• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


#120 - Homoesexuality and Biology

AlexMerced

AlexMerced

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
7,373
http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/

Hey Guys,

As much as I consider myself a conservative, peoples adverse opinions again homosexuality make no sense to me so I'm going to address my opinions and thoughts on this issue since it can be one the biggest political distractions used by parties to to distract from real issues like monetary and foreign policy.

One of the most bizarre arguments we hear is the argument of the biological imperative for the survival of a species. The idea that a species behavior can be molded by it's survival instinct makes sense to me, but a species survival is not only Dependant on an increasing population. A species can be over populated and consume it's resources to fast causing the fall of the species as we see when predators go instinct in an eco-system and it's prey suddenly goes through a population boom.

So if over-population is just as much a problem as underpopulation it would make sense that the biological imperative of the species could change to keep the population growth under control. One way this could be is to see an increase in homosexuality, similar things have been seen in other species where animals change genders or sexual preference due to biological necessities (it was major plot point in Jurassic Park). So the point being, if what's important is the survival of the species, homosexuality can be just as good for the survival as the species as heterosexuality, it's all about the species finding a balance.

Although this gives the rise to a new question? Cause something MIGHT effect the birthrate should it be considered unethical behavior. Most nations don't have lack of people, the only nation that has forecasted shortage of people for employment due to declining birthrate is Japan. The situation in Japan has nothing to really due with sexuality but more with the amount of productivity that most couples focus on careers instead of building families.

So if productivity is effecting the birth rate, should this now be names an "un-natural" behavior? The point in all this is that homosexuality really in the end is a stupid issue cause liberty and freedom let's people live their lives how they wish. It's about the individual, and if you start arguing about the ethics of someones actions based on how it effects the whole you are falling into the collectivist traps that have made the government become so big with entitlement programs and a bloated foreign policy.

So you may have your opinions on this issue, but please don't let this distract you from the real issues effecting every individual in this nation, things like Monetary policy and Foreign Policy, other dangers spun from the collectivist cooking pot.
Click to expand...
 
Anti-Homosexuality is a Republican issue, not a Conservative issue =P

Nice article.
 
Kludge said:
Anti-Homosexuality is a Republican issue, not a Conservative issue =P

Nice article.
Click to expand...

It's a neocon issue. I am a conservative republican and it is not an issue to me. The only issue I have is that people have to talk about it when it is irrelevant to governing. It's the same as drug laws, I just say "OK? Come back to me when there is a victim".

Maybe the NWO is going to release a chemical to make us all gay in order to do their population reduction :eek: :eek: lol
 
I don’t agree with this interpretation of homosexuality

I’ve read of several possible evolutionary theories (for example, that homosexuals invest more resources in raising the children of their close relatives, or that homosexual behavior is a way to form alliances with dominant males and therefore increase one’s social status and ability to find a prized mate), but most of them I don’t agree with, either.

One biological theory I’ve heard that is intriguing: that the sisters of male homosexuals tend to have more children than the average woman, meaning both siblings could have genes making them more attracted to men, and the gene expresses itself in different ways (higher fertility in the female, homosexuality in the male). I don’t know if this is true, but I find it interesting.

Homosexuality could also have environmental causes (hormones in pre-natal environment, early childhood influences). Then there’s the possibility of “choice” which many people subscribe to. There’s no denying that many people (usually women) do engage in homosexual behavior to attract the attention of the opposite sex, but overall the “choice” argument I find insufficient.

But no matter what the cause is, live and let live. Government shouldn’t criminalize sexual acts between consenting adults.
 
