Box Turtle Bulletin

It is very important not to miss the very subtle gay bashing here–

gay people are selfish and do not care about anything except sex.

gay people are irresponsible and do not care aobut other people.

gay people have no sense of duty.

gay people don’t like children, and in fact, are inimical to them.

and so on.

John

I usually respond to this argument in two ways. I either sarcastically tell them that being gay doesn’t make you sterile, or I ask them if its bad to be a man, because hey, if everyone in the world was a man, the human race would die out, right?

rarian rakista

The world also is not made up of gays and straights, it is made up of an entire continuum of sexuality. There are more bisexual folks in the middle than their are ardently ‘this-or-that’ people at either end.

L. Junius Brutus

That is one of my favorite anti-gay argument, because it’s so stupid. When arguing with Catholics, one can also use Catholic priests as an example; and celibacy (for no reason) with protestants.

But my absolute favorite anti-gay argument is: “Men are so repulsive! How can someone be attracted to them?!? You’ve got to be sick!” I’ve seen straight women say this (admittedly, on the internets), which makes it even more hilarious.

Bruce Garrett

My usual response to it is “If everyone in the world was male the human race would die out, therefore to be a male is bad.”

Timothy Kincaid

Or make them really uncomfortable with,

“Yeah, I know. And if everyone in the world were black, the ‘white race’ would die out.”

Between the internal warring bigotries and the political unacceptability (and vileness) of the statement, that should leave them without anything at all to say.

Jerry

If everyone in the world was gay, the human race would continue on its merry way just as it does today. Gay men want to be fathers, Elton John, Ricky Martin and Neil Patrick Harris are just three well known names who sired children without the benefit of sexual intercourse with women, I suspect they are joined by many more who have done the same. Lesbians have been using the old turkey baster method for ages and it works.

Society would organize itself differently and there might actually be a benefit. All children conceived would be wanted children unless society allowed itself to be ruled by the likes of present day religious parasites demanding that each woman must have unlimited numbers of children.

And as far as mother Theresa is concerned she did not help any poor person. She allowed them to suffer and die without medical attention. She was nothing more than a money grubber.

In Christopher Hitchens’ words, Theresa was not a friend of the poor, she was a friend of poverty. She was a nasty piece of work, by all accounts.

TRiG.

Timothy Kincaid

No, not by all accounts.

By most accounts she dedicated her life to helping “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.” By most accounts she was opinionated, but selfless.

While the overwhelming vast majority of those who looked at her life agree with the above, praise for Mother Teresa is not universal. For example, antitheists think she was self-serving, a money grubber, and a nasty piece of work.

Throbert McGee

The world also is not made up of gays and straights, it is made up of an entire continuum of sexuality. There are more bisexual folks in the middle than their are ardently â€˜this-or-thatâ€™ people at either end.

Indeed, when people say “if everyone in the world turned homosexual…”, I suspect that the real fear they’re articulating is “What if every bisexual in the world turned 100% homo, so that the small minority of Kinsey 0 heterosexuals were the only ones who ever did any baby-makin’ together?”

So what they’re talking about is not “What if 0% of the world were hetero,” but “What if only 20% of the population were actively hetero, because the bisexual majority chose to be exclusively homo?” (Or, they might not even be talking about such extreme scenarios as an 80% non-breeding population — if 35% of the population were full-time homo and 65% were actively reproducing heteros, one could still forecast a birth rate way below replacement levels, and “Graying Population” problems.)

However, they’re reluctant to actually use the word “bisexual,” because that would be admitting out loud that they suspect bisexuality to be far more prevalent than heterosexuality.

(Of course, I think that homophobia overall is often rooted in some sort of Fear Of A Bi Planet. For example, “gay is a choice” would seem intuitively true to a Kinsey 3 bisexual who was aware of having both homo and hetero desires but had personally chosen to lead a strictly hetero life — yet a Kinsey 0 hetero who had never been tempted by even the most fleeting homo fantasies should find “gay is a choice” to be a rather ridiculous idea.)

Throbert McGee

No, not by all accounts.

By most accounts

I think it may depend on whether you do your polling inside or outside of India.

(As with Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa’s highly sanctified reputation developed first in the West, and came as a surprise to more than a few Indians. Which is not to say that the average Calcuttan despised Teresa the way Hitchens does, but only that many Indians would say that her track record was quite mixed.)

Rachel H

I think celibacy is the best comparator to bring out here, especially since St Paul was such a big promoter of it.

AdrianT

I strongly recommend you all read Jared Diamond’s excellent ‘Collapse’.

If everyone had children, then the human race is even more in danger of dying out, with population approaching 7 billion.

What about the parents of Hitler and Stalin. Are they to be congratulated, too? And what about those overweight families with their massive carbon footprints?

The reason human beings have got this far is not just by passing on genes, but passing on ‘memes’ – ideas, sharing information, as well as cotributing taxes for doing a hard day’s work. There are probably natural reasons too. Our ancestors probably needed fatherless males to help rear children in those first camps on the Eurasian tundra.

It’s time people stopped looking to how peasants lived in Bronze Age Palestine for inspiration – denying climate change, pretending we didn’t evolve, and denying science.

PS Mother Teresa – her childlessness didn’t make her evil, but her fanatisicm, supporting Papa Doc dictatorship, and pickpocketing fraudster Charles Keating’s ill gotten gains (she refused to return the funds), and the Belsen-like state of her hospices makes her far from saintly. The cult around this woman was the result of an innovation in cinematic film technology from Kodak, which that idiot from the BBC, Malcolm Muggeridge, decided on playback, was a sign of ‘divine light’. The rest is history, unfortunately.

Richard Rush

If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.

I’m guessing that about 95% of people using that argument haven’t really thought much about it. They just heard it somewhere, and then stupidly thinking they’ve acquired a real gotcha-comeback against homosexuality, they put it in their back pocket to keep it handy.

Soren456

I think your “answers” support the implicit suggestion of choice.

Amicus

Well, in looking at honing the fine art of verbal self-defense, here’s 2-cents.

When making such propaganda, the catch is to make tacit the assumptions.

So, what this phrase does, without being obvious about it, is firmly root gayness as a moral choice.

The implication is that gay can’t be a good moral choice, because it is not generalizable. Compare: “If everyone just gambled, we couldn’t build a functional economy” or “If everyone were an alcoholic, we couldn’t survive as a society or race”.

So, my retort to the above is, considering that mother nature knows best, is that “If everyone were a man or a woman, the human race would die out, so what’s your point?”

Rob Tisinai

Now see, if I were an anti-gay, and someone replied to me, “If everyone were a man, the human race would die out,” I’d toss back, “That’s why men and women have to pair up!”

Throbert McGee

I think celibacy is the best comparator to bring out here, especially since St Paul was such a big promoter of it.

When dealing specifically with Christians who bring up the “If everyone were homosexual…” scenario, one can be even more blunt about it and point out that if all unmarried Christians of Paul’s era had heeded his recommendation to stay unmarried (1 Cor. 7:1,8), Christianity would’ve remained a tiny sect of voluntary celibates, and might’ve fizzled out altogether.

I think your â€œanswersâ€ support the implicit suggestion of choice.

If that bothers you, then you can always try this variant: “If a plague started killing off all female fetuses so that only boys were born, the human race would die out — but that doesn’t mean being male is a bad thing.”

Throbert McGee

Ooops, I see that various other people upthread beat me to the “if everyone were male” thing.

Mark F.

It’s not even true that if everyone were homosexual the human race would die out. Gays can have kids, right?

Richard W. Fitch

Somewhere there is a story that all the world did become ‘homosexual’. All the women lived in the valley on one side of a huge mountain range and all the men far on the opposite side. All the perpetual class of elders knew the truth. A man would give the elder his seed which would be taken into the mountain. By a signal an elder from the other side would come to receive it. She would take the seed and sow it on the other side. If a girl was born the women would rejoice. If a boy was born the elder would take it into the mountain and deliver it for the other side. So by this wisdom the world did not die.

Erin

I used to answer people with something like “I don’t think a totally impossible scenario really helps make your point. It really just makes you look silly.” But I guess you’re right. They’re so desperate to believe gay is a choice that can be taught or become some kind of fad. A little introspection should tell people if presented with the “choice” they’d decline because they like the opposite sex…..or do they? Or people just like to cling to prejudice or religious belief or whatever, and they’ll force themselves not to think about anything that will challenge that.

Amicus

Now see, if I were an anti-gay, and someone replied to me, â€œIf everyone were a man, the human race would die out,â€ Iâ€™d toss back, â€œThatâ€™s why men and women have to pair up!â€

That reply shifts premise or reference. One was ‘talking’ about an all male world, but the reply is suddenly about a multi-sex world.

One always comes prepared with a second round, though, to drive the point home:

“Oh, so you concur with me that nongay men should pursue nongay women, and it’s really stupid for gays to do that?”

Amicus

[btw, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is my ‘pet peeve’, if you can call it that…]

Aeval

“If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.”

What’s wrong with responding that stupid claim with facts, and one very simple and true fact is that being homosexual doesn’t mean you don’t want to procreate.

Homosexuals have have managed to have children, one way or the other, through out the human history.

So even if everybody in the whole wide world would be homosexual, the human race wouldn’t die out. Claiming otherwise shows only deep ignorance of human nature and human sexuality.

The desire of procreation is a part of our sexuality, but not depending of the orientation of our sexuality.

jafuf

What about gay men like Anthony Perkins or Dom DeLuise or Tom Cruise? All had children. Didn’t they ever hear of artifcial insemination? You don’t need to be straight to procreate.

Priya Lynn

Jafuf there is no evidence that Tom Cruise is gay.

antitheists think …

If you follow those words with anything other than religion is generally a bad thing, you’re overgeneralising.

TRiG.

Richard Rush

If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.

On the contrary, humanity and the earth would benefit if all humans were homosexual. As others have noted, plenty of reproduction would still occur. But in addition, due to the elimination of unintended pregnancies, the population would decline, which would be a good thing for the planet. Also, I would expect the average quality-of-life to be higher for a world full of 100% wanted children.

And since unintended pregnancies would no longer occur, the anti-abortion crowd would finally have time to go do something productive with their lives – after they convert to homosexuality.

So let’s get busy – we have a lot of recruiting to do.

Regan DuCasse

Hee hee…!
If all the world were all ONE of anything it would be excruciatingly BORING.

God apparently wanted so much infinite variety and diversity so that every living thing would change and evolve and keep going…
Even God didn’t want to be bored, and he left us a huge paint box, with LOTS of colors, spices and flavors with which to enjoy our days of life, and then sits back and wonders at what creations WE can render too.
We were all born to mankind, at the same time. Indeed, homosexuality was before religions, or cultures were established and homosexuality hasn’t changed in the course of human history. It is a constant unto itself among all the other ways that human kind has reconfigured itself.

It’s like I said before…and I tell this to the anti gay…

We are born with thumbs on EACH hand. In opposition to the fingers, and in minority to those fingers.
Gay people are like the thumb to the fingers on the hand.
And without it, our hand…would be less strong and skilled.
Different in every way, but important beyond measure.

Anna

@Timothy Kincaid
@Timothy (TRiG)
Plus, I’m a theist and think Mother Teresa did a lot of problematic things that make holding her up as an unquestionable icon of purity insulting.

That statement wasn’t just painting anti-theists with a wide brush.

Throbert McGee

If you follow those words with anything other than religion is generally a bad thing, youâ€™re overgeneralising.

Nu? Thinking that “religion is generally a bad thing” is itself an overgeneralization.

AFruit4Thought

I love the argument in this blog post.

I always went for the “gay people like having kids so they’ll use artificial insemination.” In this mythical future without heterosexuals or bisexuals, maybe it’d be easy to artificially become pregnant.

@Throbert McGee: Love the comment about celibacy. Another great answer.

Throbert McGee

@AFruit4Thought:

It has occurred to me that one might even add:

“If all early Christians had imitated Paul’s stated preference (1 Cor. 7:1,8<) for staying celibate, not only would Christianity have stayed a numerically insignificant splinter sect of Judaism, but the only way that the Christian community could’ve sustained itself over generations would’ve been by…

[wait for it!]

…RECRUITING!”

(How do ya like THEM apples?)

Richard Rush

Throbert said, “Thinking that â€œreligion is generally a bad thingâ€ is itself an overgeneralization.

