What Is Your Stance On Homosexuality?

[muumajii23]

My question is why do homosexuals want to have sex, from an evolutionary point of view. If we are saying that homosexuality is natural and is a result of evolution and such, then what purpose is there for homosexual males to want to have sex with each other? Why would it be superior in natural selection to waste so much energy on trying to get a partner and having sex when they can never reproduce and pass on genes to offsprings (which besides self-survival is the ultimate goal of of the organism, at least according to the theory of evolution).

I'm sorry, I saw this and had to respond.

In the human race, sex is not only one-purpose (same with dolphins, but that's besides the point xD). It can be used to, yes, reproduce, but more often than not it is to show love to a partner, or just for the fun of it. Or in rudimentary terms, an orgasm feels good. xD

 

[The Agorist]

I'm sorry? What?

Im not sure what the problem is. I was commenting on how when I am busy responding to people before me, new people post which means I have to go back to respond to them, creating a cycle where I am never caught up with my fellow debater

I'm sorry, I saw this and had to respond.

In the human race, sex is not only one-purpose (same with dolphins, but that's besides the point xD). It can be used to, yes, reproduce, but more often than not it is to show love to a partner, or just for the fun of it. Or in rudimentary terms, an orgasm feels good. xD

Sex is used to show love for a partner and such, but I was speaking from a biological point of view. If we accept the theory of evolution (and if you dont, that's okay, let me know) and we apply it to sex we find that the primary reason for sex is to reproduce. Production is the important thing. If homosexuality is natural and biological, and homosexuals cant produce children with one another, then they cannot pass on their genes and the mutation of genes that caused homosexuality would be non-existent after a generation or so.

 

[J.T.]

I don't have a lot of time here, so I'll just post a few counterpoints and clarifications here.

That's not a rational argument, or even an refuting argument to begin with.

The condom thing?

Persecuted by who exactly? We have full civil rights, or at least as much as the heterosexuals do. People disagreeing with a lifestyle choice and being vocal about it is not persecution.

Gays run the risk of being beaten and killed for their sexuality. In Middle-Eastern countries, they can be tortured and executed by the government for it. In most developed countries, they cannot get married, can't get visitation rights when their spouses are in the hospital, can't adopt, and in some areas can't even donate blood, and you're sitting here telling me they're not persecuted.

I dont have to account for the differences in the amount of STD cases between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The fact is the discrepancy does occur. Homosexuals account for 4% of gonorrhea cases, 60% of syphilis cases, and 17% of hospital admissions (other than STDs) in the United States. Keep in mind we are about 2% of the entire US population.

Let's ignore the fact that many gays are in the closet out of fear of rejection, and as such you may get inaccurate results in regards to how many there are.

By saying gays have a higher chance of getting STDs but not giving any biological reason why this might be that can't be solved by slipping on a rubber, your case is kinda damaged.

Define "needs". If needs you mean that it is legitimate for one to use the force of a gun to try and improve marriages to the ideal, then no. But surely One man-One woman marriages without infidelity and without divorce and abstinence outside of the marital bed leads to much healthier lifestyles than otherwise, for both the parents and child. I of course have studies that show this as well, and would be happy to cite them for you once I find them.

Well, clearly gays don't have to worry about kids unless they adopt, which they can't even do in many places anyway, but when it does come to that, how does it make the kids more prone to disease? Surely the adults may have health problems, but if two gay men are willing to take the risk of developing STDs by having sex, well, who are we to stop them?

I was curious about the sources he was pulling his claims from. And I dispute that there is a significant persecution in the US to account for the negative affects of the unhealthy lifestyle I described above.

Yeah, no persecution whatsoever, except for the beatings and murders that've been committed against gays for being gay, the constant pressure they're put under by religious groups telling them they're abominations, and the denial of many of the rights that straight people are born into that they somehow aren't good enough for.

My question is why do homosexuals want to have sex, from an evolutionary point of view.

For the same reason people using condoms or contraceptives do - pleasure.

 

[muumajii23]

Sex is used to show love for a partner and such, but I was speaking from a biological point of view. If we accept the theory of evolution (and if you dont, that's okay, let me know) and we apply it to sex we find that the primary reason for sex is to reproduce. Production is the important thing. If homosexuality is natural and biological, and homosexuals cant produce children with one another, then they cannot pass on their genes and the mutation of genes that caused homosexuality would be non-existent after a generation or so.

