It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Natural Selection and the Genetic Basis for Homosexuality

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 



hello,

interesting comment and i probably agree with you. i think we may disagree on where that spiritual is coming from though

cheers

David




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Malzypants
 



If not genetic, then biological in nature. If it were a CHOICE then do you think we would even have homosexuality? Given the way they're treated, abused, and killed? It's obviously something that can't be changed by choice.


Now in an evolutionary paradigm, wouldn't natural selection favor those who disciplined their biological desires in the interest of strong families and begetting and raising healthy children? For instance, married heterosexuals have natural biological desires to commit adultery and choose to deny those desires to maintain a commitment to family and raise children in a two parent home. Children are far more likely to thrive in a more traditional family structure and thus survive to raise their children in a similar environment.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


how do genetics play a part on bisexual people???

do they have genetic conflict of sorts or one set of gene and chose the rest?

david



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


Good question on bisexuals... I seriously question the genetic component. The hormonal theory makes more sense. I do agree the behavior is a choice regardless of the proclivity. There's a lot more evidence that alcoholism is genetic than homosexuality, yet they are expected to control their behavior.

I'm going for walk.

You guys play nice in the sandbox.

This sort of topic can get dangerous if dragged in the wrong direction...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



Well straights as a whole aren't innocent either is what I'm saying. (before anyone gets upset, realize that you can't take any group and paint them simply "good" or "bad") Think of all the kids in foster care that will never have parents. And do you honestly think the human race would be destroyed if everyone was gay? You do know that gays and lesbians do want kids, their sexual organs are still intact. And don't we have a problem with over population right now? Population would be much more manageable if all births were planned. Your concerns are unfounded.

I brought up the fact that gays own more private businesses than straight people because people, like above, label them as "defective". Being more successful that others I'd hardly give the label of being defective. And if you're going to refer to a gene, "defective" isn't a good word because it's biased. It's like saying a defective gene causes introversion, when introversion is a normal behavior.

I listed those studies off the top of my head because I don't want to spend 45 minutes trying to put together a post, if you're really curious you can go google it yourself. Pretty much all of these studies are widely publicized in the MSM as people find them interesting.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I agree, but there are still going to be isolated incidents.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


It could be spiritual also, a lot of the native American tribes had gays for spiritual teachers. Parents would actually hope that you were gay back then, lol. Funny how things change. I remember there being some other cultures where gays were considered spiritual, but I haven't read up on it recently. Of course that's about the last thing straight people want to hear considering many like to think of of gays as subclass humans.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


no one was labeling anyone defective, were hypothesising about Genes

im sure i have few

david



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


This is fascinating to me. I think, as i agreed with another poster earlier that spiritual plays a part.

Obviously as a Christian my take on it would be different to others.

all the best

david



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
June 18th 2008, a new paper has been published which attempts to reconcile the development of the "homosexual" gene when it seems to exist in opposition of Darwinian evolution:

Since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any ‘genes promoting homosexuality’ have died out of the population by now?


The foundation of this paper is:


Abstract
Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present. We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.



The full version of the paper plosone

Now please read the full paper if you wish to comment on this topic. And please try to be respectful of other members' sexual orientation. This kind of research is undertaken when evolutionary science is willing to look at itself and question it's own assumptions.

A synopsis of the findings of this study can be found at Physorg

I thought perhaps that some would need some evidence of the underlying foundation that the "gay" gene actually exists. I will concede that the issue is still open and there still is no consensus between scientists on the subject. However the natural hereditary predisposition to homosexuality is well documented:


PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects

Ivanka Savic* and Per Lindström

Stockholm Brain Institute, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden

Edited by Jan-Åke Gustafsson, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and approved April 30, 2008 (received for review February 27, 2008)

Abstract

Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation.


pnas.org




[edit on 10/19/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

A genetic defect. if it was evolution then to continue down that path would lead to the destruction of the species through non reproduction. A defect like any other requires treatment.


No I wouldn't say it requires treatment because it is a defect. How does this homosexual defect harm the individual??? Is it viral, contagious, can it harm others??? It certainly does not harm the individual with the defect, so why bother curing it???


we will be having genetic issues for all sorts of things leading to them being accepted without any credible scientific evidence whatsoever.


So what is wrong with homosexuals being accepted??? All religion aside, can you give me a good clear reason why homosexuality is wrong???

Murder is wrong, and so says the bible but I can give you reasons why murder is wrong without quoting the bible. Can you do the same for homosexuality???