Assuming that religion, by definition, involves the existence of a god, and if I do not believe that a god exists, why would it be an overgeneralization for me to say that â€œreligion is generally a bad thing?â€ How is it possible for belief in a god to be a good thing if gods do not exist? When is it ever a good thing to believe something that is factually* not true? I can’t fathom that.

*When I say “factually,” I don’t mean that I know for a provable fact that gods do not exist. I mean that the fact exists, but we are just not yet able to prove it one way or another.

Priya Lynn

What I read about Mother Theresa is that she had people sleeping on concrete beds in the hospices she built because she believed suffering was a gift from her god. It wasn’t a shortage of money, apparently she used a lot of the charitable money she got for non-essentials.

Donny D.

As The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense says, always respond to the actual attack, and never respond to the phony covering content.

In this case, the actual attack is that we LGB people want everyone to be homosexual. Do not buy into it even for a moment, and certainly not long enough to waste time formulating a refutation. Do not let homophobes set the parameters of debate.

I think the best way to respond is by going to the real heart of the matter: “Look, just because you want everyone to be heterosexual doesn’t mean we want everyone to be homosexual. Wanting everyone to be like you is your thing, it isn’t ours.”

And you can add something like this: “This isn’t some fight to the death. You may see a future without us, but we aren’t trying to get rid of you, we’re just trying to live.” And maybe: “There always will be heterosexual people and there will always be bisexual and homosexual people, that’s just the reality. But gay and bisexual people shouldn’t have to be ghettoized, have an inferior social status or be in fear of our lives. That is what we’re against, we’re not against people being straight. You, however, are against people being gay. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have said what you did.”

Sometimes it’s better to lead from the gut than from the mind. The mind can get sucked into bizarre hypotheticals that make no sense in the real world, but the gut can see things clearly, get pissed off at just hearing this kind of nonsense and prod you to say, “Oh come on, that’s just a bunch of bullsh*t!” I strongly believe that even that is a better response (after a moment’s consideration) then letting them rope you into pointless defensive arguing.

We’re not poor sad pre-Stonewall queers anymore. We don’t always have to be their victims. When they come at us and don’t have superior force or a credible threat on their side, we don’t have to fall into the “LGB person being bashed” victim mode. If possible, don’t blurt out the first automatic/defensive thing that comes to mind. Stop and think for at least a moment before responding. And keep in mind that all anti-gay arguments are inherently untenable. Once you spot the flaw(s), they collapse.

If the arguments I suggested are too harsh, then restate them more diplomatically. The content is what matters, not the tone. And if they try to change to discussion to how pushy and radical those “activist” gays are and no harm is meant to quiet, inoffensive gay people, they’ve just lost. You can jump right into equality issues, where they have’ll have no chance.

Edwin

If you want to answer people with some of these answers fine. But when I am asked why I chose to be gay. I always ask them why they chose to be straight.
The answer I get is I didn’t choose it I was born that way. I say so was I!
Then walk away before they can argue about it.
We will all die out when God get’s tired of all the stupid things we are doing to his planet!!!!

Priya Lynn

That was brilliant Donny D.

Steve in Colorado

This message that the human race will vanish if we should all become homosexual is laughable on so many levels.
One would have to assume that homosexuality is rampant and spreading like some kind of virus and is soon to replace heterosexuality.
The argument is also egotistical. It assumes that this world is all about humans. Sorry for the bad news, but it isn’t. Evolution did not start with us humanoids nor will it end with us humanoids. We are only a bit player in the whole game. It’s hard for the human ego to accept that fact.
Finally, I see no signs of the human race approaching extinction in the near future. We continue to breed like bacteria on a petri plate that are ultimately destined to deplete the finite nutrients provided to them.

Timothy Kincaid

I’m on vacation, I can be snarky if I want. :)

My new response: “Yes, and if every cell were a brain cell the body couldn’t survive… but I don’t think you need to worry about that.”

Matt

Donny D. Great post!

Jajuf: Dom DeLuise was not gay. I think you may be mistaking him for James Coco who was. They looked alike and played the same kinds of parts. Mannerisms do not mean one is gay.

In Re: Christian celibate sects coming to an end, see: “Shakers” I don;t know much about them besides that–maybe they were following Paul’s admonitions.

Timothy K, :)

Throbert McGee

How is it possible for belief in a god to be a good thing if gods do not exist?

How is it possible for belief in extraterrestrial intelligence to be a Good Thing if (supposing for the sake of argument) there are no extraterrestrial civilizations anywhere in the Universe, or (less unlikely) if we humans are the only sapient lifeforms within the entire local galactic cluster*?

One possible answer: Belief in the probable existence of extraterrestrial intelligence can inspire young people to put in the difficult work of becoming astronomers or astronauts or space-station designers, and this can yield scientific and technological benefits that remain beneficial even if there are no intelligent ETs at all.

(To be sure, belief in ETs has also inspired a cottage industry in fraudulent Crystal Skulls whose only effect is to separate fools from their money, along with a lot of really bad TV. But this doesn’t mean that belief in the ETs is “generally a bad thing.”)

*(I.e., meaning that even if there are civilizations somewhere in the Universe, the nearest of them are so extremely distant from us that both our species would quite probably have been extinct for several million years before light-speed signals could travel between our planet and theirs, making proof of each other’s existence effectively impossible.)

Throbert McGee

To continue the “belief in extra-terrestrial intelligence” a little bit:

One problem with the assertion that “religion (or ‘belief in gods’) is generally a bad thing” is that religion (and deities) come in many varieties, and it’s possible that not all religions (or gods) are equally likely to inspire negative behavior in their followers (or equally unlikely to inspire positive behavior).

In the case of believing in ETs, one could argue that pinning one’s hopes on physical contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence, routine interstellar travel, and multispecies spacefaring civilizations a la Star Trek, is more likely to be a Total Waste Of Time than believing in the possibility of detecting light-speed communication signals from outside our solar system.

So one might choose to argue that “belief in the Abrahamic Deity is generally a bad thing,” and you could liken this to “belief in being physically visited by extraterrestrials is generally a bad thing.”

DÃ©sirÃ©e

whether beif in gods is a good or bad thigs is way off point. The original point was that the only phrase that can follow “antitheists think” is “religion is generally a bad thing.” This has nothing to do with whether the phrase is true or not, just that you can’t say anything else about antitheists as a group.

Throbert McGee

The original point was that the only phrase that can follow â€œantitheists thinkâ€ is â€œreligion is generally a bad thing.â€

True, but this remark was made by way of an overgeneralized objection to overgeneralizations about antitheists!

I thought it was funny and ironic (but maybe not intentionally so) to say, in effect: “It’s wrong to overgeneralize about antitheists, because the only belief that all antitheists have in common is the [overgeneralized] belief that religion is bad.”

winston

“If everyone in the world skipped having kids and devoted their lives to the poor like Mother Theresa, the human race would die out. Does that make Mother Theresa bad?”

bullshit.
let’s think and see what are the different causes: homosexuality is not a choice, like mother theresa’s decision to devote her life to the poor.
her decision helped the world be a better place.
homosexuality per se doesn’t help anyone.
but if we would all decide not to have kids anymore and help the poor, the benfits for the humanity would be less than the damage we would cause: extinction.
so, yes, that would be bad.

Priya Lynn

Winston said “homosexuality per se doesnâ€™t help anyone.”.

Wrong. Just like heterosexuality it draws people together to care and support each other – that helps everyone.

winston

we were talking about homosexuality and mother theresa, two different causes for not having kids.
let’s focus.

“it draws people together to care and support each other.”

of course.
but so does incestuous love.
if a mother has a relationship with her adult daughter, would that be ok?
there are no medical riks of inreeding, but would that be ok?
i believe not, so togherness is not the only factor to be considered.

Priya Lynn

Oh, I’m focused all right Winston, you however are not. Your absurdities don’t merit a response.

(a) No one here has actually identified hirself as an antitheist. I said that this is what antitheists think. I did not say I agreed.*

(b) “Religion is a bad thing” is an over-generalization. “Religion is generally a bad thing” is not. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that all in all, religion does more harm than good in the world.

(c) As Anna said, “Mother Teresa did a lot of problematic things that make holding her up as an unquestionable icon of purity insulting.” And that’s true wherever you stand on the theist/agnostic/atheist/antitheist spectrum (and it’s perfectly possible to fall into more than one of those categories).

TRiG.

* I didn’t say I disagreed either.

winston

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jpr-98-2.htm

“Itâ€™s perfectly reasonable to believe that all in all, religion does more harm than good in the world.”

well, it seems that,all in all, religion does more good than harm in the world.

see what some scientist(Duke University, Vanderbilt University) have to say about that:

I’ll try to read that some time when I’m properly awake, but I suspect that most of the good effects attributed to “religion” actually come from community. Religion is admittedly very good at fostering a sense of community, but there are other sources of it. And religion has a tendency to form exclusive communities, which aren’t always best.

TRiG.

Priya Lynn

You’re correct TRiG, its the socialization that results in the benefits, not the religion itself.

winston

depends on the specific form of socialisation.
gangs aren’t very good at that, for example.

“Religion is admittedly very good at fostering a sense of community, but there are other sources of it.”

maybe, but religion is the most effective source.

c’mon, you all try to bash religion only because it rejects homosexuality.
there is no other reason.

Priya Lynn

Wrong. Many christians are supportive of gays, I don’t like religion comming from them any more than I like it coming from anti-gays. Religion is alos child abuse and that is another major reason why I dislike it. Above all else, its false and I dislike beliefs in untruths on principle alone.

Religiosty is also negatively correlated with societal health. The most dysfunctional societies in the world are the most religious.

winston

religion is child abuse?!
well, you should inform mr kevin jennings.
for religion must be banned from schools!
you know why?
let me tell you a joke:
Q: why does the state punish the thieves?
A: because it hates competition.

religion is a good moral fundament for the raise of a children.

dmitri

I think it is reasonable and useful to point out that universal homosexuality would probably lead to the end of humanity. It doesn’t necessarily suggest that it is bad, but that it is not normal. And further that it contradicts evolutionary theory. While no one believes that homosexuals recruit people into their group, many people are concerned about the increased manifestation of gay in everyday life, creating a more welcoming environment for people to self-identify as gay.

The counter arguments posted here are fairly weak but that’s probably because the overall sentiment here is quite weak.

Priya Lynn

Dmitri said “While no one believes that homosexuals recruit people into their group, many people are concerned about the increased manifestation of gay in everyday life, creating a more welcoming environment for people to self-identify as gay.”.

Dmitri it is destructive for gay people to identify as anything other than gay. The rejecting environment you favour harms gay people and the people duped into marrying them because they’re trying to pretend to be straight to please bigots like you.

Donny D.

dmitri wrote:
“I think it is reasonable and useful to point out that universal homosexuality would probably lead to the end of humanity.”

No, it’s stupid and pointless. There’s no way that there will ever be “universal homosexuality”.

If you are arguing to the contrary, then it’s up to you to explain how “universal homosexuality” could possibly happen. Why don’t you start now?

“It doesnâ€™t necessarily suggest that it is bad, but that it is not normal.”

Then anything that occurs as or less frequently than homosexuality does in human beings is “not normal”. Including anything number of physical features, talents and abilities.

Obviously you are trying to stigmatize homosexuality based on the logical fallacy known as the appeal to popularity. You’re in the wrong again, morally this time.

“And further that it contradicts evolutionary theory.”

Gee, just about every mammalial species manifests homosexuality. So I guess that proves that the theory of evolution is untrue? No, it proves that homosexuality can exist in a species that is evolutionarily successful. A flat, hardcore “either/or” view of sexuality demonstrates the logical fallacy called the false dilemma. And also an anti-diversity attitude. You’re wrong again.

“While no one believes that homosexuals recruit people into their group,”…

Untrue. Advertisements playing on this very fear among straight people in California were crucial in turning the tide toward Proposition 8. You’re wrong again.

…”many people are concerned about the increased manifestation of gay in everyday life, creating a more welcoming environment for people to self-identify as gay.”

Wow, so you want a rejecting environment for gay people, as Priya Lynn says? Sounds hateful to me. Putting you morally in the wrong again.

“The counter arguments posted here are fairly weak”…

So weak that you weren’t able to address any of them. Your characterization of those arguments is therefore false, making you wrong again.

…”but thatâ€™s probably because the overall sentiment here is quite weak.”

No, we clearly feel strongly about this. You’re wrong again.