Homosexuals dont bother me none unless they are trying to use it as a weapon against the main stream that they feel has rejected them. My kid asks me why those men are making out, and I'm gonna tell my kid that they have some kinda birth defect. I'm not gonna feed my kid some BS about homosexuality being normal and healthy.
 
revolutionman said:
Homosexuals dont bother me none unless they are trying to use it as a weapon against the main stream that they feel has rejected them. My kid asks me why those men are making out, and I'm gonna tell my kid that they have some kinda birth defect. I'm not gonna feed my kid some BS about homosexuality being normal and healthy.
Click to expand...

and your kid will grow up hating a particular group of people and not even know why.

all because of you.
 
and your kid will grow up hating a particular group of people and not even know why.
Click to expand...

thats ridiculous.

Why would i teach my kids to hate people with birth defects?? Thats just ignorant.
 
Homosexuality is a Choice, Not a Chromosome

AlexMerced said:
http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

The problem with the argument for homosexuality in this article is that it assumes homosexuality is biological. It is definitely not. Homosexuality is a choice, just like murder. It's at the height of immorality to suggest that a sinful lifestyle is just a result of chemical/biological factors of the body as if volition has nothing to do with it. Murderers who kill innocent people sometimes get away with it in our courts due to "biological excuses" for their behavior, such as "chemical imbalances of the brain," "biological/animal instincts to take over a territory," etc. If homosexuality were merely biological, then how do you explain what happened to these people?
 
I have quite a few gay friends, though I find homosexuality absolutely disgusting and, yes, a sin. I don't judge people based on it as my friends don't even know what opinion on homosexuality is, but I also will not tell my son that it is healthy and normal. But they honestly don't bother me as long as they keep it in the privacy of their own homes and quit playing victimhood demanding all kinds of special rights.
90% of the gay people I know are bisexual anyway, which to me means they weren't born with it. They'll just screw anything that moves. My friends are a bit whorish. lol
 
The problem with the argument for homosexuality in this article is that it assumes homosexuality is biological. It is definitely not. Homosexuality is a choice, just like murder.
Click to expand...

What a wonderful comparison. Why not: a choice, just like eating peanut butter?
 
revolutionman said:
...I'm not gonna feed my kid some BS about homosexuality being normal and healthy.
Click to expand...

"Conclusion. In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

International Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 26, No. 3 (pdf file) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf

Live and let live is my attitude as well, but my take is social engineering/soft-kill eugenics. Not a popular tangent in your corporate diversity training.
 
Theocrat said:
The problem with the argument for homosexuality in this article is that it assumes homosexuality is biological. It is definitely not. Homosexuality is a choice, just like murder. It's at the height of immorality to suggest that a sinful lifestyle is just a result of chemical/biological factors of the body as if volition has nothing to do with it. Murderers who kill innocent people sometimes get away with it in our courts due to "biological excuses" for their behavior, such as "chemical imbalances of the brain," "biological/animal instincts to take over a territory," etc. If homosexuality were merely biological, then how do you explain what happened to these people?
Click to expand...

No, I actually the premise of my argument is the basis of many arguments that the reason that heterosexual sex is the only ethical sex cause it's part of the species biological imperative to survive, and that homosexuality is a deviation from that imperative.

My counter argument is only to address that argument to demonstrate how homosexuality can serve the survival imperative just as much.

Then I conclude with demonstrating the larger problem with the overall premise of saying only things that serve the ends of survival of the species are ethical.

I mean, I personally have a very different view on sexuality in general that focuses on being people attractions to characteristics, not gender. If people were truly attracted to gender they'd innately know if a transgendered person is woman or not. Instead we ae genetically pre-disposed to being attracted to certain characteristics in the same way a large part of our personalities are genetic.

So essentially, to me, everyone is naturally bisexual but genetic pre-dispositions to certain characteristics can tip the scales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
President Trump Defunds UNFPA, Which Promotes Abortion and Population Control
Replies
2
Views
41
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Occam's Banana
The collapse of complex societies
Replies
7
Views
9K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
G
Taking things from human people
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Occam's Banana
89 dinosaurs have "potentially offensive names"
Replies
6
Views
2K
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Brian4Liberty
Tariffs and the Constitution
Replies
5
Views
899
osan
osan
Back
Top