can being GAY be considered an anomaly? (independence, myths, stereotypes) - Great Debates - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

luv4horses · 12-10-2014, 06:40 AM

Being gay cannot be considered an anomally. It happens too frequently.

If a person believes strongly in God he should wonder why God, originator of all that is Good, has chosen for some people 'to be gay'. The answer must involve goodness in some form.

If a person is a student of genetics he can wonder how genetics or epigentics forms the basis, how many genes might be involved, and whether there are lots of different genetic events that can lead to the same outcome.

If a person believes strongly in evolution he will acknowledge that in survival of the *species*, this characteristic is evolutionarily neutral. That is, it will have no affect either positive or negative on evolution, just like eye color, skin color, and whether someone has dimpled cheeks or can do handstands. The species will survive or dwindle based on myriad other characteristics.

AnywhereElse · 12-10-2014, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnina

As a matter of fact there are gay animals, and the list is quite long.
As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species. I am sure the list is much longer now.
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, is homosexual behavior against nature? I don't think so.
And what if, despite all the testimonials to the contrary, people in fact choose to be gay? Whether homosexuality is inborn or chosen should have no bearing on whether it is immoral or abnormal. Science is still unclear on what causes homosexuality, which is a complex interplay of genetic factors. Studies have yet to produce firm evidence, but they do to point to a biological root.
Why it even matter? Anomaly or not - no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses, as long their behavior is not harmful to others.

Keep in mind that lower forms of animals do a LOT of things and in doing them............. With these birds, a same-sex couple does everything a straight couple do EXCEPT have sex: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/ma...anted=all&_r=0 and another article: The Animal Homosexuality Myth I found this article and yes, it is from a religious standpoint but that is where I stand but for those that don't, that is up to them and what they are comfortable with: http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-c...d-Animals2.pdf

I did find this article and it is quite interesting sort of looking at the behavior from all directions: Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

As far as sin, the practice of sodomy is sin not homosexuality and heterosexuality with the practice of sodomy is also a sin. If you don't care about God and sin, no issue. So long as one takes personal responsibility for their actions and doesn't try to blame it on anyone or anything else, I don't see an issue.

And, homosexuality, being sexually attracted to your own sex/gender/whatever it is called these days, is an anomaly simply by the definition since it is not the norm and not what is expected.

Csiko · 12-10-2014, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinking-man

I don't have anything against gay people. In fact, i'll go as far as saying that even if my own son came and told me he was gay, i would be very accepting and understanding, knowing that being gay is not a choice (usually) and is part of nature and occurs in many other species on earth as well as us mammals.

That said, i've always thought of being gay as an anomaly, given that it is (at least appears so on the surface) against the evolutionary process; as in, being gay (again, at least it appears so on the surface) does not contribute to the evolution of the specie.

Is this view valid in your opinion? why so? why not?

Don't have time to go through the replies, but if homosexuality exists, that implies that it is evolutionarily beneficial.

In some species of animals, they take care of orphaned or abandoned babies.

gentlearts · 12-10-2014, 08:56 AM

I have always thought of homosexuality as a sort of handicap that a person is born with, like ADD, or poor eyesight, etc. Most parents would choose for their child to be mainstream in all ways, including to be heterosexual.

steeps · 12-10-2014, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woof

Being gay is an anomaly about in the same way as being left-handed.

If it didn't have evolutionary value, it wouldn't be here, it would have been selected out eventually. But we know that it's been fairly constant throughout recorded history, for example the Greeks. Mostly it has been bisexuality, which muddies the waters a bit - men in prison or on long expeditionary wars or voyages can have exclusively gay sex for a long time, then go back to hetero sex when they "come" back home.

The evolutionary value might lie in the fact that genes are carried in families and tribes, the basic units for most of human existence over the last coupla hundred thousand years - not just individuals. So homosexuals might be able to help out the tribe more than people with families to care for - perhaps a gay man could spend a lot more time hunting with his partner, or a lesbian couple might be able to spend more time cooking tasty foods.

That extra work might lead to a survival edge for the whole tribe, which would then pass on its unique set of genes more prolifically than a purely hetero tribe where everyone is weighed down with the responsibilities of raising a family.

