It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Homosexuality is natural and it benefits society? If not, why?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Fromabove
Homosexuality is not natural, any plumber can tell you that. And according the the Holy Bible it is sinful, as is premarital and extramarital sex, and sex with animals, or incest. The only sexual act that is natural and good is one in marriage between a man and a women. That is my opinion.

Now, would you care to discuss what the Bible says is OK and what is not???

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:11 PM
Homosexuality might benefit a species if suddenly all heterosexuals are subject to a disease that kills them. Homosexuals can still breed, if necessary.

Nearly all "alternative" sexual preferences can be seen as good ol' Mother Nature keeping a back-up plan ready in case something odd happens in the environment, like a new virus that has figured out a new way to kill. Keeping the DNA train rolling is a messy business. Sometimes messier than others.

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:26 AM
It's still unclear whether the discussion is on homosexuality in general, even situational or opportunistic homosexuality, or the exclusively gay minority. For situational homosexuality the superficial function seems to be bonding and establishing heirarchies. One thinks of the Spartan and Greek "armies of lovers" in ancient times.
Interestingly, before the age of AIDS the arguments about health seemed topsy turvy - one Victorian excuse for homosexuality was that female prostitutes all had the pox.
For the fixed gay minority there has been a long-standing association with cultural production, a devotion to the meme, rather than the passing of the gene, or as it was politely labelled: "the civilized vice".

So far it seems that when people speak of "plumbing" they are constructing a false dichotomy:
heterosexuality=vaginal sex
homosexuality=anal sex
Yet, no sexual orientation is a single sex act. In fact the attraction or orientation can exist without any sex whatsoever. The arguments against homosexuality are actually arguments against anal sex (widespread amongst heterosexual partners if straight porn is any indicator of what they fantasize about). So oral sex or mutual masturbation seems to be OK and isn't "true homosexuality". Homosexuality is only recognized when it mimics straight penetration. So far lesbianism also seems left out by the plumbing arguments. The anti-gay arguments seem to construct homosexuality as they go along, and thus they also construct idealized, sanitized heterosexuality by implication. So here the function of homosexuality is simply to make out heterosexuality as something better than we actually experience.

edit on 24-9-2010 by halfoldman because: spelling

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:10 PM
I'm just pondering the notion of "beneficial".
What do we actually mean by "benefit", and whom does it benefit?
Just a few generations ago we all believed in the Western world that Kings had Divine Rights, and to question that was "unnatural".
Now we live in a morally reletavistic world, where whatever claims to be "absolute good" is often exposed as evil.
As Hannah Arendts and others pointed out, the Holocaust was possible because of insignificant, banal citizen's positive qualities like precision, work ethic, patriotism and loyalty.

So one has to define terms like "society" and being "beneficial".
Endangered animals or minority cultures may not be beneficial in any direct sense, but they may hold all kinds of future beneficial material.
Consumption, consumer goods and gas-guzzling SUVs may not be benefial to the environment or future generations, but they may be temporarily beneficial to economies.

So it seems that "benefit" is a golden mean, or a balancing act.
Heterosexual vaginal sex can keep populations going, but it can also cause over-population. Either extreme can cause extinction for the entire species.
Therefore it's a bit unfair to say that only homosexuality can cause extinction. Without intervention heterosexuality can also cause extinction.
The thing is that people imagine a worst case scenario for homosexuality (if EVERYBODY was gay we'd die out), but they keep the denial on heterosexuality - because the way things are going heterosexuality threatens us far more.
It's not balanced.
So, since gay culture nowadays largely tries to copy heterosexuality, it can also not be balanced.
The blind leading the blind, it seems.

edit on 24-9-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by Tykonos

Let's find a compromise and say:
After 2.5 kids you've done your evolutionary duty from the WASP position, and after that sexuality serves no more real purpose for society.

OK, it might stop people from exploding with lust or going nuts, or sublimating their sexuality in a harmful way.
A lack of sexual performance in the male could also be an early indicator of heart disease.
Otherwise it's just social glue - bonding or patriarchal dominance.
But maybe that glue is very important.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in