It doesn't really matter to me. You have a big substantial group of people who for whatever reason differ from the norm. There doesn't seem to be any real reason not to integrate them into the traditional structures of society that they are currently precluded from. Leaving them out creates an alienated population, bringing them in seems valuable to both them and society.
Remember that you always have the choice to pretend you are something you are not or ignore the feelings deep inside of you.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
Remember that you always have the choice to pretend you are something you are not or ignore the feelings deep inside of you.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
Ok. You're right. People have control over there bodies. But if you are gay, and choose not to have a relationship with another man, you are still gay. What the fuck are you trying to prove here, other than how stupid you are?
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
I think observed human behavior warrants tacking "with mixed results" onto the bolded phrase.
Remember that you always have the choice to pretend you are something you are not or ignore the feelings deep inside of you.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
Yes society enforces codes and such if your behavior is harmful is some way or another.
there's no convincing argument that homosexuality is harmful to society so why should people have to deny their nature in regard to it?
Remember that you always have the choice to pretend you are something you are not or ignore the feelings deep inside of you.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
Let me rephrase. Being honest about same-sex attractions is a choice. Having them isn't.
Being a closeted gay must be like being bald. I'd imagine being a thirty year old balding male is socially inconvenient. Those with a full head of hair look down on those with less even though there's no real reason to discriminate. A bare scalp is ugly and not even Jason Statham can turn that perception around all by himself. Even though it can be a natural occurrence, men will go out of their way to hide receding hairlines not just for their own vanity but to maintain approval from peers. Exposing a bald spot/ripping off a hairpiece/having a bad comb over is embarrassing and the pressures are twice as bad for balding women.
Being gay is socially inconvenient. Some straight couples look down on gay couples even though there's no real reason to discriminate....etc.
Well we all know that accepting one set of deviants like homosexuals into our society does open doors for pedophiles and man-beast relations, so...
Tut tut, this board is well-known for being insensitive to polygamists and furry fetishes. If a man wants to hump a stuffed animal doll while wearing a rabbit costume, who are you to be disgusted? :P
I don't think that in a natural state, homosexuality is a conscious choice per se... but I do think that society, both gay and straight, forces one by pigeonholing all sexuality into two categories (look I just did it myself!). I also think that the "gay and proud" activism encourages and exacerbates that divide... as, obviously, does the anti-gay movement, but in a less positive way.
Firstly: even if we assume sexual orientation is a choice for the sake of argument, it doesn't make discrimination against gays any more acceptable. You can choose your political party, but if someone tries to pass a law saying democrats can't marry each other, that's unethical and a violation of their rights.
Second: I'm not a psychologist or biologist or anything myself. But it's my understanding, based on many things I've read, that the contention that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" has been decisively discredited on a scientific level.
Third: As someone above pointed out, imagine if the roles were switched, and you were a straight man attracted to women in a society that was mostly gay. Would you consider the possibility that you should "choose" to be gay instead of straight, to be more like everyone else?
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well?
As far as I understand, homosexual desire is in itself no more sinful that heterosexual attraction to women other than your wife. So if you refrain, then you can be right by God, just in the same way that everyone is supposed to battle their lust.
Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well?
As far as I understand, homosexual desire is in itself no more sinful that heterosexual attraction to women other than your wife. So if you refrain, then you can be right by God, just in the same way that everyone is supposed to battle their lust.
In Catholicism, it's not neccessarily sinful - but it is a "disordered attraction." To them, it's sort of like having a predisposition to steal or murder or drink too much. It may not be sinful in of itself, but it certainly isn't part of God's plan.
Melkster on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Woah when did this thread turn up
I know by posting here I'm going to get jumped on by everyone, but I'm ready, got my helmet on and everything :P
Clarifications: I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs. I'll say this again because inevitably someone will "argue" (read: flame) me as like a prop 8 sympathizer or some shit. I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs.
I'm not a fundie
Yes my religion is a motivator in my beliefs, but I'm not gonna do that "hiding behind my religion" bullshit that goes down in a thread like this. I personally find homosexuality to be an act I find...unnatural. Gross.
Yes I'm probably a homophobe. It's something I'm personally fairly ashamed of having grown up around quite a few gay people (including being friends with several)
To segue
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
You do know that gay folks are still very capable of sexual reproduction as long as they're fertile, right?
Lawndart on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
You do know that gay folks are still very capable of sexual reproduction as long as they're fertile, right?
Well, yes, but their choice in sexual partner precludes them from being able to reproduce without outside assistance, so the point stands
Rent on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Well there are two issues with your evolutionary morality view on homosexuality.
1- Obviously homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, and yet the trait still exists.
2- Just because something is not more likely to continue one's genetic lineage does not make it immoral. By that logic, choosing to adopt instead of to have children is immoral. Right now we have too many people as is, so if we had to choose whether to increase or decrease the incidence of homosexuality it would not make sense to create more breeding couples.
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
You do know that gay folks are still very capable of sexual reproduction as long as they're fertile, right?
