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

reply to post by Target Earth

STDs like HIV did not originate in the gay communty, but in Africa mainly through heterosexual migrations. Still now, 94.5 percent of HIV infections globally are transmitted heterosexually.
So, apart from basically anouncing the ability to "breed" (in most cases) what else is so wonderful about heterosexuality?
Let's turn the argument around - unless you want to impregnate every time you have sex, what is the benefit of heterosexuality?
It's just rape, abuse and astounding divorce rates. Masses of hungry, unloved, uncared for children? Never even mind the poorer countries and the Aids orphans.
Except for producing the odd talented gay person it's a disaster, with no consistent benefit but lust.

reply to post by Bkrmn

My question certainly makes sense.
You said a penis must go into a vagina. Clearly you didn't say "my penis", but you were talking collectively about what every guy should be doing with his penis.
(Which is ridiculous, even for straight guys who prefer to stick them elsewhere.)
As such you were thinking of many other penises but your own, and since this is kinda gay and as you put it - "unnatural", it made me wonder why you think about other penises but your own.
And whether you want a discussion with me or not, I have a right to engage or comment on your opinion, no matter what my race, gender or sexual orientation.

Very nice OP! Now to give my take on the quiestions posed in the title of the thread. Is it natural, as in seen in nature? Yes. Over 1,500 species that we know of have a homosexual population. Does it benefit society? Again, I would have to say yes. Many of society's most famous artists have been homosexual. From Fashion to Film, the influence of gay and lesbian artists has spread all across every spectrum of society. Gianni Versace, Andy Warhol, Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury just to name a few.



Like it say's at the end of the video, it doesn't matter who you sleep with, it's what you do!

Originally posted by Aim64CIt's nothing more than a thrill-seeking activity - a fetish, of sorts. I've never come across a healthy homosexual relationship - there's simply a psychological barrier that exists between people of the same-sex on a fundamental level. I'm of the opinion that homosexuality deprives both parties of a genuine and fulfilling domestic and sexual partnership.

I don't see gay men hitting eachother, raping eachother, screaming at eachother about "sexual inequality" that neither side often sees clearly about, cutting out eachother's body parts and mounting them like a trophy and having movies made about them, but heterosexuals do all these things. Since this is my personal knowledge of it, I'm going to assume that every heterosexual relationship is just a thrill-seeking activity; no heterosexuals can coexist together peacefully, they must just do it for kicks. This is my opinion to make because I have no real personal experience with heterosexual relationships, I just observe a few of them and assume that this is how they all are. I am right and nobody will argue me out of this because I am right. I am right.

Understand how ridiculous this sounds yet?

A healthy relationship would be fulfilling for both parties on many levels - a feeling of satisfaction, comfort, and joy. It is pretty much implied in the context exactly what a healthy relationship is. Heterosexuality does not preclude a healthy relationship. That said - I've never seen an instance where a homosexual couple was capable of having a healthy relationship.

Well, I guess since you've never seen it, it doesn't exist. Me and my boyfriend should probably just kill ourselves now because we don't exist anyways; you have no experience with it -- it obviously doesn't exist.

I know what a healthy relationship is. I would list examples - but you don't know any of them to make your own assessments, so it's rather pointless. Suffice to say that they are people who endured in their relationships and enjoyed the company of each other.

This is exactly how I would have replied if this exact question was asked in response to me being in your role (the first paragraph of this post):

I know what a healthy relationship is, but you don't know any of these "healthy homosexuals" to make your own assessments; it's rather pointless. Suffice to say that they are happy people who flourished in their relationship and enjoyed eachother's company.

Get some perspective

I have never come across a homosexual couple that has exhibited even remotely similar traits. I am closer to some of my friends of the same sex than they were to their 'love of their life.' It's my observation that the attempt at intimacy only confuses the relationship to the point of being invalid.

That's not to say there can't be - I've just never seen it. I'm from Missouri - the Show-Me state (No, I really am from Missouri).

I'm from a place where ignorant people live, it's okay that I remain ignorant. I'm going to make opinions about anything I want because I'm from Missouri. Missouri Pride!