Dmitri, we’re looking forward to your explanation of how humanity could become completely and exclusively homosexual. :)

Priya Lynn

You’re the man Donny.

winston

“No, itâ€™s stupid and pointless. Thereâ€™s no way that there will ever be â€œuniversal homosexualityâ€. ”

It is not stupid and it is not pointless.
It helps us better understand a simple thing: homosexuality is a condition of the human beeing that forbides procreation.
So, it is wrong.

Yes, a homosexual can have a baby, but only with the help of the opposite sex.
So, intimately, as a phenomenon, homosexuality is a dead end.

So, it doesn’t matter that the world will never be 100% homosexual.
But the hypothesis is usefull to explain why the homosexuality is an anomaly.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

@winston: infertile couples can’t have babies nor can post menapausal women, so by your reasoning they are “wrong” as well. We need to eliminate all infertile and elderly people because they are procreating! Making babies is the only thing that matters! If you aren’t popping out little people, you are worth less to society!

And no, it’s not a useful analogy for all the reasons stated. “If all x were y, life would end, therefore y is bad” is simply not logical, because few things in the world are designed for *all* x to be y. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.

If all cells were brain cells, humans wouldn’t exist, therefore brain cells are bad (in your case I might make an exception)
If all humans were male, humanity would die off, therefore being male is bad.
If all food were bananas people wouldn’t get the right nutrition from their meals and die, thus bananas are bad.

If all people were Winston we’d never procreate and humanity would die off thus being Winston is bad.

Try again, and maybe this time use the brain you were given rather than spouting off whatever your pastor told you.

winston

“@winston: infertile couples canâ€™t have babies nor can post menapausal women, so by your reasoning they are â€œwrongâ€ as well.”

let’s stay focus.
i am not saying homosexual people are bad.
i am saying that homosexuality is bad, a mistakes of nature.
let’s see why:
infertile people suffer from a medical condition.
infertility, as a cause for not having babies, is not a normal variation of the human condition.
nor is homosexuality.
beeing infertile is bad, homosexuality per se is bad as well.
nature makes mistakes.

the human beeing doesn’t have unlimited resources.
post menopausal women are human beeing too.
they ran out of those resources.
that happens to men, to.
but old people are just old people.

“We need to eliminate all infertile and elderly people because they are procreating!”

whos told you that?

“Making babies is the only thing that matters! If you arenâ€™t popping out little people, you are worth less to society!”

i did’nt say that.
but THE CAPACITY of making babies, of procreating, is a capacity of any normal living organism.

“And no, itâ€™s not a useful analogy for all the reasons stated.”

i believe i’ve made myself clear.

“If all food were bananas people wouldnâ€™t get the right nutrition from their meals and die, thus bananas are bad.”

bananas are food.
they are usefull.
they are not sufficient, but they are usefull.

what is the use of homosexuality per se, as a phenomenon, as a state of the human beeing?

let’s put it like this: if the bees would diasapear, the effects would be devastating on agriculture, biodiversity etc.
if the bananas would dissapear, the repercursions would also be negative.
but if the homosexuality would dissaper, the effects would be zero.

“If all people were Winston weâ€™d never procreate and humanity would die off thus being Winston is bad.”

if you want to insult me you’re doing it wrong.

“Try again, and maybe this time use the brain you were given rather than spouting off whatever your pastor told you.”

you’re wrong again.
it is simple logic.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

so your logic is making babies=good, not making babies=bad, anything not involving baby making doesn’t count. Just so I’m clear on this. Do I have it wrong? Baby-making, good; non baby making bad. But old people are just unfortunate because the have run out of baby making resources and people who are infertile are SOL because infertility is bad. What about people who choose not make babies, via vasectomy, tying tubes or just using a condom? Are they wrong or bad?

You have declared homosexuality a “mistake” because it means homosexuals don’t want to make babies (we still have the ability of course, homosexualityinfertility). Please explain to me how a declaration of something being good or bad can be based on whether that thing chooses to reproduce via sexual intercourse or not. You can’t of course, but I’m sure you’ll try.

As for removing homosexuality from nature, well who knows what would happen. It has occurred in nature, across species for millions of years so it must have some evolutionary reason. Did you know that there is a species of insect that uses homosexuality as part of its reproductive process? The male beetles have sex, and some of the beetles sperm gets transferred to the other beetle who then has sex with a female beetle, who can then become impregnated with sperm from 2 different fathers.

If it were actually a harmful trait, it would long ago have been bred out of humanity but here we are, millions of years later, with the same number of gay people now as we had at the beginning of civilization.

You could remove all left-handed people are perhaps not affect things either, but no one proposes we do that because being left handed doesn’t affect anyone else, just as being gay doesn’t affect anyone else. So what is your interest in removing homosexuality from humanity?

And I wasn’t insulting you, just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

that was supposed to read “homosexuality does not equal infertility” guess the board won’t show angle brackets.

Christopher

“what is the use of homosexuality per se, as a phenomenon, as a state of the human beeing?”

Winston, you’re assuming that human sexuality is solely about reproduction when, in fact, it’s much more complicated than that. What is the purpose of heterosexuals having sex that doesn’t lead to conception?

You also claim that infertility and homosexuality are “mistakes” made by nature. Has it occurred to you that those “mistakes” may actually serve at least one purpose, that is, controlling population growth?

Priya Lynn

The world is overpopulating and running out of resources. Gayness is a good thing and the world needs more of it and less of heteros breeding willy nilly to please some imaginary god.

Priya Lynn

No one would deny that building houses is a good thing, yet if everyone on earth exclusively built houses there would be no food production and the human race would die out. By Winston’s logic that means building houses is a bad thing.

Priya Lynn

Gayness is one of the ties that bind. It brings people together and encourages them to care and support for each other and makes them more productive. They provide goods, services, and taxes that benefit all of society. Gayness is good for gays and good for society.

winston

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination#Homosexual_traumatic_insemination

“so your logic is making babies=good, not making babies=bad, anything not involving baby making doesnâ€™t count.”

it’s about the capacity of having babies, of procreating.
every healthy single living organism has the capacity of procreating.

“Just so Iâ€™m clear on this. Do I have it wrong? Baby-making, good; non baby making bad.”

you are still wrong.
i repeat: it’s about the CAPACITY.
homosexuality, per se, rejects the only possible way of procreating: male+female, because there is no erotic atraction between male and female.

so: if you don’t have the capacity of making babies because you are infertile, the cause is wrong, it’s a disease.
if you don’t have the capacity of making babies because you’re homo, the cause is still wrong, you can’t perform a human function – procreation.

“But old people are just unfortunate because the have run out of baby making resources and people who are infertile are SOL because infertility is bad.”

yes, old people are old people.
they once were able to have kids.
human body has it’s limits.
an old thee does’t make fruits, but id did, it had the capacity when it was young.
but if he could’n make fruits when it was still young, well…

“What about people who choose not make babies, via vasectomy, tying tubes or just using a condom? Are they wrong or bad?”

no, it is called family planing or fear of STD.
but they still have the CAPACITY of performing a human function.

“You have declared homosexuality a â€œmistakeâ€ because it means homosexuals donâ€™t want to make babies (we still have the ability of course, homosexualityinfertility).”

again, please, focus.
i did’nt say that.
it’s the second time you missquote me.

i was talking about the homosexuality as a phenomenon, which doesn’t alloow procreation.
two gay lions will never have a cute little fluffy cub.
it’s about the phenomenon, not about the people ar animals who are homosexuals.

“Please explain to me how a declaration of something being good or bad can be based on whether that thing chooses to reproduce via sexual intercourse or not. You canâ€™t of course, but Iâ€™m sure youâ€™ll try.”

yes, i can! :)
those who decide to reproduce via artificial insemination are the human beeing that are homosexuals, not the homosexuality itself.
those people could be wonderfull persons.
and this is only a recent option to reproduce.

“As for removing homosexuality from nature, well who knows what would happen.”

well, who knows?
right now, there is no scientifical explanation for the purpose of homosexuality.
if there is one.

“It has occurred in nature, across species for millions of years so it must have some evolutionary reason.”

disease is also prezent in nature for milions of nature.
does it have some evolutionary reason?
i doubt.
nature makes mistakes.

“Did you know that there is a species of insect that uses homosexuality as part of its reproductive process?”

you are talking about “homosexual traumatic insemination” and you are are wrong.
see bellow.

“The male beetles have sex, and some of the beetles sperm gets transferred to the other beetle who then has sex with a female beetle, who can then become impregnated with sperm from 2 different fathers.”

wrong.
“In Xylocoris maculipennis, a flower bug, after a male traumatically inseminates another male, the injected sperm migrate to the testes. (The seminal fluid and most of the sperm are digested, giving the inseminated male a nutrient-rich meal.) It has been suggested, although there is no evidence, that when the inseminated male ejaculates into a female, the female receives both males’ sperm.”

“If it were actually a harmful trait, it would long ago have been bred out of humanity but here we are, millions of years later, with the same number of gay people now as we had at the beginning of civilization.”

i am not saying homosexuality is harmful.
but am saying it is useless and undesirable.

again: diseses exist for million of years.
people are born without a linb from the begining of mankind.
nature makes mistakes.

“You could remove all left-handed people are perhaps not affect things either, but no one proposes we do that because being left handed doesnâ€™t affect anyone else, just as being gay doesnâ€™t affect anyone else. So what is your interest in removing homosexuality from humanity?”

once again you are out of focus.
where did i say that i want to remove homosexuality from the world?
although it would be a good thing, especialy for the homosexuals themselves.

i was pointing out that if, in theory, homosexuality as a phenomenon would dissapear, the humanity would not be affected.
so, i wasn’t talking about homosexuals or left-handed people, i was talking about the phenomenons themselves, ok?

and a left handed people suffers no harm from it: it can perfectly perform any and ALL tasks the right-handed people can do.
so, being right or left-handed doesn’t afffect you in any way.
it’s a harmless situation.
nor being able to have your own kids, as a phenomenon, is something different.

“And I wasnâ€™t insulting you, just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.”

in an insulting way.
remember?

â€œIf all people were Winston weâ€™d never procreate […]”

Richard Rush

The world is overpopulating and running out of resources. Gayness is a good thing and the world needs more of it and less of heteros breeding willy nilly . . .”

Priya is right.

Maybe, in that mysterious way of His, God is trying to remedy the overpopulation problem by allowing homosexuality to flourish. But those who claim to be His most fervent followers are fighting Him every step of the way while breeding us all into oblivion. Thank God for atheists and others who are doing their best to bring positive change.

winston

“The world is overpopulating and running out of resources. Gayness is a good thing and the world needs more of it and less of heteros breeding willy nilly to please some imaginary god.”

BAD, BAD Elton John! :)
so, homosexuals should not try to reproduce either, because the advantage for the world of beeing gay would dissapear.

“You also claim that infertility and homosexuality are â€œmistakesâ€ made by nature. Has it occurred to you that those â€œmistakesâ€ may actually serve at least one purpose, that is, controlling population growth?”

Desiree has the answer to that.
let’s see:

“but here we are, millions of years later, with the same number of gay people now as we had at the beginning of civilization.”

so, the percentage of homosexual people is believed to be constant.
this contradicts the theory Cristopher sugested, because in the beginning of the civilization, homosexuals should be almost non-existent, and now, homosexuality should be widespread.
it is not.

and, once again: ih homosexuality is ment to be some kind of global family planning, gay people should not have kids by artificial insemination etc .
wright?

Christopher

Winston, how exactly do you define “widespread” when you say that “homosexuality should be widespread.
it is not.”?

As for what I suggested earlier, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never suggested that “in the beginning of the civilization, homosexuals should be almost non-existent”.

In fact I have no idea how prevalent homosexuality was, nor does anyone else, six thousand or, for that matter, thirty-thousand years ago. I’d hazard a guess that, as a function of biology, the percentage of homosexuals has probably remained pretty constant throughout the history of the human population, although, like many things, it has been regarded differently at different times.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

You have on at least two occasions claimed “nature makes mistakes” in regards to the existence of things such as homosexuality, so don’t you dare tell me I am misquoting you when I say you call homosexuality and homosexuals ” a mistake.”

But let’s look at that notion – that nature “makes mistakes.” For this to be true, there would have to be a way things are *supposed* to be of which any deviation was “a mistake.” The problem here is that “mistake” implies a value judgment. It requires one to specify the “right way” for something to be. The thing is, nature doesn’t “make mistakes” because there is no “right way” for nature to be. Nature just is.