Well, yes, but their choice in sexual partner precludes them from being able to reproduce without outside assistance, so the point stands
You're basing this on religion again, though. Nature doesn't have "intentions." Nature has a random selection method that gradually leads to survival. Homosexuality may not help the long-term goal of rapid reproduction, but neither does, say, birth defects that lead to infant death. Doesn't mean the latter is a matter of choice. Anyway, homosexuality DOES serve a useful purpose; it prevents overpopulation. Case in point; studies show that in a family with a lot of children, the chances of homosexuality increase with every additional child.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Well, yes, but their choice in sexual partner precludes them from being able to reproduce without outside assistance, so the point stands
I could put my dick in a chick if I wanted to. Hell, both of my gay uncles had children by women without any artificial insemination business.
There are debates about what, if any, evolutionary value gay members of the population could have had. One theory, for instance, is that they contribute to group fitness and selection. Of course, it's all very speculative. But it's important to note that just because a trait has no apparent fitness value doesn't imply that it isn't in-born. For instance, I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to say what fitness value someone would get from poor vision, or, say, from having an appendix.
Whether, on the purely speculative front, homosexuality is something that should be fixed (when and if we have the technology to do so), well--that's a whole additional can of worms. If I were playing god, then, if anything, I would be pre-disposed to make everyone bisexual. After all, then you have the most choice, and if your pool of prospective partners is larger then it stands to reason that it would be easier to find someone compatible to settle down with.
Plus, you'd get to try it both ways :winky:
MrMister on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
I love Wanda Sykes, in her latest HBO special she talks about the coming out gay and not having to come out black.
Who you are attracted to isn't a choice, it just is. But who you sleep with is.
I'm bisexual on a fairly equal ratio, meaning I like men and women pretty much equally. Now my brother is bi but I've only known him to date men but he still gets aroused by women just not as frequently. He chooses to sleep with men because that is who is more attracted to. In some people's eyes he would only be considered homosexual.
I married a wonderful man, in the public's eye it means I'm straight, but I'm not. I'm still attracted to women but I chose to be with the person who I am absolutely in love with, who I want to grow old and die with. And I'm very fortunate that no one has tried to take away my happiness and love because of their religious beliefs.
When I entered puberty and those feelings of desire and arousal started up and I would watch a movie couple make out on screen it would vary on if I wanted to be the one kissing the girl or be the girl getting kissed. There was no decision to be made, it was what popped in my head based on which character I was more attracted to.
Thing is, with sexuality, I think it's far too complex to boil down to either nature or nurture, or to even decide whether it's both, because for individuals, the contribution of each varies wildly.
Some people are just born with a preference for the same sex. Despite everything that their environment teaches them, they remain homosexual. There are some people for whom their experiences growing up drastically shape their subconscious sexual preference. There are some people for whom this is mixed. There are some that are homosexual because, subconsciously, they buck normality, and there are some that desperately want to be "normal" and forsake their homosexuality for the sake of it. There are some that are heterosexual that, because of trauma with members of the opposite sex, seek same sex. There are some people that are homosexual that do the same with the opposite gender. And all of these things are completely fluid.
Do I think it's possible some people made a conscious decision? Yes. Do I think they're anywhere close to a majority? Hell no.
Both of these posts, spoiled above, are pretty much exactly on the money.
Full disclosure: I'm gay. And it wasn't a conscious choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to guys, I just find that I am. That's the reality. I don't really know anyone who can choose to be attracted to something, it seems to be something that's almost totally out of your control. Of course, it is a choice to act on those feelings and assume the identity of "being gay."
But I'd like to call attention to something else Rent said:
Considering one is hatred of a lifestyle choice and another is hatred of a completely uncontrollable aspect of someone (the color of someone's skin), yeah, they are completely different. Not that denying gay people rights because they're gay is an okay thing to do, it's fucked up and wrong. But comparing homophobes to the KKK is an insult to blacks having to deal with raced-based terrorism, and is at best intellectually dishonest.
Homosexuality was illegal in nearly every western nation up through the middle of the 20th century. Alan Turing, for example, the father of the computer and the one who cracked the Enigma Code - critical to the Allied victory in Europe - was caught in a wave of an anti-homosexual crime crackdown in England. He was forced to make a choice between hard prison time and chemical castration. (Eventually, he chose suicide.) And his experience is far from unique. Homosexuality, historically speaking, has indeed been the subject of targeted, institutional persecution.
But it goes deeper than that. Think for a moment about what it means to be a gay man. You're attracted to guys. That's who you love. That's who you would like to be with. The world, however, expects you to be heterosexual. They want you to marry a woman. That's what they expect from you. Think about how that might make a gay person feel: everywhere you look, heterosexuality is the norm.
Even in Austin, a town generally accepted to be pretty liberal and "gay-friendly," you don't see gay people holding hands on the street or in movie theatres or while walking their dogs. And further, you hardly ever see positive gay relationships as role models on television or in movies. We're generally an invisible sub-set of the American population. At least when you're black, you have your black culture and black community and black churches and an entire identity that's okay to be openly expressed. It's okay to express your culture on the street as a black man or woman. But for gays? Totally different story. We're invisible.