Maybe homosexuality is a defect, maybe it isn't. Its as useless, but as harmless as the male nipple, but you don't see humans trying rid males of their nipples lol


I agree David, on a purely amoral and pragmatic basis any behavior that would result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally is completely in opposition to the evolutionary paradigm. Yet to refer to it as dysfunction is so politically incorrect, you are labeled a bigot for questioning it.


But not every human is homosexual so it can cause no harm to the human race as a whole. In fact homosexuals are only a small percentage of the human race.


And on and on it goes, the ones that don't think there is a genetic or natural basis shouldn't even talk, because they won't even take the time to look at the research.


Exactly, basic common sense should tell you it can be nothing but genetic...


This a characteristic behavior that would wipe out the human race if it were universally adopted


But it isn't, and most likely will not...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Murder is wrong, and so says the bible but I can give you reasons why murder is wrong without quoting the bible. Can you do the same for homosexuality???



Ok this is dangerous ground. But I absolutely can and back it with science. First - they are accepted in the USA but not endorsed. The sodomy laws etc have been repealed. But we do not endorse it by giving tax benefits etc. because it does damage to society. How? Mainly through the erosion of the nuclear family unit. I am not singling out homosexuals. Divorce causes this as well. The net results of traditional family erosion in the United States is quite obvious with dramatic increases in teen violence school shootings etc.

This is also supported by science. A secular Harvard Univ. sociologist Dr Carle Zmmerman wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He documented the fall of great nations like Greece and Rome and he found in such cases the collapse was always preceded by a break down of the family unit. He did not say homosexuality caused it, but he did list it as one of the causes. He also wrote that it's widespread acceptance and endorsement is a prime indicator of the impending destruction.

One prime reason being, males are naturally pursuers and somewhat sexually predatory. Traditional marriage and children , family life etc. helps stop an abundance of sexually predatory single men. When sex is available with no commitment, families break down. This destroys civilizations and promotes chaos. So those are documented non religious ways it does harm to society backed by sound non religious sociological research.

I think it is a self evident fact that - on average- children are better off in healthy families with a male and female parent who are together. Of course there are always exceptions but they are not relevant to the discussion of natural selection (favors reproduction).


Originally posted by AlexG141989
Maybe homosexuality is a defect, maybe it isn't. Its as useless, but as harmless as the male nipple, but you don't see humans trying rid males of their nipples lol


It's not harmless. The nipple analogy is beyond silly. The fact that evolutionists are struggling to explain why it survived as a trait proves it is not harmless. It was harmless as a nipple there would be no controversy.


Originally posted by AlexG141989


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I agree David, on a purely amoral and pragmatic basis any behavior that would result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally is completely in opposition to the evolutionary paradigm. Yet to refer to it as dysfunction is so politically incorrect, you are labeled a bigot for questioning it.


But not every human is homosexual so it can cause no harm to the human race as a whole. In fact homosexuals are only a small percentage of the human race.


Oh please... Do you really think it was necessary to tell me "not every human is homosexual "? I was addressing the notion that it is somehow not a defect in a biological sense. It certainly is. This trait would "result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally"is a true statement. In that light, sentimentality aside, it is harmful to the survival of humanity. So is alcoholism, being a sociopath or any other genetic or biological disorder.

look at the abstract for the paper schrodingers dog cited above...
Language like "this apparently detrimental trait"...

I'm not in any way not suggesting we do anything to eradicate it but I think it is scientifically unsound to pretend it is not a dysfunction of the biological order. Again if was not an abnormality my original question would have been pointless. Natural selection should weed it out. Basic anatomy is all the evidence you need to support that.




[edit on 10/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
For those who are not inclined to tackle the fascinating scientific paper schrodingers dog posted. Here is a news article:



The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average.

Fox News

It appears they might be on to a genetic explanation for the inclination to male homosexual attraction, yet even the author of the study did admit...


Even if this sexually antagonistic genetic system is at work, it can only account for a portion of the overall causes of homosexuality in men, Camperio-Ciani said. Other factors, both genetic and social, likely also play a part.


But they have no evidence for a similar system in females who are homosexual. The juries still out but it does seem compelling.

