posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 07:08 AM
I don't think homosexuality is "about love" at all. No more than heterosexuality is "about love"... Sexuality is what it is — the
biologic urge to reproduce. Before we ever evolved into modern human beings with higher brains and complex emotions, we were obeying our
sexual urges. So, for the largest part of our evolutionary history, we simply had sex, and we weren't burdened with "love" or using
"love" as an excuse to have sex.
What we do know about the human animal is that there are anomalies and abnormalities in our gender blueprints — there are gorgeous women out
there who actually have penises, there are big hairy men who actually have vaginas, and there are hermaphrodites who have both penises and
vaginas. There are also individuals who exhibit no outward abnormalities, but who are transgendered on a chromosomal level — meaning, for example,
that an otherwise perfectly normal man may actually be a woman on a chromosomal level, which can only be determined through blood testing.
Although these are obviously congenital defects, they demonstrate that there is a broad range of gender possibilities for our species. It's
not like we only have straight men and we only have straight women, except for a handful of congenitally defective freaks. On the
contrary, I think a very large portion of the human population may have chromosomes and hormones nudged slightly out of kilter.
Many of them may not even realize they're closer to being the opposite sex.
So, it might be fair to say that on one end of the human sexuality spectrum there are straight men, and on the other end of the spectrum there are
straight women; but, in between, there are probably innumerable variations that are more or less man/woman combinations. Which is what I think gives
rise to what we call homosexuality — that is, when two individuals of the same gender find each other sexually attractive.
Calling homosexuality a "disorder" may be clinically correct, but only if the clinic has an extremely narrow view of human sexuality. I mean, if
your clinical view is narrow enough, then anything can be considered a "disorder" — if you're a researcher at the homosexuals-only
clinic, then being straight might be considered a "disorder."
Which brings up a good point. Those who are outspoken in defense of homosexuality are often as narrow-minded as those who speak against it. In this
very thread, we've already seen several kneejerk posts casting aspersions on the OP. I hate to break it to you, but not everybody is
required to approve of homosexuality. The very straight individuals out there may simply not be able to fathom homosexuality, and to them
homosexuality does indeed seem bizarre behavior. Heterosexuals are perfectly welcome to think or believe anything they want, and they don't
deserve derision from the defenders of homosexuality, okay?
Just for the record, I'm straight and married, and I'm a pretty conservative character; however, my wife and I have many lesbian and homosexual
buddies along with our heterosexual buddies. By far, the lesbians seem to carry the biggest chips on their shoulders, while the flaming drag
queens seem the most open-minded. Interestingly, whenever we go to dinner or on camping trips or whatever with these people, the subject of
heterosexuality vs homosexuality never comes up.
— Doc Velocity