So, let’s say then, just for argument’s sake, that the way things are supposed to be is that all individuals in all dual gendered species should procreate and any deviation from this is “a mistake.” If that is the case, there are a hell of a lot of “mistakes” in nature other than homosexuality.

But this is moot since there are no mistakes, there is just the way things are. Homosexuality exists and presumably has a natural reason or function or worst case has no detrimental reason to be selected out.

You mention diseases as evidence of nature allowing “bad things.” However, again, you apply a value judgment. Bacteria and virii are just doing what they do to survive.

Birth defects are generally caused by environmental factors during fetal development. Are you postulating that homosexuality is a birth defect?

I remind you that homosexuals do not lack the capacity to procreate (as you have implied), they simply lack the desire to have penile-vaginal intercourse, which is a completely different concept. One can easily imagine an ignorant (as in lacking knowledge) homosexual engaging in homosexual sex in the hops of impregnating his partner. Conversely, it is not to difficult to imagine someone who wants to procreate but has no desire to have sex.

As for your continued insistence that I insulted you, I assume you have a gender, either male or female. I’ll guess male based on the name Winston. So if everyone were Winston (i.e. if everyone were male), the world would die off. Or am I mistaken and you are actually inter-sexed and capable of impregnating yourself?

winston

ok, desiree, i understand you didn’t want to offend me.
i am sorry.
i just postulated that you don’t like me. :)

there is no point in continuing this, although i might be wrong.
this discusion just does it’s thing, like de bacterias do.:)

winston

one more thing:i do dear to say you misquote me, because you don’t understand.
read that passage again:

Desiree: â€œYou have declared homosexuality a â€œmistakeâ€ because it means homosexuals donâ€™t want to make babies (we still have the ability of course, homosexualityinfertility).â€

Winston: “again, please, focus.
i didâ€™nt say that.
itâ€™s the second time you missquote me.”

the ideea is this: homosexuality is a mistake not because homosexuals DON’T WANT TO HAVE BABIES, as you said (and i never said that).

but because homosexuality as a phenomenon, i.e. the lack of attraction between opposite sexes, makes reproduction impossible.

sure, we can do some medical tricks, but the basic thing remains: you need sperm and ovules.
not sperm and sperm.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

You really need to choose your words more carefully. Reproduction by homosexuals is not “impossible” – gay men still have functioning testes and lesbians still produce eggs capable of being fertilized, so it isn’t “impossible.” It is of course impossible (currently) for a man to impregnate another men but that is another issue. Being gay doesn’t make one’s reproductive organs stop functioning, it just means they aren’t being used towards the goal of procreation. You call this a “mistake.” I call it “variation.”

winston

let’s put it this way.
a functional PC has all the necesary hardware and a minimal software.
if the hardware is ok, but the software is not, the computer does not function properly.

gay people have the necesary harware (ie sexual organs), but they lack the right software to be able to perform on their own a basic function: reproduction, the perpetuation of the genes.

it is posible to emulate the result of the right software by artificial insemination.
but it is only a partial result, because the baby doesn’t has genes from both parents.
of course, both parents can love that baby, but, technicaly, one of them is not a biological parent.

so, homosexuality forbids some individuals from transmiting their genes.

christopher, maybe it is nature’s way of saying that there is something wrong with gay people.

and, desiree, “wright” and “wrong” is defined by the functional model of reference.
in nature, and we are part of it, reproduction is only posible with sperm and ovules.
every living organism has the capability to reproduce.
anything that forbides this capacity (harware or sofware) is a mistake.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

you are still insisting the baby-making=good (right) and not baby making=bad (wrong) and then claim this is because nature says so, as if “nature” has some goal in mind. It doesn’t. Nature has no goal. People have goals. Some people want to reproduce. Others do not. Neither is intrinsically right or wrong and neither is ever going to represent 100% of all people, so the result of a “what if 100% of all people…” hypothetical is meaningless for determining right or wrong.

The facts remain that, in nature, some (small) percentage of dual-gender animals are to some degree homosexual. This has always existed, causes no harm to the reproducing members of the population, and happens by a “freak of nature” if you will. Given this set of circumstances, how did we go from “homosexuality is a natural variation among dual gender animals” to “kill the homos”?

(I am not saying you are of that ilk, just that you sound closer to “their” side than to “our” side)

Priya Lynn

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

It may be, and probably is the case that gayness is a necessary part of the genetic makeup of the human race. There are a variety of theories on how gayness is selected for. There is some evidence that women who have gay sons tend to have more children in general, another theory says that gayness is selected for in men for the same reason men have nipples – women require nipples and an attraction to men and these are transmitted to men as a vestige of female development. All fetuses start out from a female template in the womb and those with xy chromosones are later masculined. Some theorize that this masculinization is incomplete and thus some male babies are born gay and some female fetuses get a bath of testosterone in utero and have a masculinized brain.

I think however, the most plausible explanation for how male gayness is selected for is the following:

The theory is that there are several alleles of a gene that determine a males position along a hyper-masculine/feminine continuum.
Inheritance of several such alleles produces gayness. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates and thus enhance reproductive success.

The typical male without gayness related genes may be too masculine for optimal reproductive success Ones who inherit none of these alleles are hyper-masculine and lacking in the sensitivity, kindness, empathy, and other traits that make them most attractive to females(such males might be very ruthless, selfish, cruel etc.)

As males at either end of the continuum have a negative impact on reproductive success nature tends to try and find an equilibrium. Males that are on either end of the spectrum continue to be selected for as well because variability is also key to reproductive success – humans were evolved to fit various niches and a variety of personality types do this best. Thus there over the millenium there continues to be a vascilation between femininity and hypermasculinity in males as traits are selected for that both balance reproductive success and the need to have a variety of personality types to fit in a variety of niches.

Priya Lynn

Even if one accepts the premise that babymaking is a good thing that does not mean it is a good thing if everyone does it. Natural populations tend to go in boom/bust cycles. Populations breed at unsustainable rates until the numbers exceed the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain them. Then there is a massive die off as food and other resources are drasticly depleated by an unsupportably large population. This is what the human race is going through, breeding at an outof control rate that is beginning to outstrip the capacity of the environment to support us. Unless human breeding is reigned in there will be a massive starvation/dieoff of the human race as the resources we need to sustain us are depleted or completely exhausted. The human race may end up back in the stone age, or die out completely due to the drastic effects overpopulation has on the environment.

All things are best in balance. Human breeding is not in balance and it would be a bad thing for all gays to contribute to the problem by breeding. If anything, we need more gayness to bring the population growth to a sustainable level and prevent the disaster that is looking more and more inevitable every year.

ZRAinSWVA

Winston, not to be tedious, but I’d suggest you do some additional reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/science/sex-change-in-fish-found-common.html and note this statement, “All of the species that change their sex, he said, have evolved from those whose sex was fixed for life. It is therefore a capability that evolved, presumably because it made for greater reproductive success.”

And more from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Rice/Rice.htm “There are many different patterns for sex-change. Some species will begin life as males and switch to females (protandry), and others switch from female to male
(protogyny). Further still, some will change sex in both directions, and others will be both sexes at the same time.”

And more…

Parthenogensis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Ain’t mother nature grand!? And, aren’t your absolutes just a bit tedious and overstated?

DÃ©sirÃ©e

February 11th, 2011

Priya – thanks for the link. I was looking for something like that to show Winston. I knew one of his major flaws was that he was looking at homosexuality in isolation, as if it’s an either/or trait with no effect on any other aspect of personality. Of course, almost nothing about dual-gendered animals is like that – no traits arise or act in isolation to others.

winston

“you are still insisting the baby-making=good (right) and not baby making=bad (wrong) and then claim this is because nature says so, as if â€œnatureâ€ has some goal in mind. It doesnâ€™t. Nature has no goal. People have goals.”

you are wrong.
for the 3rd time: the CAPACITY of baby making, of reproducing, is important here.
not the baby making itself.
homosexuality is a relational model that excludes the capacity to reproduce.
do you understand that?

“The facts remain that, in nature, some (small) percentage of dual-gender animals are to some degree homosexual. This has always existed, causes no harm to the reproducing members of the population, and happens by a â€œfreak of natureâ€ if you will.”

ok, but this doesn’t mean that homosexuality is normal.
nobody said that all individuals of a specie must reproduce.
must they must have the CAPACITY to reproduce.

“It may be, and probably is the case that gayness is a necessary part of the genetic makeup of the human race. There are a variety of theories on how gayness is selected for. There is some evidence that women who have gay sons tend to have more children in general[…]

so, this contradicts the theory that homosexuality is some kind of nature’s global birth control.

and if it happens, maybe the nature tries to compensate the fact that the mother in question had a children that could not reproduce, so, the natures tries to corect itself.
which means the nature knows that it did something wrong with that homosexual children.
we can speculate anything.
but Occam’s theory sais that the simplest theory is often the right one.
“homosexuality is just a mistake of the nature” is a simple and clean theory.

“women require nipples and an attraction to men and these are transmitted to men as a vestige of female development.”

this is verry funny. :)
i will ask my wife is she ever noticed my gorgeous nipples.

“The theory is that there are several alleles of a gene that determine a males position along a hyper-masculine/feminine continuum.[…]”

did you notice that you were talking about MATING AN REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS?

“Winston, not to be tedious, but Iâ€™d suggest you do some additional reading:
[…] and note this statement, â€œAll of the species that change their sex, he said, have evolved from those whose sex was fixed for life. It is therefore a capability that evolved, presumably because it made for greater reproductive success.â€

again: did you notice that you were talking about greater reproductive success? :)
so, it seems nature and evolution have a goal: reproduction.

in AD 2011, we are not fishes and we are not naturally capable of sex changing.
we’ll talk about that when it happens.

and i don’t want to be teadious, i want to have an intelectual debate free of any propaganda stuff.

Richard Rush

Winston, homosexuals generally don’t have the CAPACITY (or inclination) to ACCIDENTALLY reproduce, but we DO have the CAPACITY to reproduce.

So what’s your goal here?

Homosexuals exist in significant numbers throughout the world, and we are not going away anytime soon. You seem to have a problem dealing with that. Why? Do you have some unresolved issues within yourself?

winston

hey, webmaster, did you just ban me?

Throbert McGee

I’ll bet a dollar that Dmitri is secretly a xyecoc.

Donny D.

February 13th, 2011

Winston, I’ve noticed a pattern in your posts here. Almost every one of them contains one or more anti-gay attacks. Here are some examples:

homosexuality, per se, rejects the only possible way of procreating:
male+female, because there is no erotic atraction between male and female.

so: if you donâ€™t have the capacity of making babies because you are
infertile, the cause is wrong, itâ€™s a disease.

What you really mean: Those evil, diseased homosexuals!

i am not saying homosexuality is harmful.
but am saying it is useless and undesirable.

What you really mean: “Homos” are undesirable.

But at another point you say we’re useful. How kind of you. And you seem to be saying that homosexuality in your view isn’t harmful.

and a left handed people suffers no harm from it: it can perfectly perform
any and ALL tasks the right-handed people can do.
so, being right or left-handed doesnâ€™t afffect you in any way.
itâ€™s a harmless situation.
nor being able to have your own kids, as a phenomenon, is something
different.

Except that as far as you’re concerned, homosexuality really is harmful.

so, homosexuality forbids some individuals from transmiting their genes.

christopher, maybe it is natureâ€™s way of saying that there is something
wrong with gay people.

In other words: According to nature, there’s something wrong with gay people. (We just love that coy maybe.)

i am not saying homosexual people are bad.
i am saying that homosexuality is bad, a mistakes of nature.

What you really mean: “Homos” are biological errors, just like Dr. Laura says. And an important and unalienable part of our natures is “bad”.

again: diseses exist for million of years.
people are born without a linb from the begining of mankind.
nature makes mistakes.

What you really mean: Again, gay people are diseased — and we’re freaks of nature. We shouldn’t exist.

we were talking about homosexuality and mother theresa, two different causes
for not having kids.
letâ€™s focus.

“it draws people together to care and support each other.â€

of course.
but so does incestuous love.

You just drew the homosexuality/incest analogy.

homosexuality per se doesnâ€™t help anyone.

What you really mean: Those selfish homosexuals!

and, once again: ih homosexuality is ment to be some kind of global family
planning, gay people should not have kids by artificial insemination etc .
wright?

What you really mean: Gay people shouldn’t have kids.

