mandal

Had a friend talk to me the other day about gay rights and he gave me this argument. I have to say it's the best argument I've heard. for all those who support gay rights help me figure out a argument against his.

Here's what he claims, it's pretty simple:

Homosexuality is biologically unnatural, therefore a line must be drawn somewhere.

martinguerre

1. Unnatural isn't a biological term.

2. Homosexuality exists in many different species.

3. If homosexuality is in any way genetic, it may be linked to traits that increase survival of near relatives. Extra adults in a group can help provide for and protect children.

4. Line? Why? Oral sex is pretty "unnatural" but i'd hate to be the one to tell the TFP that that was being outlawed.

it's a totally specious arguement...he's defining the terms to his liking, then setting up a false conclusion.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

wilbjammin

5. Nothing about modern life is natural.

6. Homosexuality is a state of being, not a action placed upon unwilling people.

etc. etc. etc.

I don't exactly see what's so convincing about this argument. What does "naturalness" have to do with human behavior? We're sitting on computers, most likely watching television, eating pre-packaged food, wearing clothes made in other countries by people we don't even know, sitting under artificial light, surrounded by artificial things. If you're going to attack something on a "natural" argument, you should start with the big ones rather than focusing on something that doesn't affect us as totally as technology does.

__________________
Innominate.

MageB420666

The argument itself makes no sense, why must a line be drawn somewhere? What line? How do biology and homosexuality relate? Why should homosexuality be considered "unnatural"? If we weren't supposed to do it then why would God have made prostate stimulation feel so good?(I've never done anything anal, so I can't say from personal experience, but that is what I've heard)

Why is the clitoris on the the surface where it is easily reached by both men AND women, instead of deep in the vagina where it could only be stimulated by a phallis? Same argument goes for oral sex.

As the evidence I see would point out that God kept homosexual pleasures in mind when He made us and left the decision* to be gay up to us.


*It is a decision because even if a person is born gay, they still have the choice of acting out there desires or choosed instead that they prefer the opposite sex, even if they are not physically attracted to them**. I could decide to be gay and participate in homosexuality even if I am only physically attracted to the opposite sex. Or if I had homosexual desires I could decide to follow heterosexual actions. Even if you are straight and choose to be straight you are still making a choice.

**Note that I am not commenting on the morality of homosexuality, I find nothing immoral in it, nor do I consider it to be evil or a sin. I just feel that humans have a choice and are not totally driven by physical desires.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

MageB420666

Umm, I've got some bad new for you.

It may not be this way everywhere, but in the state of Tennessee(where I'm at), oral sex is outlawed. (But no one really cares )
In South Carolina(I'm pretty sure that's the state) it is illegal to do it in any other position than missionary.

If anyone knows otherwise then please correct me, but I am pretty sure that this is correct.

Just because they outlaw it, doesn't mean that people are going to listen. Remember prohibition?

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

tellumFS

If by unnatural, your friend means that "only humans do it", then your friend is dead wrong. For example, Bonobo chimpanzees would be very promiscuos by human standards -- sex is used for different reasons beyond reproduction for Bonobos. And, among things such as wild group orgies, homosexuality is one practice.

And Bonobos are not the only animal to practice homosexuality, but they certainly are a striking example.

reiii

1. Homosexuality in Human Populations is An Advantage
2.Populations evolve, not individuals.
3. Sexuality is an inherited trait, albiet a very polymorphic trait

We are a social animal. Our success for thousands of years hinged on our ability to hunt/gather and work together. It makes sense that humans are genetically wired for getting along with like sexed individuals.

Once you accept that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait you can imagine countless advantages that would stem from having homosexual individuals in a population.Heres something ive been playing around with:

In some Plains Indian tribes, homosexual men were grouped with the women, and functioned as a kind of protector who was never encumbered with children. The presence of these gay men increased the fitness of future generations of tribesmen. This fitness stabilized the genetic equilibrium of the population and this allowed for the persistence of the trait.

__________________
"Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

bal8664

Homosexuality has also been witnessed in lesser species than bonobos ( which ieblieve are our closest relatives). I even remember reading an article about homosexual penguins. Its obviosuly not just a human thing and it's as natural as heterosexuality if you ask me, its just a much smaller percentage.