It would take way more than a single generation to take out such a large part of the human genome, to reproduce. So the desire to have sex would remain, and that's also taking into account every generation would have to be gay as well (which doesn't even work. xD)

Btw, I believe in evolution. xD

But you do raise a good point.

 

[Yeti]

homosexual people are just like heterosexual people. they should be able to marry to have kids, to start families. they shouldn't be denied rights that heterosexual people have. they are humans with different interests. its just like interracial couples

Except homosexuals can't 'have kids' because they are the same sex and thus unable to reproduce.
Not to mention it'd be hard on the kid to be raised with two homosexual parents... I have ready studies (pardon me for not having the links handy) that having one of the male/female parents missing in ones life can severely alter the child's normal growth patterns because the child doesn't interact with a male figure and a female figure the amount they should. As I recall this actually does play a role in the child's sexuality later, depending on if one of the parents was absent from their life. Of course that's not the sole reason for sexuality however the child is more prone to a deviation because of the missing stimulation in their developmental phases.
Even though there's two parents, they are the same sex and thus can't provide the proper interaction the child needs.

It was in part due to curiosity and in part so I could understand any religious qualms you have towards homosexuality, As by your own admission, you have none, that is good. I hate it when people let religion get in the way of thought. I draw my belief system through science and philosophy as well, and a few other things. But that is neither here nor there.

Your bigotry is astounding.
You act as though people should be able to separate their religious standpoints and views from how they think 'scientifically' or 'normally' and sorry, that simply isn't the case.
Religion affects and shapes how people think and allows them to form ideas based off of it. It isn't some switch that can be thrown off for the moment whenever some religion-hating bigot like you demands it. It is a constantly-active part in a religious person's thought process and opinion-shaping process.
In much the same way parents, friends and schooling affect a person's opinion and are irremovable aspects of their thoughts religion plays the same role. It doesn't 'get in the way of thought' it stimulates thought and directs it.

I firmly believe in the Bible and there is no way I am going to disregard that just because someone like you is butthurt that it condemns your lifestyle choices. It is not something I let get in the way of my thought but I allow it to shape my thoughts because I agree with the content in it and have read it thoroughly.
You can't play the victim that MEAN OLD RELIGION detracts from your life in any way when people like you sit there and bash it and treat it like trash. Reverse bigotry and even worse than religious people citing their religion as a cause for disliking homosexuality. You have no great text or teachings saying the act is against the religion, you just have yourself unable to accept someone else's viewpoint. Are you really so self-absorbed you think religion is some great demon against homosexuals and that it can be easily disregarded?

In humanity the main purpose of sex is to reproduce the species - the pleasure aspect is something that is meant to be experienced only between a married, heterosexual couple. (source - Bible [if you don't agree with it I could REALLY care less])

I think someone stated that hate crimes against homosexuals are mainly religiously-driven, which simply isn't the case. I wrote an essay on this last year and found that virtually no homosexual murders where the killer knew their orientation were spurned by religion - the suspect/criminal confirmed these facts and said they were not religiously motivated.
Not to mention any Christian killing a homosexual (not by stoning them if you want to take the Bible literally and disregard Jesus' removal of the punishments and sin offerings [but not the removal of the fact homosexuality is sin]) would be violating the religion's teachings. Jesus did not say to kill anyone in sin but to love them regardless. The sin still exists however it should not be cause for death.
It should not be approved of or condoned however it has to be tolerated to live out the religion's purpose.

My own dislike for homosexuality stems from the fact I have only met one homosexual/bisexual who I have gotten along with (the rest have proved themselves to be religion-haters blindly bashing religious people for disliking their lifestyle or I have just not been able to stand them) and that I have an allergy almost to their physical acts.
An allergy to peanuts isn't peanutphobia but it could still make a person have a negative physical reaction, correct? The same happens to me... I just can't stomach homosexuality in action. forgive me if your orientation makes me sick

 

[Tim the turtle]

Im not sure what the problem is. I was commenting on how when I am busy responding to people before me, new people post which means I have to go back to respond to them, creating a cycle where I am never caught up with my fellow debater

I'm sorry, that's my bad. You said you would respond to my sources, but I didn't cite any, so I was rather confused as to whose post you were talking about.

I have not heard the blood vessel argument, and will have to look into that before I can comment. I feel that homosexual actions are immoral in and of itself, although I haven't yet worked out a philosophical proof for that as of yet. What I can as of now argue is that it is unhealthy, and that has been the focus of my arguments. Simply put, the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthier than the heterosexual lifestyle. If health is one's goal (as it is mine) homosexual acts should be avoided. I am also personally against anal sex between heterosexual couples. Once again, it is like you said unhealthy. However I argue that it does not lead to the same risk of AIDS since the amount of HIV in the heterosexual population is much lower than that of the homosexual population.