And furthermore, "homophobia" is absolutely rampant in the United States today. Half of the United States disapproves of our identity and relationships out of hand. 40% of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal. (Source.) It's a massive problem.
Comparing homophobes to the KKK is absolutely reasonable, and here's why: Their collective opinions and attitudes cause massive harm to gay people everywhere. And it's not just because of actual hate crimes, which are relatively rare. It's because they have forced us to be invisible. That's the ultimate marginalization - to make the object of your prejudice simply invisible.
Blacks are still, far and away, the most persecuted minority in the United States, with the most visible and overt hate crimes directed at them.
I worry about equating homophobia to racism for the exact same reasons I worry about people calling everyone who disagrees with the president a "racist", or calling the president a socialist as "dogwhistling for racism"- it legitimizes the real racists. Racism is a huge, endemic, and deeply concerning this country has faced and will face. Calling people who disagree with the president a racist, or equating homophobia in the US to racism in the US, or calling anyone who calls the president a socialist "a dogwhistler" waters the term "racist" down. It makes the word have less meaning, and by extension makes racists and racism more socially acceptable. Equating even prop 8 pushers to the KKK is not at all reasonable or fair.
That being said, I agree with everything you've just said vis a vis legislation for gay rights. You have just as much a right to be publicly gay that I have a right to be a practicing Catholic. Your being gay doesn't take my rights away so why should I give a shit? I shouldn't, and it's wrong that you aren't treated equally under the law as straight people
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
In another time, yes, it could be considered a disease if, say, the human race were facing imminent extinction and we actually needed people to reproduce to continue the survival of the species. But if that were the case, we'd probably have forced reproduction going on, as well. See how that would be really fucked up if we were to apply it to today's society, where the survival of the species isn't really an issue? Psychiatry is, as of right now, more about allowing an individual to live a functional, fulfilling life, than it is about gearing the species for unbridled procreation and survivability. It's the same reason we no longer do things like throw deformed nenonates off cliffs.
I know by posting here I'm going to get jumped on by everyone, but I'm ready, got my helmet on and everything :P
Clarifications: I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs. I'll say this again because inevitably someone will "argue" (read: flame) me as like a prop 8 sympathizer or some shit. I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs.
I'm not a fundie
Yes my religion is a motivator in my beliefs, but I'm not gonna do that "hiding behind my religion" bullshit that goes down in a thread like this. I personally find homosexuality to be an act I find...unnatural. Gross.
Yes I'm probably a homophobe. It's something I'm personally fairly ashamed of having grown up around quite a few gay people (including being friends with several)
To segue
It's one thing to find something gross, like two girls kissing. It's another thing to actually believe it's immoral. I find mustard gross. No idea why, I just do. Can't stand the smell. Can't stand the way it looks. I hate to be around people eating it. But I don't for a second think that it's immoral. Do you find homosexuality immoral because you find it gross?
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
Let's be clear here. You would like to use this as rationalization for your feeling that homosexuality is gross. That's a fact.
That being said, there's a couple problems with your rationalization: One, speaking from an evolutionary point of view, there is an explanation for a predisposition homosexual behavior, just as there is for eyes, skin, appendixes, etc. I'm just not sure what it is, exactly. However, making moral choices based off of natural selection is ridiculous and not a world I want to live in.
Second, if you really want to speak from a purely utilitarian point of view, we don't need to reproduce like rabbits anymore. There are 6 or 7 billion of us on the planet right now. We're destroying species all over the planet. We're scorching our atmosphere. We're consuming resources at a massive pace. 5-10% of the world not ever reproducing is just fine and really doesn't hurt us. This sort of argument might be valid on the Battlestar Galactica, but it's ridiculous here, today. Homosexuality does not harm the propagation of the human species.
Melkster on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
You do know that gay folks are still very capable of sexual reproduction as long as they're fertile, right?
Well, yes, but their choice in sexual partner precludes them from being able to reproduce without outside assistance, so the point stands
You're basing this on religion again, though. Nature doesn't have "intentions." Nature has a random selection method that gradually leads to survival. Homosexuality may not help the long-term goal of rapid reproduction, but neither does, say, birth defects that lead to infant death. Doesn't mean the latter is a matter of choice. Anyway, homosexuality DOES serve a useful purpose; it prevents overpopulation. Case in point; studies show that in a family with a lot of children, the chances of homosexuality increase with every additional child.
That's fascinating. Do you have a link to that study?
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
To expand on that, the Christian view is that we are all sinners. Having sex with someone of your own gender is a sin like having sex with someone you are not married to. So, homosexuals are expected to avoid committing the sin of gay sex much like wannabe adulterers are expected to avoid boffing their neighbor's wife, or people who are attracted to little children are expected to avoid acting on that desire.
For whatever reason, some Christian denominations are more concerned about homosexuality than they are other sins.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I love Wanda Sykes, in her latest HBO special she talks about the coming out gay and not having to come out black.
