Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Since homosexual behavior is all over the place with social mammals (and occasionally outside that category), it's probably safe to assume it has a benefit, even if we can't quite identify it.

Well Homosexuality =/= Doesn't do sex with opposite gender (Then again Sex with same gender =/= Homosexual >_< but that is a debate for another day)

However if we had to look towards an animal for a possible template for the benefit of same sex pairings... Look no further than Elephants.

In their advanced age Elephants will typically pair up with a member of the same sex.... Well female elephants do at least.

Sure it isn't homosexual... But it gives a good idea.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A plausible alternative in the evolutionary discussion is that homosexual behavior isn't beneficial, but is "neutral". Species require social sexuality, all members of a species look fairly alike regardless of sex, and so sexual attraction is sometimes developed towards one's own sex. If it does no harm to the species overall, there will be no genetic pressure against this outcome.

[Yoink]

Anyway, with mental illness wouldn't it need to have negative effects?

Being sexually and/or romantically attracted to members of the same sex is a pretty huge negative effect that you appear to have overlooked, but I would really rather not be banned (at least not while I have RTDs I need to participate in!) so if you'll forgive me I would rather not continue this conversation here.   

Not that I really intended to participate in a "conversation" to begin with- I just couldn't let the original insult slide without at least saying something.   

[Frumple]

... quite a lot of people would disagree, there. Also not quite sure how you'd call the starting bit an insult. Caricature, sure, but they're arguments spurious enough to stand it. But a'ight.

[Yoink]

"Insulting comment" would perhaps have been a better term for it, but that would have made the second paragraph of my post too long, causing it to spill over onto a second line of text and triggering my OCD, probably then causing me to ramble some more to balance it out and leaving the entire post an unsightly mess overall.    

[Neonivek]

True being gay does attract gay bashers... which is a HUGE negative.

[Rolan7]

I respect if you don't want to talk about it, Yoink, but I am honestly curious.  Both about why there's a huge negative effect, and also what you perceived as an insult.

Of course this forum is heavily supportive of LGBT, so I understand if you'd rather go by PMs.  Otherwise you could get flooded with aggressive replies, which leads to anger, which leads to bans ):  It's kinda brave to speak up about it, I think we should try to encourage (or at least allow) that to some extent.

Because honestly I'm just as mystified as CrocAndBearLover.  The only compelling case against homosexuality I've ever heard has been people parroting that it's gross, my whole life, a sentiment I internalized.
But why though.  Is there any rational reason?

Argument 3 is the closest I've seen, but it just doesn't hold up.  Australia's weird for supposedly needing more people.  If banning same-sex marriage encourages population growth, should China ration hetero marriage?  Child-rearing is still incentivized in America by tax benefits, surely that makes more sense.  Unless population growth in Australia is limited by genitals rather than means.

[Neonivek]

Yoink could be referring to the belief that Gay Sex causes injury, disease, and cancer.

That would be a belief that would piss people off to hear.

[Rolan7]

He did say:

Has anyone ever made a good argument against LGBT, particularly gays?

...You went on to list three of them?*    

Sorta curious which three of those four he considered valid. 

As for injury and cancer, that's just a certain type of sex if I, um, understand correctly.  It's commonly associated with gay people, but it's hardly synonymous.  Heterosexuals do it, and gay people have many other options.

Disease is also something everybody has to deal with, even AIDS.  And we've come a long way, maybe partially due to being allowed to date normally in public.

[Arx]

Given the fuzzy nature of an electron's position, is there any way to define the size of one ine a way that make sense?

Not really, AFAIK. We have an upper bound on the size, but no real way to measure a lower bound (at least, with current technology).

What does the upper bond relate to?

Weird rest mass-energy shenanigans I don't properly understand.

[Sheb]

Oh, man. Can of worms there, though I agree that it is a mental deviation from the natural pattern.

Actually, while the bomb is sitting on the table anyway, I have a question regarding homosexuality. Why are so many gays so obviously gay? The speech, the sentiments, the hand gestures. Sometimes even the clothing. It's surreal.

Keep in ming the obvious selection bias. You're going to notice the "obviously gay" guy, while assuming the normal looking gay guy is straight.  Out of all my friends that are gay/lesbian (which is what, 7? 8? I haven't had my morning coffee yet), only one could count as "obviously gay". Although even in that case I assumed he was just standard Italian and only learned he was gay when he told me.

[hops]

There's a Tampermonkey plugin for that. Also, Tampermonker is just in general a fun utility extension for Chrome and Firefoz.

[TD1]

Oh, man. Can of worms there, though I agree that it is a mental deviation from the natural pattern.

Actually, while the bomb is sitting on the table anyway, I have a question regarding homosexuality. Why are so many gays so obviously gay? The speech, the sentiments, the hand gestures. Sometimes even the clothing. It's surreal.

Keep in ming the obvious selection bias. You're going to notice the "obviously gay" guy, while assuming the normal looking gay guy is straight.  Out of all my friends that are gay/lesbian (which is what, 7? 8? I haven't had my morning coffee yet), only one could count as "obviously gay". Although even in that case I assumed he was just standard Italian and only learned he was gay when he told me.

Sure. But to bring up my previous point regarding the television show which brought it to mind (Pointless), you know which pairs are gay and which are just friends. Every single time. Just because of how they stand, use their hands, talk and dress.

That's what's so confusing. Statistically speaking, I know there've been a few gays I haven't known were gays. But every single one I've seen on that programme is instantly recognisable for what he/she is.

[Sheb]

I don't know that show, but keep in mind that they're not a random sample. It could be that whoever is in charge of casting prefers to grab stereotypical gays to make it easier for the audience.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Say you have a server, with some files on it that are publicly accessible. When someone accesses that server and downloads a file, are you charged for that bandwidth?