[edit on 10/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Ok this is dangerous ground. But I absolutely can and back it with science. First - they are accepted in the USA but not endorsed. The sodomy laws etc have been repealed. But we do not endorse it by giving tax benefits etc. because it does damage to society. How? Mainly through the erosion of the nuclear family unit. I am not singling out homosexuals. Divorce causes this as well. The net results of traditional family erosion in the United States is quite obvious with dramatic increases in teen violence school shootings etc.


The family unit has been corrupted all by itself without the aid of gays. Having women working has eroded the traditional "nuclear family unit" more than anything else, but we have no intention of going back to that now do we. Bill and Tom married and living happily in Cali is not the reason Sue and Jeff divorced in Texas. To think that gay marriage has some subtle, invisible energy flow that affects straight marriage is absurd. Anyone that blames their family/ marital problems on a couple of gays living down the street is a moron. So somehow gays are responsible for bad parents? Give me a break. Bob and Linda didn't ignore their teen, causing him to shoot up a school, because of gays.



This is also supported by science. A secular Harvard Univ. sociologist Dr Carle Zmmerman wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He documented the fall of great nations like Greece and Rome and he found in such cases the collapse was always preceded by a break down of the family unit. He did not saying homosexuality caused it but he did list it as one of the causes and also that it's widespread acceptance and endorsement is an indicator of the impending destruction of the family unit. One reason being males are naturally pursuers and some what predatory. Traditional marriage and children , family life etc. helps stop an abundance of sexually predatory single men. So those are non religious ways it does harm to society backed by sound non religious sociological research.


It doesn't help that the book was written in 1947, some updated views on sexuality would probably do him and the book good. Homosexuality was still considered a mental illness at the time... I still don't see how males having sex in private areas has some massive affect on society. Maybe we could try an experiment, all gays have sex just before the stock market opens and we'll see if it plummets, hey there could be good money in it if it works. You know one thing that helped the Roman Empire succeed? Slavery. But I don't see that lesson being incorporated into today's societies.



I think it is a self evident fact that - on average- children are better off in healthy families with a male and female parent who are together. Of course their are always exceptions but they are not relevant to the discussion.


Well I wouldn't call them "healthy families" just by having a male and female as parents. What is it, like 85% of people live in dysfunctional homes? Who knows what that means I guess but there are many children that love their gay parents. And who cares if there are some that don't like their gay parents, would it be hard to find a couple of teens that say they don't like their straight parents? Give me 30 seconds, lol.




It's not harmless. The nipple analogy is beyond silly. The fact that evolutionists are struggling to explain why it survived as a trait proves it is not harmless. It was harmless as a nipple there would be no controversy.


It is harmless. Since when is something harmful when a scientist has a hard time explaining something? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do, think of questions and find answers? It's controversial in our society because of religion. In many other societies they have had no problem and even welcomed gays. Since when is a pleasurable activity that has no impact on others subject to controversy? No one harps on you for your food preferences or your taste in cars, this is a similar innocent desire. Sex and sexuality is being put on such a high pedestal its ridiculous. All a human being is is a desire to receive pleasure, so what does it matter what the pleasure is from if it has no immediate impact on others?





Oh please... Do you really think it was necessary to tell me "not every human is homosexual "? I was addressing the notion that it is somehow not a defect in a biological sense. It certainly is. This trait would "result in the extinction of the species if adopted universally"is a true statement. In that light, sentimentality aside, it is harmful to the survival of humanity. So is alcoholism, being a sociopath or any other genetic or biological disorder.

look at the abstract for the paper schrodingers dog cited above...
Language like "this apparently detrimental trait" and "sexually antagonistic human trait." It is clearly viewed by cold hard science as a negative.

I'm in any way not suggesting we do anything to eradicate it but I think it is scientifically unsound to pretend it is not a dysfunction of the biological order. Again if was not an abnormality my original question would have been pointless. Natural selection should weed it out. Basic anatomy is all the evidence you need to support that.
[edit on 10/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]


Your statement that if everyone was a homosexual it would result in the extinction of humanity is false. If we were talking about frogs or something, then yes, it would destroy the species. But Human beings have these things called "Brains", well some of them do to be fair. Do you think we'd sit there and let ourselves go extinct? As I have already said, gays and lesbians want kids. So no, it is not harmful to the world or society. Don't we have millions of starving children in Africa and around the world that aren't being taken care of? I don't think more babies is going to solve the problem, we need more brains.

