I do support it.. my uncle is gay not married tho but I do see it as if they ain't hurting anybody by their decision then who cares if they marry whether it's male and male or female and female or male and female. their decision doesn't have anything to do with me.
no. i think we should use a different word for that. because to me, marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. not 2 men or 2 women. they should be allowed to live a "marriage like" life but whatever we call that relationship should not be the same name we call the unification between men and women.
I absolutely support it. People that love each other should be allowed to form legal and emotional bonds that they find satisfying. Also, in a more cynical sense, I guess I believe in sharing the misery as well as the joy.
It is done and dusted where I am from a plebiscite in favor.
Interestingly there is a really high divorce rate in lesbian (two women) marriages and a low divorce rate in gay (no women) marriages.
It seems women are the leading cause of divorce!
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
4 mo
Huge no and it's cause the aids STDs are passed around like candy!
Omg I will end your life if we do this but w condom should work!
Ops you got HIV giggle giggle I'll give it to my next dozen partners for funs!
Women are more manipulative about giving it and take pleasure in making sure every one they kiss gets it before moving on. Like they make them get tests pretending Thier fake test is negative!
I don’t go out of my way to support it or believe the lgbt+ community should be pushing their agenda with kids but I’m not one to stop someone from their happiness. I’d rather have someone living their truth than lying to another person and robbing them of their time.
So long as it doesn't have to involve the church. I strongly believe a society should respect all it's inhabitants and grant gay people marriage in the eyes of the law but forcing it on the practitioners of faith that abolish homosexuality isn't very respectful. Also, I never understood why homosexual people would even want to wed at a church under a religion that view their relationship as a sin.
i don't care what other people want to do with their lives or relationships
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
4 mo
I don’t really like the marriage use, it’s more like a civil union to get the same benefits as a married couple since marriage was intended for a man and woman because during the time it was established, women were property and second class citizens. I don’t care what they do, but they should probably use some other type of contract for that
Marriage is already broken... bitches get their child support without it now, so why does it even exist anymore? I don't give a fuck... let the butt fuckers and rug munchers do it as well.
There is no "gay" marriage as its not in the bible. Biblically speaking, it makes no sense at at considering "marriage" is also symbolic between christ and his church. Marriage between 2 churches is nonsense and there is only one christ Jesus.
My brother is gay. Doesn't bother me long as i am not expected to celebrate it. He is a guy. I am a guy. I married a woman. He is marrying a man. Outcome is largely the same except. I had my own children he will have to adopt.
Besides i know the science behind it and it is rather tragic
Lol walked right into that one didn't you. No I said it was tragic because it is rather sad. Gay is completely natural and lots of evidence of it in nature. No what I am referring to is the fact that not everyone is gay. Being gay is an evolutionary trigger. Everyone has it actually but it is rather like a locked box. In most people that box remains locked their entire life. For some that box is unlocked upon birth. In animals it is common to see the gay animals as the weak, unneeded, essentially those whose bloodline should not carry on through that particular animal. So essentially humans that are gay have been selected by nature as not necessary for humanities continued survival. As such they do not need to procreate so they are attracted to same sex partners. In fact in nature the activation of that is one of the first signs of an animals negative effect on the environment around it and nature's attempt to correct that. We have seen it many times in wild animals. Stage 1 of restoring balance is same sex attraction to decrease breeding and offspring production. If that fails stage 2 is evolution of another species to hunt the threat so as to cull the numbers. Should that fail stage 3 typically involves the mutation, emergence and spreading of a virus, bacteria, pathogen, etc designed to wipe out large portions of the threat (we have not had an emergence like that in a long long time) and lastly if that fails stage 4 total ecological collapse triggering extinction level events designed to plunge the earth into an extreme cooling phase and restart the environment.