Who you are attracted to isn't a choice, it just is. But who you sleep with is.
I'm bisexual on a fairly equal ratio, meaning I like men and women pretty much equally. Now my brother is bi but I've only known him to date men but he still gets aroused by women just not as frequently. He chooses to sleep with men because that is who is more attracted to. In some people's eyes he would only be considered homosexual.
I married a wonderful man, in the public's eye it means I'm straight, but I'm not. I'm still attracted to women but I chose to be with the person who I am absolutely in love with, who I want to grow old and die with. And I'm very fortunate that no one has tried to take away my happiness and love because of their religious beliefs.
When I entered puberty and those feelings of desire and arousal started up and I would watch a movie couple make out on screen it would vary on if I wanted to be the one kissing the girl or be the girl getting kissed. There was no decision to be made, it was what popped in my head based on which character I was more attracted to.
Thing is, with sexuality, I think it's far too complex to boil down to either nature or nurture, or to even decide whether it's both, because for individuals, the contribution of each varies wildly.
Some people are just born with a preference for the same sex. Despite everything that their environment teaches them, they remain homosexual. There are some people for whom their experiences growing up drastically shape their subconscious sexual preference. There are some people for whom this is mixed. There are some that are homosexual because, subconsciously, they buck normality, and there are some that desperately want to be "normal" and forsake their homosexuality for the sake of it. There are some that are heterosexual that, because of trauma with members of the opposite sex, seek same sex. There are some people that are homosexual that do the same with the opposite gender. And all of these things are completely fluid.
Do I think it's possible some people made a conscious decision? Yes. Do I think they're anywhere close to a majority? Hell no.
Both of these posts, spoiled above, are pretty much exactly on the money.
Full disclosure: I'm gay. And it wasn't a conscious choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to guys, I just find that I am. That's the reality. I don't really know anyone who can choose to be attracted to something, it seems to be something that's almost totally out of your control. Of course, it is a choice to act on those feelings and assume the identity of "being gay."
But I'd like to call attention to something else Rent said:
Considering one is hatred of a lifestyle choice and another is hatred of a completely uncontrollable aspect of someone (the color of someone's skin), yeah, they are completely different. Not that denying gay people rights because they're gay is an okay thing to do, it's fucked up and wrong. But comparing homophobes to the KKK is an insult to blacks having to deal with raced-based terrorism, and is at best intellectually dishonest.
Homosexuality was illegal in nearly every western nation up through the middle of the 20th century. Alan Turing, for example, the father of the computer and the one who cracked the Enigma Code - critical to the Allied victory in Europe - was caught in a wave of an anti-homosexual crime crackdown in England. He was forced to make a choice between hard prison time and chemical castration. (Eventually, he chose suicide.) And his experience is far from unique. Homosexuality, historically speaking, has indeed been the subject of targeted, institutional persecution.
But it goes deeper than that. Think for a moment about what it means to be a gay man. You're attracted to guys. That's who you love. That's who you would like to be with. The world, however, expects you to be heterosexual. They want you to marry a woman. That's what they expect from you. Think about how that might make a gay person feel: everywhere you look, heterosexuality is the norm.
Even in Austin, a town generally accepted to be pretty liberal and "gay-friendly," you don't see gay people holding hands on the street or in movie theatres or while walking their dogs. And further, you hardly ever see positive gay relationships as role models on television or in movies. We're generally an invisible sub-set of the American population. At least when you're black, you have your black culture and black community and black churches and an entire identity that's okay to be openly expressed. It's okay to express your culture on the street as a black man or woman. But for gays? Totally different story. We're invisible.
And furthermore, "homophobia" is absolutely rampant in the United States today. Half of the United States disapproves of our identity and relationships out of hand. 40% of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal. (Source.) It's a massive problem.
Comparing homophobes to the KKK is absolutely reasonable, and here's why: Their collective opinions and attitudes cause massive harm to gay people everywhere. And it's not just because of actual hate crimes, which are relatively rare. It's because they have forced us to be invisible. That's the ultimate marginalization - to make the object of your prejudice simply invisible.
Blacks are still, far and away, the most persecuted minority in the United States, with the most visible and overt hate crimes directed at them.
I worry about equating homophobia to racism for the exact same reasons I worry about people calling everyone who disagrees with the president a "racist", or calling the president a socialist as "dogwhistling for racism"- it legitimizes the real racists. Racism is a huge, endemic, and deeply concerning this country has faced and will face. Calling people who disagree with the president a racist, or equating homophobia in the US to racism in the US, or calling anyone who calls the president a socialist "a dogwhistler" waters the term "racist" down. It makes the word have less meaning, and by extension makes racists and racism more socially acceptable. Equating even prop 8 pushers to the KKK is not at all reasonable or fair.
That being said, I agree with everything you've just said vis a vis legislation for gay rights. You have just as much a right to be publicly gay that I have a right to be a practicing Catholic. Your being gay doesn't take my rights away so why should I give a shit? I shouldn't, and it's wrong that you aren't treated equally under the law as straight people
Homophobia and racism are different, absolutely. For one group, it's always visible and there's no way to hide it; institutionalized slavery was endemic for hundreds of years; institutionalized discrimination was and is similarly endemic; blacks are absolutely the subject of a great deal of prejudice, and by comparing racism to homophobia, I in no way mean to diminish racism.