Then you are, by far, rare among your demographic. I will still say I think there's a 'girl out there for you' - or something to the effect that I believe you could have a deeper relationship with a female - but it should be clear that I don't think less of anyone for their decision regarding this matter. I view it the same as I view smoking - something that's not for me and I'd rather not hang around someone when they are smoking, but it's their choice that I don't agree with. Life goes on.

Straight people don't get along, ones that do are very rare. Too often I see them in-equalizing each other. I think there's a man out there for every man. Think about how unequal they are -- the male-female relationship; if a man hits a woman, that's evil -- if a woman hits a man, that's hilarious. If a woman reacts to a man hitting her, that's heroic, if a man reacts this way, he's a criminal. Why do they keep courting eachother, they clearly aren't meant for each other. I have decided that I have an opinion on this and I deserve to rant about it on a public forum. Other men chose to be attracted to women even though they don't know how to treat eachother properly at all; I don't approve of heterosexual relationships because the ones I have seen don't reflect a "healthy relationship", as I see it. Life goes on.

Again, how does this sound to you? This is how you sound to gay people. Perspective.

It was in the context of "the gay uncle" argument for social evolution. Homosexuality is not correlated to feminine characteristics. Which means the "gay uncle in touch with his feminine side" does not require the "gay" anymore than it requires "blond."

I'm the gay uncle and I don't fit any of the stereotypes that my blonde sister fits as the "blonde". I'm not sure its "constructive", but its certainly not destructive

You're being awfully judgmental. We're talking about evolutionary benefits, here. Being homosexual, you will not pass on your genetic traits to a future generation. The only case that could be a beneficial quality to society is if your genes are flawed.

Who told you that increasing population is a good thing? Population recess is completely necessary. Actually, if there hadn't been homosexuals since humanity existed, we would all have run out of resources a long time ago. Actually, population inflation is seen as a negative in the determination of the awards for the best countries to live in. It sounds like you're hung up about a homosexual child or something, i feel kind of sorry for him/her .

Please keep in mind I'm using very blunt logic. The point was not about your feelings - I honestly couldn't care less about people's feelings when the topic is hereditary genetics. Doesn't matter how much you love or hate each other - doesn't change your genetics. You can believe what you will - but a pairing that does not produce offspring doesn't have much benefit to the species.

It's no different than my genetic disposition towards vision problems will not benefit the species as a whole - doesn't matter how much I love my significant other, how much I love my kids, etc - it doesn't change the genetic heritage of my children. There are other valuable metrics - but in that one respect, I'm not doing my species any favors.

At this point I imagine you are going to tell me how "healthy" your own parent's relationship was/is, and how your own relationship/s are shining examples to the World. Please don't flatter yourself, you cannot polish a rough stone with a piece of tissue, so you can put that back in your pocket because I am not interested. Thank you very much!

So you're a shining example of healthiness and everyone else can go to hell?

Isn't this pretty much exactly what you've been saying?

I'll be honest with you - my father went through two prior marriages before he met my mother. I'd like to think they were the pinnacle of what a healthy couple is, and that they would last forever - but they are both dead. I do know that they loved each other very much - and I've only recently begun to understand just how much they did for us kids.

But I understand - it's easy to proclaim someone of a different opinion as incompetent as opposed to actually getting to understand their position and reasoning. I'm guilty of the same thing in other discussions, too - so it's not like I'm going to say I'm better.

In other posts, you're probably arguing about things that are actually opinions. Here you are just arguing against facts. Deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Aim64CIt's nothing more than a thrill-seeking activity - a fetish, of sorts. I've never come across a healthy homosexual relationship - there's simply a psychological barrier that exists between people of the same-sex on a fundamental level. I'm of the opinion that homosexuality deprives both parties of a genuine and fulfilling domestic and sexual partnership.

I don't see gay men hitting eachother, raping eachother, screaming at eachother about "sexual inequality" that neither side often sees clearly about, cutting out eachother's body parts and mounting them like a trophy and having movies made about them, but heterosexuals do all these things. Since this is my personal knowledge of it, I'm going to assume that every heterosexual relationship is just a thrill-seeking activity; no heterosexuals can coexist together peacefully, they must just do it for kicks. This is my opinion to make because I have no real personal experience with heterosexual relationships, I just observe a few of them and assume that this is how they all are. I am right and nobody will argue me out of this because I am right. I am right.