The idea that homosexuality in humans or animals is a kind of nature's control mechanism or a sign of being 'unnecessary' for survival is a big misconception. Actually, homosexuality is pretty common in the animal kingdom, and it's not about being weak or unneeded. Evolution and nature don't really work in those deliberate stages you mentioned. It's more about random changes and survival, not about judging who should be around or not.
Also, being gay isn't about nature selecting someone as not needed for humanity. It's just a natural variation, like many others in nature. It's important to understand and respect this diversity rather than boiling it down to a simplistic 'nature's culling' viewpoint.
If you want to dive into some of the science behind this, check out these articles. They explain things way better and in more detail:
Actually, I have to point one thing out. Technically gays still can have children and there's 3 options (including adoption, yes but it's not the only option) 1. sperm donor. You're still reproducing, assuming some woman actually uses it. 2. surrogate mothers. Actually in the homosexual community, I've seen it again and again. Since gays and lesbians technically can't reproduce, they can actually be surrogates. and then yes there is adoption.
Lastly, no. It's not saying that they're 'unneeded.' because that factor is too loose. If that was the case, why in the hell do we still have genitalia if we don't bloody need it.(As a gay person myself I have done my own research.) The simple truth is, some people have kids, some don't, doesn't matter what sexuality, they can still reproduce (unless they're infertile which oof sorry for them then) Also that is comparing human reproductive genes and preferences to animal genes which is, again, too loose. That may be the case with animals themselves (yes humans are animals, but we're much more complex than most, and so is our sexual preference. That and technically this 'gay gene' isn't really locked because at the end of it all, it comes down to choice.) but it's not reliable to compare our sexual habits to that of animals. (Now I'm not saying you are wrong, okay?) The fact with humans is, sexual preference isn't necessarily genetic at least for us, unlike things that can pass down, autism, ADHD, and other mental/physical disorders.) It literally all comes down to choice for us. So no that's not nature saying homosexuals are unneeded for humanity's survival. Then finally it also comes to whether that person actually wants to reproduce or not. luckily, the majority does so it doesn't matter, and those who do, regardless of preference at least in guys' case: I listed to reliable options other than adoption if a gay guy or a lesbian actually wants to reproduce. Sperm banks and surrogates.
Last thing- Bisexuals exist thus trumping the gay gene in humans completely. Because if anything that's sexual preference in humans, not genetic. Those who are infertile do need to adopt as I said (assuming they want kids in the first place). But as long as you still have functional fertile reproductive organs and do desire children you can make them, gay or not. Thus, it comes down to choice like I said. If homosexuals want to reproduce they can get a surrogate (probably the better option frankly than a sperm bank.) either by donating the sperm to a single woman/or lesbians who want children, and requesting to be in contact/or see their children, etc.(again, if they want kids). That's actually pretty common in the homosexual community for a gay couple and a lesbian couple to take turns caring for kids as surrogates and it applies to the same with single women too.
I don't need to dive into the science behind it lol I am a scientist. Well I was I still own the laboratory and employee people. You can deny it all you want though.
See now I know your talking out your ass. You claim to be a scientist but as soon someone prevents you evidence and debunks your claims you pulled from some right wingers agenda ya start lying.
Now that depends on what your beliefs and perceptions are. The 2000 U. S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?
It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative. So I would say more think it is wrong than those that think there is nothing wrong with it. But ultimately, God calls it an abomination and His opinion is the only one that matters in the end.
@Orangekiss Religion is a personal belief, and if your religion requires you to hate someone based on their sexuality then that is something I wouldn't want to be apart of.
