very good point. i really have no logical debate to this. i guess the closest i have is to say that while homosexuality isn't harmful to the species, it isn't helpful either, at least until the point where the human body catches up and same sex couples can procreate without scientific assistance. i really want people to understand though that these arguments are coming from a very large-scale view, and nearly a devil's advocate type position. i don't think homosexuality is a characteristic that will be more prevelant or less prevalent as humans continue to evolve, i think it will just continue to be something that sometimes happens.Silvanus said:Don't worry, I'm not going to say what you think I'm going to say.martyrdrebel27 said:being gay or asexual IS a disorder. but it's not wrong. let me explain. we are animals, an our brian, whether we like it or not, is wired to make us want to have sex with the opposite gender for the purpose of survival of the species. but the human body and brain is unfathomably complex, and sometimes it doesnt work the way the blueprint laid out. so when someone's brain is not functioning that way, its disordered. THAT IS NOT TO SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG. far from it, it's just a genetic trait. tommy has astigmatism, johnny has a cleft pallet, and billy wants to bang tommy and johnny. it's just a variation from what the blueprint intended.
However, I don't agree. You say, "a variation from what the blueprint intended"-- but, there is no "intention" in evolution. There is no guiding will. Biological characteristics either survive or die out, and very often, the more useful a trait is, the more likely it is to live on in future generations.
But, there is no "intention" to go against; it's a natural process, with no will, and not everything in biology is beneficial to procreation. If homosexuality is not evolved out of us, that doesn't mean it is a disorder. It doesn't mean a thing. It cannot be a "variation from what the blueprint intended", because there is no intention at any stage in this natural process. Homosexuality is merely a characteristic, and the term "disorder" is better reserved for that which harms the species.
Certainly. Don't worry, I understood that you were coming from a rational, non-judgemental position, and it's definitely arguable either way.martyrdrebel27 said:very good point. i really have no logical debate to this. i guess the closest i have is to say that while homosexuality isn't harmful to the species, it isn't helpful either, at least until the point where the human body catches up and same sex couples can procreate without scientific assistance. i really want people to understand though that these arguments are coming from a very large-scale view, and nearly a devil's advocate type position. i don't think homosexuality is a characteristic that will be more prevelant or less prevalent as humans continue to evolve, i think it will just continue to be something that sometimes happens.
Arguably it is very helpful in times of overpopulation (overcrowding or spreading resources too thinly results in lower health/quality of life overall for the population) which may explain why the chances a child will be gay is apparently increased if the mother has already had a lot of children (for male children, at least, I don't know if there's been a similar study on females). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502306/martyrdrebel27 said:i guess the closest i have is to say that while homosexuality isn't harmful to the species, it isn't helpful either
Anti-depressants can have different side-effects that vary from person to person. For example, I've been on anti-depressants for seven months, and I haven't noticed any change in my libido.Angie7F said:Anti-depressants. I think they work wonders when it comes to lowering libidos.