CSflim

Wow! Thats a very interesting point, I had never thought of it in that way. I'm not sure how correct it is, but it's a possibility, that on a subconcious level, people hold these beliefs.

Although I wouldn't agree that they don't contribute to society, they work jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us!

My guess is that they are simply victims of "racial" prejudice. "They" are different from "us". Plus I think the church played a large role in reinforcing these attitudes, especially in America.

I would also ask that people on this board read all posts in the context of the discussion before throwing out accusations of homophobia (I'm not accusing anyone, this is premtive). People should be able to make their point without having to put the "politically-correct" sheen onto it. Read it, but make it your duty not to get offeneded by it.

For instance, I am absolutely not homophobic. I can say this without doubt, and would demand absolutely equal rights for all people of any sexuality. I would definatly not be of the opinion that homosexuality should be considered as a "disease"
That being said, from a purely naturalistic sense, being a homosexual is a defect. In nature, your sucess as an animal is based soley on your reproduction.

It poses a very interesting question about evolution: Since homosexuality is such a major disadvantage, why haven't we evolved more protective traits to "protect" us from it?

There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Even when you think about it, it seems almost contradictory: Those people in whom the gene manisfested itself, would not pass on the gene. Hence it could only be passed on, if it were to lie dormant!

My guess is that it is an error in the embryonic development, at the stage when the embryo "decides" to be male or female. And instead of becoming purely "male" or purely "female" it takes on characteristics of both.
This seems to fit the evidence. Homosexual men tend to have soft, feminine facial features, and their personality also tends to be more feminine, as do their interests: fashion, art v.s beer and sport. This is perhaps why homosexual men often get on so well with women as "one of their own" (And yes I am WELL aware that I am making massive generalisations and sterotypes).
Homosexual women tend to have "butch" masculine features. They tend to be more well built, with larger muscles. (Again with the stereotypes).
This could also be the reasoning behind transvestitism and transsexualism.

So, in a way it could be similar to mental and physical handicaps...yes a "disease" of sorts.

But this still doesn't answer the question of why we haven't evolved a protection mechanism for this kind of "error" in embryonic development. It seems that it is quite a rampant "disease". Anyone have any statistics on this?

Again, I may have appeared to make some "offensive" remarks, but bear in mind the context in which they were said: A naturalistic context as opposed to a social or humanistic point of view, so please don't accuse me of being anything I'm not. I can't stand homophobia!

That being said, I welcome any criticisms/comments on my idea, and/or associated linkage.

__________________