You just get better and better, winston.

i was pointing out that if, in theory, homosexuality as a phenomenon would
dissapear, the humanity would not be affected.
so, i wasnâ€™t talking about homosexuals or left-handed people, i was talking
about the phenomenons themselves, ok?

What you really mean: The world wouldn’t miss us, as gay people, if we disappeared.

letâ€™s put it like this: if the bees would diasapear, the effects would be
devastating on agriculture, biodiversity etc.
if the bananas would dissapear, the repercursions would also be negative.
but if the homosexuality would dissaper, the effects would be zero.

What you really mean: If gay people were all dead, it wouldn’t matter. Nobody would miss us.

where did i say that i want to remove homosexuality from the world?
although it would be a good thing, especialy for the homosexuals themselves.

You just stated that removal of homosexuality from the world would be a good thing.

And while you didn’t say you want to, I don’t see you denying that you do want to remove homosexuality from the world.

But here’s what you pretend makes it okay for you to say all the things you have about us, including the genocidal wishful thinking:

Since you didn’t say the world wouldn’t miss us “homos” if we disappeared, but that it wouldn’t miss us as “homos”, you (falsely) claim that makes it inoffensive and perfectly fine.

Oh gosh, did I just say that you called us “homos”? Have I been quoting the word “homos” throughout this post when speaking of what you’ve written about us? Yes I have! How unfair of me, since you’ve never called us “homo” or “homos”.

Except that you have:

if you donâ€™t have the capacity of making babies because youâ€™re homo, the
cause is still wrong, you canâ€™t perform a human function â€“ procreation.

The real winston shows himself. To you we are “homos”.

Oh, but I probably really am being unfair to you now because you didn’t use it as a noun, you used it as an adjective, and since, according to you, your conversational splitting off of the attribute from the people it’s irremovably part of makes it impersonal, it isn’t insulting and is completely okay.

I guess, winston, since you write in a calm-seeming manner and make a big deal about how you aren’t saying anything about (against) gay people but are only writing about (against) our homosexuality, we should play by your rules, just absorb all the anti-gay attacks your posts are loaded with and proceed as if we were having a detached intellectual discussion with someone who doesn’t view us with contempt.

But I’m not gonna play it your way, because the things you write are hateful. They are standard memes of the anti-gay movement. Your drivelish, error-ridden “scientific” assertions are a vehicle to convey the hateful things that are the real payload of your posts.

As The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense says, always respond to the actual attack, and never respond to the phony cover verbiage. That’s how I’ve played it.

It’s your move, winston.

Argo

February 13th, 2011

nobody said that all individuals of a specie must reproduce.
must they must have the CAPACITY to reproduce.

I reject your premise, winston. Worker ants and worker bees are sterile, as are certain naked mole rats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusocial

homosexuality is a condition of the human beeing that forbides procreation.
So, it is wrong.

if you donâ€™t have the capacity of making babies because youâ€™re homo, the cause is still wrong, you canâ€™t perform a human function â€“ procreation.

homosexuality is a relational model that excludes the capacity to reproduce.
do you understand that?

I reject this as well. Being in a homosexual relationship does not negate one’s capacity to reproduce. Bob & Ted and Carol & Alice can each and every one pass down their genetic material with two children.

ok, but this doesnâ€™t mean that homosexuality is normal.

right now, there is no scientifical explanation for the purpose of homosexuality.
if there is one.

Homosexuality may not be average but it is normal and can be socially beneficial.
http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

homosexuality is not a choice, like mother theresaâ€™s decision to devote her life to the poor.
her decision helped the world be a better place.
homosexuality per se doesnâ€™t help anyone.

Yes, yes it does.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/natural-history-the-modern-mind/200906/the-johnny-depp-effect-evolutionary-explanation-homosexu

so, homosexuality forbids some individuals from transmiting their genes

Inclusive fitness and kin selection show Nature doesn’t care who transmits the genes.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/2/292.abstract
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/176/3/1375

but if the homosexuality would dissaper, the effects would be zero.

i am not saying homosexuality is harmful.
but am saying it is useless and undesirable.

This is a value judgment I also reject.
Though art, music, and poetry have no direct connection to perpetuation of the species are they then irrelevant to human existence or even useless? Were they eliminated, humanity could indeed continue to exist (whether or not it should).

If homosexuality is not harmful, why then do you say it’s undesirable?

winston

February 14th, 2011

well, i can not continue the discussion, as the web master or the administrator of this site is censoring some of my posts.

i did’t want to offend you with the word “homo”.
english is nor my native language and i really didn’t know that this abreviation is offensive.
i am sorry.
but i believe that the lack of homosexuality as a phenomenon is desirable.

about the bees who do not reproduce: their sexual organs are not fully developed, they don’t have sex.
homosexual people do have functional sexual organs, but they use it in a way that forbids reproduction.

i hope the admin will allow this post.

Throbert McGee

February 14th, 2011

i didâ€™t want to offend you with the word â€œhomoâ€.
english is nor my native language and i really didnâ€™t know that this abreviation is offensive.
i am sorry.
but i believe that the lack of homosexuality as a phenomenon is desirable.

Winston: It’s generally okay to use the short form “homo” if you are also using “hetero” in the same sentence:

“Both homos and heteros need to be aware of the risk of AIDS, and practice safe sex.”

(Of course, this sounds rather casual and colloquial, and in more formal contexts one should say “homosexual” and “heterosexual.”)

However, if you aren’t using the term “hetero”, it’s better not to use “homo” by itself, because — as you’ve noticed — some people will take offense. (Personally, I don’t mind “homo” — in fact, I like it better than “gay”, and I call myself a “homo” all the time. But I’m speaking only for myself!)

Regarding your statement “if homosexuality would disappear, the effects would be zero” — to me, this sounds as naive as opening an expensive Swiss watch and saying, “Well, I personally don’t understand what the purpose of this tiny little gear is, so we can probably just remove it without any effect!”

It’s quite possible that the tiny gear plays a minor but helpful role in the overall functioning of the watch — and if you removed the gear, the watch would still work, but not as well.

Priya Lynn

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

Winston said “but i believe that the lack of homosexuality as a phenomenon is desirable.”.

You’re repetition of a falsehood won’t make it true. I demonstrated to you how its likely that gayness is a necessary part of human genetic makeup:

Richard Rush

Winston said â€œbut i believe that the lack of homosexuality as a phenomenon is desirable.â€.

How would it improve the quality of your life, or anyone else’s life? Are you struggling with some deep personal internal issues?

Christopher

Winston says, “homosexual people do have functional sexual organs, but they use it in a way that forbids reproduction.”

Winston, you’re still assuming, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that reproduction is the only desirable outcome of all sexual activity.

Furthermore, without going into great detail I think I can state pretty confidently that a lot of heterosexuals engage in sexual activities that, to use your term, forbid reproduction.

nikko

Homosexuality is useful and desirable: pleasure and bonding between the same sex. Wonderful!

Timothy Kincaid

Throbert

Regarding your statement â€œif homosexuality would disappear, the effects would be zeroâ€ â€” to me, this sounds as naive as opening an expensive Swiss watch and saying, â€œWell, I personally donâ€™t understand what the purpose of this tiny little gear is, so we can probably just remove it without any effect!â€

Itâ€™s quite possible that the tiny gear plays a minor but helpful role in the overall functioning of the watch â€” and if you removed the gear, the watch would still work, but not as well.

This is all rather hypothetical. However, we can look back in history and – while we can’t conjecturize TOO much about removing homosexuality, we could imagine what today would be like if history contained only heterosexuals.

Would there be any effect if there had been no Michelangelo? Or Da Vinci with his study of the human body and various mechanisms? Or perhaps without Isaac Newton or Nicola Tesla? Would we even be typing on a computer without Alan Turing? Did Tom Dooley impact the world? Or Alexander the Great? Or Luco Pacioli? Or Socrates?

Some of these were unquestionably homosexual, others are a bit more speculative, but none were standard issue heterosexual.

In fact, it is impossible to look at the accomplishments of those who went before us – in almost every field – and not find homosexuality. Non-traditional sexuality is disproportionately present in ‘the greats’ and the “fathers of” the fields of science.

Considering the historical evidence, it might be a better analogy to say that instead of removing a gear, Winston wants to take hammer to the watch’s parts.

winston

â€œItâ€™s quite possible that the tiny gear plays a minor but helpful role in the overall functioning of the watch â€” and if you removed the gear, the watch would still work, but not as well.â€

There is no scientific explanation for the homosexuality.
There are only hypothesises.
So, why canâ€™t we assume that homosexuality might be an error, as well?
It makes more sense (to me).
Something that, by itâ€™s nature, prohibites reproduction, can not be normal.

â€œYouâ€™re repetition of a falsehood wonâ€™t make it true. I demonstrated to you how its likely that gayness is a necessary part of human genetic makeup.â€

Yes, you demonstrated how itâ€™s likely.
But this is no scientific evidence and loks more like wishfull thinking.
Furthermore, you say that feminine characteristics (?) â€“ such as sensitivity, kindness â€“ make the males more attractive to females.
Males and females, again.
And those individuals that take too muck of the female alleles, become homosexuals.
This might be and explanation for the phenomenon, but it doesnâ€™t make it right.
Taking those feminine genes might be ok, but too much of them itâ€™s not right, because it makes all the process useless: no more attraction between male and female.

â€œHow would it improve the quality of your life, or anyone elseâ€™s life? Are you struggling with some deep personal internal issues?â€

It would improve the life of homosexual themselves.
Beeing able to have babies with the person you love, escapeing a medical danger zone, for ewho questions homosexuality is a closeted homosexual.
And even if I am one, that doesn\t chanhe the questions.

â€œWinston, youâ€™re still assuming, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that reproduction is the only desirable outcome of all sexual activity.
Furthermore, without going into great detail I think I can state pretty confidently that a lot of heterosexuals engage in sexual activities that, to use your term, forbid reproduction.â€
Letâ€™s put it this way: any living organism should have the CAPABILITY to reproduce.
Nothing should be in his/hers way.
That is having the right hardware and software to reproduce.
The reproduction of the more evaluated species involves some kind of sexual activity, that involves sexual organs.
Bees do not have fully developed sexual organs, so they are not ment to reproduce.

So, if Joe and Mary have oral sex, that doesnâ€™t forbid them, by their nature, to have normal sex latter on.
Which is the only possible way to reproduce.
But Joe and Joe are limited, by their fair naure, the homosexuality, to any sexual activity that excludes penis+vagina.

â€œWould there be any effect if there had been no Michelangelo?â€

A heterosexual Michelangelo would be less capable?
No, I donâ€™t want to grab the hammer.
But I donâ€™t want to admit that 2+2=5.

Christopher

Winston, it’s a little hard to follow your logic, but, in the example of your hypothetical Joe and Joe, both are potentially capable of producing children, even if not with each other.

What if they don’t want children, though? Are you suggesting that anyone who’s capable of reproducing should do so?

winston

“Winston, itâ€™s a little hard to follow your logic, but, in the example of your hypothetical Joe and Joe, both are potentially capable of producing children, even if not with each other.”

yes, they are, but “even if not with each other.” is the key.
they are capable only with the help of a female.
so, joe plus joe, which is the essence of homosexuality, means no children.

“What if they donâ€™t want children, though? Are you suggesting that anyone whoâ€™s capable of reproducing should do so?”

no.
but anyone who does not have the capability has “a problem”.
infertility etc etc.

Christopher

Winston, I still don’t see your point. Someone who is infertile may have a “problem”, but that’s ascribing a value judgment to a natural occurrence.

Does infertility, though, just to take that as an example, make someone less of a person? Is it a reason to deny them the right to marry someone they love?

Timothy Kincaid

â€œWould there be any effect if there had been no Michelangelo?â€

A heterosexual Michelangelo would be less capable?

That’s a good question. And we cannot know for certain that a heterosexual Michelangelo would have been less capable.

But when we see a pattern, a wise person ponders and considers. Why, we ask, is it that so very very many of those who have contributed to the advancement of the human race were not heterosexual?

The ignorant who desperately wish to hold to prejudices and hatreds may cover their eyes and plug their ears and declare that, NO NO NO, it cannot be that homosexuality may actually be of advantage to the human race.

But I wonder, instead…. could it have been that Michelangelo’s sexuality put him a bit outside of social propriety? Could that difference have led him to think independently? Could not have Nature or Nature’s God have planned just such a peculiarity, a small percentage of people who are different than the others because it takes difference to advance?