In fact, I would say that those who believe that comparing racism to homophobia makes racism seem 'not as bad' is because they don't think homophobia is all that bad, or they perceive that others don't think that homophobia is all that bad. And, well, half of America does indeed believe that homosexuality is immoral. So they might be right - but they really are both terrible, terrible things that ought to be erradicated from the planet for all the reasons in my original post.
Melkster on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
It's one thing to find something gross, like two girls kissing. It's another thing to actually believe it's immoral. I find mustard gross. No idea why, I just do. Can't stand the smell. Can't stand the way it looks. I hate to be around people eating it. But I don't for a second think that it's immoral. Do you find homosexuality immoral because you find it gross?
Uh, yes, I find a lot of things people do that are gross are also immoral. Unless you're equating a decision as your choice in sexuality (or choice to act on said sexuality) to choice in sandwich condiment I don't see your point
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
Let's be clear here. You would like to use this as rationalization for your feeling that homosexuality is gross. That's a fact.
I know my decision that homosexuality is gross is pretty much objectively irrational
Or did you somehow miss the "I'm probably a homophobe" comment? So no, it's not a justification, it's me being intellectually stimulated on the subject
That being said, there's a couple problems with your rationalization: One, speaking from an evolutionary point of view, there is an explanation for a predisposition homosexual behavior, just as there is for eyes, skin, appendixes, etc. I'm just not sure what it is, exactly. However, making moral choices based off of natural selection is ridiculous and not a world I want to live in.
I need a citation for this before I can comment further
Second, if you really want to speak from a purely utilitarian point of view, we don't need to reproduce like rabbits anymore. There are 6 or 7 billion of us on the planet right now. We're destroying species all over the planet. We're scorching our atmosphere. We're consuming resources at a massive pace. 5-10% of the world not ever reproducing is just fine and really doesn't hurt us. This sort of argument might be valid on the Battlestar Galactica, but it's ridiculous here, today. Homosexuality does not harm the propagation of the human species.
Yes, I also am strongly in favor of first world countries not having a fuckload of kids
Every time an adoption thread comes up I take the pretty extreme "people in first world countries who have kids are extremely selfish" arguement
So kinda preaching to the choir
Also, I might be homophobic but I'm not retarded, I know homosexuality isn't the end of babies as we know it (although I might go gay if it'd help make that happen :P )
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
To expand on that, the Christian view is that we are all sinners. Having sex with someone of your own gender is a sin like having sex with someone you are not married to. So, homosexuals are expected to avoid committing the sin of gay sex much like wannabe adulterers are expected to avoid boffing their neighbor's wife, or people who are attracted to little children are expected to avoid acting on that desire.
For whatever reason, some Christian denominations are more concerned about homosexuality than they are other sins.
As far as I know, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, so, to Him, killing someone is no different than cheating on your wife.
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
To expand on that, the Christian view is that we are all sinners. Having sex with someone of your own gender is a sin like having sex with someone you are not married to. So, homosexuals are expected to avoid committing the sin of gay sex much like wannabe adulterers are expected to avoid boffing their neighbor's wife, or people who are attracted to little children are expected to avoid acting on that desire.
For whatever reason, some Christian denominations are more concerned about homosexuality than they are other sins.
It's this thing called prejudice. And out-group/in-group favoritism. We express ourselves. They don't like it and wish we were invisible. It's mostly non-rational, and unfortunately it does have a religious rationalization.
So if you're a homosexual guy in a church who admits to homosexual feelings, but doesn't act on them, where do you go from there? Can you just not act on them and still be right with God or are you meant to expunge yourself of those as well? Furthermore, are you supposed to marry a woman at point? Is there anything in the Bible that says you need to be sexually attracted to your spouse?
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
To expand on that, the Christian view is that we are all sinners. Having sex with someone of your own gender is a sin like having sex with someone you are not married to. So, homosexuals are expected to avoid committing the sin of gay sex much like wannabe adulterers are expected to avoid boffing their neighbor's wife, or people who are attracted to little children are expected to avoid acting on that desire.
For whatever reason, some Christian denominations are more concerned about homosexuality than they are other sins.
As far as I know, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, so, to Him, killing someone is no different than taking someone's life.
Not in Catholicism, by the way, which is what we were talking about, I think.
claiming that homosexuality doesn't make evolutionary sense can only occur when one makes massive oversimplifications of evolutionary mechanics or lacks a deep understanding of how evolution occurs and what it entails
there's nothing wrong with lacking a deep understanding, mind you, but making claims about the science when you have such a lack is unwise
a simple understanding of the principles of any complex system does not grant you the ability to draw conclusions based on that understanding; this is how we get pop psychology, or worse, evolutionary psychology, or worse still, eugenics.
