I honestly don't understand why people actually care. Stop worrying about what other people are doing if they aren't harming anyone and mind your own damn business. You don't question whether others would find your special other "objectionable" ... why should gay couples worry? I care that people care because these idiots actually vote based on this opinion. Ted Cruz and the religious right and its supporters who push things like DOMA can go suck a dick.
It's relevant because it's presence in other species shows that it might not be a disorder or a disease but actually something that has an evolutionary purpose.
I don't buy that at all. Infanticide, incest and many harmful crazy things exist in nature. It's is just dumb, useless logic.
Well a species can't continue without reproduction and in animals that sexually reproduce that requires a male of that species to have sex with a female of that species. On that basic level, homosexuality sort of stands in the way of passing on genes to the next generation and reproducing. Of course, we've devised ways to go around that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't still against the basic principal of being a sexually reproducing animal. Also, let's be clear, it's not a "disease" in that there's no way to catch it or "cure" it, homosexuality is merely a personality disorder and not one that is serious or dangerous (unless the entire species had it). Also, you're right that it's present in nature, so it is in no way is that departure from the norm a human-centric phenomena....then again we find a lot of strange behavior in animals similar to what we find in humans so that's not a surprise.
Nothing is definitive for sure but there has been some research conducted into it. One theory that seems plausible is that homosexual relatives help with child rearing and encourage greater fecundity within their families and improve the chances of children developing. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
Well, I wouldn't say it has an evolutionary purpose, just the fact that it occurs in nature and its not some horrible twisted perverted choice or anything like that the right will try to push. And even if it was a choice, its not a choice that harms other people. Don't know why people are so obsessed with controlling other people.
Except that in many species not all of them mate, even if able to, and in many species only a very few mate. Consider that in insect colonies only the queen reproduces and there are very few males. In many animals only the most dominant can reproduce. That doesn't mean that the rest of the members of the heard who don't reproduce are just useless but they also play roles in the herd. Since humans are social animals human behavior that guarantees the survival of the species is far more complicated than just individual reproduction. It's possible that homosexual plays a role that helps with the overall survival of a family group so while an individual member may not reproduce their genes are still passed on. Homosexuality may just be a neutral aberration in behavior that persists because it is neither harmful or helpful but that it both persists and is wide spread might show that there is an evolutionary reason for it.
I'm not raising that to say whether it should be accepted or not but that it is an interesting evolutionary question. Infanticide among many species actually serves an evolutionary purpose. For example in cats and bears males may kill the cubs of others so they can then breed with the mothers. This, theoretically, might mean that genes of physically stronger bears and cats are passed on. That said we wouldn't except infaticide among humans. Humans are unique among animals that we can override much of our biology and we aren't slaves too it. My own feeling about homosexuality really have little to do with whether it is natural or not. I just find it an interesting and relevant question about if homosexuality is a neutral aberration or actually has a larger purpose.
Which is irrelevant to the question of it being objectionable. Which is irrelevant of the question of the legality of same sex marriage. Infanticide and sexual cannibalism are prevalent in nature for good reasons. They have no place in our society.
I feel like some of that is wishful thinking, depression and other awful things persist and are widespread as well and I don't think many suggest that there is an evolutionary reason for it unless that is to suppress the population. I think you had it when you said that it's a neutral aberration that's neither helpful or harmful when kept to a minority population and so long as the species is thriving....and even then it's only a problem among those who are unwilling to mate with the opposite gender those who just have a preference are never a problem in nature.
There is no 'purpose' in evolution. Inanimate concepts make no qualitative judgements. Traits and species are always changing, some persist and some don't. Humans make the judgement that survival and procreation are 'success', nature doesn't care, it just keeps changing.Humans may well prove that higher intelligence is not a successful adaptation for long term survival.
To a large extent I agree which is why I said my own opinion has little to do with whether it is natural. My own opinion is that while there is a biological component to homosexuality I don't think that is true in all cases and there are people who choose to be homosexual. Whether by choice or not that doesn't change that they should be granted the same rights or have societal acceptance. The biological basis though is an interesting intellectual question and one that is relevant anthropologically in regard to why homosexuality exists in humans and what that means to human society.
"Purpose" might not be the most exact term but in terms of persistence of certain traits those are often due to that such trait helps a species survive and remains. For example Sickle Cell is likely a mutation that prevents the spread of Malaria.
I have no issue with folks who are homosexual so long as they keep it private....just as I would expect from heterosexuals. I DO have a problem with sexual agendas being pushed into my face and life. I'll support your agenda as long as you don't get too damn militant about it. Then, I have a problem.
It's a completely natural and biological inclination or activity. I won't pretend the rest of the planet has complex enough societal or economic models to accommodate non-reproductive relationships or non-traditional social roles for their adult males; but Western civilizations need to go ahead and fully accept it.
I don't think it's a big deal making a fuss over. Been hit on by dudes before. Just say, "I'm flattered but not gay." They usually say, oops sorry for the misunderstanding and either go about talking about another subject. Don't care what anyone does under the sheets as long as I don't have to watch it. Not really a fan of public displays of affection among heterosexual couples that are swapping spit in public. Wouldn't be a fan of a gay couple swapping spit in public either. But that has more to do with the fact that it's PDA and less so because its a gay couple kissing or something. Who gives a ****.