Understand how ridiculous this sounds yet?

A healthy relationship would be fulfilling for both parties on many levels - a feeling of satisfaction, comfort, and joy. It is pretty much implied in the context exactly what a healthy relationship is. Heterosexuality does not preclude a healthy relationship. That said - I've never seen an instance where a homosexual couple was capable of having a healthy relationship.

Well, I guess since you've never seen it, it doesn't exist. Me and my boyfriend should probably just kill ourselves now because we don't exist anyways; you have no experience with it -- it obviously doesn't exist.

I know what a healthy relationship is. I would list examples - but you don't know any of them to make your own assessments, so it's rather pointless. Suffice to say that they are people who endured in their relationships and enjoyed the company of each other.

This is exactly how I would have replied if this exact question was asked in response to me being in your role (the first paragraph of this post):

I know what a healthy relationship is, but you don't know any of these "healthy homosexuals" to make your own assessments; it's rather pointless. Suffice to say that they are happy people who flourished in their relationship and enjoyed eachother's company.

Get some perspective

I have never come across a homosexual couple that has exhibited even remotely similar traits. I am closer to some of my friends of the same sex than they were to their 'love of their life.' It's my observation that the attempt at intimacy only confuses the relationship to the point of being invalid.

That's not to say there can't be - I've just never seen it. I'm from Missouri - the Show-Me state (No, I really am from Missouri).

I'm from a place where ignorant people live, it's okay that I remain ignorant. I'm going to make opinions about anything I want because I'm from Missouri. Missouri Pride!

Then you are, by far, rare among your demographic. I will still say I think there's a 'girl out there for you' - or something to the effect that I believe you could have a deeper relationship with a female - but it should be clear that I don't think less of anyone for their decision regarding this matter. I view it the same as I view smoking - something that's not for me and I'd rather not hang around someone when they are smoking, but it's their choice that I don't agree with. Life goes on.

Straight people don't get along, ones that do are very rare. Too often I see them in-equalizing each other. I think there's a man out there for every man. Think about how unequal they are -- the male-female relationship; if a man hits a woman, that's evil -- if a woman hits a man, that's hilarious. If a woman reacts to a man hitting her, that's heroic, if a man reacts this way, he's a criminal. Why do they keep courting eachother, they clearly aren't meant for each other. I have decided that I have an opinion on this and I deserve to rant about it on a public forum. Other men chose to be attracted to women even though they don't know how to treat eachother properly at all; I don't approve of heterosexual relationships because the ones I have seen don't reflect a "healthy relationship", as I see it. Life goes on.

Again, how does this sound to you? This is how you sound to gay people. Perspective.

It was in the context of "the gay uncle" argument for social evolution. Homosexuality is not correlated to feminine characteristics. Which means the "gay uncle in touch with his feminine side" does not require the "gay" anymore than it requires "blond."

I'm the gay uncle and I don't fit any of the stereotypes that my blonde sister fits as the "blonde". I'm not sure its "constructive", but its certainly not destructive

You're being awfully judgmental. We're talking about evolutionary benefits, here. Being homosexual, you will not pass on your genetic traits to a future generation. The only case that could be a beneficial quality to society is if your genes are flawed.

Who told you that increasing population is a good thing? Population recess is completely necessary. Actually, if there hadn't been homosexuals since humanity existed, we would all have run out of resources a long time ago. Actually, population inflation is seen as a negative in the determination of the awards for the best countries to live in. It sounds like you're hung up about a homosexual child or something, i feel kind of sorry for him/her .

Please keep in mind I'm using very blunt logic. The point was not about your feelings - I honestly couldn't care less about people's feelings when the topic is hereditary genetics. Doesn't matter how much you love or hate each other - doesn't change your genetics. You can believe what you will - but a pairing that does not produce offspring doesn't have much benefit to the species.

Neither does pairing that does produce offspring to the extent that it is at right now, we don't need to get any bigger as a species; there's six and a half billion of us. We simply need to reproduce more slowly -- maybe if we weren't suppressing homosexuality, the population might actually balance out? Maybe we are screwing with nature's way of keeping the population controlled? Ever think of that?