. I personally find homosexuality to be an act I find...unnatural. Gross.
Yes I'm probably a homophobe. It's something I'm personally fairly ashamed of having grown up around quite a few gay people (including being friends with several)
There's nothing wrong with finding homosexual sex to be gross if you're heterosexual. After all if you were interested in having it you'd be...homosexual, or bisexual.
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
The current theory is that (some) homosexuality is a survival advantage for a large linked family grouping- i.e., what most humans were organized as for most of our evolution and most of our ancestors were organized as. The more sons a woman has the more likely one of them will be gay. If you think about it, it makes sense; it's the primordial equivalent of the rich uncle. You have someone whose interested in seeing his family survive (because they possess his genes as well) but isn't as driven to find a mate and have children himself- so he provides labor to the family group, but doesn't use as many resources.
Second, if homosexuality were unnatural, it wouldn't occur in nature.
Third, we are more than just biological robots. We are thinking, reasoning people and it's not like we have to worry about not having enough babies. As to the "elimination of the gayness gene", it's a monstrous suggestion. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual- morally or "for the survival of the species", since I guess if we're all in underground shelters staving off our extinction during the invasion of evil alien-zombies, gay dudes would have to spend their saturdays at the rape-farms like everyone else.
It's one thing to find something gross, like two girls kissing. It's another thing to actually believe it's immoral. I find mustard gross. No idea why, I just do. Can't stand the smell. Can't stand the way it looks. I hate to be around people eating it. But I don't for a second think that it's immoral. Do you find homosexuality immoral because you find it gross?
Uh, yes, I find a lot of things people do that are gross are also immoral. Unless you're equating a decision as your choice in sexuality (or choice to act on said sexuality) to choice in sandwich condiment I don't see your point
I'm a little confused as to why you are confused, so let me start over.
My question is this: (1) Is homosexuality immoral? (2) Do you believe that it's immoral because you find it "gross"?
That being said, there's a couple problems with your rationalization: One, speaking from an evolutionary point of view, there is an explanation for a predisposition homosexual behavior, just as there is for eyes, skin, appendixes, etc. I'm just not sure what it is, exactly. However, making moral choices based off of natural selection is ridiculous and not a world I want to live in.
I need a citation for this before I can comment further
There are evolutionary explanations for all aspects of life, probably. For eyeballs, for tails, for everything. There's a logical reason it got where it is. It might no longer have a purpose, as in the case of an vestigial organs, or it might just be a terribly constructed organ, as in the case of the eyeball, but it does have a logical explanation.
I am not aware of a generally-accepted scientific hypothesis for how homosexual behavior developed from an evolutionary perspective, so I can't give a citation. However, I fully expect for one to be developed at some point.
Second, if you really want to speak from a purely utilitarian point of view, we don't need to reproduce like rabbits anymore. There are 6 or 7 billion of us on the planet right now. We're destroying species all over the planet. We're scorching our atmosphere. We're consuming resources at a massive pace. 5-10% of the world not ever reproducing is just fine and really doesn't hurt us. This sort of argument might be valid on the Battlestar Galactica, but it's ridiculous here, today. Homosexuality does not harm the propagation of the human species.
Yes, I also am strongly in favor of first world countries not having a fuckload of kids
Every time an adoption thread comes up I take the pretty extreme "people in first world countries who have kids are extremely selfish" arguement
So kinda preaching to the choir
Also, I might be homophobic but I'm not retarded, I know homosexuality isn't the end of babies as we know it (although I might go gay if it'd help make that happen :P )
Well, then, there you go. The utilitarian argument doesn't work out, as you acknowledge. Fair enough.
Posts
No, it makes perfect sense. You are a human with reason, you can choose to ignore your base nature and do whatever. It might make you uncomfortable, and it's probably a bad idea, but people do do it all the time and have for years.
Ok. You're right. People have control over there bodies. But if you are gay, and choose not to have a relationship with another man, you are still gay. What the fuck are you trying to prove here, other than how stupid you are?
I think observed human behavior warrants tacking "with mixed results" onto the bolded phrase.
Yes society enforces codes and such if your behavior is harmful is some way or another.
there's no convincing argument that homosexuality is harmful to society so why should people have to deny their nature in regard to it?
Let me rephrase. Being honest about same-sex attractions is a choice. Having them isn't.
Being gay is socially inconvenient. Some straight couples look down on gay couples even though there's no real reason to discriminate....etc.
Tut tut, this board is well-known for being insensitive to polygamists and furry fetishes. If a man wants to hump a stuffed animal doll while wearing a rabbit costume, who are you to be disgusted? :P
And therefore...?
o_O
Chuckle.
No kidding.
Closet cases are nowhere near as hot as Jason Statham!
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Second: I'm not a psychologist or biologist or anything myself. But it's my understanding, based on many things I've read, that the contention that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" has been decisively discredited on a scientific level.