I cannot cite you anything for the blood vessel comment I made. It is simply something I have remembered from various places, conversations and sex ed. lessons that I took a long time ago. This seems wierd. You claim to be a deontologist on the subject, though as you have admitted, you are arguing from a consequentialist point of view. I would be very interested in seeing a philosophical proof for the former argument, though as you say you have yet to create one. Of course the second argument still creates problems. If homosexual sex is wrong because of the risks of AIDS, or because it is unhealthy, then before you obtain any philosophical proof for a deontological solution, surely you would have to admit that any homosexual sex between those who have been shown to not carry the AIDS virus or other STDs is moral as it does not infringe in the health of the practicing individuals.

I am not trying to prove guilt through association, because philosophically you are correct in not accepting that as a proof. However, my argument is that the environmental causes of homosexuality and child molestation is the same or is very similar. If child molestation is bad and unhealthy (as Im sure we can agree) then the factors that cause it can be considered negative. If those same factors can be linked to other "things" for lack of a better word, then those things should be critically analyzed to see if they are unhealthy as well. I established the link by showing the disproportionate amount of child molester who are gay. The amount is such a big one that it is not an anomaly, and I see no other variable for the connection.

I still do not see much validity to this argument I am afraid. You claim:

If those same factors can be linked to other "things" for lack of a better word, then those things should be critically analyzed to see if they are unhealthy as well.

But it is surely a logical fallacy to then "critically analyze" them based upon their connection to that already established immoral act. Perhaps I have not explained that fully. I will attempt a more detailed approach. If one were to claim that child molestation is bad because it harms children (which it of course does) and then claim that a large proportion of child molesters are homosexual, and thus that homosexuality should be evaluated for immorallity too, one surely could not claim immorallity on the grounds that a number of homosexuals are child molesters, because that is evaluating child molestation again, not homosexuality. I still do not feel I have adequately described my argument here, but, as I have said, I have been drinking all night so if there is a problem with it then that is your answer

 

[randomspot555]

Also, drug use (especially with things like dirty and used needles) is also higher among gays. Furthermore gays on average have many, many more sexual partners per lifetime which further spreads disease. Compare this to the "ideal" heterosexual couple who were abstinent until marriage and did not have sex outside of marriage. Any STDs the couples had would have died with them, and not been spread to others.

You are comparing the almost non-existent heterosexual couple who had sex with no one else but each other and the most promiscuous of gays and lesbians. That's a great way to stack the deck.

Is there a source for either of these statements?

EDIT: I found your source for the count of partners among gay men. But the study Alan P Bell did wasn't to track the # of partners each participant had. He only conducted his studies among men living in San Francisco. And unless San Francisco porpotionally represented the entire world, statistics wouldn't be able to be applied to anyone outside of the San Francisco area.

Drug use among the homosexual community is due largely to people with attitudes much like your own. They get hated for being themselves and they try to escape the hate. the "ideal" heterosexual couple is so rare that I'm inclined to believe it's a myth. You use stereotypes to back up your points. In short, FAIL!

Complete bull. No one held up a gun to a demographic and made them use drugs.

 

[Slash4life]

OK first of all Yeti, I haven't claimed atheism as my religion for a while. I am now on my own spiritual path. And I do not shun religion, but when blind faith gets in the way of thought, I do not approve. I do not subscribe to Christianity, Islam, of Judaism, the three largest religions in the world. I live under the roof of a Southern baptist preacher. I know the bible better than many here, and don't forget it. I don't blindly bash religion, but attributes of religion that people use to justify hate. And your comparison is still null and void, as allergies are activated by physical contact with whatever the allergy is to, not seeing it.

 

[randomspot555]

Good news, I debunked the supposed link between child molestation and homosexuality:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf

This study compared histories of childhood sexual
victimization among pedophilic and hebephilic child
molesters. The former differ from the latter on the
basis of molesting younger children (i.e., 12 or
under). Similar percentages of the two groups, drawn
from patients seen at a sexual behaviors clinic,
reported a history of having sexual contact with an
adult while under the age of 13. Among hebephiles,
homosexuals were more likely than heterosexuals to
report such contact, but no difference by sexual
orientation was found among pedophiles.

