Homosexuality.

[Cute Tink]

And now they try to push it on our children.

That is not what is happening.

 

[Sammy-San]

That is not what homosexuality means.

Then what does it mean? Everyone knows that's what it means it almost feels like youre mystifying a word.

 

[Desk trauma]

Then what does it mean?

Being sexually attracted to those of your own sex. No touching, inappropriate or otherwise, required

 

[Sammy-San]

Being sexually attracted to those of your own sex. No touching, inappropriate or otherwise, required

Sex means organs of reproduction

 

[Desk trauma]

Sex means organs of reproduction

Wait, I've heard this one before, gay sex isn't sex right?

 

[Sammy-San]

Wait, I've heard this one before, gay sex isn't sex right?

Gay sex means men touching each other inappropriately.

Animals don't have physical boundaries so I wouldn't use that term.

 

[Desk trauma]

Gay sex means men touching each other inappropriately.

How is it inappropriate when it's consensual?

Wait, what about gay women?

 

[Sammy-San]

How is it inappropriate when it's consensual?

Wait, what about gay women?

It's considered gay because it involves private parts.

I hate to be explicit-but lesbianism is also women touching each other inappropriately.

I'm not arguing about the technical definitions of homosexuality-im talking about as it pertains to human beings.

 

[SPF]

Well I certainly had a feeling it would be almost impossible to keep a topic like this actually on topic. The question of this topic is quite narrow and deals specifically with understanding homosexuality from within the context of an evolutionary framework of life.

It is a fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is possible for homosexuals to adopt, of course, but that is not reproduction.

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species. There was a study done with fruit flies to suggest that there could be a benefit to homosexuality for a species, but there were a lot of assumptions made in order to come to the results they did, and so I don't know that I would cite that as support.

 

[Cute Tink]

Then what does it mean? Everyone knows that's what it means it almost feels like youre mystifying a word.

No I just know what it actually means as do most people.

Homosexuality means sexual attraction to people of the same sex or gender.

Being homosexual or gay does not mean having sex, in exactly the same way that being heterosexual does not mean having sex.

 

[Cute Tink]

I'm not arguing about the technical definitions of homosexuality-im talking about as it pertains to human beings.

It pertains to human beings in ways that don't involve actually having sex.

 

[Cute Tink]

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species. There was a study done with fruit flies to suggest that there could be a benefit to homosexuality for a species, but there were a lot of assumptions made in order to come to the results they did, and so I don't know that I would cite that as support.

Evolution isn't about everything being necessarily beneficial to the growth and continued existence of a species.

Additionally, directly participating in reproduction is not the only way to benefit a group toward the growth and continued existence of the species.

 

[Desk trauma]

It's considered gay because it involves private parts.

Wait does homosexual attraction exist now?

I hate to be explicit-but lesbianism is also women touching each other inappropriately.

Again, if mutually consensual, how is the touching in appropriate?

 

[Desk trauma]

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species.

Assuming it is, so what?

As I said evolution is descriptive not prescriptive.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Question for the atheists on this forum.
...
Why shouldn't we view people born homosexual as an anomaly that works against the evolution of our species

Not sure why this is a question for atheists in particular, but anyhoo.

Picking things up off the floor works against the theory of gravity. That doesn't make it immoral, wrong, or something we should stop doing.

It is a mistake to regard science, which deals with how things actually are, with ethics or morality, which deals with how things ought to be.

 

[Belk]

Well I certainly had a feeling it would be almost impossible to keep a topic like this actually on topic. The question of this topic is quite narrow and deals specifically with understanding homosexuality from within the context of an evolutionary framework of life.

It is a fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is possible for homosexuals to adopt, of course, but that is not reproduction.

That is not a fact. What is a fact is that homosexual coupling does not result in reproduction.

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species. There was a study done with fruit flies to suggest that there could be a benefit to homosexuality for a species, but there were a lot of assumptions made in order to come to the results they did, and so I don't know that I would cite that as support.

What is your relevant experience in biology because you are making several basic mistakes. The first one is that any non beneficial trait will be selected against. This is not correct or we would have shed multiple non beneficial traits that have stuck with us. The second is to presume that a trait is not beneficial without studying it. Several studies have shown the benefits to a group that has homosexual elements.

 

[Strathos]

Question for the atheists on this forum. So far as I understand evolutionary theory, it's essentially survival of the fittest. Species adapt and change given their particular environment in ways that are supposed to make them thrive. Adaptations that are not helpful for survival typically result in the particular animal dying and not passing that adaptation along.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Why shouldn't we view people born homosexual as an anomaly that works against the evolution of our species and hope that in time this "gene" or whatever it is goes away? From a purely evolutionary understanding of nature, I don't see how homosexuality is beneficial for mankind.

Theistic evolutionist here. You're making a very common mistake - evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it describes how things are, not how things should be. You might as well say that the theory of gravity means we should never have built airplanes or rockets.

 

[quatona]

Question for the atheists on this forum.

Having read your entire post, I have no idea why you think this is a "question for atheists".
So far as I understand evolutionary theory, it's essentially survival of the fittest. Species adapt and change given their particular environment in ways that are supposed to make them thrive. Adaptations that are not helpful for survival typically result in the particular animal dying and not passing that adaptation along.

Homosexuals cannot reproduce. [/quote]
That´s inaccurate. They do can reproduce.
(But let´s, for arguments sake, just assume they couldn´t.)

Why shouldn't we view people born homosexual as an anomaly that works against the evolution of our species and hope that in time this "gene" or whatever it is goes away?

Because nothing "works against evolution". Evolution isn´t an intentionally acting entity, to boot, and (since that´s been your - even though faulty - premise) individuals who can´t reproduce, don´t pass on their genes. That is evolution.
To derive moral judgements by pointing to evolution is reaching. Social Darwinism tried that.

From a purely evolutionary understanding of nature, I don't see how homosexuality is beneficial for mankind.

It´s more like if homosexuality is beneficial for mankind then it´s too bad that homosexuals can´t pass on their genes (which was your - even though faulty - premise).

 

[quatona]

Well I certainly had a feeling it would be almost impossible to keep a topic like this actually on topic. The question of this topic is quite narrow and deals specifically with understanding homosexuality from within the context of an evolutionary framework of life.

If that was your intention, you better had not smuggled a moral/ethical question into your OP. And had posted in the science section, not E&M.

It is a fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce.

No, it´s not.

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species.

Let´s assume for a moment that this were the case. Now what?

 

[loveofourlord]

Well I certainly had a feeling it would be almost impossible to keep a topic like this actually on topic. The question of this topic is quite narrow and deals specifically with understanding homosexuality from within the context of an evolutionary framework of life.

It is a fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is possible for homosexuals to adopt, of course, but that is not reproduction.

It seems to me that from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not beneficial for the growth and continued existence of a species. There was a study done with fruit flies to suggest that there could be a benefit to homosexuality for a species, but there were a lot of assumptions made in order to come to the results they did, and so I don't know that I would cite that as support.

On a planet where there are too many humans, a small % being gay isn't goinjg to ruin anything.