It's no different than my genetic disposition towards vision problems will not benefit the species as a whole - doesn't matter how much I love my significant other, how much I love my kids, etc - it doesn't change the genetic heritage of my children. There are other valuable metrics - but in that one respect, I'm not doing my species any favors.

Actually, its completely different. Reality makes blindness a disablity. People make homosexuality a disability.

So you're a shining example of healthiness and everyone else can go to hell?

Isn't this pretty much exactly what you've been saying?

I'll be honest with you - my father went through two prior marriages before he met my mother. I'd like to think they were the pinnacle of what a healthy couple is, and that they would last forever - but they are both dead. I do know that they loved each other very much - and I've only recently begun to understand just how much they did for us kids, this is my exact story as a gay man, too.

But I understand - it's easy to proclaim someone of a different opinion as incompetent as opposed to actually getting to understand their position and reasoning. I'm guilty of the same thing in other discussions, too - so it's not like I'm going to say I'm better.

In other posts, you're probably arguing about things that are actually opinions. Here you are just arguing against facts. Deny ignorance.

reply to post by halfoldman


almost 50% of all HIV cases in America are exposed from man on man sexual intercourse... it's about the same world wide, I don't know where you get your stats, but you are wrong. It sounds to me you have a real chip on your shoulder for the non-gays...

reply to post by Target Earth


You got a source you would care to share with the rest of the class to back up your assertions??? I remember the day when it was common practice to provide sources to back up positions here on ATS... Jeez, wild speculation is the rule now and not the exception!

reply to post by Target Earth

The vast majority of HIV infections worldwide - 92.5% - were heterosexuallly contracted. Of these 78.6% were in the developing world, most in Southern and Eastern Africa.

Source: HIV/AIDS: A very short introduction, Alan Whieside, Oxford U.P., 2008: p. 14.

I didn't see you being called a slur in the thread. Yet I must respond in kind to heterosexual homophobes' chips on THIER shoulders, and it saddens me.
It could have been a great thread on changing society and dynamic concepts of "benefit".

I live in South Africa where 5.5 million are HIV infected, and it is a heterosexually driven pandemic. So don't come and patronize me and talk rubbish. I will not be bullied.

reply to post by halfoldman

sorry about all the problems in Africa but in America almost 50% or HIV comes from the gay community, and I won't even get into the other half.... but what do you expect from a disease that targets gays and minorities.

Originally posted by Target Earth
reply to post by halfoldman

 

sorry about all the problems in Africa but in America almost 50% or HIV comes from the gay community, and I won't even get into the other half.... but what do you expect from a disease that targets gays and minorities.

Provide a source, or admit you are full of crap!

reply to post by Target Earth

Well we're not talking this country or that country. We're talking sexualities.
But the fact that people can even hold up something as tragic as HIV as a flag and say because we have a lower rate than gays or Africa or whatever, and therefore we are for now better somehow - that just floors me.
I mean there's babies dying of AIDS, child-headed households - it tears your heart out.
No, this is too sick.

STI's are spread by both heterosexual and homosexual people, I don’t understand why this has been raised in this debate,

HIV and AIDS have been brought up as an example and is a relatively new virus to us humans. The only answer to that side of the debate would be to discuss either having safe sex or not having a promiscuous lifestyle, again this isn't a heterosexual or homosexual thing, one for a different thread.

Those that are using such figures to back up their view against homosexuality only need to think how many new viruses and STI's will come into fruition in the future.

Who knows? One may develop that can only be carried and spread by women to men through vaginal sex. It wouldn't be right to post statistics confirming this then state women are damaging society. It would be up to the men and women to either practice safe sex or not have a sex at all until both have had a health check.

Originally posted by Target Earth
reply to post by halfoldman

 

almost 50% of all HIV cases in America are exposed from man on man sexual intercourse... it's about the same world wide, I don't know where you get your stats, but you are wrong. It sounds to me you have a real chip on your shoulder for the non-gays...

What a ridiculously fabricated statistic you keep spitting out in your ignorance... you've been asked to provide a source, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself by saying this non-fact over and over again as if it holds any weight in any mature forum -- online or not.

I don't know where you get your stats, but you are wrong.

Nobody knows where you get your "facts", because nobody understands why kids like you think its necessary to talk about crap that your nutty right-winged parents shoved down your throat with no facts whatsoever to back it up. Oh, sorry, they were "protecting" you weren't they?