WillyPete

Mandal:
His argument has creedence only if intercourse amongst humans was for procreation.

The thing is, we humans mostly have sex for pleasure and the other benefits to relationships gathered from the intimacy it generates. Based on this our search for pleasure is based largely on personal taste and preferred stimulus, hence homosexuality falls more under the preference zone of sexual activity.

As for it being unnatural even animals that primarily have intercourse to raise young, have shown homosexual activity.
Chimps, rabbits, dogs. All these and others have shown it.
Put 2 male bunnies in a cage for a month. Watch and laugh.

Your friend is wrong to state that it is unnatural.

The ONLY grounds for saying that a certain sexual preference or act is wrong is the MORAL viewpoint. When you start to exert your moral preferences (outside the bounds of SOCIALLY unacceptable acts like murder) on other people by legislation you are indeed on shakey ground.

Daoust

So let me get this straight (hahahahahaha)
Homosexuality is natural, normal, and it is a part of a healthy, functioning society of humans. Good.
Is the argument presented not that homosexuality is self defeating? You cannot exist in a purely homosexual society because there is no procreation without heterosexual sex. Homosexuality cannot perpetuate itself, for lack of a better term. Homosexuality can only exist within a heterosexual society, and would cease to exist without it. Therefore homosexuality is unnatural because it is non productive.

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

WillyPete

No, the argument presented was not that homosexuality was self defeating.

The request was to provide an argument against a position that homosexuality was biologically unnatural.

The only way that homosexual acts are NOT natural is in the process of attempting to create offspring, not in the complete BIOLOGICAL sense.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, in the biological view, part of a natural happy human being is an active sex life. If the sexual appetite of an individual exhibits a preference to homosexual acts and that allows the individual to lead a happy life, free from sexual and psychological hang-ups relative to denying one's sexual preference, then it follows that a homosexual preference is 'natural'. One can consider my personal affection for chocolate as natural as it makes me feel good and provides me with sugars. But I don't NEED it. It still doesn't make a love for chocolate 'unnatural'. You might not like chocolate. It's a preference thing, not something necessary to continuation of life.

If your own sexual preference is straight sex, but you like your partner to dress a particular way, eg: her in a nurse outfit, to heighten your sexual experience, then is this considered unnatural? No, if your aim is to fulfill your sexual tastes and preferences then anything can go. BI, HOMO, bondage, sub, whatever. It's all natural in the pursuit of fulfilling the need for arousal.

However, if your sole puprose and definition of sex is to place sperm close to the location of an unfertilised egg, then only plain old sex betwee a man and a woman can be considered a 'natural' way to do so. Not even in vitro or assisted fertilisation counts.

By claiming homosexuals to be 'unnatural', by default you must also include anyone exhibiting any kind of fetish, bisexuals, people attempting medically assited fertilisation and masturbation.
You have pretty much just labelled every person on this planet who is old enough to have sex.

I pity the partner of anyone who believes sex is JUST for procreation. Get over your hangups.

martinguerre

which is why "we" don't recruit. otherwise we would...

there are plenty of things that can't exist in extreme. we can't all be artists...and a society of all artists would probably starve. Art is also pretty unnatural. Is art bad?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

WillyPete

People are just too hung up on the whole "Go forth, multiply and replenish the earth" routine.

So gay people don't want to do the 'multiplying' bit, why can't you just be content with them replenishing the earth and do the multiplying yourselves?

tecoyah

This alone will define the weakness of the origional argument.
"Nature" has homosexuals a' plenty

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Ustwo

The question of homosexuality is an interesting one.

The question is WHY are there homosexuals. Since it is genetically inferior reproductive wise, there must be a reason homosexuality is so common. Most genetic defects which would cause reproductive failure are in the order of 1-1000 or so, while homosexuality is something like 2.5% of the population. Now homosexuals can have children, so its not a true failure there, but it does lower ones desire to reproduce.

The answer is either sexuality is very fragile in development and can 'switch' quite easy, the genes themselves may be fragile, or there is a survival benefit to the species by having homosexuals in the population.

I don't know the answer, but my educated opinion is that sexual orientation is fragile in development AND there is a survival benefit.

One study showed that women who were enduring conditions like bombing etc in WWII were more likely to have homosexual babies. The theory it was the mother being under stress which caused it.

