Originally posted by Astner
Interesting enough homosexuality—i.e. only being attracted to people of the same gender—as a genetic trait is contradictory to evolution. Minor homosexual tendencies could be genetically carried, but they would still be undesirable traits.Personally I think homosexuality is developed as a fetish. It's the only explanation that makes sense.
Only in a very simplistic view of evolution, when looking at it more complexly we can find genetically beneficial traits in homosexuality as well.
Originally posted by quanchi112why shouldn't people reproduce as often as they do?
I guess casual protected heterosexual sex without the intention of offspring is a degenerate act as well. Xyz uses seriously flawed logic. If anything people shouldn't reproduce as often as they do. The population isn't hurting for offspring to continue the species.
This overpopulation myth kinda needs some form of evidence, imo.
That's what I said.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Or he might have always been gay and just realized it around gay people...The idea that people can be turned gay by contact with gay people is classic homophobic propaganda because then it makes homosexuality something like a communicable disease.
Originally posted by Bardock42im sure he was asking for scientific study, not "news" articles advertising their Facebook pages.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/scientists-discover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sexhttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html
And many others, you can just Google.
Originally posted by It's xyz!These news stories are reporting on scientific studies, if he is so inclined he can read them from there. Or Google further. My claim was however not that there are scientific studies on the matter, it was that we can conceive of many different evolutionary benefits for homosexuality. Two articles doing just that is sufficient proof.
That's what I said.im sure he was asking for scientific study, not "news" articles advertising their Facebook pages.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryThis doesn't make any sense.
Over a billion of people are starving or are chronically malnourished and we're using resources at an unprecedented rate. We do need to slow down.
The people who are starving are starving because they live in places without food. I don't know who "we" is referring to, or what constitutes as an unprecedented rate of resources, but more importantly, this unprecedented rate of resources needs to correlate with why other groups of population and be used to justify the lack of reproduction to counteract this balance.
In other words, you're not making sense. Should I stop reproducing because people who have nothing to do with me are starving?
Originally posted by Bardock42ok I gave the Ifl link more consideration. I was referring to the huffing ton post btw as it is not sufficient proof.
These news stories are reporting on scientific studies, if he is so inclined he can read them from there. Or Google further. My claim was however not that there are scientific studies on the matter, it was that we can conceive of many different evolutionary benefits for homosexuality. Two articles doing just that is sufficient proof.
Interestingly, the article claims same sexual behaviour is reproductively harmful to males and one extract from the article infers it has a Y chromosome linkage (mutation, perhaps?) although, this part is inconclusive.
Although you weren't intending to, your article has correlative research with my claim that homosexuality is a disease. And according to the article, it's only evolutionary benefits seems to be likelihood of producing more healthy females. Pretty bad news for men, I guess.
However, it appears in the article to be more of an environmental thing, than a strictly genetic one.
That research is, to my knowledge, inconclusive.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh Christ that is a ridiculous mentality!
I ran & operated a business for 20 years in what's considered Sydney's gay capital. I employed over a dozen straight males & females that worked alongside me. None of us every turned gay or lesbian by working amongst them.
Interesting how quickly you changed what you wrote when Asbestos gave his revelation. What EXACTLY stopped making his mentality "ridiculous" for you?
Can you tell us?
Equally interesting, however, in support of the societal pressure model, is that you, unlike Asbestos, happen to live in a country where acceptance of people who identify as gay is "incomplete" in comparison to others, and that judged by the simple metric of gay "marriage", which is illegal in Australia.
So I love hearing about the hypocrisy of social justice warriors. North Carolina recently passed a bill, I call it the common sense bill. It says boys have to pee with the boys and shower with boys and girls have to pee with the girls and shower with girls.
So naturally some people are now f*cking boycotting the state lol. Including some businesses and even some dipshit celebrities saying they won't ever set foot in North Carolina again because boys have to use the boys bathroom. So anyways, one company whining about this is "Paypal".
In fact they did more then whine, they were planning on opening up an office in the state. Now because boys have to go to the bathroom with boys they have cancelled that. So they just killed nearly 400 jobs because boys have to go to the bathroom with boys. So you might find it curious to know that this same company has offices in other countries and is also building even more offices in other countries that are highly intolerant of transgenders and homosexuals. Countries like Malaysia and cities like Dubai and Singapore. Countries where they aren't saying boys need to go to the bathroom with boys, but rather you should die if you're transgender or gay. Or be put in prison.
It just seems like this whole thing is getting ridiculous when a state is boycotted for saying boys need to pee with other boys and shower with other boys.