Don't worry, I don't blame you for arguing against Oxford AIDS studies; you probably don't even know what Oxford is. Keep arguing against Oxford, I'm sure you'll get places.

For the record, the word gay is an adjective, not a noun, Sarah Palin.

Perhaps in moderation.
I wouldn't go that far to suggest that society benefits because of homosexuality.
If the entire world happened to be 100% homosexual how would society benefit if it failed to reproduce?

I think God put homosexuals on this planet for a reason and to help us learn and recognize the errors of our ways. I'm not just referring to homosexuals so don't get offended, I'm mainly talking about those that bash gays.
Everyone has something to contribute, but it has to do with the actions of the person itself.

It's all about vibes, so give more credit to the people not the homosexual. Before you, the op, came out you were not being truthful to yourself or to others and people picked up on those insincere vibes. Now you offer advice but it's probably the same advice you would have given before.
I think it's more your honesty that people are respecting and not necessarily your gayness.

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.

good post

I find most younger straight/closet men act really aggressive towards gay's in conversation's about them. Like it is some kind of macho-self-defense to being considered gay. They feel if they don't hate gay's other guy's will think they like them.

It is actually kind of scary to be in the position you went through, you don't know who's going to abandon you for nothing or what may happen in the future. It isn't too common but you hear the odd story about people being attacked and whatnot simply because other people can't get past the fact that they are gay.
That raises a whole new question... why do people care so much about what is happening in everyone's personal lives? Do we just feed off of emotion's and energy's?

reply to post by Fromabove


IMO you sound like you live under your bible

second

your theory has holes in it by the way.. did god not make us this way?

from the comedy of South Park
"If I’m a little bicurious than god must be a little bicurious too"

Great post, OP! I agree with you.

I don't think homosexuality provides any great benefits to society, but neither does heterosexuality.

Fact is, homosexuality is a natural and normal segment of a society. Just like any other segment of society. It takes all kinds.

Originally posted by Tykonos
I’m not sure on lesbianism

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Originally posted by Fromabove
Homosexuality is not natural, any plumber can tell you that.

And what more educated profession to ask on the subject..

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.

Try reading the Holy Bible before 1948. I have read the Bible three times and all have been different versions; they are all very different and it's clear that humanity warps a lot of it to suit what they want the population to think based on their own views. Even the modern Bible, have you read the book of Joshua? Surely you cannot read this book and claim that God does not condone genocide? Surely you cannot read the book of Job and say that God does not condone extortion by torture and murder? Too many religious people are extremely selective about what they want to take from the Bible, it's very dangerous and has had very negative impacts on society -- much more negative impacts than homosexuality has. So, do you believe everything you read, or just excerpts that have been changed hundreds of times throughout history? Furthermore, what you're saying is not an opinion, it is a regurgitation of an ignorant standpoint that has been suppressing the truth for a long time now. Opinions are based on things, and your God's one divine rule that has stood the test of time is his requirement that his children are not the judges, He is. Humility and understanding are the key to God's kingdom. If you're going to believe something so strongly that you speak against an entire group of people and condemn them even though this is the life they are actually living, and you aren't -- they obviously know a lot more than you about it -- maybe you should at least research it and listen to people that have experience about it than you have. Denying this does not reflect humility or understanding; I wonder, whose eternal damnation is really imminent here? How does it feel to be told you're going to hell? Welcome to a gay person's daily reality after tolerating a surface-thinker like you. Don't tell gay people what they are, they know what they are -- you don't. I suppose you also go around telling women that there is no pain in childbirth, you have no possible personal experience with it, so you absolutely should form an "opinion" about it, right?

It is my personal opinion that religion is unnatural and destructive to society, it provided good moral standpoints in the past, but now religious people simply use it as an attempt to justify their stereotypes about things that they don't understand. Whether or not this is actually my point of view is irrelevant; I'm just trying to give you some perspective here, since you clearly have none.

Run along now, sheep.

reply to post by Bkrmn

My apologies to all members and browsers for my inconsideration shown in my second post on this topic. I meant what I said however, and will never apologize to anyone for my thoughts and views on anything! Again, I am sorry!