Even though homosexuality is fine, it is also most definitely a defect, seeing as it doesn't populate the world with humans or animals, amirite?

They can adopt the ones in orphanages or have in vitro

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I see your thought process but it's wrong. Adopting doesn't increase population.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They can have in vitro. Your logic seems to be conveniently forget a part my argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not saying I agree with the post but it's saying homosexuality is a defect because they can't naturally repopulate the planet, in vitro isn't natural.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I understand. I took psychology by the way this would fall under evolutionary. Shitting indoors isn't natural but you probly do it right? Since they have that option now they worked around a problem. This goes for invitro and toliets.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's a good point. I retract my original comment.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

also notice javvie's comment under mine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But vitro is not natural There was homosexuality long before vitro was used.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So, there is obviously no problem with the population being to low. If gay people decide to have babies they can if they want. It's not a defect if there is a solution.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well it's not as if there was always no problem of the population being to low. You don't understand the post. It's not a complaint about gay people not contributing to society, or something, via the fact that they can't have kids.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh then what is the post about?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's about the fact that even though gay people are completely okay in every way, they are defective because, as an individual, the mission of just one animal is to pass on their genes via procreation, even though that's not the goal of the species at this current time, due to the fact that we are overpopulated. Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex and so are far less likely to procreate. I mentioned animals in the post as well, and not all species of animals are overpopulated, so clearly that's a defection for them, too, if my explanation above doesn't help you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay good. Finally there's someone I can debate with on here without them correcting my grammar or spelling and calling me stupid. That's when you know someone has run out of points, when they do that you know. I digress. I agree now.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I agree with the failed people correcting grammar. And thanks for converting, haha.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yeah sometimes people need to explain further or everyone else thinks they are crazy/stupid. This happens to me a LOT. I agree that they can't populate naturally so in that regard they are defective just like old women and sterile people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah. I assumed that my post was understandable enough because I guessed that everyone would make the connection that humans haven't evolved since we weren't overpopulated. And also that people would make the connection between animals and bald eagles, tigers, etc.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well... although in-vitro is an option, it is too recent to have olayed a role in the sustainability of the trait. It may, on the other hand, have an advantage due to kin selection.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not saying it affected the trait I'm saying the trait can't be considered a problem in 'repopulating the earth' Because now there is a way for them to have babies. Also there are traits that exist so people won't mate to control the population. That means it's a good thing they can't screw and have babies that way.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

yes, kin selection!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay I didn't know what kin selection was. I was referring to Darwinism.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This is a tricky concept. It'd be a defect to your average species, or if the human life revolved around repopulating, as many animals' do. But underpopulation isn't exactly a problem for us.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I dare you to walk up to someone's face and call them defective.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Blond hair is defective. =/

by Anonymous 13 years ago

well. A mutation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As are light-colored eyes. i'm a monster ;n;

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Defect =/= mutation. Like at all

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Population control.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not pro gay marriage or anything... but at this point in time, I don't think increasing the human population will benefit anyone. Adoption is an option and a good one at that... there are so many kids out there without parents, I'd rather have them find a home than have some straight couple fuck and put another one in foster care or some shit. Orphans need lovin too

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why even say "I'm not pro gay marriage or anything"?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well i want people to know my stance. I'm indifferent about gay marriage, but I still see the benefits of what they're doing... as in you don't have to be gay or a supporter to see it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Everyone who NW'd doesn't understand evolution. Evolution tries to create a species that has the best chance of living and, well, you can't have a species if you can't repopulate.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We don't need to repopulate. We actually need to decrease the population.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So theoretically, evolutionairly, homosexuality should increase as a means of the survival of our species. Because with overpopulation, we won't last.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Clearly we don't need to now, but evolution makes species develop that have the best chance of living, and to make as many of the species as possible! As CapedCrusader says, how could anyone who says no way even understand want evolution is?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If we continue to repopulate at the current rate our species won't have a good chance of surviving. Evolution is not all about everyone populating our species, its about having the right size population for our resources. Same goes for any other animal, too much of a species and they will over consume their resources and start to die off.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you're talking about evolution there is a direct tie-in to ecology and carrying capacity. Example: you have an environment that can hold roughly 600 mice. Say their population skyockets to 800. The mice are forced to compete for resources and due to the shortage, 500 of them die out. Now you are left with only 300 mice. Evolution is not about the individual, it's about how a species and to a lesser extent population changes to increase reproductive success among its members. Going back to our population of mice, a population of 600 will have greater reproductive success than the population of 300, through population control, which in humans is caused by homosexuality, among other factors.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm straight, and I only plan to adopt for the very reason that I don't want to help populate a world that already has so many kids in need of a home. In my mind, people like the Duggard parents are the ones who are defective (in the head).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, I think people who NW'd this aren't getting it. It's not saying homosexuality is morally wrong or anything, but scientifically speaking, it is a defect. The whole purpose of life is to keep on reproducing to help continue life. If some people don't want to reproduce (or physically can't, for that matter), then they're defective. Basically just reiterated what @capedcrusader said but oh well.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I agree that homosexuality is unnatural when it comes to reproduction which is why a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. BUT being that we aren't the prey to another animal, perhaps homosexuality is a way of controlling the population, as people have stated above. Semi-related: Could it be possible that all of the illnesses that we can't find a cure for exist to control our population?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://amirite.net/597115/1310583

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Very interesting!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol, I try to think of rational-scientific explanations for things! Your whole idea on illnesses without cures is also something to think about :o

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It seems like for every cure we find, there's a new illness that comes along.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

True that! Like the swine flu epidemic -.-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The illness thing is an interesting thought, but how would it happen? There'd have to be a higher power giving humans these diseases, because diseases can't really have the intent of decreasing population.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Bears don't really have an intent of decreasing salmon population; they're just hungry. Perhaps it's kind of like that. The higher power is simply nature.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

However, homosexuality has been observed in animals as well, ones which DO have predators.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I believe these animals are having sexual relations because it feels good.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Hasn't it been observed that only humans and dolphins have sexual relations for pleasure, or am I wrong?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol you're gonna get ripped apart!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The world does not need more humans or most animals now, if no one was gay we would have a much bigger overpopulation problem.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

From the evolutionary point of view I get where you're coming from but you could've worded it in a way that didn't sound so rude. I mean "defect" isn't exactly a nice term.. But it shouldn't be considered a "defect" whether its from an evolutionary stand point or not. Technically they can still reproduce unless they're sterile or something.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well they can reproduce, but since they're not attracted the opposite sex it is far less likely.

by Anonymous 13 years ago