Now if you take that in a survival context, a population under stress may well need less males actively looking for mates, and at the same time those males would help out with their existing families. Having that gay uncle benefits everyone, while at the same time he is not producing children which would use up resources.

Just my theory.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Daoust

By recuit do you mean reproduce?

I don't think art and procreation can be compared. Your analogy is poor.

We all are humans. Humans make humans. Heterosexual sex creates humans. Like it or not, humans were made to reproduce and "multiply". This has nothing to do with 'homosexuality is bad', but rather, is it non-productive. Before it became commonly understood that the primary purpose for sex was enjoyment only, it was intended for procreation. That's why we have sex. Procreation is necessary for survival. The fact that the act of procreation is enjoyable is a pleasant by-product, not it's primary function.

With or without art we would survive. With only homosexuals mankind is doomed.

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

1010011010

Here's how this argument continues after people point out that non-human animals also exhibit homosexuality...

[Begin]
So you're looking at animals for moral guidance? Well, then I guess sex with children is okay! Bonobos do that, too. And chimps seem to be pretty relaxed on the subject of rape. Oooh, and how about infanticide? That one's practically universal. I'm sorry, but humans are above mere animals.
[End]

mandal, did your friend clarify what he meant by "unnatural"? Was it so simple as the mistaken belief that humans are the only species that do it, or was there more to the argument?

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

The Prophet

1. It need not be a biological term. There are many things that are unnatural "biologically." Perhaps it is best stated that is "Bio-illogical."

2. There are many things other species do that we do not. We are not animals. Would you have me lay on the sidewalk and lick my nuts (only if i could!)? How about kill and eat my young? The "other species" arguement is long dead.

3. There are many traits, as well as behaviors, that "Man the Species" has outgrown. Nonetheless, this is a very good point - and was perhaps very practical when we beating off lions with sticks and living in caves. Since the biggest arguement of "straights" against homosexuality is the questionable effect the gay lifestyle has on children, this is probably not something you should include in an arguement for the support of gay rights.

4. Line? Why? . . .Why? Why you can't be serious can you? There most definately need to be lines drawn to outline what is acceptable behavior within a society or a culture and it is up to the members of that society or culture to debate where those lines are and how far they will be drawn. That is what this debate is - societies members, pencil in hand, arguing over where to draw the lines. They will be drawn. In fact we had all, straight gay or whatever, better hope to hell we continue to draw lines of all kinds or we see all manner of human excrement doing things that will appall the sensibilities of every one of us.

Where this line goes, and how far, is where the debate is.

It is interesting to live history is it not?

*** it's a totally specious arguement...he's defining the terms to his liking, then setting up a false conclusion ***

False in your view. This is what an arguement is - define the terms, weigh them against your own experience and knowledge (not the same between any two people) and state a conclussion. Everybodies conclussion that is different than yours will be a "false conclussion."

__________________
"The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

WillyPete

Were his friend to say, "with regard to procreation, homosexuality is not a natural form of sexual intercourse" I would agree with him.

But the sweeping statement he made is too general. With debate you must be very specific with your arguments if you want them to stand scrutiny and to be considered objective by your audience or you will be labelled as discriminatory.

To follow on with 1010011010 (did you make that nick just to make my life hard? ) you could also argue that cannibalism was natural too. As is killing to control resources. Logical yes, but taking it too far.

I think better would be: Do homosexual acts occur naturally with other species? Yes. But we're so far advanced from these that a comparison is silly. Let's leave that argument.

Daoust:
Like it or not, humans were made to reproduce and "multiply". This has nothing to do with 'homosexuality is bad, but rather, is it non-productive. Before it became commonly understood that the primary purpose for sex was enjoyment only, it was intended for procreation. That's why we have sex. Procreation is necessary for survival. The fact that the act of procreation is enjoyable is a pleasant by-product, not it's primary function.

True that currently, hetero sex is the primaryy way to reproduce, but it's only for now.
There's nothing to stop gay women from being fertilised artificially by gay mens' sperm.
If the genetics game carries on, orthodox reproduction will soon be considered a foolish form of genetic roullette compared to a more secure and 'PRODUCTIVE' practice of selective genetic code breeding. The argument for homosexuality being unnatural will fall by the wayside as reproduction (the yardstick by which homosexual activity's 'natural'ness is measured) will take a more unnatural form itself.

