mookalovesgloop wrote:of course i'm aware that there are instances in nature where the circumstances demand that accommodations be made so that life can go on. however i'm sure that we can both agree that humans, as a norm do NOT reproduce via parthenogenesis or any of the other methods that you enumerated...so i think that's comparing apples and oranges. furthermore sexual action and attraction between human partners is accompanied with emotional and social complexities that make a comparison of the two even more far-fetched.
I was not sugesting that people can reproduce without both a male and a female(although I did state that they don't necessarily have to see each other anymore to get it done).
But my reference to nature is mainly to point out that it happens in nature.
I'd like to make clear what I understand under natural; existing in or produced by nature : not artificial
Cancer is natural, animals get it without any human contact or contact with pollutants.
At the same time, getting cancer from overexposure to certain types of radiation would not be natural, if that radiation does not normally occur on planet earth without being created by a human.(or chemicals, or any other number of man made substances/behavior that seem to increase the odds at cancer)
Is this not what we understand under natural? If not I should probably use a different word to describe what I meant.
Side note: cancer is nasty and although part of nature, its fair to say its one of the bad parts.
As to these "accommodations", if you read the wiki article I linked you'll find that a lot of the homosexual behavior it describes(of species that can't reproduce with the same sex) are not just of necessity(like a lack of females). An example would be a giraffe that has a male companion, has sex with said companion and ejaculates inside the companions asshole. This giraffe would still sometimes also have sex with a female, but 9 out of 10 times he'll be riding his male pall. In the continuity of species debate, this behavior would be enough to ensure offspring while at the same time he gets lots of sex with some guy-giraffe he seems to really like.
Another example would be certain species of apes, where sex is part of their social interactions and it doesn't really matter to them if its gay or not.
even in countries like say india or china where the male to female ratio is grossly disproportionate, we don't see women sprouting penises and compensating for the inequality...considering that there ARE species even lower than ours in the scale of evolution that can do just that, i can't believe that's by accident or because of any deficiency in our species!
weekend hacker wrote: And isn't that...the point of creating life, to have it somehow be like you.. only better?
no! the idea that our children are "ours" is an egoistic one and an illusion...each person has their own purpose and destiny, their parents are simply the vehicles through which they are manifested in their physical form and our job is to care for and nurture our offspring so that they will successfully function to give back to the whole when they are adults...
But we do, obviously not in the form of spouting a penis. But in some countries with a more disproportionate ratio, we see more boys turning themselves into girls or girls turning themselves into boys. In some of those places it is culturally accepted to do this, sometimes even forced by parents :s
I wouldn't call not being able to change sex as a deficiency, we as a species are incapable of changing/regrowing anything after its been made.(note female and male genitalia start off the same in the womb, but then form in either one or the other(or something else..))
I'd like to be able to regrow a limb if I lost it like a lizard though, I'd be into all kinds of dangerous stuff.
As to the babies, what difference does it make if a gay guy puts his sperm in a woman that will have no part in the actual raising of the kid? Seems that just like the gay giraffe he's working toward getting his alloted 2.3 children and actually raising them too. Seems like he would be doing his part towards ensuring the kid will grow up into a functioning member of society. Even if he adopts it seems legit to me.
This is why I mentioned that education is also important and not just genetics. Even without a genetic connection a kid you raise is yours, you'll have thought it everything it knows and it will have learned from your mistakes. People are more then just dna, we are smarter then cavemen not because of a different brain but because we have more information to go on, better languages to communicate those ideas with and these days we can even do it electronically. We are smarter because we have more access to knowledge, and passed on better methods of learning. Homosexual people are just as capable(if not better) at doing this than anyone else. And no mater how the kid was born, it came with a full set of blue prints just like everyone else, it just might not have been written by his parents.
I think that creating life, any kind of life, is more then just a dna donation and appropriate incubator. It requires you to protect and nurture it for at least as long until it can set about creating its own offspring.
And believe it or not, every human ever born(including homosexuals, or those raised by homosexuals) came from 2 sets of dna, 1 male and 1 female. I don't see how homosexuality would somehow change this.
weekend hacker wrote: a virus or worse a baby is something you're stuck with for life
wow, really? i swear i mean no offense, but this remark makes me question how your values are lined up....
Babies are a responsibility and drain on resources that I'm not yet willing to commit to(possibly in the hopes of having a better life to give a potentially future kid). As to a virus, the only responsibility you gain is not giving it to someone else... seems easy enough.
nigelpurc wrote:Gay is not "normal" in the sense that most people aren't gay, but is perfectly acceptable and there are biological bases for it is all I am saying. There are less gay people than straight people fact. It is natural for some people to be gay fact, but controversial. Gay people should not be discriminated against since it is not their choice to be the way they were born.
Gay is not a disease like having O- blood type isn't a disease you can't see it, but is part of who you are.
Also i regret typing the psychological argument. bad point but it happens
Yep to each his own.
^- agree with everything mentioned.
And as mentioned above, although maybe not the "norm" it is natural. And chances are there will always be more straight people than gay people.
As I've been defending homosexuality in this debate for several posts, I should probably disclose that I am not gay. For some reason girls have an effect on me that no guy ever can.
I can't help it, its how I was born. But I won't apologize for it either.
(side side note; I'm not an ugly guy and would probably get layed a lot more if I was gay and didn't keep getting my heart broken by members of the opposite sex.)