Originally posted by crmanager
Let's run with this thought that being "gay" ( I love the fact that you guys stole that term) isnormal and that Gay people do NOT give birth to gay
Which is it?
Stole the term? From what, the dictionary
? Everyone knows what "gay" means in this
context. Getting hung up on the etymology is not productive. English is functional more than it is strictly defined and formalized, "gay" is an
acceptable term here and the etymology is trivial in this conversation.
Normalcy is one of the most useless concepts around. If by normal
you mean the norm for
the population, then no, being gay is not normal because the average person isn't gay. It is, however, normal in the sense that it arises naturally
in certain species. For any population of humans(and many other
) we know that some of the individuals will be gay, so we should expect to find homosexual behavior in the population. It's normal for
there to be homosexuals in the population.
It's true that homosexual people probably don't give birth to homosexuals at a higher rate than the rest of the population, so when you say " gay
people do not give birth to gay kids" you're right.
You ask "which is it?" As though there are two mutually exclusive things and we have to make a choice. Either gays are "normal" or they don't
have gay kids. False dichotomy. There are plenty of normal characteristics that people can have that they don't necessarily pass on to their
children. For example it's normal for females to give birth to males, and it's normal for people who like brussel sprouts to have kids that don't
like them, and it's normal for people of average intelligence to have mentally disabled children. You're not the same as your parents, this is also
true for gay people.
Are you born gay? Are you born normal and turn that way because of the environment?
It's pretty clear from the research that there's not one simple explanation. The "nature vs. nurture" debate has raged among people who want to
think in simple, categorical terms for a very long time. It doesn't work like that, it's not "either/or." Some simple things, like eye color,
are purely genetic, and some things, like language spoken, are purely experiential. For most things, though, both genes and experience play a part.
We know homosexuality(and all behavior) is based on some underlying neurobiology that causes people to behave the way that they do. There's not a
simple answer to the question of how their brains got that way. It's almost certainly a combination of factors, as are virtually all behavioral
If a species produces children that CAN NOT reproduce through normal procreation and MUST reproduce by stepping outside of its norm then that means
It IS a broken species.
You know that "humans" are the species, right? Gays aren't a species. . . Human beings can't or don't have kids for a number of a reasons. It
doesn't mean human beings are broken. Nothing supernatural came down and "broke" the human species by adding in some gay people. Homosexuality
arose naturally in many species. None of them are broken. We seem to be overpopulating the planet just fine, despite the fact that homosexual people
are not as likely to have kids.
It will never be healthy and thus maintaining its position as a broken species.
It's not a matter of health, and the fact that some people don't have kids is not what is keeping human's "broken." This is a senseless claim,
you think the real probablem with humanity is that there are gay people? You do know that you're a human, right? A member of the "broken" species
You guys can ONLY reproduce by forced procreation.
"You guys?" I'm not gay. I think that many people here are just talking about the OP, it doesn't mean that we're all gay.
Your claim is totally false. If a homosexual couple wants to have a kid they can adopt or find a sperm donor(if they are women) or find a surrogate
mother(if they are men). Gay couples have kids, and there is no such thing as "forced procreation"(do you mean rape?). You should at least make
some attempt to find out if these claims correspond to the reality before you make them, because in this case it's very clear that your claim is
baseless and contradicted by the reality.
There is NO species on Earth that survives this way.
The more I read of this the more I think you must believe homosexuals are a species. This is unfortunate. Of course they are not, they are humans.
These are some of the species that survive with homosexuals in their midst:
* African Elephant* Brown Bear* Brown Rat* Buffalo* Caribou* Cat (domestic)* Cheetah* Common Dolphin* Common Marmose* Common Raccoon* Dog (domestic)*
European Bison* Prea* Chicken (Domestic)* Common Gull* Emu* King Penguin* Chicken (Domestic)* Common Gull* Emu* King Penguin* Anole * Bearded Dragon*
Broad-headed Skink* Checkered Whiptail Lizard* Chihuahuan Spotted WhiptailChihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard* Common Ameiva* Common Garter Snake*
Cuban Green Anole* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard* Desert Tortoise* Fence Lizard* Five-lined Skink* Gopher (Pine) Snake* Green Anole* Inagua
Curlytail Lizard* Jamaican Giant Anole* Laredo Striped WhiptailLaredo Striped Whiptail Lizard* Largehead Anole* Mourning Gecko* Plateau Striped
Whiptail Lizard* Red Diamond Rattlesnake* Red-tailed Skink* Side-blotched Lizard* Speckled Rattlesnake* Water Moccasin* Western rattlesnake (Crotalus
viridis)* Western Banded Gecko* Whiptail Lizard spp.* Wood Turtle
This list is far from exhaustive.
You ARE NOT meant to be.
Well then how do you
explain their existence? You think they're all just jerks? They're creatures of the earth, just like everything else,
and just like everything else they are "meant" to be.