You probably clicked on this just dying to call me a bigot. I am simply looking for understanding. Please do not think i dislike gay people i just have questions thats all
OK so any reasonable person knows that homosexuality is NOT a choice and that it is born into. That is established. However since (until very very recently with embryonic research) homosexuals will typically not reproduce because they arent attracted to the opposite sex. In evolutionary terms this could not be an advantage. Would it be fair to call homosexuality a birth defect in the same league as things like :
Male pattern baldness
A lazy eye
Third nipple
Obviously the IMPLICATIONS societally are much different but really they shouldn't be. Why can't we just look at homosexuality like baldness and is it OK to charaterize it in this way.
2007-07-16 11:50:56 · 17 answers · asked by dougness86 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
defect is a subjective term, many features of the human body are sub-optimal from a purely utilitarian view, and yet simply being an normally built human being does not mean you have a long list of defects
Some sexually reproducing species reproduce through sexual intercourse, like cattle; some reproduce without sexual intercourse, like fish; with humans either one is a possibility thanks to our natural tendency for tool usage
2007-07-16 12:34:26 · answer #1 · answered by geramd4040 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure of the answer, but I just want you to know that this is a great question and I totally understand what you are trying to say. People read these questions and automatically assume that the asker must be prejudiced and ignorant, bit you made it clear that this is not the case. You also made it clear that you do not intend for the word "defect" to be insulting, although I imagione it might be hard for some to think otherwise. As for the first response, that person is a moron. Don't pay them any mind. All they read was "defect" and they got pissed.
Also, you make a good point by saying homosexuality is not in favor of procreation, and therefore, the continuance of the human race... which is a good reason it could very well be considered a defect.
2007-07-16 11:59:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, I guess we could..but I have to believe that there is some evolutionary advantage to having gay people..otherwise we would never have been around this long...nature doesn't tolerate things that exist for no reason. Perhaps the new study(s) on the fact that women who bear more children also bear more homosexual children...the gene seems to govern fertility positively as well as create homosexuals. I don't think that you are a bigot. I just don't think that homosexuality is a birth defect as you describe.
2007-07-16 12:00:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say it's a defect, maybe an asset.
I do think there are biological and chemical differences that have me convinced that it's innate, but in modern day evolutionary terms, now that the world is getting crowded, maybe it is an advantage for the survival of all. I wish some of these breeders would use condoms if they're not going to care for their offspring.
2007-07-16 12:04:54 · answer #4 · answered by topink 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you are correct in stating that this present at birth but you are incorrect in using the term defect. A defect infers that this is an imperfection. I disagree with you there.
I consider homosexuality no different than handedness, hair, eye or skin color.
Different yes, defect NO!
♂♂
2007-07-16 12:01:48 · answer #5 · answered by Tegarst 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
99.999% of the population in an ant colony does not reproduce, and yet this doesn't seem to have kept ants from surviving for millions of years. Maybe, just maybe, a portion of the population not reproducing (and by the way, many gays and lesbians are parents) while contributing to the welfare of the group, is really part of the plan.
2007-07-16 12:08:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO it is not a beginning ailment...and so some distance as evolutionary words, homosexuality below no circumstances threatens that. one million in 10 human beings being gay is below no circumstances a threat to the inhabitants of the earth. The species might and remains growing to be and surviving. Theres actual no longer something incorrect with being gay, so there is not any ailment, this is organic so some distance as i'm in contact. I artwork effective.
2016-10-03 23:12:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is being white (or any race) a birth defect? No.
Is having blue eyes (or any eye color) a birth defect? No.
Is being a blonde (or any hair color) a birth defect? No.
Homosexuality is only a birth defect is heterosexuality is.
2007-07-16 12:16:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are born with it but I certainly do not consider it a defect. I like the way I am.
2007-07-16 12:23:56 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, really don't think it's a birth defect. At least you realize that it isn't a choice, that we're born this way.
2007-07-16 11:55:18 · answer #10 · answered by Dawn 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