Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality is socially beneficial

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you don't follow some religious doctrine, you probably don't have a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage. I believe that human beings all desire love and appreciation as well as sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Biologically, this should result in offspring. I posit that homosexuality is a natural development in human society as a way to control the population while allowing for humans to participate in society, love, and sex.

I also point at the increasing trend of infertility and do not believe this is simply due to an increase of chemicals and carcinogens, but to a large-scale genetic cause.

I anticipate arguments that homosexuality is not genetic. I preemptively respond by saying that I believe homosexuality to have both environmental and biological components.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well there are alternative ways such as coerced castration and starvation to control the human population, but I would submit that homosexuality would be the more humane solution.
Jericho15
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Homosexuality is genetic but it is not normal. It is a mutation in the DNA sequence. All organisms are naturally heterosexual. Notice there are rare examples of homosexual creates amongst the animal kingdom outside of Homo Sapiens. The only good examples are the odd Penguin pair which are technically homosexual they are just labeled that since two males are raising the egg that a mother abandoned and then there are a few examples of primates like Bonobos who engage in what view socially as homosexual acts but what they view as acts of asserting dominance over another to win mates. These acts include penis fencing and mutual masturbation.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:38:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:00:02 PM, Jericho15 wrote:
Homosexuality is genetic but it is not normal. It is a mutation in the DNA sequence. All organisms are naturally heterosexual. Notice there are rare examples of homosexual creates amongst the animal kingdom outside of Homo Sapiens. The only good examples are the odd Penguin pair which are technically homosexual they are just labeled that since two males are raising the egg that a mother abandoned and then there are a few examples of primates like Bonobos who engage in what view socially as homosexual acts but what they view as acts of asserting dominance over another to win mates. These acts include penis fencing and mutual masturbation.

Well over one hundred different animal species include individuals who engage in homosexual behaviour. And not at extremely low percentages, either.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:39:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:00:02 PM, Jericho15 wrote:
Homosexuality is genetic but it is not normal. It is a mutation in the DNA sequence. All organisms are naturally heterosexual. Notice there are rare examples of homosexual creates amongst the animal kingdom outside of Homo Sapiens. The only good examples are the odd Penguin pair which are technically homosexual they are just labeled that since two males are raising the egg that a mother abandoned and then there are a few examples of primates like Bonobos who engage in what view socially as homosexual acts but what they view as acts of asserting dominance over another to win mates. These acts include penis fencing and mutual masturbation.

Aren't all DNA sequences the result of mutations.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:24:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:00:02 PM, Jericho15 wrote:
Homosexuality is genetic but it is not normal. It is a mutation in the DNA sequence. All organisms are naturally heterosexual. Notice there are rare examples of homosexual creates amongst the animal kingdom outside of Homo Sapiens. The only good examples are the odd Penguin pair which are technically homosexual they are just labeled that since two males are raising the egg that a mother abandoned and then there are a few examples of primates like Bonobos who engage in what view socially as homosexual acts but what they view as acts of asserting dominance over another to win mates. These acts include penis fencing and mutual masturbation.

Please provide an argument for your notion that mutations in the DNA sequence are not normal, and provide your definition for "normal".
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:14:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:05:30 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If you don't follow some religious doctrine, you probably don't have a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage. I believe that human beings all desire love and appreciation as well as sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Biologically, this should result in offspring. I posit that homosexuality is a natural development in human society as a way to control the population while allowing for humans to participate in society, love, and sex.

I also point at the increasing trend of infertility and do not believe this is simply due to an increase of chemicals and carcinogens, but to a large-scale genetic cause.

I anticipate arguments that homosexuality is not genetic. I preemptively respond by saying that I believe homosexuality to have both environmental and biological components.

Ugh... there are so many things wrong with your argument I feel I am wasting my time with this...

Nevertheless, I will proceed. Homosexuals are believed to consist of 1% to 3% of the population. This is not a very effective way to deal with overpopulation. When we lived in tribes, nature had much more direct ways of dealing with overpopulation, and evolving homosexuality would not have made sense at all. I have not heard a scrap of evidence to support your theory.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 5:50:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who cares why people want to sleep with people of the same sex? It really has nothing to do with marriage policy.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:16:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 5:50:05 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Who cares why people want to sleep with people of the same sex? It really has nothing to do with marriage policy.

Who mentioned anything about marriage policy?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:19:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:14:53 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/21/2012 6:05:30 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If you don't follow some religious doctrine, you probably don't have a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage. I believe that human beings all desire love and appreciation as well as sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Biologically, this should result in offspring. I posit that homosexuality is a natural development in human society as a way to control the population while allowing for humans to participate in society, love, and sex.

I also point at the increasing trend of infertility and do not believe this is simply due to an increase of chemicals and carcinogens, but to a large-scale genetic cause.

I anticipate arguments that homosexuality is not genetic. I preemptively respond by saying that I believe homosexuality to have both environmental and biological components.

Ugh... there are so many things wrong with your argument I feel I am wasting my time with this...