ok no. I'm not denying anything I'm stating an open fact, which a supposed scientist should know well. The if it's a gene animals that may be, but humans are far more complex on our sexuality and our intelligence than animals will ever be. Again, for us, homosexuality isn't a genetic, it's a choice and a preference. Again.. There's no science to it, and I know my sexuality, good sir. If it was as you say, then why the hell do we still have the reproductive fluids? I'm not denying any facts, I'm denying false evidence with real facts from actual experience (sort of). I'm already gay, and I've seen it thousands of times in the homosexual community as one. Natural selection will never influence personal choice (i mean it can, but the chances are slim, and again if there is any science behind it, explain bisexual people because if a 'gay' gene exists I'm sure that one exists too. Hell I know actual doctors who know that stuff well (Including my own doctor). And even he said it's not a gene for us like it is in animals, it's a choice. And who knows human anatomy better than a damn doctor (s) because I'm sure if you went to a handful, they would also tell you it's a choice. And I have actual sources that can prove my own evidence further. Actually in fact, genes play very limited role if any at all in homosexuality. Sexuality is just complex at least for us, animals are a different story that I will not delve into. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are usually that way by choice. I'm not going to ever have kids, but there are gay guys who do, and they don't necessarily have to adopt (unless both men are infertile.) Surrogates, surrogates and surrogates.(Sperm banks too if absolutely necessary but the chance of you actually meeting a child of yours as a sperm donor is too slim, which is why I put surrogates over donating sperm.)
@Orangekiss love, if your god thought it was an abomination, why do they even exist? With all the power gods supposedly have this should be easy for them to shut down. Heck its a big misconception: I know friends who do go to church (I do not, but that's another story that doesn't belong here.) and never once did they have an issue with homosexuality.
@JacobJordan Firstly your "science" seems more like an unsubstantiated theory. Secondly you imply that gays are of no use to the larger community, which is clearly wrong. Well-known homosexual Alan Turing basically saved Western civilization by breaking the Enigma code in WW2.
@AngryCarl false I said they are not needed for the continuation of humanity. They are just as useful as everyone else. Nor is it unsubstantiated. It occurs quite often in nature it occurs often enough that we can predict which species is liable to go through it next should they continue damaging the ecosystem. I and about 15 others wrote a multi hundred page document containing our findings. The cause of homosexuality in animals is a form of population control. In non sentient animals it prevents them from reproducing. In humans as someone pointed out they can utilize a surrogate or donate sperm. So among humanity it is not as effective. What is vastly more interesting is the apparent growing comfort of wild animals in proximity to humans. Animals that normally would run from humans have begun to display signs that they are not as scared of us as they originally were. Genetic samples of those animals has shown an interesting change in their biology as well compared to 10, 20 or even 40 years ago. Not conclusive evidence as of yet but based on the information it seems like some animals are beginning to evolve to potentially hunt us. That is the second phase we see in nature should the first phase not work. Still early but we shall see. The last major phase 3 event humanity went through was the bubonic plague. The Spanish flu was rather odd in that there were no leading factors that one can normally track to associate it with am attempted correction by nature.
Right now my lab is going through samples of viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites etc that have been sealed under the currently thawing permafrost. Stuff that has not seen biological life since the dinosaurs or before. We have to break them down into their building blocks to determine which (if any) pose a threat and determine how much of a threat (if at all) they pose to humanity. The ones that pose the biggest threats will be prioritized for study and developing treatment, vaccines or cures. As things stand right now various parts of earth are on the verge of ecological collapse. It is not information spread all that much but it is one of the main driving forces behind the push to move away from fossil fuels.
Technically, no one human is actually needed for humanity's continued survival but rather the mass, and if anything ecological collapse has more to do with urbanization than natural selection. Pollution is one of the biggest playing factors out there- Global warming too, but then there are too factors we can't control because it is beyond our control and it has nothing to do with natural selection: climate change and continental drifting which are tied: as the climate changes and continents drift, they slowly get closer or further from the equator, which causes climate changes from rising/lowering temperature, which is also causing collapse. The only thing life can do is adapt to changes, it's slow but it happens. Though even life can't adapt quickly when pollution/urbanization are messing with the environment to: so the thing damaging humanity's survival is humanity itself. And half the stuff we do doesn't help. Yes there are people who clean up the environment which does help a bit. Then comes global warming, which the primary factor is again pollutants, many of which are greenhouse gasses, heck even water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most we can do is delay it and no one human is going to help survival or ecological issues. Everyone pitches in, in some way or the other.