I don't think art and procreation can be compared. Your analogy is poor.
With or without art we would survive. With only homosexuals mankind is doomed.

Art, broken down into it's more primitive sense is camouflage.
We would mimic natural surroundings to provide refuge and safety by blending into the environment. When those reasons are no longer there we use art to protray the outside environment in diferent ways and to (inversely) show the differences in sometimes stark, bold manners.

I think Art is quite a good comparison. we've moved from the need to use it to ensure our race's safe future to provide pleasure by aesthetic and emotive appeal.

Sex is continually moving from a means of ensuring the continuation of the specie to a purely pleasurable activity. As I said, soon we will no longer consider sex as a good, productive means of procreation.

reiii

Population genetics 101:
Individuals dont evolve populations do.
If a population does not face evolutionary pressure to evolve it will not evolve.

A gay person who does not reproduce, and lives in a society with some semblance of equilibrium, in no way makes it less likely that more gay people will be produced in the future.

__________________
"Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

Coppertop

Direct your friend somewhere to educate himself.

tecoyah

Okay...hows this:

There is a tribe of Chimps. In the course of mating, the Two top males fight and one kills the other, thus gaining the harem. This is a relatively common situation in chimp culture, and completely natural according to some who study these animals. All male chimps do not kill each other, otherwise they would become extinct, yet some do. Natural form of societal structure.

There is a tribe of humans. In the course of mating, the two top males decide to mate with each other, thus forgoing the harem. this is a relatively uncommon situation in human culture, and completely natural acoording to some who study these animals. All male humans do not mate with each other, otherwise they would become extinct, yet some do. Natural form of societal structure.

Point is....societies are not a black and white situation. Human nature is equally gray, who is to say what is natural and what is not. I am certainly unqualified to answer this, but my OPINION is that homosexuality is as natural as monogamy.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

filtherton

The word natural means nothing. Everything is natural. That computer you're sitting at? Natural. That chemical mcdonald's uses to make their fries smell so good? Natural. In vitro fertilization? Natural. Nature is what this earth has created and what it has made us capable of, and it is everything that surrounds us.

Anyways, the idea that homosexuality is to be frowned upon because if everybody did it we couldn't reproduce as a society is intellectually lazy at the very least. The same argument could be made against people who engage in oral sex. Humanity isn't at a point where we need everyone to reproduce, in fact, it is most likely in our best interests that less people reproduce. Homosexuals can have children, and besides, there is no reason to believe that widespread acceptance of homosexuality will have any effect on the rate at which people are born homosexuals.

ravenradiodj

Aside from the obvious point that the human population is in no way threatened with extinction due to lack of reproductive frequency.....

Even given the absurd premise of a world filled with nothing but homosexuals, chances are, for the future survival of the species, a few lesbians and a few gay men would bite the bullet and do the right thing. So the argument that homosexuality is biologically suicidal to a population is erroneous.

Noone has yet broached the subject of bisexuality. Are those of you who claim that you only oppose homosexuality because it's biologically unsound also opposed to bisexuality?

The person who posted about pregnant women undergoing stress and producing gay babies is implying that homosexuals are, somehow, biologically weaker or inferior to heteros.

And to address the "nature vs. choice" argument.....I don't give a damn who you're screwing OR why you are screwing them, so long as you're both (all?) sane, consenting adults, it's noone's business. I'm a devout heterosexual man in a long, happy marriage who has lots of gay and lesbian friends and family members. I don't care what they do in their bedrooms, and I hope they don't care what I do in mine. I care that they are leading productive, happy, fulfilled lives, that somehow in this insane, murderous world, they have found love and affection from another person.

The Biblical definition of sodomy is non-reproductive sex. So any of you who've given or received oral sex, or, for that matter, used any form of birth control, are Sodomites. This definition would include masturbation, by the way, which, in a strict context, could be seen as a homosexual act. So don't go quoting Scripture at me.....

One final note to my hetero brothers who obsess over the gay "problem". Guys, guys, GUYS!!! Don't you get it?? This is the best thing that could've happened to us!! Don't you see that this raises your STOCK?? If there are 10 men and 10 women in a room, and half the men are gay....dude, you've just doubled your chance of getting some! And before you start worrying about whether or not half the women are lesbians, need I remind you that we might be able to persuade them to make a video or two, or at least let us watch?? Any horny straight man in his right mind would do everything he could to promote homosexuality! This is a win-win situation, brothers! Support your gay brothers! Encourage them! Picket for their rights, dammit!