Nevertheless, I will proceed. Homosexuals are believed to consist of 1% to 3% of the population. This is not a very effective way to deal with overpopulation. When we lived in tribes, nature had much more direct ways of dealing with overpopulation, and evolving homosexuality would not have made sense at all. I have not heard a scrap of evidence to support your theory.

You don't think 1-3% is significant?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1-3% is significant to the earlier argument. That would render the DNA, in terms of genetics, to be a mutation. A mutation is a trait that is expressed amongst the species less than 25% of the time. Or at a greater ratio than 3:1.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:24:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:19:44 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:14:53 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 5/21/2012 6:05:30 PM, Kleptin wrote:
If you don't follow some religious doctrine, you probably don't have a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage. I believe that human beings all desire love and appreciation as well as sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Biologically, this should result in offspring. I posit that homosexuality is a natural development in human society as a way to control the population while allowing for humans to participate in society, love, and sex.

I also point at the increasing trend of infertility and do not believe this is simply due to an increase of chemicals and carcinogens, but to a large-scale genetic cause.

I anticipate arguments that homosexuality is not genetic. I preemptively respond by saying that I believe homosexuality to have both environmental and biological components.

Ugh... there are so many things wrong with your argument I feel I am wasting my time with this...

Nevertheless, I will proceed. Homosexuals are believed to consist of 1% to 3% of the population. This is not a very effective way to deal with overpopulation. When we lived in tribes, nature had much more direct ways of dealing with overpopulation, and evolving homosexuality would not have made sense at all. I have not heard a scrap of evidence to support your theory.

You don't think 1-3% is significant?

Not for overpopulation, no. Humans evolved to live in groups of up to 150. 1%-3% would be approximately 1.5 homosexual humans to 4.5 homosexual humans in one group. There are better and more efficient ways to deal with overpopulation.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:42:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Homosexuality is socially beneficial because it is not beneficial and in fact harmful for homosexuals to suppress their sexual urges completely unnecessarily. Doing so would not only negatively impact them but by extension those around them. Culturally, the publicized expression of homosexuality forces society to reevaluate and prioritize its ideals. Fortunately society seems to be moving in the right direction on this one.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:48:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It hasn't done more good than harm. Think of all the homosexuals who have been oppressed and murdered, all the political hatred and debates that created turmoil, etc. None of this can be measured up by any benefits of homosexuality (ESPECIALLY for the gays).
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:53:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
It hasn't done more good than harm. Think of all the homosexuals who have been oppressed and murdered, all the political hatred and debates that created turmoil, etc. None of this can be measured up by any benefits of homosexuality (ESPECIALLY for the gays).

You've just described bad things that happened because of people's intolerance toward homosexuality. You've referenced no harm that had to do with homosexuality itself.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:55:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:53:57 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
It hasn't done more good than harm. Think of all the homosexuals who have been oppressed and murdered, all the political hatred and debates that created turmoil, etc. None of this can be measured up by any benefits of homosexuality (ESPECIALLY for the gays).

You've just described bad things that happened because of people's intolerance toward homosexuality. You've referenced no harm that had to do with homosexuality itself.

Devil's advocate: STDs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:59:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:53:57 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:48:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
It hasn't done more good than harm. Think of all the homosexuals who have been oppressed and murdered, all the political hatred and debates that created turmoil, etc. None of this can be measured up by any benefits of homosexuality (ESPECIALLY for the gays).

You've just described bad things that happened because of people's intolerance toward homosexuality. You've referenced no harm that had to do with homosexuality itself.
There's no need to. I'm making point A and you're mentioning point B. My point was very clear, which is that homosexuals were in such conditions that if they engaged in homosexual acts, they'd be oppressed, prosecuted, murdered, etc., which was bad for them. So their sexuality didn't benefit them generally either. Today is a similar story; Suicide being quite widespread, political debates causing turmoil, etc. The benefits of homosexuality seem too minimal.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:01:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:55:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Devil's advocate: STDs.

Lesbians are the demographic with the lowest amount of STDs, so there goes half your argument. As for the other half, if potentiality for STD transmission ought to be considered, we might as well advocate against heterosexuality since sexual activity that involves a penis is far more likely to facilitate transmission.
President of DDO
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:03:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have gay friends. Their cool.

Though....kinda strange. Sorta hipster.

Luckily, I'm stranger.

Thats when you know your strange, when gay hipsters think your strange. :)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:08:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:01:14 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:55:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Devil's advocate: STDs.

Lesbians are the demographic with the lowest amount of STDs, so there goes half your argument. As for the other half, if potentiality for STD transmission ought to be considered, we might as well advocate against heterosexuality since sexual activity that involves a penis is far more likely to facilitate transmission.

I was referring to homosexual men. It's more likely under male on male sex because they are less likely to use a condom and condoms break easier during anal sex. I suppose this is more of an argument against anal sex than homosexuality.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:08:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:59:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
There's no need to. I'm making point A and you're mentioning point B. My point was very clear, which is that homosexuals were in such conditions that if they engaged in homosexual acts, they'd be oppressed, prosecuted, murdered, etc., which was bad for them. So their sexuality didn't benefit them generally either. Today is a similar story; Suicide being quite widespread, political debates causing turmoil, etc. The benefits of homosexuality seem too minimal.

