I am pointing out how the gay gene is harmful to the organism
Umm... How does being gay cause harm again?
A %100 homosexual minded person does not want to reproduce- therefore, the organism is broken.
Oh, right, the species. Which doesn't need every member of it to reproduce to survive. Also this implies to meaning to life is to breed, which is far from a fact.
A %100 homosexual minded person does not want to reproduce- therefore, the organism is broken. How the gene survives is irrelevant; What matters is the gene itself.
I'm 100% homosexual and I want to reproduce - just with a turkey baster, not a man. So where does that leave your wee theory?
That completely ignores my argument. I am pointing out how the gay gene is harmful to the organism- A %100 homosexual minded person does not want to reproduce- therefore, the organism is broken. How the gene survives is irrelevant; What matters is the gene itself.
What matters to evolution is that the gene get's passed on. So since you want to argue from an evolutionary point of view that's not irrelevant. Also given that we are an animal that lives in groups having a few of the species that doesn't really desire to reproduce, but can offer care and assist those who do could prove to be a net benefit to the species as a whole.
A %100 homosexual minded person does not want to reproduce- therefore, the organism is broken.
The main difference between man and animal is that we have the advantage (or disadvantage?) of consciousness. Animals want to eat, sleep and reproduce. It's something that is marked into their brains. Humans commit to sex because it's pleasurable, and it feels **** good, even when it's bad sex. I'm going to go ahead and say that you're a virgin (no offense intended) and that you never got a taste of sex. Leave science/religion behind, and realize that sex is not only about expanding the species, at least not for humans.
Sex is pleasure. A homosexual, just like every other man or woman of this earth also seeks pleasure. So, they like fulfilling this type of pleasure via sex with their own gender. So what? If they want to, then why not? They're not hurting anyone, they're not insulting anyone. They're just enjoying themselves.
Oh, right, the species. Which doesn't need every member of it to reproduce to survive. Also this implies to meaning to life is to breed, which is far from a fact.
I'm 100% homosexual and I want to reproduce - just with a turkey baster, not a man. So where does that leave your wee theory?
I'm not talking about the species, I'm talking about the organism. A sterile man, or cow, does not doom his species, it dooms the organism. Reproduction is not sex- It is the act of giving birth, or impregnating. Also, I'm taking a liberty, but what I intended to say is that if a Lesbian woman goes to a sperm bank and becomes pregnant, by definition is no longer a pure homosexual. This is a stretch, but it's what I'm leaning towards. Because said person used the opposite sex for reproduction, they lose the textbook definition.
The main difference between man and animal is that we have the advantage (or disadvantage?) of consciousness.
Now, I'm leaving the rest of your argument out, and it's very well thought out, but this is the point I disagree with. You can say that man has consciousness, and that makes them different, but look at how much of our behavior is controlled by our genes. (If you want proof/elaboration, I recommend Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics, by Robert Plomin) Like it or not, almost 65% of your behavior is unintentional, dictated by your genetics. So what happens with your genes fail to to do their most basic function? The organism is broken.
What matters to evolution is that the gene get's passed on. So since you want to argue from an evolutionary point of view that's not irrelevant.
Yes, it is. I agree with what you're saying- However, my point is, it isn't commonly passed on through reproduction, the ONLY clear and 100% effective way for genes to be passed on is intercourse, with the opposite sex. That's my point, my alpha and omega. I'm willing to change this opinion, but I think it's true. You're welcome to provide sources that prove me wrong.
Also, I'm taking a liberty, but what I intended to say is that if a Lesbian woman goes to a sperm bank and becomes pregnant, by definition is no longer a pure homosexual. This is a stretch, but it's what I'm leaning towards. Because said person used the opposite sex for reproduction, they lose the textbook definition.
As far as I know, textbook definitions about sexual orientation only address the attraction issue. There have been many homosexuals in the past who, forced by society and their parents, took on a heterosexual life and even had kids with a partner of the opposite sex, but later on came out with the truth and went on in their lives. They're still homosexual by definition if they are attracted to the same gender.
Like it or not, almost 65% of your behavior is unintentional, dictated by your genetics. So what happens with your genes fail to to do their most basic function? The organism is broken.
Not broken. It's just a sort of misdirected behaviour, but I don't think there is clear evidence that homosexuality serves no purpose at all, even if unintentional; so don't be hasty in your conclusions. A few homosexual couples in a colony could very well have some sort of advantage.
However, my point is, it isn't commonly passed on through reproduction, the ONLY clear and 100% effective way for genes to be passed on is intercourse, with the opposite sex. That's my point, my alpha and omega. I'm willing to change this opinion, but I think it's true. You're welcome to provide sources that prove me wrong.
Cooperative breeding, where an individual does not reproduce but help breeding the offsprings of others. If this occurs between siblings (which share half of your genes), you still pass on half of the genes you would by direct reproduction, plus the breeding advantage you offer the offsprings compared to those bred only by their parents. As I already said, bees are a good example since most members of the society are infertile yet they contribute to the spread of their genes through helping the queen, to which they are all closely related.
Also, I'm taking a liberty, but what I intended to say is that if a Lesbian woman goes to a sperm bank and becomes pregnant, by definition is no longer a pure homosexual. This is a stretch, but it's what I'm leaning towards. Because said person used the opposite sex for reproduction, they lose the textbook definition.
Oh man you do make me giggle.
I'm not longer a lesbian because I want children?
Noun: A homosexual woman. Adjective: Of or relating to homosexual women.
I don't find men physically or emotionally attractive. I do not want to be with a man, in a non-sexual or sexual relationship that borders past friendship. Using a mans sperm to get pregnant doesn't change that. It's not him that's doing the job.
Now if i donate my eggs to a woman who can't reproduce without them. If she's straight, does that make her lesbian?
I don't find men physically or emotionally attractive. I do not want to be with a man, in a non-sexual or sexual relationship that borders past friendship.
So, I can stop dreaming right there?
On a more serious topic, if a man were gay and he adopted a child with his partner, would that make him straight? Wanting a child does not mean being straight. I know bisexuals who want (and some have) children.
On a more serious topic, if a man were gay and he adopted a child with his partner, would that make him straight? Wanting a child does not mean being straight. I know bisexuals who want (and some have) children.
The paternal/maternal instinct does bit seem to be affected by sexuality or vice versa.
Homosexuality has been treated as a highly sensitive topic. I believe that this sensitization can hinder efforts that could help educate people and increase tolerance.
Its sad to see peer-reviewed articles labelled as gay-bashing and politically incorrect for attempting to explain homosexuality. Simply for presenting possible evidence that could be remotely misconstrued as anti-gay.