All I can say is good for you North Carolina 👆
Originally posted by Surtur
So I love hearing about the hypocrisy of social justice warriors. North Carolina recently passed a bill, I call it the common sense bill. It says boys have to pee with the boys and shower with boys and girls have to pee with the girls and shower with girls.So naturally some people are now f*cking boycotting the state lol. Including some businesses and even some dipshit celebrities saying they won't ever set foot in North Carolina again because boys have to use the boys bathroom. So anyways, one company whining about this is "Paypal".
In fact they did more then whine, they were planning on opening up an office in the state. Now because boys have to go to the bathroom with boys they have cancelled that. So they just killed nearly 400 jobs because boys have to go to the bathroom with boys. So you might find it curious to know that this same company has offices in other countries and is also building even more offices in other countries that are highly intolerant of transgenders and homosexuals. Countries like Malaysia and cities like Dubai and Singapore. Countries where they aren't saying boys need to go to the bathroom with boys, but rather you should die if you're transgender or gay. Or be put in prison.
It just seems like this whole thing is getting ridiculous when a state is boycotted for saying boys need to pee with other boys and shower with other boys.
All I can say is good for you North Carolina 👆
Yeah, he totally needs to go to the bathroom with girls, because he was born female. Get real.
Originally posted by It's xyz!They can be awful parents who can't afford their children. You claimed we need to do this as often as possible basically you're saying safe sex is wrong. Your logic is seriously flawed. It doesn't make any sense.
why shouldn't people reproduce as often as they do?This overpopulation myth kinda needs some form of evidence, imo.
Re: Homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973
Originally posted by Raisen
http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.htmlHomosexuality was listed in the DSM as a mental illness until 1973. At this time several thousand psychologists with the backing of a strong gay movement attempted to have it dismissed as a mental illness.
What say you? Is it a mental illness or not?
I personally believe in some cases it may be an illness as it is more associated with narcissim, bi polar, and borderline personality(outlined in numerous sources) but i'm sure many cases are not.
Up until the 90's it was still listed in an illness in one form or another...so what changed?
Generally, you want to avoid subjugating someone to the mental health profession..
Look up "Born a boy, raised as a girl".
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Interesting how quickly you changed what you wrote when Asbestos gave his revelation. What EXACTLY stopped making his mentality "ridiculous" for you?Can you tell us?
Equally interesting, however, in support of the societal pressure model, is that you, unlike Asbestos, happen to live in a country where acceptance of people who identify as gay is "incomplete" in comparison to others, and that judged by the simple metric of gay "marriage", which is illegal in Australia.
My mentality changed when Asbestos clarified his personal experience was about himself & not talking about people in general he knew becoming gay from being in prolonged company with them.
Gay marriage may be illegal in Australia but the gay community is strong & generally looked upon as positive in both the media & interactions in public.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
This doesn't make any sense.The people who are starving are starving because they live in places without food. I don't know who "we" is referring to, or what constitutes as an unprecedented rate of resources, but more importantly, this unprecedented rate of resources needs to correlate with why other groups of population and be used to justify the lack of reproduction to counteract this balance.
In other words, you're not making sense. Should I stop reproducing because people who have nothing to do with me are starving?
So I'm not saying YOU specifically need to not reproduce because someone out there is starving; it's on those people. I think it's extremely foolish to judge a sexual act as "degenerate" when the people performing the act are reasonably sure the child resulting from the act will starve. It would be far more degenerate to knowingly bring suffering into the world like that.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryWell I believe the biggest cases regarding overpopulation, poverty and no interest in slowing down reproduction would be India and China. They in fact are causing the problems you stated and suffering the consequences. I assumed "we" was referring to the west because you contrasted the we with starving people. The human species looks relatively strong, imo.
By "we" I mean we as a species. I'm not saying we need to stop reproducing, we merely need to slow down enough to maintain equilibrium. At least until we solve issues like starvation and crushing poverty. When we do, then we can begin thinking about increasing our population. We really must start to recognize the footprint we leave on the planet.So I'm not saying YOU specifically need to not reproduce because someone out there is starving; it's on those people. I think it's extremely foolish to judge a sexual act as "degenerate" when the people performing the act are reasonably sure the child resulting from the act will starve. It would be far more degenerate to knowingly bring suffering into the world like that.
My own actions are none of your concerns.
Originally posted by Bardock42there is a huge problem with distribution of resources, but this thread is about homosexuality and mental illness.
I do somewhat agree with xyz (God help me) that more so than an overpopulation problem we have a logistical problem with the unequal distribution of resources currently. Though that pedantic point probably doesn't matter much to those suffering and dying because of it.
Originally posted by quanchi112there is a difference between reproduction and what constitutes as awful parenting. There are governmental measures put in place to ensure awful parents do not harm their children or raise them in poverty. There is nothing wrong with reproduction.
They can be awful parents who can't afford their children. You claimed we need to do this as often as possible basically you're saying safe sex is wrong. Your logic is seriously flawed. It doesn't make any sense.