Sorry but my point was just as clear and just as relevant. You're saying that a gay person's sexuality can and has proven to cause them a lot of stress and turmoil. DUH. Nobody's denying that. So moving on, I'm saying that homosexuality is beneficial insofar as forcing society to reevaluate their ideals. This is the same argument people in the criminal justice field use to explain why crime is beneficial. Obviously society's perspectives change and evolve over time. Right now homosexuality is becoming increasingly acceptable. As such, the negative impacts you mentioned will eventually become obsolete. That would make my point that openness about homosexuality in society being important and beneficial very prevalent to this discussion, thanks.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:19:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:08:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I was referring to homosexual men. It's more likely under male on male sex because they are less likely to use a condom and condoms break easier during anal sex. I suppose this is more of an argument against anal sex than homosexuality.

Exactly. Plus condoms in general would be unnecessary without the peen. Penises facilitate transmission of STDs easier just based on the nature of penal intercourse, so you might as well take heterosexuality into question.

I don't know if I agree with the proposition that homosexuality was meant as a form of population control - especially because I believe that sexuality is a mix (like everything else in this world) of nature AND nurture. But I do stand by the expression of one's homosexual desires being a good thing. Even if its a sexual deviance, it doesn't carry the same moral dilemmas as say pedophilia. As such sexual repression for gays can only be harmful. Soon through exposure people will realize it's not really a big friggen deal - certainly not a big enough deal to legislate against, implement bias toward or bully people over, etc.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:25:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:08:54 AM, Danielle wrote:
Sorry but my point was just as clear and just as relevant. You're saying that a gay person's sexuality can and has proven to cause them a lot of stress and turmoil. DUH. Nobody's denying that. So moving on, I'm saying that homosexuality is beneficial insofar as forcing society to reevaluate their ideals. This is the same argument people in the criminal justice field use to explain why crime is beneficial. Obviously society's perspectives change and evolve over time. Right now homosexuality is becoming increasingly acceptable. As such, the negative impacts you mentioned will eventually become obsolete. That would make my point that openness about homosexuality in society being important and beneficial very prevalent to this discussion, thanks.
Internet lag stopped browser so my response faded out, hence the post test above. Nonetheless, you're basically agreeing with everything I say, then claim that homosexuality WILL benefit society somehow, such as by making people reevaluate their ideas. That's obvious in certain ways, because homosexuality is far more acceptable than before. But that's not my argument. Homosexuality, from a historical PoV, has made people feel repressed, be oppressed, murdered, prosecuted, etc etc etc. This brought absolutely NO benefits whatsoever. Today is a different world, and that's fine - but quite off of my argument.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:28:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:19:00 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:08:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
I was referring to homosexual men. It's more likely under male on male sex because they are less likely to use a condom and condoms break easier during anal sex. I suppose this is more of an argument against anal sex than homosexuality.

Exactly. Plus condoms in general would be unnecessary without the peen. Penises facilitate transmission of STDs easier just based on the nature of penal intercourse, so you might as well take heterosexuality into question.

I don't know if I agree with the proposition that homosexuality was meant as a form of population control - especially because I believe that sexuality is a mix (like everything else in this world) of nature AND nurture. But I do stand by the expression of one's homosexual desires being a good thing. Even if its a sexual deviance, it doesn't carry the same moral dilemmas as say pedophilia. As such sexual repression for gays can only be harmful. Soon through exposure people will realize it's not really a big friggen deal - certainly not a big enough deal to legislate against, implement bias toward or bully people over, etc.

When did I say that?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:29:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But If anything, penis-vagina intercourse is necessary to you know further the human race. Penis-anal isn't necessary.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:29:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:39:32 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/21/2012 8:00:02 PM, Jericho15 wrote:
Homosexuality is genetic but it is not normal. It is a mutation in the DNA sequence. All organisms are naturally heterosexual. Notice there are rare examples of homosexual creates amongst the animal kingdom outside of Homo Sapiens. The only good examples are the odd Penguin pair which are technically homosexual they are just labeled that since two males are raising the egg that a mother abandoned and then there are a few examples of primates like Bonobos who engage in what view socially as homosexual acts but what they view as acts of asserting dominance over another to win mates. These acts include penis fencing and mutual masturbation.

Aren't all DNA sequences the result of mutations.:

Winner, vbaculum!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:31:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:29:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But If anything, penis-vagina intercourse is necessary to you know further the human race. Penis-anal isn't necessary.
Correct, but I'd argue that normal intercourse has brought more harm due to people being rather stupid.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:32:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:31:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:29:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
But If anything, penis-vagina intercourse is necessary to you know further the human race. Penis-anal isn't necessary.
Correct, but I'd argue that normal intercourse has brought more harm due to people being rather stupid.
More harm than anal-intercourse, that is.