Coppertop

Amen. Unfortunately the anti-gay responses are usually reactionary and not thought through. Hence the bigotry instead of realization at the opportunities presented.

martinguerre

I was making a joke about the myth that the queer community "recruits" or tries to make straight kids queer.

You're not reading the analogy as intended. Art, if carried to the extreme, would preclude farming, and other survival related occupations. The extreme possibility of such a socieity that took either art or homosexuality as an absolute value is so remote as to remove either possibility from the realm of discussion. To say that "a soceity of all homosexuals would doom" a society is just absurd. Yes...a totally non-procreative society would not have kids...but its not going to happen. So why bother with the possibility?

So is a lot of human behavior. What percentage of your day's activities are related to your survival or procreation? I'm guessing not much. Cars are bio-illogical. Lightbulbs and not following daylight is bio-illogical.

What i was NOT trying to do was justify the morality of homosexual behavior. What i WAS stating is that to declare it in opposition with the natural world is a fallacy. What you say is not wrong per se, you just applied the arguement to the wrong argument.

I'll damn well include it every time. As a queer man who has worked in childcare for most of my life, I'm not about to shrink in the face of the slander that queers are "bad" for children. Talk to the parents i've worked for, talk to the kids i've worked with, and the worst you'll hear is the time i once forgot my tuesday afternoon appointment.


My argument is not against lines as a moral device. But in terms of people's private behavior, their most deeply held feelings, and workings of families...I'm quite hard pressed to give any creedence to a "line" imposed by some half-assed natural law decduction. The whole point of natural law is that it is supposed to match human experience. Well...this one doesn't.

*sigh

There is no weighing of evidence in the arguement being discussed. It had all the complexity and rigor of saying that homosexuality was "icky."

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Fohur2

There was a link to a study posted somewheres on the boards..not going to look right now. But the study found female relatives of gay men have more babies on average then straight male's relatives.The gay gene may boost female sexuality.

1010011010

In response to reiii's comment about "Population Genetics 101".

Whether the reduced fecundity of homosexual individuals would have an impact on the percentage of the population that was homosexual would depend on the specific conditions surrounding the biological basis of sexual orientation. It may not even have a significant genetic foundation (at least to the extent of swinging one way or the other).

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

mandal

wow.. lots of responses.

Sorry I did not clarify, but what my friend meant by biologically unnatural is in terms of sexual reproductive parts and human intercourse. What he is saying is that woman have vaginas made for a man to put his penis into and to reproduce, while gay males and females in no way do this. i did not actually argue it out with him, but another friend of mine told me about his argument with this friend.

Anyways, there are a few arguments refering to animals, but as someone already stated they are lesser animals and we as humans should be above that (Don't argue this one out too much, since I for one don't think he really cares about this and i'm sure most anti-gays dont either). Second, arguments about it being pleasurable and that we are a social society, his arguements clearly states, biological, social issues do not matter. Also, a womens clitoris being left out for ease of pleasurement by any sex isn't too great an argument. A womens clitoris is made pleasureable because when a women has an orgasm her vagina contracts forming a sort of suction, making more sperm enter her vagina. Also, doesn't this leave room for animals and everything to pleasure us to, lets just not go there. Third, anal sex and oral sex, he does not believe in these things either. lastly, I thought about the idea that almost everything we do is "unnatural," but this seems to be a very weak argument. Mainly because in reference to cars and inventions, we made these things, there isn't really a way for these things to be natural, also the composition of the earth are meant to be used for resources such as these. the problem with homosexuality is the plain simple fact that there is a penis and a vagina, and they come together for a biological purpose.

it's sort of difficult to explain the argument, but there has been some good points brought up. I think most of you understand what i'm saying, so don't pick on the words.

martinguerre

then he doens't want to be argued with.

honestly? queers are part of the biological world. that he wants to claim some sort of half-assed natural law that leaves us out...fine. Dicks fit up asses. Dicks fit in mouths. Mouths can manipulate clits. There's nothing that naturally limits sexuality to procreation. We walk around with our primary sexual organs facing out to the world, and not hidden. We have sex even when we're not going to have kids, when we know we can't. All times of the year and month, people get it on. Why? We're more complex animals than most, and sex serves a range of non babymaking purposes and needs.