How you handle such a question, winston, makes little difference to me. But it should tell you a great deal about yourself.

winston

“Winston, I still donâ€™t see your point. Someone who is infertile may have a â€œproblemâ€, but thatâ€™s ascribing a value judgment to a natural occurrence.”

no, it is not.
a fractured limb has “a problem”, too.
it is an objective observation.

“Does infertility, though, just to take that as an example, make someone less of a person?”

No, it does not.
But that person has a condition that is not “a different form of normality”, if you see what i mean.

“Is it a reason to deny them the right to marry someone they love?”

This is another story.
Infertility is an accident in a person who complies to the normal matrix, male+female.
It has no other less desirable effects.

“Thatâ€™s a good question. And we cannot know for certain that a heterosexual Michelangelo would have been less capable.”

that means we should presume that homosexuality has something to do with the intelect.
it doesn’t.

“But when we see a pattern, a wise person ponders and considers. Why, we ask, is it that so very very many of those who have contributed to the advancement of the human race were not heterosexual?”

as i said, you are wrong with your sample.
there are so many more briliant people who are straight.

and, speaking of patterns, there are patterns that are not in your advantage.

Christopher

Winston–or are you “stjean”?–you say that, “Infertility is an accident in a person who complies to the normal matrix, male+female. It has no other less desirable effects.”

What, exactly, are the “less desirable effects” of homosexuality?

It seems pretty clear here that you’re trying to build a case against homosexuality based on your beliefs rather than facts. Just because homosexuality doesn’t fit your personal definition of “normal” that doesn’t make it undesirable.

winston

“Winstonâ€“or are you â€œstjeanâ€?”

i don’t know what you mean

“â€“you say that, â€œInfertility is an accident in a person who complies to the normal matrix, male+female. It has no other less desirable effects.â€

What, exactly, are the â€œless desirable effectsâ€ of homosexuality?”

oh.
in the year 2010, homosexuality has this medical situation:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
i may need to reformulate: given that, it is not desirable to homosexual.

“It seems pretty clear here that youâ€™re trying to build a case against homosexuality based on your beliefs rather than facts.”

i am trying to build a case about propaganda.
what are those beliefs?

“Just because homosexuality doesnâ€™t fit your personal definition of â€œnormalâ€ that doesnâ€™t make it undesirable.”

it is not my personal definition.
a condition of the human beeing that per se prohibits reproduction it is not normal.
it is not MY definition.
infertility is not considered normal by doctors.
it is a “hardware problem”.
homosexuality is a “software problem”.

Christopher

Winston–or are you “perfected love”? Your belief, if I understand correctly, is that homosexuality is undesirable, that it’s negative, but your basis for this is that it’s unusual and that it doesn’t lead to reproduction.

If you’re going to cite CDC studies consider this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/slides/msm14.pdf
The rate of new HIV cases among men who have sex with other men fell significantly in the early 1990’s and has not shown any real rise since.

When you say infertility “is a ‘hardware problem'” while “homosexuality is a ‘software problem'” you’re making a meaningless distinction. Both, according to you, have the same result. What’s the difference?

winston

“Winstonâ€“or are you â€œperfected loveâ€? Your belief, if I understand correctly, is that homosexuality is undesirable, that itâ€™s negative, but your basis for this is that itâ€™s unusual and that it doesnâ€™t lead to reproduction.”

it is not my belief, it is an objective fact.
beeing unusual is not something necesarily bad.
green eyes are unsual.
but they don’t affect the sight.
the eyes perform their function and you can see.
but homosexuality, another form of unusual, prohibits you from having your own children, your flesh and blood, with the person you love.
i believe that is not desirable.

“If youâ€™re going to cite CDC studies consider this one:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/slides/msm14.pdf
The rate of new HIV cases among men who have sex with other men fell significantly in the early 1990â€²s and has not shown any real rise since.”

still, MSM in USA are 50 times more subjected to AIDS than heterosexual men.
the estimate indicate almost 20% have AIDS.

and note this, too:
“Global HIV rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) are soaring, according to a Johns Hopkins/World Bank study of HIV epidemics among MSM worldwide in 2010”.
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/global_ms…506_18772.shtml

“When you say infertility â€œis a â€˜hardware problemâ€™â€ while â€œhomosexuality is a â€˜software problemâ€™â€ youâ€™re making a meaningless distinction. Both, according to you, have the same result. Whatâ€™s the difference?”

i was trying to point that homosexuality is a software problem, ie it is a problem.

Richard Rush

Winston, suppose that everyone on earth (including me) suddenly capitulated to your views. Then what? What exactly do you want to see? I would still be gay, but I would also probably become closeted again, self-loathing, alienated from family/friends, and surely a less productive member of society. What would be the social benefits? How would it benefit Winston’s life?

winston

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/pedophilia.htm

to partially answer this, you should see the things from my perspective.
i don’t want to offend you, but would you allow incestuous marriage when there are no medical risks (like inbreeding)?
or would you be tolerant with pedophilia, if Richard Green is right?

Christopher

Winston–also known as “perfected love”– aside from the fact that you’ve misread the statistics, you’re going in circles. Consider this:

“homosexuality, another form of unusual, prohibits you from having your own children, your flesh and blood, with the person you love.
i believe that is not desirable.”

If two people love each other, even if they’re the same gender, they can have children through adoption, a surrogate, or artificial insemination. Or they can choose not to have children at all.

You may not like it, but if two people love each other what business is it of yours whether they’re the same gender or not?

DÃ©sirÃ©e

Christopher: Winston is approaching this from some sort of biological/natural law angle (not that he is educated about either). That adoption is possible is irrelevant to his argument since he (erroneously) claims that
the main goal for any individual organism is to procreate and any variation from that is bad.

This of course ignores the fact that the main goal of any individual organism isn’t to procreate but to survive. it is the goal of a species to procreate, but not necesserily every individual member of that species. He also continues to see homosexuality in isolation, have no relation to any other trait a human has – it’s a single gene/hormone/psychological screw up that is either on or off and doesn’t affect any other aspect of the person. If he actually knew anything about evolution or genetics, he’d realize that traits as complex as sexual orientation aren’t simple binary switches with 2 settings unrelated to any other trait but are in fact linked in with several other characteristics, all of which play a specific role in an organism’s survival.

Homosexuality doesn’t help or hinder an organisms survival so there is no reason for it to be selected out or to consider it a problem or something to be eliminated. Eliminating it also ignores the possibility that it is in fact required (or an inevitable result of other required traits) that dual gender species need to survive.

Bottom line: Winston is attempting to avoid a religious argument and rely solely on his limited understanding of “nature” to declare homosexuality “bad.” Arguments about individual rights or adoption don’t have any affect here.

Timothy Kincaid

Winston,

oh.
in the year 2010, homosexuality has this medical situation:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
i may need to reformulate: given that, it is not desirable to homosexual.

As we are discussing “everyone in the world”, it may be worth noting that the majority of people in the world with HIV are black female heterosexuals.

the estimate indicate almost 20% have AIDS.

No. Actually about 12% of gay men (and virtually zero gay women) in the US are infected with HIV. Most are on retroviral regimens that leave them virtually symptomless.

Christopher,

I have no reason to believe that winston is anyone other than winston.

Christopher

DÃ©sirÃ©e, thank you for cutting through the rigmarole with a clear, succinct argument.

Timothy, I apologize for thinking winston was also “stjean”. However some of his arguments and spelling are almost exactly the same as those used by someone with the name “perfected love” from the blog Good As You.

winston

“Winstonâ€“also known as â€œperfected loveâ€â€“ aside from the fact that youâ€™ve misread the statistics, youâ€™re going in circles. Consider this:

<>”

If two people love each other, even if theyâ€™re the same gender, they can have children through adoption, a surrogate, or artificial insemination. Or they can choose not to have children at all.”

1. how did i misread the statistics?
2. you misread my statement.:)

i said that homosexuality prohibits you from having YOUR OWN children, YOUR FLESH AND BLOOD WITH THE PERSON YOU LOVE.
homosexuals do not love the opposite sex, so they can not have children with the persons they love.
this is the natural way, this is the first choice.
of course they cand go with a surrogate mother (notice: male+female).
but one of the homosexual parents is left aside.
both of them, when adoption is the case.

“You may not like it, but if two people love each other what business is it of yours whether theyâ€™re the same gender or not?”

you may not like it, but if two people love each other what business is it of yours whether theyâ€™re mother and daughter or not?

winston

“This of course ignores the fact that the main goal of any individual organism isnâ€™t to procreate but to survive. it is the goal of a species to procreate, but not necesserily every individual member of that species.”

if a member of a species has fully developed functional organs, and that specie reproduces via sexual contact, that individual must have the CAPACITY to procreate.

the perfect example is the bees.
not every bea can reproduce.
only the queeen, the rest of them are workers.
but the workers do not have functional sexual organs.
the queen bee does have.
homosexuals have fully developed sexual organs.
they engage in homosexual sex, but there are no ovules in the rectum, so procreation is not posible.

homosexuals can reproduce only when they simulate heterosexual sexual behaviour (artificial insemination is a variation of that, in essence).
and adoption doesn’t mean that you have the capability to reproduce.

so, desiree, you know genetics and stuff.

winston

“As we are discussing â€œeveryone in the worldâ€, it may be worth noting that the majority of people in the world with HIV are black female heterosexuals.”

no, we were not discusing everyone in the word.
we were discusing about homosexuals.

and still a tiny PERCENT of black heterosexual women have AIDS/HIV.

“No. Actually about 12% of gay men (and virtually zero gay women) in the US are infected with HIV. Most are on retroviral regimens that leave them virtually symptomless.”

12% is still not good at all.
and, globally, the number of infection in MSM is soaring.
i don’t know where did you get that data from.
i got mine from CDC and WHO.

“Christopher,

I have no reason to believe that winston is anyone other than winston.”

you are right!

Timothy Kincaid

winston,

According to this CDC report:

A lower HIV prevalence (11.8%) has been reported among MSM in the general U.S. population.

I wasn’t able to find your story about “souring rates”. The link you provided led, instead, to the following stories:

Berlin Patient Follow-Up ‘Strongly Suggests’ HIV Cure
Life Expectancy With HIV Increases Dramatically
Activist Group Claims HIV Cure Is Closer Than Many Think
Revise Social Security HIV Disability Requirements Says Institute of Medicine
New HIV Eradication Study in Progress
Race Against Time: Activists Call for More Research on Aging and HIV
Normal Life Expectancy With Maintenance of CD4s Above 500

Priya Lynn

Winston said “i said that homosexuality prohibits you from having YOUR OWN children, YOUR FLESH AND BLOOD WITH THE PERSON YOU LOVE.”.

Irrelevant. With global overpopulation becoming an ever greater concern its destructive for everyone to want to have their own children.

Christopher

Winston, you say that “homosexuals can reproduce only when they simulate heterosexual sexual behaviour (artificial insemination is a variation of that, in essence).”

Again, I assume you realize that some heterosexual couples rely on artificial insemination, or a surrogate, or adoption, because they can’t have children in what you describe as “the natural way”.

Your only explanation for why same-sex couples are inferior is that they don’t comply with what you call the “normal matrix”, but you’ve never been able to explain why your definition of what’s normal makes some couples inherently inferior to others.

I’ll ask again: why is it any of your business? If two people love each other how does it affect you if they happen to be of the same gender?

DÃ©sirÃ©e

Winston: here’s some genetics for you.

Let’s say that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of 3 genes (this is probably much less than reality, but it will serve for an example). Now, let’s say in our theoretical example that all 3 have 2 states, on or off. If a person has all 3 off, they are heterosexual but infertile, so it’s in a species best interest that people have at least one of these on. People with one gene “on” are heterosexual and make for average parents, not lacking anything but not having any special skills either. People with 2 genes “on” are heterosexual and exhibit stronger parental skills, perhaps being more empathetic with their children. People with all 3 “on” are homosexual.

Now, please explain to me how you “eliminate” homosexuality without affecting any other trait.

Until you stop looking at homosexuality in isolation you will simply be wrong. You can say homosexuality is “bad” all you want, but the facts disagree with you.

And stjean and winston are clearly different people. Stjean is actively evil, winston is just ignorant.

