that there are very complex factors that contribute to human homosexuality...we are not simple animals.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are not talking about the same thing, then. You are talking about individual functions as they relate to genetics...I am referring to individual genetics as they relate and fucntion to the entire species that the individual belongs to.
I am talking about both.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are indeed correct with your assessment...and I personally think that there are very complex factors that contribute to human homosexuality...we are not simple animals.
I think the most important realization is that there is no such thing as a "simple animal".
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure it is a genetic difference...like brown eyes or blue eyes...you are right...but you missed his point of the genetic difference actually being similar to a retardation...
It isn't. It doesn't slow down or diminishes your capabilities. You have the same, just not the urge to use them. If anything it is comparable to chronic laziness, but that is still ridiculous. The similarities to retardation are little and not worth mentioning, while the similarities to other genetic differences, are much larger and more important.
Originally posted by Devil King
Being homosexual doesn't retard or inhibit the ability to reproduce, or the [b]desire to reproduce. [/B]
How does it not inhibit the desire to reproduce? You don't desire to have sex with women, and heterosexual sex is required to produce offspring. So how exactly does a gay person desire reproduction?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How does it not inhibit the desire to reproduce? You don't desire to have sex with women, and heterosexual sex is required to produce offspring. So how exactly does a gay person desire reproduction?
They desire offspring, they might not desire the act of getting that offspring, but they do generally have the wish to reproduce (i.e. gay adoption rights, etc.)
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which seems condradictory to wanting offspring.
Are you saying that you were thinking "I'm doing this for the children!" every time you had sex with your wife?
Sex is one thing. Reproduction is another.
The reverse logic of your statement is that wanting children should translate into heterosexual urges.
Originally posted by BackFire
No.They may want offspring, without wanting to have sex with a woman.
Geneticaly they don't want offspring. They may want to be motherly/fatherly to someone, but that they have no natural desire to passon their genetic dna. That comes from heterosexuality.