The discussion that sparked this was the word "natural". Given the diversity of all forms of life on earth, what's considered "natural" is a self centered subjective opinion. As for the purpose, I think Dawkins hit on something keen with the selfish gene. We are individually carriers of a larger blueprint. What happens after we pass it on is really of no consequence, which is why we age, breakdown and eventually die while the best years of our physical lives are early on when we're ready and able to get it on. Now homosexuality sounds counter-intuitive in an evolutionary sense, except for the fact that you aren't the only holder of the blueprint. Even your ancestral lineage of 5 or 6 lines down isn't the exclusive carrier of the overall picture. That's why as noted before, hive based insects are mass produced without procreating or some males among herd animals die sexless virgins rather than a coupling ratio that strives for 50/50 as opposed to the 20/80 that happens. If homosexuality is "aberrant behavior", it wouldn't explain the consistent percentage among populations or why it's still being passed down. One would assume that after hundreds of years of selective cultural persecution, the percentages would shrink.... It may very well have served a consistent purpose during resource constrained times or forming stronger communal bonds among tight knit social tribes. Even if you look into human history, the strongest backlash against homosexuality began with Paul's writings in the Bible and slowly spread around the world as European influence spread. In other periods before, homosexuality was accepted. The writings for it is all over the place. The distinction is that none of the cultures accepted feminine traits among men, but the whole sodomy thing was a different matter. Compared to the whole discussion on transgenderism, this topic is much more "straight"forward...
I couldn't care less about what gay folks are or are not thinking or doing when it comes to sex. If they are good people, I like them. It's the same criteria I use for all humans.
Whether one finds homosexuality "objectionable" is not the question. it's not some inconvenience that is to be tolerated. The gay lifestyle must be CELEBRATED.
What is this "gay agenda" complaint that I keep seeing? Them wanting to get married and have equal rights in the workplace is an obnoxious agenda? Is this a buzz term being pushed in chain emails or something?
Same effect as the Derek Jeter situation. If you are indifferent or have some subconscious bias against said topic you'll get angry or upset about hearing it in the news all the time.
So you keep your heterosexuality private? Do you avoid holding hands with a girl just so people don't think you are a hetero?
You said it was a personality disorder. I was just pointing out that animals without personalities display homosexual behavior.
Ah, I see, you think that other animals can't have psychological disorders, including personality disorders. Well, they can, and do.
in this world, in this culture, in this society, there is homosexuality. to say it isn't normal or natural is an oxymoron- I see homosexuality happening in the world and I accept it as one normal part of the human experience for the humans experiencing it. how can one "object" to homosexuality? it is a human condition, an expression of attraction and love. heterosexual is a thing, homosexual is a thing. deal with it.
In the context of homosexuality and the word 'natural', I look at it in terms of what drives us to want to have sex. I feel that most agree that the 2 main factors are the desire to have offspring and/or pleasure. There is no denying that all humans want pleasure and others do not want offsprings. In addition, the fact that other species participate in homosexual activities implies that seeking pleasure is not a distinct human trait. It is probably not a reach to say that most of the time, when we are thinking of doing it, our main objective is to experience pleasure. Otherwise, we would be spitting out babies like crazy. Seeking pleasure via sex is as natural as breathing as long as it is consensual.
That's horribly flawed logic, there are a lot of naturally occurring conditions that many people object to. That said, most of those conditions that people object to are negative and homosexuality is a neutral condition so there's not really any reason to object to it.
It's mainly a retort to the "it's not natural" argument. Without that context, yes it's a ****ty argument. I don't believe in victimless crimes. Homosexuality is victimless thus I don't find it objectionable.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Wcz_kDCBTBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It was in the first two editions of the DSM actually, political pressure led to it being removed for the 3rd edition. Anyway, I don't expect everyone to understand or agree with that position, so don't feel like I'm trying to convince people one way or the other, I really don't care how others feel on the subject.
