The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 564,534 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%

  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%

  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%

  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 417 28.2%

  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%
  • Total voters
    1,477
Just seen the title of this and I have to say both parts of the question are wrong. It obviously isn't a serious problem, or a problem at all, because it doesn't effect anyone, and it's not an "alternative lifestyle" as you don't really have a choice. You might as well say being a straight girl is a different lifestyle to being a straight boy, at the end of the day none of us really have control over sexual preference.

Also, has it been brought up yet that homosexuality could be perfectly natural? Won't go on about it if it has.
 
Spurgy 777
Also, has it been brought up yet that homosexuality could be perfectly natural? Won't go on about it if it has.
Click to expand...

It has, even though some weirdos like Frogman have desperately tried to prove that wrong with whatever twisted logic they have developed. :p

An alarmingly few people seem to realize that there's 7 billion people on earth, much more than nature can handle, and homosexuality could one day help to reduce that number. Not as much as birth control in undeveloped countries of course, but that's for another topic.
 
I don't think it'll reduce overpopulation significantly enough to be noted. Surrogacy (surrogation?) and adoption are becoming increasingly available at a similar rate as LGBT awareness.
 
If it is some kind of evolutionary adaptation to control population then it's one that isn't needed yet, as population density is relatively low (c.140 people per square mile), just not very evenly distributed, and there is enough food resources to feed 10 billion people, which again is not very evenly distributed.
 
PeterJB
If it is some kind of evolutionary adaptation to control population then it's one that isn't needed yet, as population density is relatively low (c.140 people per square mile), just not very evenly distributed, and there is enough food resources to feed 10 billion people, which again is not very evenly distributed.
Click to expand...

But then again, the more people there are, the more pollution.

Just my two cents.
 
DGB454
I have a problem with people who think they are born homosexual. It's a choice not a birth defect.
Click to expand...

LOL it's 2013, people still think this way? it's clearly NOT a choice, i don't think any gay person i've ever met decided on that lifestyle one day, they don't make the choice to be ridiculed and condemned by a large part of society (mainly people living in bum****, USA with very little to no exposure to homosexuals).
 
PeterJB
If it is some kind of evolutionary adaptation to control population then it's one that isn't needed yet, as population density is relatively low (c.140 people per square mile), just not very evenly distributed, and there is enough food resources to feed 10 billion people, which again is not very evenly distributed.
Click to expand...

It's not that no, there were studies that suggested mothers of gay offspring reproduced more than mothers of straight offspring, specifically gay male offspring from the studies I've heard of so far, I don't know if there have been any explaining female homosexuality.
From what I understand the theory they got from this is there could be a link between the gay gene and attractiveness. That would basically mean that the mothers with the gay gene would be more attractive so reproduced more which obviously could be beneficial. Also bare in mind that having the gay gene doesn't necessarily make you gay, I will have a crack at explaining that too if you want. :)
 
PeterJB
So in other words, MILFs have fabulous children...
Click to expand...

Erm, no, not really... I said that the gay gene is linked to attractiveness, not the other way around. Just because you're attractive doesn't mean you have the gay gene, and again I said the gay gene didn't necessarily make you or your kids gay.
 
And there I was eagerly awaiting the arrival of Jennifer Aniston's offspring...
 
Spurgy 777
the gay gene
Click to expand...
The genetic case for homosexuality has been made often and still stands unproven - but on the relatively sound assumption that there is an underlying genetic component to sexuality, the notion that there is a single gene that makes you gay or straight is foolhardy.

Sexuality is a massive spectrum of desires and lusts. It doesn't just have two components of "guys" and "girls" like a binary system - at its most basic level, that completely ignores the entire concept of bisexuality, but ultimately it misses the fact that there are as many sexual orientations as there are people... You could be attracted to something as specific as male, ginger, fat children from Basingstoke. Think of all the porn you've watched and what you tend to prefer - there's a specific kind of individual (or maybe groups, simultaneously) that hits your buttons, rather than just porn with women in it. The chances of someone getting their kicks from a gamine, barely-legal, petite, flat-chested white girl also getting off watching a 400 pound black granny are slim - but both would be classed as straight men or gay women by the black-or-white (no pun intended) system of sexuality.

It's certainly likely that a number of genes and epigenetic factors interact to form the basis of our sexuality and there's evidence that underlying brain structure and chemistry lean you in certain directions - gay men are more likely to exhibit "usual" female brain activity and structure, while gay women are more likely to exhibit "usual" male brain activity and structure (for varying definitions of "usual"). It's also likely that what we see and learn as children generates its own lean - nature and nurture working together to make the lump in your head prefer a certain type - though it no more forms a conscious choice of sexuality than what food or smells you like.
 
I knew I should have put " " around gay gene because something like this would happen... Yes I know it is a hell of a lot more complicated than just one gene, but I thought I'd simplify it just to get the general ideas of the theory across of how it evolved.
 
:lol: Sorry - my inner geneticist just tied itself in knots when I read it :D

Still, a lot of that is important to note when talking about sexuality. It's a massive rainbow (still no pun intended) where every individual has a different taste to every other individual. Sure, a lot of straight-identifying guys, gay-identifying women and bisexual-identifying people might put one almost universally attractive woman at top of their list, but plenty won't - and even those that do will have wildly different lists when you get down to 5th or 10th, never mind beyond that.

There's plenty of people who identify as straight and use that position as "normal" to attack and denigrate homosexuality - but they don't realise that the people of the opposite gender that they prefer may be as utterly sexually repellent to other straight folk as people of the same gender are to them, and that their straight sexual proclivities might be as far from normal to other straight guys as homosexuality is to them.
 
Famine
Sure, a lot of straight-identifying guys, gay-identifying women and bisexual-identifying people might put one almost universally attractive woman at top of their list
Click to expand...

 
Famine


Think of all the porn you've watched and what you tend to prefer*

Click to expand...

*Not recommended if you are at work, in a public place or wearing hot pants/speedos.
 
Last edited:
What does it have to do with homosexuality, though, other than being reported in a gay-oriented publication?
 
The Supreme Court has just ruled DOMA unconstitutional. BBC News
 
Famine
The chances of someone getting their kicks from a gamine, barely-legal, petite, flat-chested white girl also getting off watching a 400 pound black granny are slim - but both would be classed as straight men or gay women by the black-or-white (no pun intended) system of sexuality.
Click to expand...

Aunt Jemima on top of the Utz girl: Epigaynetics.
 
DK
The Supreme Court has just ruled DOMA unconstitutional. BBC News
Click to expand...

Normally I agree with Justice Thomas on just about everything, so I skimmed the portions of Alito's dissent that he joined with. He says equal protection does not trump DOMA because there are cases where discrimination is material to the law. He cites an example of statutory rape that treats underage girls differently than underage boys. He further says that it's not the courts place to say whether discrimination on the basis of gender in marriage laws is material and uses some "the science is still out" arguments to back that up.

I'm generally ok with the philosophy behind that ruling, I don't have any problem with the principles Justice Thomas used to arrive there. I agree that equal protection does not apply where the differences are material. But I don't see any evidence whatsoever that gender is material to marriage, and i think that despite historical precedent, evidence needs to be brought forth to prove that it is material rather than that it is immaterial.

So I'll have to have a rare break with Justice Thomas on this ruling.
 

Latest Posts

Back