Third: As someone above pointed out, imagine if the roles were switched, and you were a straight man attracted to women in a society that was mostly gay. Would you consider the possibility that you should "choose" to be gay instead of straight, to be more like everyone else?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
There's very little in the Bible about any of this, actually. The answer would depend on the Church. The Catholic opinion is that gays get sympathy because they have to lead a "life of trial"- to act on their impulses is sinful, that they have them is a struggle.
It's fucking retarded.
As far as I understand, homosexual desire is in itself no more sinful that heterosexual attraction to women other than your wife. So if you refrain, then you can be right by God, just in the same way that everyone is supposed to battle their lust.
In Catholicism, it's not neccessarily sinful - but it is a "disordered attraction." To them, it's sort of like having a predisposition to steal or murder or drink too much. It may not be sinful in of itself, but it certainly isn't part of God's plan.
I know by posting here I'm going to get jumped on by everyone, but I'm ready, got my helmet on and everything :P
Clarifications: I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs. I'll say this again because inevitably someone will "argue" (read: flame) me as like a prop 8 sympathizer or some shit. I support gay rights issues, despite my personal beliefs.
I'm not a fundie
Yes my religion is a motivator in my beliefs, but I'm not gonna do that "hiding behind my religion" bullshit that goes down in a thread like this. I personally find homosexuality to be an act I find...unnatural. Gross.
Yes I'm probably a homophobe. It's something I'm personally fairly ashamed of having grown up around quite a few gay people (including being friends with several)
To segue
From a purely utilitarian point of view I can't see the point of people being "born" gay. Since a human's prime imperatives are 1) to survive and 2) to reproduce, being gay naturally ignores one of the central imperatives of humans. Also, this raises the hypothetical: If gay people are born gay, then wouldn't it naturally follow that homosexuality is a literal disease (since it makes a human incapable of one of their prime imperatives)? Would we as a society have an inclination to find the "gayness gene", as it were, and eliminate it? What think, D and D?
I dunno (not being facetious here I truly don't know)
You do know that gay folks are still very capable of sexual reproduction as long as they're fertile, right?
Well, yes, but their choice in sexual partner precludes them from being able to reproduce without outside assistance, so the point stands
1- Obviously homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, and yet the trait still exists.
2- Just because something is not more likely to continue one's genetic lineage does not make it immoral. By that logic, choosing to adopt instead of to have children is immoral. Right now we have too many people as is, so if we had to choose whether to increase or decrease the incidence of homosexuality it would not make sense to create more breeding couples.
You're basing this on religion again, though. Nature doesn't have "intentions." Nature has a random selection method that gradually leads to survival. Homosexuality may not help the long-term goal of rapid reproduction, but neither does, say, birth defects that lead to infant death. Doesn't mean the latter is a matter of choice. Anyway, homosexuality DOES serve a useful purpose; it prevents overpopulation. Case in point; studies show that in a family with a lot of children, the chances of homosexuality increase with every additional child.
I could put my dick in a chick if I wanted to. Hell, both of my gay uncles had children by women without any artificial insemination business.
There are debates about what, if any, evolutionary value gay members of the population could have had. One theory, for instance, is that they contribute to group fitness and selection. Of course, it's all very speculative. But it's important to note that just because a trait has no apparent fitness value doesn't imply that it isn't in-born. For instance, I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to say what fitness value someone would get from poor vision, or, say, from having an appendix.
Whether, on the purely speculative front, homosexuality is something that should be fixed (when and if we have the technology to do so), well--that's a whole additional can of worms. If I were playing god, then, if anything, I would be pre-disposed to make everyone bisexual. After all, then you have the most choice, and if your pool of prospective partners is larger then it stands to reason that it would be easier to find someone compatible to settle down with.
Plus, you'd get to try it both ways :winky:
Blacks are still, far and away, the most persecuted minority in the United States, with the most visible and overt hate crimes directed at them.
I worry about equating homophobia to racism for the exact same reasons I worry about people calling everyone who disagrees with the president a "racist", or calling the president a socialist as "dogwhistling for racism"- it legitimizes the real racists. Racism is a huge, endemic, and deeply concerning this country has faced and will face. Calling people who disagree with the president a racist, or equating homophobia in the US to racism in the US, or calling anyone who calls the president a socialist "a dogwhistler" waters the term "racist" down. It makes the word have less meaning, and by extension makes racists and racism more socially acceptable. Equating even prop 8 pushers to the KKK is not at all reasonable or fair.
That being said, I agree with everything you've just said vis a vis legislation for gay rights. You have just as much a right to be publicly gay that I have a right to be a practicing Catholic. Your being gay doesn't take my rights away so why should I give a shit? I shouldn't, and it's wrong that you aren't treated equally under the law as straight people
In another time, yes, it could be considered a disease if, say, the human race were facing imminent extinction and we actually needed people to reproduce to continue the survival of the species. But if that were the case, we'd probably have forced reproduction going on, as well. See how that would be really fucked up if we were to apply it to today's society, where the survival of the species isn't really an issue? Psychiatry is, as of right now, more about allowing an individual to live a functional, fulfilling life, than it is about gearing the species for unbridled procreation and survivability. It's the same reason we no longer do things like throw deformed nenonates off cliffs.