Argo

February 19th, 2011

â€œThis of course ignores the fact that the main goal of any individual organism isnâ€™t to procreate but to survive. it is the goal of a species to procreate, but not necesserily every individual member of that species.â€

if a member of a species has fully developed functional organs, and that specie reproduces via sexual contact, that individual must have the CAPACITY to procreate.

Why? Who says? On what authority are you basing this fundamental assumption of yours?

winston

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/global_msm_hiv_rates_2506_18772.shtml

“I wasnâ€™t able to find your story about â€œsouring ratesâ€. The link you provided led, instead, to the following stories:”

i don’t know what happened with that link.
see the one below:

Global HIV rates among men who have sex with men (MSM) are soaring, according to a Johns Hopkins/World Bank study of HIV epidemics among MSM worldwide in 2010. According to a statement from the Global Forum on MSM & HIV (MSMGF), HIV prevalence rates among MSM were as high as 21.4 percent in Malawi, 13.8 percent in Peru and 23 percent in Thailand. The study also showed that increasing HIV care among MSM would lead to overall declines in HIV epidemics among general populations.

winston

“Irrelevant. With global overpopulation becoming an ever greater concern its destructive for everyone to want to have their own children.”

yes, there are too many cars out there.
but a car which doesn’t run properly is still a defective car.

some economists might think exaclty the opposite.
the population is getting older in the developed countries, and the pension fund is getting weaker and weaker.

winston

“Again, I assume you realize that some heterosexual couples rely on artificial insemination, or a surrogate, or adoption, because they canâ€™t have children in what you describe as â€œthe natural wayâ€. ”

yes, this is true.
but this is the effect of e medical condition.
not of a different sort of normality.

“Your only explanation for why same-sex couples are inferior is that they donâ€™t comply with what you call the â€œnormal matrixâ€, but youâ€™ve never been able to explain why your definition of whatâ€™s normal makes some couples inherently inferior to others.”

it doesn’t make them inferior.
but it doesn’t make them differently normal.
it is an intelectual consideration.
the one who is homosexual is not differently normal.
because homosexuality is not normal.
infertility is not normal.
something that, per se, forbids reproduction can not be normal.

“Iâ€™ll ask again: why is it any of your business? If two people love each other how does it affect you if they happen to be of the same gender?”

Iâ€™ll ask again: why is it any of your business? If two people love each other how does it affect you if they happen to be mother and daughter?

winston

“Winston: hereâ€™s some genetics for you.

Letâ€™s say etc etc[…]”

Disiree, let’s say you show me a scientific consensus on that.

Like “the general consensus among scientist is that Earth is shapped roughly like a ball, and it is not flat.

Otherwise, i can provide you with all sorts of stories.
mkay?

winston

“Why? Who says? On what authority are you basing this fundamental assumption of yours?”

if your species is designed with fully developed eyes, and you have fully developed eyes, than you should be able to see correctly.
if your brain can not understand what your eyes see, than it is a software problem.

if your species reproduce via sexual contact, and you have fully developed sexual organs, than you should be able to reproduce.
if you can not function like this, you have a software problem.

winston

let me ask you all this.
you say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too.
is it correct?

Rob Tisinai

No, Winston, that is not correct. In fact, that’s one of the most insidious distortions spread by anti-gays.

Here’s how that conversation usually goes:

Anti-gay says, “Homosexuality is unnatural!”

I say, “But homosexuality occurs in nature, throughout the animal kingdom.”

Anti-gay says, “Oh, so it’s okay because it happens in the animal kingdom?”

I say, “No, it’s NATURAL because it happens in the animal kingdom.”

Anti-gay says, “Animals do lots of bad things! Just because it happens in nature doesn’t mean it’s okay!”

I say, “I’m not saying this means it’s okay, I’m saying it means it’s natural. And I said that only because you claimed it’s not natural. Frankly, I don’t base my morality on what animals do. But if you’re making the claim that it’s ‘unnatural’ then you’re simply wrong.”

Is that where you were going, Winston? Hopefully this will avoid a pointless detour in the conversation.

winston

“No, Winston, that is not correct. In fact, thatâ€™s one of the most insidious distortions spread by anti-gays.”

robert, you are right, homosexuality is not made in china.
but gay propaganda often takes advantage of the confussion sometimes people make when talking about natural/normal.

let me show you this:

“As for removing homosexuality from nature, well who knows what would happen. It has occurred in nature, across species for millions of years so it must have some evolutionary reason.”
by Desiree.

so, the existence of homosexuality in the animal world is sometimes presented as a proof of its normality.
false.
diseases also exist for milion of years, too.

so, i don’t believe the detour is pointless.

“Frankly, I donâ€™t base my morality on what animals do.”

ok.
but why should somebody consider homosexuality in animals as having some “good” explanation, and why should we not allow the same benefit to other things animals do.
like inter species sex.
it is speculated that this phenomenon may have some evolutionary advantages (google).
so, in nature, it is not a bad thing.
and why should we reject inter species sex if a humas makes sweet love to a cute monkey?
or if a man is only sexually atracted to a monkey, but never asks het/him out?
(this is to eliminate the consent problem.)

winston

robert, and how we separate the “good things” and the “bad things” animal do?
like homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia.

and how do we separate those things at the humas race?

Rob Tisinai

Winston, you’re completely missing the point. You asked, “you say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too. is it correct?”

The answer is no. I’ve never heard someone say homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world.

So, if it helps, let’s back up and do this again —

@Winston: “you say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too. is it correct?”

Rob: No, that is not correct.

Rob Tisinai

By the way, Winston, if you plan to stop talking about “good” and instead talk about “normal” and “natural,” then first you’ll have to offer acceptable definitions of those terms.

You should probably read this first:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/loaded-words

winston

“Winston, youâ€™re completely missing the point. You asked, â€œyou say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too. is it correct?â€

The answer is no. Iâ€™ve never heard someone say homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world.”

really?

“So, if it helps, letâ€™s back up and do this again â€“

@Winston: â€œyou say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too. is it correct?â€

Rob: No, that is not correct.”

ok, let’s go back an do this again, too:

Desiree: â€œAs for removing homosexuality from nature, well who knows what would happen. It has occurred in nature, across species for millions of years so it must have some evolutionary reason.â€
by Desiree.

is it resonable to say that Desiree considers homosexuality to be ok, as it is widespred in nature, and must have some evolutionary reason, thus beeing useful?

winston

“By the way, Winston, if you plan to stop talking about â€œgoodâ€ and instead talk about â€œnormalâ€ and â€œnatural,â€ then first youâ€™ll have to offer acceptable definitions of those terms.

You should probably read this first:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/loaded-words”

did you prefer to hear “yes, you are abnormal!” ?
it is not necesarily hipocrisy, it makes the discussion less unpleasant for everybody.
it is polite.
lack of honesty would be to think that homosexuality is abnormal, and, in a discussion about homosexuality, to say it is not.

“@Winston: â€œyou say that homosexuality is ok because it happens in the animal world, too. is it correct?â€

Rob: No, that is not correct.”

let’s go the other way.
is homosexuality in the animal world ok?

Rob Tisinai

@winston, I can’t read Desiree’s mind, so I don’t know what she meant. However, in the quote you gave, she merely states her belief that homosexuality must have some evolutionary reason, not that it’s morally good or morally bad.

As for this: “is homosexuality in the animal world ok?”

I don’t understand the question. I don’t know that people evaluate animals’ actions on a moral basis.

So I guess I’m asking, what do you mean by “ok”? As far as I’m concerned, homosexuality in the animal world isn’t “ok” or “not ok.” It just is.

winston

“winston, I canâ€™t read Desireeâ€™s mind, so I donâ€™t know what she meant. However, in the quote you gave, she merely states her belief that homosexuality must have some evolutionary reason, not that itâ€™s morally good or morally bad.”

i was not talking about “morally good”.
i was talking about the more general term “ok”.
and her words, that you can read, placed homosexuality in the “ok” area.
so, homosexuality, as it exists in so many animal species, must be ok.
“must have some evolutionary reason” can de described as “must be ok”.
the opposite would have been “must be an error”.

“As for this: â€œis homosexuality in the animal world ok?â€

I donâ€™t understand the question. I donâ€™t know that people evaluate animalsâ€™ actions on a moral basis.”

So I guess Iâ€™m asking, what do you mean by â€œokâ€? As far as Iâ€™m concerned, homosexuality in the animal world isnâ€™t â€œokâ€ or â€œnot ok.â€ It just is.”

once again, i was not talking about morality in animals.

well, pedophilia also exists in animal world.
it just exist.
does it have an evolutionary reason, maybe?
and could we change our view on pedophilia based on this assumption?

Rob Tisinai

Please define “ok.”

DÃ©sirÃ©e

Wait. Are we talking about morals here or nature? Morals are a human invention and have nothing to do with what is “natural.” “Normal” is merely a statistical term. Being left-handed is “abnormal” but “normal” and “abnormal” carry no moral weight. Being abnormal isn’t good or bad, it is just statistically less likely.

So, we’re back to you condemming homosexuality because you believe it is the job of all dual-sexed animals to procreate and any individual that doesn’t is “bad.” Bad for the species presumably, not bad for the individual, since the ability to procreate has no bearing on an individual’s survival.

And yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge that not every individual *must* procreate or even want to and that this quite probably has an evolutionary reason. Non-procreating members of a species can take care of orphaned members of said species more easily, for instance.

Frankly, you are becoming a bore to debate with. You continue to look at homosexuality as a trait in isolation. You don’t like, you declare it “bad” and refuse any evidence or arguments to the contrary simply repeating over and over “it’s not normal” as if that were meaningful. It’s not. Being left handed isn’t normal either.

I’m sure you’ll come up with some weasel words explanation for why some things that aren’t normal are good and some are bad, but it really doesn’t matter. You’re talking in circles and anyone passing by has already gotten the gist of the argument so there is no longer any benefit in pointing out your ignorance and lack of concrete terms.

Christopher

Winston, you say that infertility in heterosexual couples is “the effect of e medical condition. not of a different sort of normality”.

Something may be unusual but that doesn’t make it “abnormal”. You’ve admitted that yourself.

You seem to have a very arbitrary system for deciding what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be allowed.

Timothy Kincaid

winston,

thanks for the new link, but it was of not much more value. It contained the blip you quoted but the link to its source was broken.

I don’t value sourceless information as it tends to be sensationalized and provides more flash than substance. If you ever find the basis for your “soaring rates” please feel free to post it.

Timothy Kincaid

winston,

This all boils down to an argument over “good” and “bad”. Your problem is that you, having defined homosexuality as “bad” in your head (or perhaps to comply with your religion or culture or worldview), are now searching for not-in-your-head reasons to convince us of your belief. Those of us who have looked carefully have found that not-in-your-head reasons are not readily found nor convincing when presented.

So I’ll just cut through the BS and say this: I don’t care about your opinion. It means nothing at all to me. You can think homosexuality is bad, if you like.

Now it’s debilitating to you to engage in baseless beliefs, of course, because it limits your experiences, friendships, relationships, and personal growth. Bigotry does that. But you certainly may wallow in it if you wish.

I’ve already demonstrated that homosexuality likely has a positive overall effect on society (remember our discussion on Da Vinci et. al.?). But you quickly dropped that because it raises conflict with your predetermined position. So I’m seeing no real interest in objectivity or intellectual growth on your part.

Now I’ll just wish you happiness and hope that your personal prejudices don’t harm your life too much going forward.

winston

“Please define â€œok.â€”

in our case, “ok” means something that has a purpose, an explanation, and it is not an error.
desiree said that homosexuality, as it exists in the animal world, must have some purpose, ie must be ok.
so, the existence of homosexuality in animals is perceived as a proof that it is ok.
because this is what we were talking about.

winston

“Wait. Are we talking about morals here or nature?”

nature

“Morals are a human invention and have nothing to do with what is â€œnatural.â€ â€œNormalâ€ is merely a statistical term. Being left-handed is â€œabnormalâ€ but â€œnormalâ€ and â€œabnormalâ€ carry no moral weight. Being abnormal isnâ€™t good or bad, it is just statistically less likely.”

being left handed doesn’t mean that you can not perform all the things that the left handed perform with all the results that they can obtain.
do you get my point?

“So, weâ€™re back to you condemming homosexuality because you believe it is the job of all dual-sexed animals to procreate and any individual that doesnâ€™t is â€œbad.â€”

you still don’t understand or you are faking it.
desiree, i repeat that especially for you, and for the 7th time: IT IS ABOUT THE CAPACITY TO REPRODUCE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL.
ok, desiree?

