Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do people commonly cite the unchosen nature of homosexuality in its defence? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    This is a valid argument. Nature's way of limiting the population through STDs.
    I was referring to reproductive capability, as you well know.

    By the way, did you know that you don't have to be gay to contract an STI?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    An attempt of cross species breeding has been observed in nature but you would also state that as being natural?
    I have always seen homosexuality as a flawed way to stop the passing of weak genes.
    Homosexuality is unnatural from a physical sexual stand point.
    It is all ****ing natural!

    Insofar as all of biological nature is a ****ing meaningless accident. Why does a gay person have weak genes? A strong gay human male can help the survival of the group which in turns helps the survival of the group's offspring. Gay people exist in vast numbers, that either means there is actually evolutionary reason why gay genes get passed on and it is favorable (see "sneaky ****ers" hypothesis for bisexual males), or it is just random but doesn't harm the survival of the species like having a pipe sharing access to lungs and stomach isn't ideal but it doesn't really hamper the species that much so it doesn't get changed or wipe out the species.

    Cross species breeding attempts are natural, species splitting into new species is natural. What you are arguing is whether being gay is morally correct/"natural" or not from a human social framework. That is a completely different question. But any sane rational person who takes a logical approach and can free themselves from oppressive human social constructs can see that there is no reason that being gay is immoral.

    Who knows though, maybe human societies that adopted oppressive bigoted hateful social conditioning were the ones that had a better chance of surviving.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    I was referring to reproductive capability, as you well know.

    By the way, did you know that you don't have to be gay to contract an STI?
    Except homosexuals are still capable of reproducing.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It is all ****ing natural!

    Insofar as all of biological nature is a ****ing meaningless accident. Why does a gay person have weak genes? A strong gay human male can help the survival of the group which in turns helps the survival of the group's offspring. Gay people exist in vast numbers, that either means there is actually evolutionary reason why gay genes get passed on and it is favorable (see "sneaky ****ers" hypothesis for bisexual males), or it is just random but doesn't harm the survival of the species like having a pipe sharing access to lungs and stomach isn't ideal but it doesn't really hamper the species that much so it doesn't get changed or wipe out the species.

    Cross species breeding attempts are natural, species splitting into new species is natural. What you are arguing is whether being gay is morally correct/"natural" or not from a human social framework. That is a completely different question. But any sane rational person who takes a logical approach and can free themselves from oppressive human social constructs can see that there is no reason that being gay is immoral.

    Who knows though, maybe human societies that adopted oppressive bigoted hateful social conditioning were the ones that had a better chance of surviving.
    You don't have to be gay to choose to look after your own rather than propagate. That is a ridiculous argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Except homosexuals are still capable of reproducing.
    Which is why I said "no chance of reproduction between themselves".

    Regardless, gay people still contribute less to overpopulation than straight people do.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It is all ****ing natural!

    Insofar as all of biological nature is a ****ing meaningless accident. Why does a gay person have weak genes? A strong gay human male can help the survival of the group which in turns helps the survival of the group's offspring. Gay people exist in vast numbers, that either means there is actually evolutionary reason why gay genes get passed on and it is favorable (see "sneaky ****ers" hypothesis for bisexual males), or it is just random but doesn't harm the survival of the species like having a pipe sharing access to lungs and stomach isn't ideal but it doesn't really hamper the species that much so it doesn't get changed or wipe out the species.

    Cross species breeding attempts are natural, species splitting into new species is natural. What you are arguing is whether being gay is morally correct/"natural" or not from a human social framework. That is a completely different question. But any sane rational person who takes a logical approach and can free themselves from oppressive human social constructs can see that there is no reason that being gay is immoral.

    Who knows though, maybe human societies that adopted oppressive bigoted hateful social conditioning were the ones that had a better chance of surviving.

    A dog that tries to mate with a cat is instinctively retarded.Nature does have its complicated faults.
    I am saying where would an effeminate gay guy fit in a village hierarchy?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue_Mason)
    Nature does have its complicated faults.
    I am saying where would an effeminate gay guy fit in a village hierarchy?
    Those complicated faults are the reason creatures evolve and human being exist at all. Evolution is based on having random (what you lot would call unnatural) mutations. A fact that flies right over so many people's head.

    An effeminate gay guy (not all gay men are effeminate, a lot you just wouldn't be able to tell) can do lots of things that increase chance of offspring survival. Maybe he has a greater nurturing instinct often associated with the females, he can stay around and help with that stuff.

    There is also evidence in Neanderthal bones etc that suggests humans mated with them.

    The way evoltution works is that one species will eventually split and become two or more different species (at which point they will not be able to make offspring with each other) but in the run up to and after this event has happened they will still have sex with each other.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 10, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.