It's one thing to find something gross, like two girls kissing. It's another thing to actually believe it's immoral. I find mustard gross. No idea why, I just do. Can't stand the smell. Can't stand the way it looks. I hate to be around people eating it. But I don't for a second think that it's immoral. Do you find homosexuality immoral because you find it gross?
Let's be clear here. You would like to use this as rationalization for your feeling that homosexuality is gross. That's a fact.
That being said, there's a couple problems with your rationalization: One, speaking from an evolutionary point of view, there is an explanation for a predisposition homosexual behavior, just as there is for eyes, skin, appendixes, etc. I'm just not sure what it is, exactly. However, making moral choices based off of natural selection is ridiculous and not a world I want to live in.
Second, if you really want to speak from a purely utilitarian point of view, we don't need to reproduce like rabbits anymore. There are 6 or 7 billion of us on the planet right now. We're destroying species all over the planet. We're scorching our atmosphere. We're consuming resources at a massive pace. 5-10% of the world not ever reproducing is just fine and really doesn't hurt us. This sort of argument might be valid on the Battlestar Galactica, but it's ridiculous here, today. Homosexuality does not harm the propagation of the human species.
That's fascinating. Do you have a link to that study?
For whatever reason, some Christian denominations are more concerned about homosexuality than they are other sins.
Rigorous Scholarship
Homophobia and racism are different, absolutely. For one group, it's always visible and there's no way to hide it; institutionalized slavery was endemic for hundreds of years; institutionalized discrimination was and is similarly endemic; blacks are absolutely the subject of a great deal of prejudice, and by comparing racism to homophobia, I in no way mean to diminish racism.
In fact, I would say that those who believe that comparing racism to homophobia makes racism seem 'not as bad' is because they don't think homophobia is all that bad, or they perceive that others don't think that homophobia is all that bad. And, well, half of America does indeed believe that homosexuality is immoral. So they might be right - but they really are both terrible, terrible things that ought to be erradicated from the planet for all the reasons in my original post.
I know my decision that homosexuality is gross is pretty much objectively irrational
Or did you somehow miss the "I'm probably a homophobe" comment? So no, it's not a justification, it's me being intellectually stimulated on the subject
I need a citation for this before I can comment further
Yes, I also am strongly in favor of first world countries not having a fuckload of kids
Every time an adoption thread comes up I take the pretty extreme "people in first world countries who have kids are extremely selfish" arguement
So kinda preaching to the choir
Also, I might be homophobic but I'm not retarded, I know homosexuality isn't the end of babies as we know it (although I might go gay if it'd help make that happen :P )
As far as I know, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, so, to Him, killing someone is no different than cheating on your wife.
It's this thing called prejudice. And out-group/in-group favoritism. We express ourselves. They don't like it and wish we were invisible. It's mostly non-rational, and unfortunately it does have a religious rationalization.
Not in Catholicism, by the way, which is what we were talking about, I think.
there's nothing wrong with lacking a deep understanding, mind you, but making claims about the science when you have such a lack is unwise
a simple understanding of the principles of any complex system does not grant you the ability to draw conclusions based on that understanding; this is how we get pop psychology, or worse, evolutionary psychology, or worse still, eugenics.
There's nothing wrong with finding homosexual sex to be gross if you're heterosexual. After all if you were interested in having it you'd be...homosexual, or bisexual.
The current theory is that (some) homosexuality is a survival advantage for a large linked family grouping- i.e., what most humans were organized as for most of our evolution and most of our ancestors were organized as. The more sons a woman has the more likely one of them will be gay. If you think about it, it makes sense; it's the primordial equivalent of the rich uncle. You have someone whose interested in seeing his family survive (because they possess his genes as well) but isn't as driven to find a mate and have children himself- so he provides labor to the family group, but doesn't use as many resources.
Second, if homosexuality were unnatural, it wouldn't occur in nature.
Third, we are more than just biological robots. We are thinking, reasoning people and it's not like we have to worry about not having enough babies. As to the "elimination of the gayness gene", it's a monstrous suggestion. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual- morally or "for the survival of the species", since I guess if we're all in underground shelters staving off our extinction during the invasion of evil alien-zombies, gay dudes would have to spend their saturdays at the rape-farms like everyone else.
I'm a little confused as to why you are confused, so let me start over.
My question is this: (1) Is homosexuality immoral? (2) Do you believe that it's immoral because you find it "gross"?
There are evolutionary explanations for all aspects of life, probably. For eyeballs, for tails, for everything. There's a logical reason it got where it is. It might no longer have a purpose, as in the case of an vestigial organs, or it might just be a terribly constructed organ, as in the case of the eyeball, but it does have a logical explanation.
I am not aware of a generally-accepted scientific hypothesis for how homosexual behavior developed from an evolutionary perspective, so I can't give a citation. However, I fully expect for one to be developed at some point.
Well, then, there you go. The utilitarian argument doesn't work out, as you acknowledge. Fair enough.
there are homosexual animals
it occurs in nature as phobos said