Also:

In the book The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay men Speak Out about about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young report that 73% of homosexual men surveyed admitted to having sex with boys younger than 19 years old.

This means absolutely nothing, at least in the way you present it. All that means is that, at some point in their life, they had sex with someone younger than 19. That would be true for well...the average person (source: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#Age). By the early 20s, 89% have lost their virginity.

The age of consent also varies among states, though despite popular belief, it is not always 18. It usually lies between 15-17.

In the CBS documentary Gay Power, Gay Politics it was reported that 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism and sadomasochistic sex is the cause of 10% of accidental deaths of homosexual men.

I'd have to see the source for the information. It's unlikely that CBS did their own statistics and are referring to previous studies.

A University of Pennsylvania study found that 95% of boys sexual abused for pornography, prostitution, or trafficking are molested by homosexuals.

That isn't citing a source. That's just saying what university it's from.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Cut the Agorist some slack. I'm as defensive of gay people as anyone around here, but he was completely civil, and he delivers a logical argument. There's no need to laugh or be condenscending on his personal choices just because they don't match other gay men's choices. I'm just glad he didn't let the initial welcoming party drive him away.

1. Why shouldn't there be a difference between "being homosexual" and "practicing homosexuality"? Personally I think that's a refreshing point of view! When someone identifies themselves as gay, and flaunts it, they are - they are - essentially identifying themselves by their sexual preferences. Why would you want to make sex the pivotal part of your identity that you introduce yourself with? I can understand, say, if that is a part of your personal struggle that you feel defines yourself, but that's only a choice. If someone decides that something in their life is more important, more pronounced than fighting to be accepted for their sexuality, I say that's great, and it's very mature.

2. As for the prevalence of gay people doing drugs...JT said that best, gay people face certain hardship in their life, coming out of the closet, certain emotional struggles cause them to veer toward the wrong path and then stay in touch with it. But if we make a more welcoming environment, and in the future more parents accept that their teen could be gay (my mom was thrown on the streets when she was little, hit by a broom, her mom tried to smite her with holy water), then they won't turn to such dangerous ways of dealing with their emotions.

3. Anyone who says gays aren't persecuted isn't looking in the right places. See above. It's easy to say gay people aren't persecuted if you never tell anyone you're gay.

 

[randomspot555]

1. Why shouldn't there be a difference between "being homosexual" and "practicing homosexuality"? Personally I think that's a refreshing point of view! When someone identifies themselves as gay, and flaunts it, they are - they are - essentially identifying themselves by their sexual preferences. Why would you want to make sex the pivotal part of your identity that you introduce yourself with? I can understand, say, if that is a part of your personal struggle that you feel defines yourself, but that's only a choice. If someone decides that something in their life is more important, more pronounced than fighting to be accepted for their sexualqity, I say that's great, and it's very mature.

Throughout much of American history, minority groups who in the past or currently suffered from discrimination tend to form their own culture. Just like being black isn't just a skin color, but a cultural identification too, so is being gay.

In the strict dictionary sense, it's understandable this didn't occur to you, because "homosexual" only is in relationship to the sexual orientation of a person.

2. As for the prevalence of gay people doing drugs...JT said that best, gay people face certain hardship in their life, coming out of the closet, certain emotional struggles cause them to veer toward the wrong path and then stay in touch with it. But if we make a more welcoming environment, and in the future more parents accept that their teen could be gay (my mom was thrown on the streets when she was little, hit by a broom, her mom tried to smite her with holy water), then they won't turn to such dangerous ways of dealing with their emotions.

I've yet to see an actual source concerning drug usage. Many don't even mention sexual orientation at all, from my 5 minutes of Googling, since gays are such a minority in the population.

RESULTS: Homosexually active men reported higher rates of marijuana (14%) and cocaine (4%) use in the prior month than did exclusively heterosexually active men (8.4%, 1.2%), though not significantly so (marijuana: adj OR = 1.4, CI: 0.6,3.2; cocaine: adj OR = 2.8, CI: 0.9,8.6). Rates of heroin use in the prior month were highly similar (0.8% vs. 1.4%). Homosexually active men also showed elevation in 1 year prevalence of marijuana abuse (15.0%) and dependency (5.7%) as compared to exclusively heterosexually active men (6.6%, 2.2%), but not significantly so (abuse: adj OR = 2.0, CI: 0.8,4.9; dependency: adj OR = 2.3, CI: 0.9,5.5). Use of inhalants, sedatives, stimulants, analgesics, and tranquilizers was uncommon and did not appear to differ significantly between the two groups of men
...
CONCLUSIONS: While illicit drug use is an important co-factor in HIV transmission, results suggest that rates of illicit drug use, except possibly marijuana and cocaine, may not be substantially higher among gay men as compared to men generally. Drug interventions aimed at gay men should be targeted to those in need.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102254579.html

 

[Skull-Kid]

Except homosexuals can't 'have kids' because they are the same sex and thus unable to reproduce.
Not to mention it'd be hard on the kid to be raised with two homosexual parents... I have ready studies (pardon me for not having the links handy) that having one of the male/female parents missing in ones life can severely alter the child's normal growth patterns because the child doesn't interact with a male figure and a female figure the amount they should.

Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home an abilty that does not pend on whether a parent is gay or straight.

someone stated that hate crimes against homosexuals are mainly religiously-driven, which simply isn't the case.

There was actually. Got below info here --> http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

On September 22, 2000, a 55-year-old man named Ronald E. Gay, angry for being teased about his last name, entered the Back Street Café in Roanoke, Virginia, a gathering place for lesbians and gays just a few miles from Lynchburg. Confident that God's Word supported his tragic plan of action, Mr. Gay shouted, "I am a Christian soldier, working for my Lord." Claiming that "Jesus does not want these people in his heaven," he shot seven innocent gay and lesbian people. One man, Danny Overstreet, died instantly. Others still suffer from their physical and psychological wounds.

 

[GoldenEon]

Your point? Im a gay male, and I believe that homosexual acts are immoral and have a negative affect on the practitioners and society as a whole.

Edit: I try to have an objective opinion on the subject. My subjective feelings are largely irrelevant.

Did I seriously just read that?

 

[J.T.]

Well, I've spoken with some people who are quite frankly much better debaters than I am. A few points in response to The Agorist.

- Your 2% of gays statistic is almost assuredly wrong right off the bat, since many people stay in the closet and just keep saying "no, I'm TOTALLY straight". Brought this up before, but.
- I want to see some sources on your study for percentage of STDs in gays.
- You insist there's been no change ever since that study you listed that claimed 43% of gays have slept with over 500 men and such. Well, hello, AIDS came along, that would probably count towards slowing them down. The stats you got were made back when homosexuality was made legal all over the place, so of course there's gonna be a surge in the amount of gay sex going on.
- I want sources for your "86% of child molesters are gay or bi" claim.
- When you said "37% of gays have had sex with people under 19", you neglected to mention if they were also at that age when it happened, because seriously two 18-year-old gays getting it on is not impossible.
- Link me to this University of Pennsylvania study about "95% of kids being peddled for porn, prostitution, etc. are molested by gays", please.

 

[Prof.Arete]

I'm sorry your strict on what you can write in a story, but you have a topic like this?! Jeesh and I thought I could be hypocritical.

 

[Skull-Kid]

Well, I've spoken with some people who are quite frankly much better debaters than I am. A few points in response to The Agorist.

- Your 2% of gays statistic is almost assuredly wrong right off the bat, since many people stay in the closet and just keep saying "no, I'm TOTALLY straight". Brought this up before, but.
- I want to see some sources on your study for percentage of STDs in gays.
- You insist there's been no change ever since that study you listed that claimed 43% of gays have slept with over 500 men and such. Well, hello, AIDS came along, that would probably count towards slowing them down. The stats you got were made back when homosexuality was made legal all over the place, so of course there's gonna be a surge in the amount of gay sex going on.
- I want sources for your "86% of child molesters are gay or bi" claim.
- When you said "37% of gays have had sex with people under 19", you neglected to mention if they were also at that age when it happened, because seriously two 18-year-old gays getting it on is not impossible.
- Link me to this University of Pennsylvania study about "95% of kids being peddled for porn, prostitution, etc. are molested by gays", please.

I would also like to see the sources.

These statistics could be outdated and from what J.T. has said(and I agree) may be inacuarate.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Throughout much of American history, minority groups who in the past or currently suffered from discrimination tend to form their own culture. Just like being black isn't just a skin color, but a cultural identification too, so is being gay.

In the strict dictionary sense, it's understandable this didn't occur to you, because "homosexual" only is in relationship to the sexual orientation of a person.

I believe that did occur to me when I was writing that post. I maintain however, that in the case of someone who does not wish to be identified as gay, their perspective is just as valid as that who wants to be known as gay. Just because you are homosexual doesn't mean you're mandated to tell everyone, assert that your sexuality is O.K. (as if, you know, everyone needs validation for who they are) and then join a massive movement to make everyone accept you and let you marry. There are some types of people who just don't have that sort of personality. My parents are that way. They don't frankly care what others think of them and they never introduce themselves as gay if they don't have to, not because they're ashamed or afraid, but because it means nothing to the populace.

