Is homosexuality a biological construct?

[Slade3200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Population control

 

[Freewill]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Population control

I thought that is why aliens started the Black Plague and the Spanish flu.

 

[Slade3200]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

To celebrate the progress made overcoming bigotry and discrimination and to show support to those that still suffer from those things.

 

[Slade3200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Population control

I thought that is why aliens started the Black Plague and the Spanish flu.

Yeah that too

 

[Freewill]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

To celebrate the progress made overcoming bigotry and discrimination and to show support to those that still suffer from those things.

yeah right.

 

[Slade3200]

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.


So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

To celebrate the progress made overcoming bigotry and discrimination and to show support to those that still suffer from those things.

yeah right.

You disagree? What's your theory?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

What does any of that have to do with who you're attracted to? Gay people have been playing it straight for centuries so of course you can make the best of a bad situation. Talk to gay people that came out later in life, after being married and having children. They will tell you that they loved their former spouses and derived pleasure from being with them. Guess what? They're still gay and always were.

Maybe sexuality is simply more fluid than our puritanical roots allow it to be.

Yeah, or maybe you're just a fucked-in-the-head pervert who's too cowardly to be at peace with it.

What in my post made you feel the need to be a see you next Tuesday? I'm quite "at peace" with my orientation, it's bigots and homophobes that need to have the come to Jesus about it, not gays.

Honey, the fact that you just said that OTHER people need to "come to Jesus" - which is funny in and of itself, since, despite all your rewriting attempts to the contrary, the Bible and Christianity still firmly and clearly OPPOSE homosexual behavior - about YOUR sexuality tells us that you are NOT at peace with it, because you're STILL trying to make everyone else agree with your worldview, RIGHT FUCKING NOW, in order to give you a sense of legitimacy and fitting-in.

If you were really "at peace" with who and what you are, you wouldn't give a tin shit what other people think about it, so long as they leave you alone. Noticeably, there is NEVER anything in any of your posts about people "leaving you alone" or you allowing them to do so. They're all about, "You will actively participate in my lifestyle and applaud it, or we will destroy your life, HOW DARE YOU presume to think you have a right to hold and freely express an opinion that differs with mine?!"

Tell yourself all the lies you like about what a happy, satisfied, well-adjusted pervert you are; I can see you, and unlike you, I really don't give a rat's ass what other people think, so I feel perfectly free to tell you that, from where I am sitting and observing, you are an all-around miserable, shitty human being who projects his/her/its mental and emotional disorders onto everyone around like a giant dysfunction spotlight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Yeah, yeah, buzzword, buzzword, FEEELZ! Whatever, Sparky.

As far as I can tell, just from watching homosexuals, being gay is EXACTLY like "two consenting adults loving each other" in a toxic, emotionally-destructive relationship. It is EXACTLY like a consenting adult "loving" the bottle so much that it damages his/her ability to function appropriately in other aspects of life. It is EXACTLY like any number of other mental disorders which are both genetic in origin and manageable in function, but nevertheless are undesirable and make life much harder for the patient than it otherwise might be. And no amount of affirmation and "Disorder Pride" is going to change that.

And spare me your protestations of "Gay is normal and wonderful and I'm happy!" I wouldn't let a schizophrenic define normality for me, and I won't be any more interested in your mentally-ill take on the subject. Like I said, I can see you, and you are one of the least-happy and maladjusted people I've ever observed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

They think that, because society has been so corrupted and poisoned by nonsensical literature, movies, etc. portraying love in an utterly unrealistic fashion, all they have to do is attach the catchphrase of "loving each other" to something, and that just overrides everything. They, and others, overlook just how dangerous and damaging "love" can be when applied to the wrong objects of affection, or in an unhealthy fashion.

There are a lot of times when being a coldhearted bitch lends a necessary objectivity and perspective to life. That phrase, "loving each other", is definitely one of those times.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Woah, look at the amatuer scientist. Are you aware, professor, that there are animals that can change their gender when the population of their species dictates it? Or animals that become sterile or more prolific as necessary? Hit the books, professor, you need to catch up.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

Are YOU aware, Gregor Mendel, that humans are not one of those animals, so it's utterly irrelevant to any discussion of HUMAN behavior to be talking about creatures who, by and large, aren't even remotely related to humans?

Hit the books, mouthbreather, because you aren't even out of kindergarten.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

There's as much reason for an egg-laying mammal to exist as there is for any other egg-laying animal to.

If one believes in macroevolution (development of one species from an entirely different species), it makes sense. Monotremes, like the platypus and the spiny anteater, are technically mammals, but share many traits in common with both reptiles and birds. It makes sense within the theory of evolution that, while one group of species developed in the direction of live-birth mammals, another in the direction of birds, and a third in the direction of reptiles, there would be a fourth that went down another path that combined traits of each of the others. This is also born out by the fact that monotremes were most likely more plentiful in the distant past, now exist primarily in only one small, very unique ecosystem (around Australia).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

Your point being? that the platypus does not meet the social construct? As far as I know the platypus still reproduces.

The point being in response to your post fool.

There is no reason for the platypus in evolution either but it exists as do homosexuals.

The platypus, like all animals, serves a distinct and necessary function in its ecosystem. They seem strange to us, since there is apparently not an equivalent or even similar animal in OUR part of the world, but one supposes there are animals native to these areas which would seem equally strange to someone from Australia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

My live for someone? You mean my attraction to members of the same sex? That's not a manifestation, that's sexual orientation. Mine's lesbian. I'm attracted to members of the same gender. Always have been, from my earliest memories. I didn't choose that attraction, only to act upon it.

So you can't be proud of being Irish, black, Italian, Jewish, etc? What do you think Saint Patrick's day is except "Irish Pride"? How many of these do you see on March 17th?

