Homosexuality!

[torridon]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....

That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.

[Hope]

That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.

torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment.  He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural.  Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality.  As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.

[trippymonkey]

I think the 'real' problem with this thread is the OP. Instead of asking what we all thought of this idea of 'treatment' Sriram made it perfectly clear, being incredibly egotistical. with his 'how dare YOU challenge ME ?!?!?' attitude, that it became a thread about him. Which is precisely what he wanted.

He's one of those that starts off a riot & then stands back saying 'nothing to do with me' when all hell breaks loose.

It IS an important point but it got lost along the way because of a badly thought out premise.

Hope
A very good point, thanks.

[Owlswing]

I think the 'real' problem with this thread is the OP. Instead of asking what we all thought of this idea of 'treatment' Sriram made it perfectly clear, being incredibly egotistical. with his 'how dare YOU challenge ME ?!?!?' attitude, that it became a thread about him. Which is precisely what he wanted.

He's one of those that starts off a riot & then stands back saying 'nothing to do with me' when all hell breaks loose.

It IS an important point but it got lost along the way because of a badly thought out premise.

Hope
A very good point, thanks.

Arrogant, haughty, conceited, self-important, egotistical, full of himself, superior, pompous - who am I describing?

No prizes are being offered for the correct answer.

All the continuation of this thread is achieving is the inflation of the already super-over-sized ego of a homophobe.

 

[torridon]

That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.

torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment.  He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural.  Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality.  As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.

So ?

Abnormal, unnatural, no great difference, it is still an expression of prejudice.

By your reasoning we should label British muslims as 'abnormal' as they form just 4% of the population.

[trippymonkey]

T
Technically YES !!!
MH
EXACTLY as I feel.
I think we can end this thread now, no?

[Udayana]

No doubt Sriram will see things from another pov in his/her future incarnations

[Leonard James]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. 

Sriram

That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.

Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.

Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.

Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.

If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-

Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.

However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.

Can we agree on that?

Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!

Thank you! 

I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out.  Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!

Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.

Nor does being a church goer - with perhaps 6% of the population attending church in a typical week.

However I am not entirely sure what your point is.

Many traits and activities are only present in or conducted by a small proportion of the population and therefore not 'normal' by that definition. But that is a world away from defining not normal as equating to wrong, sinful or dangerous. The two issues are entirely unrelated.

[Sriram]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that....

That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.

torridon,

1. Something can be perfectly natural and still be abnormal. There are so many abnormalities thrown up by nature spontaneously everyday. They don't stop being abnormalities just because they are natural. 

And just because something is natural we don't stop treating the abnormalities or correcting them.  So..there is nothing wrong in seeing some trait as an abnormality and trying to correct it.....however natural it may be.

2. Secondly, you are forgetting that we are talking about epigenetics. This implies lifestyle and behavioral  causes.  So...its possible that many of the homosexuals are not spontaneous and natural abnormalities but are caused by faulty lifestyle and behavioral patterns of their parents or grandparents. This is the crux of this thread.

In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly.  This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.

[Sriram]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. 

Sriram

That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.

Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.

Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.

Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.

If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-

Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.

However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.

Can we agree on that?

Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!

Thank you! 

I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out.  Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!

Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.

Hi Leonard,

Please see my above post to torridon.

If epigenetics is responsible... then homosexuality (in many cases) could be linked to lifestyle patterns of the parents/grandparents. It need not all be as natural and spontaneous as we think. It could be a human induced abnormality in many cases.

Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Owlswing]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. 

Sriram

That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.

Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.

Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.

Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.

If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-

Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.

However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.

Can we agree on that?

Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!

Thank you! 

I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out.  Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!

Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.

QUOTE -

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me!  [/quote]

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

- UNQUOTE

How anyone can believe in "intelligent design" and look at a duckbilled platypus just has to be insane!

[ippy]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. 

Sriram

Ill second your post Mat, mind you I'm sure he's only about 14 or 15 years old, he might be older than that but his mind isn't.

ippy

ippy

That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.

Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.

Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.

Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.

If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-

Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.

However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.

Can we agree on that?

Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!

Thank you! 

I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out.  Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!

Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.

QUOTE -

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

- UNQUOTE

How anyone can believe in "intelligent design" and look at a duckbilled platypus just has to be insane!
[/quote]

[Shaker]

In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly.  This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.

Why is it "very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly," if not to bolster your opinion that homosexuality is a disease which should be cured?

Still haven't heard you say a word on fertile heterosexual people who opt not to have children yet Sriram. Is there an epigenetic reason behind that too?

But of course, since you claim to have ducked out of the discussion in the face of the deservedly hostile response you've received for your witless inanities, we'll never know.

[Sriram]

In fact, it is very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly.  This could built awareness in the people and bring out the importance of lifestyle, diet, stress and so on.

Why is it "very important that research is accelerated and the reasons for the epigenetic changes identified quickly," if not to bolster your opinion that homosexuality is a disease which should be cured?

Still haven't heard you say a word on fertile heterosexual people who opt not to have children yet Sriram. Is there an epigenetic reason behind that too?

But of course, since you claim to have ducked out of the discussion in the face of the deservedly hostile response you've received for your witless inanities, we'll never know.

LOL! Always rambling....aren't you?! How is your question relevant  to this thread?  Its the Wiki article on epigenetics & homosexuality that was the starting point of  this thread. 