This is a new experience for me. I'm very strongly pro-gay rights, and I've never had a compatriot flat out tell me "you're wrong" for sharing my opinion. I sympathize for the anti-gay rights movement if they get this flak all the time.

I've yet to see an actual source concerning drug usage. Many don't even mention sexual orientation at all, from my 5 minutes of Googling, since gays are such a minority in the population.

Five minutes of Googling? Hard to disagree with that. Sorry, I'm going off anecdotal experience, drug usage floats along in the gay bar my mom frequents. Though I'm sure this has more to do with being lower-middle class, and of course, a bunch of people coming out of the closet in less than ideal circumstances, getting into trouble, and getting together probably creates that environment.

 

[Skull-Kid]

This is a new experience for me. I'm very strongly pro-gay rights, and I've never had a compatriot flat out tell me "you're wrong" for sharing my opinion. I sympathize for the anti-gay rights movement if they get this flak all the time.

Sadly, they do get this all the time. I just can't see a reason good enough to hate gays. So they don't reproduce. There are plently of straight people in life who don't have kids or get married. Should we reject them as well?

"The Bible says it's wrong". Many christians don't even now that:

- Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
- The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
- Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.

Treat one another as you would like to be treated. I live by that.

 

[Grei]

I'm sorry your strict on what you can write in a story, but you have a topic like this?! Jeesh and I thought I could be hypocritical.

That's because a lot of stories that have sex as the focus are usually just fantasies that members have. This is to debate the controversial topic of homosexuality; it's even in a different forum.

There is a difference, even if you can't see it.

 

[Fused]

I go to a birthday party and miss all of this?

Yeti, so glad to see that you're back! Do you have an explanation as to why you think homosexuality is a choice? I mean, did you really think eating dessert for a whole day would make us forget?

Agorist, I must commend you for having such a strange and, what has proven to be, a controversial viewpoint on homosexuality. But, there are some things you've said that I really must comment on.

Your point? Im a gay male, and I believe that homosexual acts are immoral and have a negative affect on the practitioners and society as a whole.

This is where your whole viewpoint stems from, but there are two major flaws with this. Morality is a matter of opinion, not fact. No one person shares your exact view on morality. Plus, morals don't really hold up well in here. Most people who have argued agaisnt you have supported their stance on homosexuality through a scientific basis.

next, you say you don't like it because it's, well, unhealthy. So, why aren't you against the entire world around you? Fast food is unhealthy because of all of the grease and fats. Supermodels are unhealthy because they create self-conciousness, especially in teens whoa re already self-concious. Religions are unhealthy for reasons that can be easily found in this thread. Parents can be unhealthy as they can put unfair pressure on their kids. Motel rooms are unhealthy for their superficial cleaning. So really, being against homosexuality simply because it is unhealthy isn't really a good reason because everything has its unhealthy sides.

Your thing about child moelsters doesn't rally hold water. The entire gay population probably doesn't even make up the US molester population. if it does, I highly doubt it makes up the US and Canadian molester population.

The promiscuity thing, that porbably still holds some water, however the study you posted was 30 years ago in San Francisco. Our country has changed since then, people have become smarter and have adapted. Don't post a 30 year old study and pretend it still holds the same value today.

My question is why do homosexuals want to have sex, from an evolutionary point of view. If we are saying that homosexuality is natural and is a result of evolution and such, then what purpose is there for homosexual males to want to have sex with each other? Why would it be superior in natural selection to waste so much energy on trying to get a partner and having sex when they can never reproduce and pass on genes to offsprings (which besides self-survival is the ultimate goal of of the organism, at least according to the theory of evolution).

Every creature has a sex drive. Not a reproduction drive, not a find-the-perfect-mate drive, a SEX drive.

The theory of natural selection states that as a creature evovles, it may lose less desirable traits. This is not always a selfish mutation - traits may be lost for the good of all. The world is overpopulated, offsetting the need for reproduction. Guess what? Gays don't reproduce. Why? Natural selection. It's not a surprise that world is overpopulated, anyone could have seen it coming, but there are people on the planet (gays, steriles, 'we-don't-want-kids') who are a control on population growth.

Gays serve a purpose, whether it is obvious or not. When has evolution made a mistake?