He wants to argue from a striclty biological standpoint, but won't talk about other animals. He wants to argue a moral issue, but won't engage social concerns or behaviorism.

He wants ignorance. His argument is set up to exclude any possible counter evidence.. Arguing on such terms is not going to produce a win, IMO. Talk to him in ways he doesn't want to hear...you may get lucky and break through with something.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

joeshoe

How could a trait like homosexuality, which would decrease the chance of procreation, be developed within a species? Won't natural selection eventually remove it, because it won't likely be passed on?

molloby

joeshoe here are the known facts of the matter:

1. Homosexuality exists amoungst both humans and other species.

2. These species have been subject to natural selection.

That is it, natural selection does not have to select against homosexual traits. As to why specifically, well I am sure it is extremely complex, involves group dynamics and may or may not be explicable on a genetic level.

roachboy

i do not see why the argument is of any interest.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

reiii

Yup, thats what I was trying to get across

__________________
"Jombe? The chocolate icing" -hedonism bot

arch13

Your ignorance is astounding.
We are in fact animals, simply a highly eveolved animal.

Like a man who rises out of poverty then looks with disdain at those who used to be his peers, we look at other animals and try to pretend that we have nothing to do with them. Your inability to accept a fact of science shows that you are part of what is leading America towards a new age of ignorance.
Lets see, we gentlemen seem to like beating ourselves off, opp's monkeys where doing that before us. Therefor if you touch yourself you are acting like an animal. Looks like the argument isn't so dead after all.
What about mothers in china who kill their first born duaghters to have a son? looks like I found killing the young too. Not close enough? How about several cases in our country where mothers have murdered their children for media attention. A hamster kills it's young until it has only as many as it's milk can feed. A human mother kills it's children for a chance to make the evening news.
Which is the less eveloved animal again?

Also

Just sit back and read that. They way it reads to me is "The resources of the earth where destined to be used however the human population wished for these resources where theirs alone." It also seems to imply that if we make it, it's natural. We made pestisides that cuase cancer in children. I guess children with cancer is natural and we should let it runs it's course right? Ohh you meant unless it was your child or family who was affected.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Pip

To put it simple: having homosexuality "run in the family" means you might have a single childless uncle or aunt to help with providing food, protection and stuff. It's a small advantage.

WillyPete

Here you show that you are assuming that 'gayness' is genetic.
It's a choice of lifestyle. That's the only difference. Don't confuse gay people with those that which to change their gender either.

As long as humans have a choice in how they wish to pleasure themselves sexually, there will be gay people.

You don't 'remove' choice by natural selection. You can only remove genetic qualities that way.

1010011010

WillyPete gives me an idea.

Everyone, share your tales about when you chose to be attracted to boys or girls or both. Tell us about how old you were and what you based your decision on.

I, unfortunately, cannot particpate. I have no recollection of ever making such a choice to be attracted to girls rather than boys.

Take it away!

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

mo42

The animals context does not seem to be making the distinction between bisexualism and homosexuality. While animals have been observed to mate with members of the same gender, to my knowledge they have not been observed mating with members of the same gender exclusively. Homosexuality is rejecting the possibility of mating with a member of the opposite gender.

__________________
It's not getting what you want, it's wanting what you've got.

sapiens

A couple of thoughts related to different arguments in this thread:

1. Whether or not homosexuality is present in non-human animals is not that important to the question of whether or not a "line" should be drawn. If homosexuality is natural, it doesn't make it right, (or wrong). Many phenomena are natural (cancer, scarlet fever, childbirth, respiration, peniccilin, etc.). Their "naturalness" doesn't make them good or bad.

2. As others have suggested, humans are animals. In addition, humans are not "more evolved" or "higher" than any other species.

3. I personally don't by the group selectionist model for homosexuality forwarded by reii in post #7. The kin selection (benefitting genetic relatives) argument forwarded by others is more convincing to me, but I think that the jury is still out on the question of whether or not male homosexuality is an biological adaptation. The biological basis of female homosexuality is even less certain.