your on shaky ground with your thymology i fear.
where did that come from? is that justified?
You may be right, I’m just going by my BIO 1010 class.
Wouldn’t anything else be bisexuality?
in the venn diagram of sexuality. bisexuals are necessarily homosexual and heterosexual. if you want to exclude bisexuals from your analysis of homosexuals, then obviously you are leaving out a quantity of homosexuals. i’m not sure it matters anyway; if there are things like social/cultural pleasures to mate, this could perform the function that natural attraction fulfils when it comes to mating homosexuals with others compatible for conception.
Yes. I’m not counting bisexuals. I disagree with your Venn diagram; there are homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals. But I though it was pretty clear in my first post as to what I meant by homosexual.
Bisexuals do find opposite-sex fun, so they obviously aren’t included.
With such clarifications would you still disagree with what I’ve said?
Sure, but thats only if, certainly it could be that, but that hasn’t been the case throughout human history. I’m going to stick with what I’ve said; if sex wasn’t pleasurable people wouldn’t engage in it, (see asexuals) and thus breeding wouldn’t occur. Rectifying it with social/cultural rewards would certainly boost the number, but I doubt it would work nearly as well as physical stimuli does.
im not going to rebut your rebuttals of mine, i will leave that to others if they please.
I would like to introduce a new point.
Consider, all that it would take for homosexuality to be a prevalent characteristic of a proportion of a population (With genetic causes) would be if the offspring of the mother and father who occasionally produce homosexuals, could hold its own in competition against the offspring of mothers and fathers who never have homosexual children. This is merely an alternative stratergy for perpetuating the parents genes. rather than a) ‘going for numbers’ and having children who , if they live till maturity, are all theoretically capable of going on to have children of their own; they b) have a significant number of hetero children, and other children (homosexual) that will not be distracted by their own offspring, but could divert resources to maintenance of the offspring of the hetero-s in the tribe. making the average child of the tribe (hetero or homo) that much more likely of getting to maturity, and if they are hetero of passing on genes. or other such stories…
it remains to be demonstrated why homosexuality is a ‘genetic dead end’ , if it does indeed confer such benefits on the genes which perpetuate themselves by reliance on it. The empirical evidence from animal studies shows it is not a mere ‘invention’ of modern man, but a prevalent phenomenon throughout the animal kingdom.
who is to say what are the ‘genetic dead ends’ before the arrival of evidence that the trait has indeed died out?
There’s a species of monkeys that engages in homosexual orgy when the group is fighting to alleviate the conflict.
Before the emergence of commercial gay culture, many gay men would marry women for whatever reasons. To have a family, to appear normal, whatever.
Complete conjecture. Now, just admit you hate homosexuals.
Listen to us, we sound like republicans and democrats 
Republicans and Democrats are omnisexual. They screw everybody!
Curses! Your razor-sharp wit, knowledge of biology, and flawless use of logic have exposed me.
Do you even try to understand what other posters are saying?
Let’s put this into perspective. Use polygamy. That kills this biological non-reproductiveness nonsense (homosexuals do in fact have children either through surrogates, invitro fertilization or adoption - so what if two homosexuals can’t produce a child; people find a way).
The position is rather simple to me. Government should be out of marriage, period. Government should be out of everything, period. Now if homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, etc. want to fight for their own government priviledges, more power to ya. Just don’t count on the rest of us jumping on that band wagon, because we’d rather push the government out of the way. I’d rather deal with the issues involving the construction of meaningful civil contracts than the issues of government intervention. The government is so unfair! Go cry me a river.
Insurance companies don’t honor marriage contracts between homosexuals; don’t do business with them. If there’s a market, then someone will step up. Yes, it’s a pain in the rear end, but so is a lot of the crazy stuff the government has its meat hooks into. My suggestion is to fight this using free market, libertarian solutions rather than using a gun.
Sure. You keep talking about the human race (and giraffes) dying out because of homosexuals. We’ve always had them around and it hasn’t hurt the population growth. Exactly how would allowing them to marry increase their numbers to point of human extinction? Everyone on my block could be gay married couples and I would still be straight, and reproducing, so would a majority of people.
I still say the government should be out of the marriage business but since we have allowed them into it then all couples should have access to the same benefits. We can’t change the whole system at once, so we make some corrections with what we have while trying to get a better system. Big bureaucracies move in small increments.
Why can’t we change the whole system at once? A constitutional ammendment that neither the federal government nor the state shall interfere with the personal relationships of individuals. Sounds pretty easy to me. I’d like to see some proof.
Manipulations of a system based on government intervention isn’t a “better” system. And are the benefits your speaking of based on individual merit and production or are they government redistribution? That matters because while you grant government benefits to one group, the government has to steal from other individuals.
I don’t think we can change the system in one step. It would require a lot more libertarians, or other like minded people, to all vote the same. I doubt there is anywhere near the support needed for such an Amendment. It would be nice just not very likely. I believe it is more feasible to see it coming in stages. We could change it all with a revolution but again that takes vast amounts of support and the world governments are set up to protect themselves very well.
I just think it is more realistic to see changes coming over time. But then again working for the taxpayer as long as I have maybe I have a skewed view from the inside. We can’t even get people involved enough to change our horribly corrupt school district here in town. And it cost everyone huge amounts in taxes!
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see it all get corrected in one glorious day but I just can’t see it as probable. We have a huge job just trying to get the apathetic masses to think for themselves and honestly see what would be best. Most people I know have the attitude that you can’t fight City Hall.
Look at the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The congress passed, and President Grant signed into law, a set of laws very similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But then the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The people would not have accepted it all at once. So a little at a time got changed until they could pass it in 1964. Whether you agree with the Act or not I think it is a good example of the slow changes our bloated bureaucracy makes.
I’m not sure if I am pessimistic or realistic?
No, no, no. You are simply ignoring what I’ve said.
“Sure. You keep talking about the human race (and giraffes) dying out because of homosexuals. We’ve always had them around and it hasn’t hurt the population growth.”
That isn’t what I’ve said at all. I said if the human race was composed entirely of homosexuals then it would die off. As someone suggested otherwise. Look at my first post:
“Exactly how would allowing them to marry increase their numbers to point of human extinction? Everyone on my block could be gay married couples and I would still be straight, and reproducing, so would a majority of people.”
It wouldn’t. I never said it would. In fact I’ve already made this clear.
And I agree, and wouldn’t stop at couples. Historically, polygamy is far more common than the alternative, participants should be given all of the same benefits as any other marriage ( at least remove its criminal status!).
So to clarify: I’m not arguing against gay marriage, I’m not arguing that the existence of homosexuals would lead to extinction, I’m not arguing that giving homosexuals the right to marry would lead to extinction. Please read what I have argued before making completely unrelated replies.
Yes if all humas were homsexual we would die off. And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a cart. What is the point in that line of reasoning anyway?
And quite frankly I am in support of polygamy, well really I’m in support of the government not telling me how to live my life.
The point was to correct an error made by another poster. And, as I’ve explained to nirgrahamUK, now it doesn’t matter, however just from a biological standpoint if sex wasn’t enjoyable it wouldn’t be engaged in.
Personally, I don’t support any marriage. But its not my job to keep people from making giant mistakes.
And yet reality says otherwise.