Don't get mad because our parades are so awesome, just have better parades.

Yes, and WHY is there an "Irish Pride" St. Patrick's Day celebration? They don't celebrate it in Ireland, or at least not remotely the way we do. Until very recently, St. Patrick's Day was primarily a religious observation in Ireland. The "Irish Pride" celebrations that WE associate with St. Patrick's Day came from Irish immigrants, primarily in the US, in response to discrimination and hostility toward that community.

So you are correct about there being a correlation between "Irish Pride" and "Gay Pride": both are expressions of defiance by a minority community in response to touchy sensitivities about maladjustment and inability to fit into the norm.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

There's as much reason for an egg-laying mammal to exist as there is for any other egg-laying animal to.

If one believes in macroevolution (development of one species from an entirely different species), it makes sense. Monotremes, like the platypus and the spiny anteater, are technically mammals, but share many traits in common with both reptiles and birds. It makes sense within the theory of evolution that, while one group of species developed in the direction of live-birth mammals, another in the direction of birds, and a third in the direction of reptiles, there would be a fourth that went down another path that combined traits of each of the others. This is also born out by the fact that monotremes were most likely more plentiful in the distant past, now exist primarily in only one small, very unique ecosystem (around Australia).

No, an egg laying mammal is a complete anomaly. That was the point of referencing it. Anything is possible in biology and evolution. The fact is gay people have existed since the beginning and always will. That doesn't happen by chance. It's a part of who we are.

 

[Freewill]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

There's as much reason for an egg-laying mammal to exist as there is for any other egg-laying animal to.

If one believes in macroevolution (development of one species from an entirely different species), it makes sense. Monotremes, like the platypus and the spiny anteater, are technically mammals, but share many traits in common with both reptiles and birds. It makes sense within the theory of evolution that, while one group of species developed in the direction of live-birth mammals, another in the direction of birds, and a third in the direction of reptiles, there would be a fourth that went down another path that combined traits of each of the others. This is also born out by the fact that monotremes were most likely more plentiful in the distant past, now exist primarily in only one small, very unique ecosystem (around Australia).

No, an egg laying mammal is a complete anomaly. That was the point of referencing it. Anything is possible in biology and evolution. The fact is gay people have existed since the beginning and always will. That doesn't happen by chance. It's a part of who we are.

The only point I see you making is that gays might start laying eggs. You do know of course that mammals do come from eggs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've had discussions with many homosexuals over the years and they all have one thing in common, they have an alternative view of the world and have a contrary way of thinking. Like who says the square peg goes into the square hole? Sexuality is a manifestation of who we are as people. Some power mad freak is going to act out in the bedroom. A wall flower will be passive, etc. Homosexuality is just a manifestation of going against the grain way of thinking.

So no, it isn't something you are predestined to at birth. It's your environment and how you deal with it as an individual. No one is predestined to be a power freak or wallflower.

Just FYI, hard-charging control freaks in regular life make up the bulk of the clientele for professional dominatrices.

I wouldn't know, I hope they pay well.

So my friends tell me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

There's as much reason for an egg-laying mammal to exist as there is for any other egg-laying animal to.

If one believes in macroevolution (development of one species from an entirely different species), it makes sense. Monotremes, like the platypus and the spiny anteater, are technically mammals, but share many traits in common with both reptiles and birds. It makes sense within the theory of evolution that, while one group of species developed in the direction of live-birth mammals, another in the direction of birds, and a third in the direction of reptiles, there would be a fourth that went down another path that combined traits of each of the others. This is also born out by the fact that monotremes were most likely more plentiful in the distant past, now exist primarily in only one small, very unique ecosystem (around Australia).

No, an egg laying mammal is a complete anomaly. That was the point of referencing it. Anything is possible in biology and evolution. The fact is gay people have existed since the beginning and always will. That doesn't happen by chance. It's a part of who we are.

No, it's unusual, but it's not an anomaly at all. There are five species of egg-laying mammals currently in existence: the platypus and four species of spiny anteaters. Apparently, there were also others at one time which are now extinct, having been pushed out by the evolution of more efficient species.

The relevant points are several: 1) egg-laying is a trait of the entire species, not an anomaly inside the species; 2) the trait serves a purpose for the species as a whole, although time and evolution will tell whether or not it is ultimately a successful one; 3) homosexuality in humans serves no noticeable evolutionary purpose for the survival and success of the species; 4) humans, as the only species known to have complex psychology, are perfectly capable of developing characteristics that have nothing to do with genetics, biology, or evolutionary fitness as a species. Come to that, even lower animals can and do develop individual personality traits that impair their function, as witness dogs who have been abused by their owners, and either become vicious or cringing and cowardly through their trauma.

So yeah, it may be part of who you are, but that doesn't mean evolution, genetics, biology, or what-have-you intended it that way, or that it's a desirable trait that others should applaud as "normal" or healthy.

 

[Kondor3]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

If it's a biological construct, then it was set in motion as an element of natural selection, to filter-out the biological mistakes...

 

[Slade3200]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

If it's a biological construct, then it was set in motion as an element of natural selection, to filter-out the biological mistakes...

Wonderful theory... Then why rub it in their face and further the oppression and hate? Why not show a little class and allow them some happiness as their species filter towards extinction?

 

[Kondor3]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

If it's a biological construct, then it was set in motion as an element of natural selection, to filter-out the biological mistakes...

Wonderful theory... Then why rub it in their face and further the oppression and hate? Why not show a little class and allow them some happiness as their species filter towards extinction?

Because 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious practice across the Western World informs us that sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) are wicked and filthy and licentious and degenerate and undeserving of such accommodation and are to be shunned and despised and kept away from children and decent normal folk?