I don't think heterosexual men put in positions of no women for long periods.....like prison or on long voyages over oceans long ago.....in the same boat together....so to speak...pun intended. Who for a time have a kind of physical sexual encounter? WE SAY THEIR REAL orientation changed??? They still lusted for women.....EVEN DURING SUCH A SEXUAL RELEASE merely gave a helping hand to each other....pun intended. Given the circumstances and human need for aspects of affection and sex.
AGAIN IN NO WAY WAS THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGED IN THEIR BRAIN. Proof is they went instantly back in their regular heterosexual world and back fully lusting as always....but not having to substitute same sex again. TRUE HOMOSEXUALITY HAS SAME SEX LUST AS COMING NATURAL TO THEM? NOT A SUBSTITUTE.
YOU'RE PLACING HOMOSEXUALITY AS LIKE TO BE LEFT HANDED? WHICH WASN'T A CHOICE? THEN SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY ORIENTATION in full is not merely chosen? But in our brains even genes predisposed to be that way. Hormones in puberty merely kick start what was there to be awakened. Our Sexuality. I do agree true orientation is not chosen but probably genetic .
DID WE CHOOSE WHO WE DISCOVERED WE LUSTED FOR? NO.... You just realize that fully in puberty. But there surely can be true bisexuals who regularly lust for either? Most though have a preferred perhaps and remain in one. Acting straight men because of societies pressure or desire to procreate....do choose a acting heterosexual lifestyle? But their true lust is what was programed there all along. They choose not to act on it and perform as straight. Some lead a double life too.
I did get a kick out you saying....gay men might have made better hunters away from the tribe because longer periods on the hunt were more practical? Them able to have sexual needs taken care of LOL? That's what I got from what you inferred?

vanguardisle · 12-10-2014, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thinking-man

I don't have anything against gay people. In fact, i'll go as far as saying that even if my own son came and told me he was gay, i would be very accepting and understanding, knowing that being gay is not a choice (usually) and is part of nature and occurs in many other species on earth as well as us mammals.

That said, i've always thought of being gay as an anomaly, given that it is (at least appears so on the surface) against the evolutionary process; as in, being gay (again, at least it appears so on the surface) does not contribute to the evolution of the specie.

Is this view valid in your opinion? why so? why not?

Those that believe in reincarnation will tell you that a gay person is one that has spent many lifetimes as the opposite sex and now comes into a body of the other gender and feels confused, and all of the feelings they had before are still there. For instance a soul with many incarnations as a woman comes into a lifetime as a man but still hasn't really gotten used to it yet and so has all of the same attractions as in the lifetimes before . It does make sense . Something to consider .

In answer to your question yes it is an anamoly since it is in the minority and does not help propagate the species. That does not make it bad.

Jeo123 · 12-10-2014, 09:42 AM

Does everyone in this thread really believe that people only do things for evolutionary benefit/continuing the species?

Using the same logic, why are there obese people? Shouldn't evolution have resulted in only healthy and fit people being around?

Reality is that people aren't constrained to natural instincts. Whether homosexuality is the choice, or the desire to fake heterosexuality is the choice, either way you wind up with people who "nature" said should do one thing, but are entirely capable of doing another.

lycos679 · 12-10-2014, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeo123

Does everyone in this thread really believe that people only do things for evolutionary benefit/continuing the species?

That's not exactly how evolution works, but yes. The weak do get weeded out and not all genes will survive. Look at blue eyed people. At one point they did not exist, but due to being so rare and attractive to mates, people with blue eyes grew out of a freak mutation to almost 5% of the world population. Another example is the sickle cell gene which protects people from malaria. Or, the CCR5-delta32 gene which protects people from HIV, that resulted from the black plague.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeo123

Using the same logic, why are there obese people? Shouldn't evolution have resulted in only healthy and fit people being around?

Obesity is a choice. People are obese because they can be, however evolution does not necessarily dictate that obese people don't get to breed. If women select to mate with obese men then their genes get to survive. If the guy is obese, poor, and can't find another way to attract a mate then his genes die out. I would say ditto for an obese girl, but guys outnumber girls, so an obese girl would eventually mate so long as she isn't very selective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeo123

Reality is that people aren't constrained to natural instincts. Whether homosexuality is the choice, or the desire to fake heterosexuality is the choice, either way you wind up with people who "nature" said should do one thing, but are entirely capable of doing another.

Huh? People do what they do to survive. In the past gays would marry to fit in and not be ostracized, but they were stil gay.

thinkharder77 · 12-10-2014, 10:59 AM

I can guarantee you Nature does not produce "gays". Nature comes from the word Natural. Please explain to me what is Natural, or sexual, about homosexuality? What is sexual about anal sex or fluid swapping? It's extremely unsafe and the cause of plenty of sicknesses. I'd suggest you study your words closer because "gay" means happy, until popular culture perverted that as well. Homosexuality is 100% a perversion of Nature. Men have always lusted after men and women for women. This "gay" scene is a buisness. When you have a bunch of liars all over the mainstream pushing this agenda people are going to buy it up. So in my opinion, society creates "gays", television being their biggest weapon. What we see makes up our reality. Do you really think homosexuality is a problem in the Amazon with the Natural peoples? And please, don't ever compare Mankind to a mammal or any other animal. I am a living, spiritual, conscious Being.

lycos679 · 12-10-2014, 11:22 AM