Cold hard science doesn't view gays in a negitive or positive way, that's the beginning of science, being unbiased. What is this about "dysfunction of the biological order"? We are humans, and we should be concerned about eachother. You need to be more specific about "dysfunction", who is it a dysfunction for? Oh right, no one. Love thy neighbor as thyself, it's good advice.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
How would you like it if someone said you can't eat your favorite food, or play your favorite sport because its sinful or against nature? Or if gays said that straight people shouldn't be allowed to marry or have kids. That wouldn't be justified of course, but what makes you think you barging into gay peoples' lives and dictating to them what their lifestyle is like is fine? All it would take is a straight person to somehow wake up gay (or maybe in the next life) and their attitudes of homosexuality would shift in a second, where's the truth or objectivity in that? There is none because we base "Truth" of off what brings us pleasure or pain, there's no denying this. So debating in a way is futile because people will say "the other view point doesn't feel good for me, so it is false".

[edit on 19-10-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Couldn't homosexuality and bisexuality be a preparation to being a hermaphroditic or asexual species somewhere down the line?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Ok this is dangerous ground. But I absolutely can and back it with science. First - they are accepted in the USA but not endorsed. The sodomy laws etc have been repealed. But we do not endorse it by giving tax benefits etc. because it does damage to society. How? Mainly through the erosion of the nuclear family unit. I am not singling out homosexuals. Divorce causes this as well. The net results of traditional family erosion in the United States is quite obvious with dramatic increases in teen violence school shootings etc.


Exactly how does homosexuality cause "erosion of the nuclear family unit"??? Teen violence, school shootings have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with those certain teenager's issues, school problems, or problems at home. If one has a problem at home please tell me how the acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of it, or added to the overall "erosion of the family unit".


This is also supported by science. A secular Harvard Univ. sociologist Dr Carle Zmmerman wrote a book called Family and Civilization. He documented the fall of great nations like Greece and Rome and he found in such cases the collapse was always preceded by a break down of the family unit. He did not saying homosexuality caused it but he did list it as one of the causes and also that it's widespread acceptance and endorsement is an indicator of the impending destruction of the family unit. One reason being males are naturally pursuers and some what predatory. Traditional marriage and children , family life etc. helps stop an abundance of sexually predatory single men. So those are non religious ways it does harm to society backed by sound non religious sociological research.


So homosexuality should not be accepted because according to one author it took part in the destruction of a couple "ancient" civilizations"??? Keyword, "ancient"... These civilizations, with their brutal ways would not have survived anyway... Today we are an advanced nation, not primitive like the ancient greeks, or romans, at least I would hope so.

I also have to ask this, is that all you've got??? Is that really it??? Is that really the main reason why you think homosexuality is wrong???


It's not harmless. The nipple analogy is beyond silly. The fact that evolutionists are struggling to explain why it survived as a trait proves it is not harmless. It was harmless as a nipple there would be no controversy.


The only reason it's controversial is because religious people make it controversial. This wouldn't, and shouldn't be an issue. And it is harmless. A male having sex with another male does no harm to me, or to you.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12

The family unit has been corrupted all by itself without the aid of gays. Having women working has eroded the traditional "nuclear family unit" more than anything else, but we have no intention of going back to that now do we. Bill and Tom married and living happily in Cali is not the reason Sue and Jeff divorced in Texas. To think that gay marriage has some subtle, invisible energy flow that affects straight marriage is absurd. Anyone that blames their family/ marital problems on a couple of gays living down the street is a moron. So somehow gays are responsible for bad parents? Give me a break. Bob and Linda didn't ignore their teen, causing him to shoot up a school, because of gays.


You have completely missed the point of my post and misrepresented my position. I clearly said that divorce does damage to families in addition too the fact homosexuality does. I never implied gay marriage causes divorce. I was trying to make sure you did not think I was pinning it all on homosexuality, which you proceeded to do anyway. Try to read my post more carefully next time.

What I actually said was that divorce, adultery, and homosexual behavior detracts from the traditional nuclear family unit - which is best situation for children -on average. You completely misunderstood.





It doesn't help that the book was written in 1947, some updated views on sexuality would probably do him and the book good. Homosexuality was still considered a mental illness at the time... I still don't see how males having sex in private areas has some massive affect on society. Maybe we could try an experiment, all gays have sex just before the stock market opens and we'll see if it plummets, hey there could be good money in it if it works. You know one thing that helped the Roman Empire succeed? Slavery. But I don't see that lesson being incorporated into today's societies.