Is there a epiigenetic reason behind infertility or not wanting children...you find out!   

[trippymonkey]

<Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.>

Oh English not our first language here, na??

[Shaker]

LOL! Always rambling....aren't you?! How is your question relevant  to this thread?

Ah, I see you haven't given up on this thread after all. Shaker's Law vindicated yet again.

How it's relevant to this thread is that you have declared homosexuality to be abnormal because it doesn't allow for procreation (even though this is plainly false). Therefore, using what I'm sure you like to think of as your logic, if that is the case (as you believe, even though you're wrong) for homosexuals it is equally true for heterosexuals who could have children should they want to (i.e. they're not infertile) but choose not to.

Is there a epiigenetic reason behind infertility or not wanting children...you find out!   

I'm trying to. That's why I'm asking you, Sriram, besotted with epigenetics as you so obviously are.

Now can you answer the question or can you not?

[jeremyp]

Many of the reasons given 10+ years ago as to why homosexuality ought to be legalised have been shown to be dubious at best.

Really?  I thought the only reason to legalise homosexuality was that it is an injustice to homosexuals.  How has that been shown to be dubious?

[Maeght]

One point Sriram - regarding a possible 'cure' you talk about parents wanting their children to have offspring. Do you think that parents have a right to try to alter their children's sexuality?

[Udayana]

Maeght, He has already made it clear that he does.That is the only real issue in this thread, the mechanics of epigenetic influences on sexuality and that they could be manipulated to give a particular result is assumed as a given - making the whole thing hypothetical. I'm assuming he would be happy with gay parents choosing homosexual orientation for their children if they wanted.

[Rhiannon]

That's just a blinkered narrow minded value judgement,you need to grow your mind and your understanding of evolutionary processes. The facts that homosexuality persists at a fairly consistent level across cultures and over time, the evidence of genetic components, the fact that it occurs in some form or other in many species, these all indicate that it is a quite natural feature, and the incidence level of around 3% is presumably the optimal level selected in homo sapiens. If we try to alter that there will be unintended consequences for sure.

torri (and others, I notice) you seem to change the important word in Sri's comment.  He talks about abnormal, you talk about natural.  Unfortunately, your concentration on the naturalness of homosexuality doesn't invalidate Sri's reference to abnormality.  As you say, only some 3% of the human population are homosexual - that is NOT normal, even though it is natural. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines 'normal' thus:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

3% of a population doesn't fit this definition.

You misunderstand, Hope. We know that throughout recorded human history there has always been a percentage of people who are homosexual. Therefore homosexuality is a perfectly normal human variation.

[ippy]

Anyway....let me finish on this thread by saying that homosexuality is an abnormality because it goes against fundamental evolutionary instincts of procreation and survival of the species. There is no doubt about that. 

Sriram

That is completely false. Here is my post pointing out why, which you seem to have missed.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that the evolutionary process works by constantly producing different organisms to test on the environment, and some of them are gay men or women.

Homosexuality alone would have a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, but it is not alone. It works in conjunction with the desire to raise a family, as you can see is the case. Many, probably the majority, of gay people want children to raise in a family unit, so they arrange for that, one way or another.

Furthermore, they can be more suitable than some heteros for raising healthy, well-balanced children.

Evolution is a natural process which always works towards survival and reproduction.

If you disagree on any point, we can discuss it.

Hi Leonard,

Well...I don't know what you mean by 'testing' on the environment. Looks like Intelligent design to me! 

Well, it would, because you think there is an intelligent designer behind it!

Perhaps instead of the concise phrase I used I should have said :-

Reproduction is not always exact, and the minute differences in reproduced organisms makes them either more or less suitable to survive and reproduce in the environment they find themselves in.

However, let us be perfectly clear about this. The inexact reproductive process is in no way designed ... it is random. If it were designed then there would never be any negative differences, because they are wasteful and eventually eliminated. No intelligent designer would waste time and energy producing them.

Can we agree on that?

Anyway, I do respect your rational and balanced response on this thread. In spite of being a homosexual you have been more reasonable than those yelling themselves hoarse out here. Thanks for that!

Thank you! 

I think we should agree to disagree.... and see how the research on epigenetics pans out.  Not likely to happen in a hurry I think!

Well OK, but can you answer that one question first? If you don't agree, tell me why not.

Hi Leonard,

Please see my above post to torridon.

If epigenetics is responsible... then homosexuality (in many cases) could be linked to lifestyle patterns of the parents/grandparents. It need not all be as natural and spontaneous as we think. It could be a human induced abnormality in many cases.

Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.

Cheers.

Sriram

Siriram I'll give you at least you know when you're on a loser, good by you wont be missed. 

ippy.

[Shaker]

Siriram I'll give you at least you know when you're on a loser

Unfortunately not!

[Owlswing]

<Anyway...thanks and I think I'll end my posts on this thread here.>

Oh English not our first language here, na??

That also occurred to me when I read his next post!

[Rhiannon]

One point Sriram - regarding a possible 'cure' you talk about parents wanting their children to have offspring. Do you think that parents have a right to try to alter their children's sexuality?

I can't get my head around it being ok to want my children to do anything to please me. I hope they grow up to be decent people but anything else is their call. I have no intention of building my future dreams around them doing what I want them to.