“And yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge that not every individual *must* procreate or even want to and that this quite probably has an evolutionary reason. Non-procreating members of a species can take care of orphaned members of said species more easily, for instance.”

i never said every member of a species must procreate.
but, in order to be considfered healthy, they must have the CAPACITY to procreate.
it is a simple thing.
you continue to refuse to acknowledge that it is about the capacity to procreate.

“Frankly, you are becoming a bore to debate with. You continue to look at homosexuality as a trait in isolation. You donâ€™t like, you declare it â€œbadâ€ and refuse any evidence or arguments to the contrary simply repeating over and over â€œitâ€™s not normalâ€ as if that were meaningful. Itâ€™s not. Being left handed isnâ€™t normal either.”

desiree, once you understand that i am talking about the CAPACITY to reproduce, you will find this discussion mind blowing.
about the left handed people: see above.

Priya Lynn

Winston said “I never said every member of a species must procreate.
but, in order to be considfered healthy, they must have the CAPACITY to procreate.”.

LOL, precious few doctors would agree with you.

Winston said “desiree, once you understand that i am talking about the CAPACITY to reproduce, you will find this discussion mind blowing.”.

Oh. My. Gawd… That was so hilariously and unbelievably arrogant. Winston your opinion of yourself couldn’t be more disconnnected from reality.

winston

Winston, you say that infertility in heterosexual couples is â€œthe effect of e medical condition. not of a different sort of normalityâ€.”

yes

“Something may be unusual but that doesnâ€™t make it â€œabnormalâ€. Youâ€™ve admitted that yourself.”

yes.
green eyes, for example.
but having green eyes doesn\t stop you from performing every function that black, hazelnut, blue, fuchsia etc eyes can perform.

“You seem to have a very arbitrary system for deciding what should be allowed and what shouldnâ€™t be allowed.”

it is not my sistem.
see above.
it is about functionality.
why should a condition (ie homosexuality) forbid per se a human capability, function?

winston

“Iâ€™ve already demonstrated that homosexuality likely has a positive overall effect on society (remember our discussion on Da Vinci et. al.?). But you quickly dropped that because it raises conflict with your predetermined position. So Iâ€™m seeing no real interest in objectivity or intellectual growth on your part.”

you didn’t “demonstrate”, you just expressed you opinion that something migh be likely.
and no, i didn’t drop that.
see above – it is silly to believe that Michelangelo was gifted because he was homosexual.
there is no link between sexual orientation and talent, inteligence etc.

“Now Iâ€™ll just wish you happiness and hope that your personal prejudices donâ€™t harm your life too much going forward.”

i really wish you all the best, too.

Throbert McGee

I’m a bit surprised that no one seems to have brought up the “helpful gay uncle/aunt” theory.

I can understand that some gay people may be reluctant to grapple with this theory because it implies that it’s our natural evolutionary purpose to play a “second fiddle” supporting role in heterosexual reproduction. So to some, it may appear to uphold “hetero supremacy.”

But at the same time, the “helpful gay uncle/aunt” idea does provide a rather powerful rebuttal to those who claim that evolution or natural selection must always DISFAVOR homosexuality.

Winston, I don’t know what your native language is, but you might start with the English wikipedia article on kin selection, and proceed from there.

Throbert McGee

For those unfamiliar with the “helpful gay uncle/aunt” theory, here it is in a nutshell:

The idea is that back in so-called “cave-people days” (i.e., at a stage in human prehistory when childhood mortality was much higher than today, and individual humans were much more likely to die before reaching reproductive maturity), a cave-dude or cave-lady who had, say, three heterosexual siblings and one homosexual siblings would tend to have more grandchildren and great-grandchildren when compared with a cave-dude or cave-lady who had four heterosexual siblings and zero homosexual siblings.

And the basis for thinking that “cave-children” might be better off if they had a homosexual aunt or uncle is that this aunt or uncle would be childless, but able to do the same labor as other adults — thus, they could contribute their surplus time/labor/wealth (i.e., meat, animal furs and leather, berries and edible roots, handmade stone tools, etc.) towards the upbringing of their nieces and nephews.

So, the cave-kids who had at least one childless homosexual uncle or aunt were more likely to grow up fat and prosperous and able to attract better mates, compared with cave-kids whose uncles and aunts were all heterosexuals with kids of their own.

Throbert McGee

By the way, to be extra-clear, the “helpful gay uncle/aunt” hypothesis does NOT attempt to make the argument that “the more homosexuality, the better!”

Instead, it argues that “just a LITTLE BIT of homosexuality in a population is better than ZERO homosexuality.”

Argo

being left handed doesnâ€™t mean that you can not perform all the things that the left handed perform with all the results that they can obtain.

â€¦for the 7th time: IT IS ABOUT THE CAPACITY TO REPRODUCE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL.

And again being homosexual doesn’t mean one lacks the capacity to reproduce.

But even if homosexuality were to negate an individual’s capacity to directly procreate, biological altruism, inclusive fitness, and kin selection allow such an individual to positively influence the genetic pool as Throbert just restated.

DÃ©sirÃ©e

@Thobert – that is exactly what I have been trying to point out to Winston. But he is arguing backwards. Homosexuality is wrong and he needs a reason.

Look at it this way, let’s take 100 people, 50 men & 50 women and let’s say 48 of each are straight and 2 are gay. They pair off into 48 straight coupl, one gay couple and 1 lesbian couple. The 48 straight couple then have on average ~2.2 kids for a total of 105 offspring. There are now 100 adults to care for 105 children (a 1:1.05 parent to child ratio). Had there been 50 couples with the same number of children each, there would be 109 children. Â¤ more children for the same number of adults, thus each child gets that much less adult caregiving.

This is a very simple example but shows that a little bit of homosexuality can be a good thing for overall species survival.

Winston won’t care though. The Gays aren’t making babies and thus are wrong. Yawn.

Christopher

February 23rd, 2011

it is not my sistem.
see above.
it is about functionality.
why should a condition (ie homosexuality) forbid per se a human capability, function?

Winston, what “functionality” is homosexuality preventing?

By your logic a heterosexual couple where one partner is infertile should be denied the right to marry as well, simply because you’re hung up on reproduction as the only desirable outcome of any relationship. You deny that this is what you’re saying, and yet you can’t explain why heterosexuality is inherently superior.

As I’ve said to you before: just because you believe something is true doesn’t make it so.

Timothy Kincaid

February 23rd, 2011

It’s all just circular reasoning.

winston wishes to see homosexuality as deficient, so he defines what he sees as an observable difference as the definition of deficiency.

Group A is numerically larger than Group B. Therefore the attributes of Group A are the statistical norm.

Group B differs from Group A by Attribute X. So, as Attribute X is a deviation from the norm, it is a deficiency, a flaw. He doesn’t evaluate the attribute by its merits, simply by is deviation.

It really doesn’t matter to winston what the attribute is (here he just assumes it to be procreation), any deviation would do.

The argument is, when deconstructed, nothing more than “you are deficient because I see you as deficient”.

We need not debate with such foolish and irrational thinking. We will not sway winston (his thinking is not subject to logic) and it is just a waste of time.

winston

the helpful aunt/uncle theory is just a theory.
in fact, there are some studies that show homosexual people do not have a superior involvment in their family compared to the heterosexual people.
i believe a read that in one of desiree’s links.

“And again being homosexual doesnâ€™t mean one lacks the capacity to reproduce.”

and again, only by emulating heterosexual behaviour: male+female.
homosexuality, ie the erotic atraction between individuals of the same sex, does not allow reproduction.

“Homosexuality is wrong and he needs a reason.”

i believe i have the reason.
see above.
you need a convincing explanation, though.

“Look at it this way, letâ€™s take 100 people, 50 men & 50 women and letâ€™s say 48 of each are straight and 2 are gay. They pair off into 48 straight coupl, one gay couple and 1 lesbian couple. The 48 straight couple then have on average ~2.2 kids for a total of 105 offspring. There are now 100 adults to care for 105 children (a 1:1.05 parent to child ratio). Had there been 50 couples with the same number of children each, there would be 109 children. Â¤ more children for the same number of adults, thus each child gets that much less adult caregiving.

This is a very simple example but shows that a little bit of homosexuality can be a good thing for overall species survival.

Winston wonâ€™t care though. The Gays arenâ€™t making babies and thus are wrong. Yawn.”

yawn to you, too. :)
let’s see: you say it is a good thing for the overall species survival.
so, more adults and less children equals more chances for overall species survival.
well, i believe this is why the 3rd world countries are declining in population (THEY ARE NOT) and thinning the chances for overall species survival.
because families over there have less children and there are more adults to take care for the babies.:)

winston

“Winston, what â€œfunctionalityâ€ is homosexuality preventing?”

chritopher, homosexuality, per se, denis reproduction.
this is why homosexuality it is not normal.
i already said what it\s normal in this case.

“By your logic a heterosexual couple where one partner is infertile should be denied the right to marry as well, simply because youâ€™re hung up on reproduction as the only desirable outcome of any relationship.”

this is a common mistake.
the issue here is “is homosexuality normal?
no, it is not, because not beeing able to reproduce makes homosexuality a mistake.
infertile heterosexual couples is another form of mistake.
it is also a mistake, ok?
homosexual marriage is another issue.
but let’s not say homosexuality is a normal variation.

“You deny that this is what youâ€™re saying, and yet you canâ€™t explain why heterosexuality is inherently superior.|

heterosexuality is not superiro.
it’s just normal.

“As Iâ€™ve said to you before: just because you believe something is true doesnâ€™t make it so.”

i agree, you should meditate at this, too.

winston

“It really doesnâ€™t matter to winston what the attribute is (here he just assumes it to be procreation), any deviation would do.”

that attribute is essential.
that difference is the key.

and the difference is THE CAPACITY TO REPRODUCE of a living organism, given his mind/instincts and body.
this is no minor thingie.

and i never said that quantity equals normality.

Priya Lynn

Give it up Winston, far from blowing anyone’s mind you’re just demonstrating how idiotic and irrational bigots can be.

Christopher

Winston, I think what’s hampering you here is your poor English. I find it almost impossible to understand what you’re talking about, and it’s pretty clear that you don’t know what anyone else is talking about either. But your apparently willful ignorance doesn’t make you right.

Priya Lynn

Winston said “letâ€™s not say homosexuality is a normal variation.”.

It is the position of the major mental health organizations that gayness is a normal variant of human sexuality.

winston

“Give it up Winston, far from blowing anyoneâ€™s mind youâ€™re just demonstrating how idiotic and irrational bigots can be.”

your insults are not better than your arguments.

“Winston, I think whatâ€™s hampering you here is your poor English. I find it almost impossible to understand what youâ€™re talking about, and itâ€™s pretty clear that you donâ€™t know what anyone else is talking about either. But your apparently willful ignorance doesnâ€™t make you right.”

i understand what anyone else is talking about.
and i believe they also understand what i am saying.
and yes, my english is crappy, sorry. :(

but let’s notice that your last arguments to the point were about me having a poor english and and a poor intelect.

“It is the position of the major mental health organizations that gayness is a normal variant of human sexuality.”

this is why i used that expression.

here:
“It was never a medical decisionâ€”and that’s why I think the action came so fastâ€¦It was a political move.” (Barbara Gittings)

Priya Lynn

Right Winston, they were bullied into it and cowed by a minority into promoting a lie for 38 years – that’s so believable.

winston

i didn’t say they were bullied.
but that lady said it was a political decision.
is that more believable?

Priya Lynn

Winston, she wasn’t part of the APA, and if she actually said that (I could find no evidence that she did) she never spoke for the APA. There was never any science to back up the inclusion of gayness in the DSM and studies since the 1950’s demonstrated it wasn’t a mental illness and that’s why it was removed from the DSM, there was nothing supporting it being there in the first place.

According to YOUR own anti-gay groups 55% of those who chose to express an opinon in 1973 said gayness should NOT be in the DSM, that being despite the fact that most people blindly accepted that it was not normal.

Another half a dozen or so mental health organizations also say gayness is a normal variant of human sexuality, the idea that they all did this solely for political reasons without scientific support is preposterous.

Anyway, I’m done arguing with you, you’ve gone in circles, you’ve never supported your assertions and for the most part you haven’t addressed at all the key points in our favour that I’ve brought up. You’re repetition that you’re right doesn’t make you right.

Argo