It is irrelevant when it was written since it is a study of the history of the fall of empires. The embrace of non committal sexuality in whatever form destroys family cohesiveness. The police departments can testify it's not always in private areas, the public park - adult bookstore - gay sex scene is common knowledge.

The rest of your post is just a straw man argument. The stock market etc. and slavery have nothing to do with the issue. They still had slaves when they collapsed.




Well I wouldn't call them "healthy families" just by having a male and female as parents. What is it, like 85% of people live in dysfunctional homes? Who knows what that means I guess but there are many children that love their gay parents. And who cares if there are some that don't like their gay parents, would it be hard to find a couple of teens that say they don't like their straight parents? Give me 30 seconds, lol.



Another blatant misrepresentation of my post. I didn't call them healthy families because of having male and female parents. What I actually wrote was "children are better off in healthy families with a male and female parent who are together." Healthy means no abuse, parents are loving, sane and present in the children's lives.

If you are going to quote statistics like that you need to provide evidence a "what is it..." doesn't mean much. But even if I give you that supposition because I'm inclined to agree there's a lot of dysfunction, How does that infer we should endorse and approve of it?

Of course kids with gay parents love there parents. That doesn't change the fact it erodes at the best known model for a family.





It is harmless. Since when is something harmful when a scientist has a hard time explaining something? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do, think of questions and find answers? It's controversial in our society because of religion. In many other societies they have had no problem and even welcomed gays. Since when is a pleasurable activity that has no impact on others subject to controversy? No one harps on you for your food preferences or your taste in cars, this is a similar innocent desire. Sex and sexuality is being put on such a high pedestal its ridiculous. All a human being is is a desire to receive pleasure, so what does it matter what the pleasure is from if it has no immediate impact on others?


No it degrades the concept of family. It is proven to be detremental to civilization.



Your statement that if everyone was a homosexual it would result in the extinction of humanity is false.


Maybe you are missing some key information. Two males don't reproduce.
In a pragmatic sense, this is the death knell for humanity.



If we were talking about frogs or something, then yes, it would destroy the species.


Now your getting the point I was making. This thread is about the evolutionary paradigm...

HELLO???



But Human beings have these things called "Brains", well some of them do to be fair. Do you think we'd sit there and let ourselves go extinct?


Of course not - that's why the United States does not endorse gay marriage - we are using our brains so we don't go extinct. Thanks for establishing that!




As I have already said, gays and lesbians want kids. So no, it is not harmful to the world or society. Don't we have millions of starving children in Africa and around the world that aren't being taken care of? I don't think more babies is going to solve the problem, we need more brains.


Again off topic...

Psychological and sociological evidence is well established that male and female parents are the ideal situation. Endorsing behaviors that detract from that is harmful. We do permit it, we just don't need to endorse it.



Cold hard science doesn't view gays in a negitive or positive way, that's the beginning of science, being unbiased. What is this about "dysfunction of the biological order"? We are humans, and we should be concerned about eachother. You need to be more specific about "dysfunction", who is it a dysfunction for? Oh right, no one. Love thy neighbor as thyself, it's good advice.


I have been specific, you just insist on using straw man arguments. I'm tired of it. Humanity depends on reproduction to survive. Same sex attraction does not favor reproduction. The cold hard scientific fact is this behavior is dysfunctional. It's not bias - it's anatomy.

Of course humans should be concerned about each other. That's not the topic This is not a thread about your emotional feelings for homosexuals. It is also not about religion or morality.

Your prejudice shines through as you try to derail this thread by making it about morality instead of science and attempting to correct me with Bible quotes. I never said a word about emotions not loving anybody. I have made every effort to put this in purely sociological and biological terms for discussion. Yet - you can't help yourself. Because you refuse to do so...

We are finished



[edit on 10/19/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


Its only a defect in your mind. To homosexuals, if they don't face the worst in others but are respected as a natural variation or alternate configuration, their lives are just as meaningful, productive, spiritual, filled with as much love as anyones. Its not a disease and doesn't require a fix. In fact, I appreciate the differences in people and think they're built into the system so we don't act in a hive mentality but have to respect others.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


Its only a defect in your mind. To homosexuals, if they don't face the worst in others but are respected as a natural variation or alternate configuration, their lives are just as meaningful, productive, spiritual, filled with as much love as anyones. Its not a disease and doesn't require a fix. In fact, I appreciate the differences in people and think they're built into the system so we don't act in a hive mentality but have to respect others.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by mystiq]


I agree, I was only speaking hypothetically



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join