@JacobJordan That sounds wrong in principle. Evolution is a survival mechanism, not a way of protecting the ecosystem. How would animals "know" that they were becoming too populous? And what would be the biological mechanism for producing gayness?
@AngryCarl evolution is not just survival of a species but also preservation of an environment. Deer for example evolved to survive off plants if left unchecked they destroy eco systems so nature has created a predator that evolves to hunt deer. That predator if left unchecked would kill all deer so nature has created migratory movements to allow for replenishment of the herd. Some amphibious creatures are capable of self reliant reproduction or changing from male to female or female to male based on population. It is not something animals have control over it is a biological mechanism that trips when an animal begins to be a threat to the environment. Every animal has several failsafe triggers in their genetics to prevent complete destruction of an ecosystem as well as several external threats that evolved to thin the damage caused. Example Yellowstone national park. Humans killed and/or drove off all the wolves thus removing the main predator for the deer. The deer grew exponentially and over the course of many years vegetation vanished, bugs disappeared, insects fish birds bears rivers dried up they introduced a small population of wolves. It was a project that began on January 12th 1995. And is to this day one of the most successful wildlife reintroduction programs on earth. The entire ecosystem was collapsing as a result of human hunting. Even with the safeguards evolved into every animal it was not reverting. Upon introduction of the wolves and over the last now 30 years Yellowstone has entirely changed. Healthy foliage, insects, birds, rivers, bugs, everything has stabilized. This has been going on for a very long time all over the world.
Currently we know of closing on 2000 species of animals that exhibit SSB (Same-Sex Behavior). So to answer your question animals have no control over being attracted to same sex. Nor do humans. Not every biological change is related to the survival of the species. Many of them are in relation to survival of an ecosystem. We still aren't 100% certain how or why it is part of the genetic make up.
There is no hate involved. It is going by the rules set down by God. If you don't believe in God that's your choice. But then gays should not shove their life style down our throats either, or try to indoctrinate children to their lifestyle, especially when gays keep saying they are born gay. So why do they want their children to be gay too?
@Orangekiss while I am not religious at all I absolutely agree. They just need to live their life and stop trying to make us accept it. Most people I know don't care until then. Then they start getting annoyed and don't want to support them.
@JacobJordan It sounds like you believe there is an omnipotent, intelligent entity controlling animal behaviour to preserve the ecosystem in a specific condition. Is that an accurate summary?
@AngryCarl is that what I said? No. Every single living thing on earth evolves to be in a state of equilibrium with the surrounding environment. This includes what may be perceived as a negative for sentient species. Or a disadvantage. It has nothing to do with some omnipotent being. Every living thing has advantages and disadvantages over other living things.
@AngryCarl nothing is an accident when it comes to evolution. It has a purpose. The question then remains what purpose and to what end. In nature we see it happen regularly. Question is why... from our findings animals that exhibit SSB (same-sex behavior) produce less offspring than animals not exhibiting SSB. As a result it slows down the growth of an animal populace. Thereby decreasing over time an animals effect on the ecosystem. However unlike animals and despite us being animals by definition. Humans are the only species that is strict when it comes to SSB. In nature animals that display SSB do not ALWAYS maintain that. Also unlike other animals humans have the ability to utilize a surrogate, sperm donation and other forms of reproduction should they wish to reproduce despite the evolutionary safeguard being activated. That is the difference of sentience over non sentience. Ultimately doesn't seem to mean to much as we have begun seeing evolutionary changes in animals that have a propensity to attack humans as it is. That is the second stage that brings balance back to an ecosystem. Every living thing via evolution and genetics and biological design is meant to be in a state of equilibrium with everything else. Humans are an exception and it shows.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
70Opinion
Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as straight people.
A little misery builds character lol
Absolutely. I think gay love is just as valid as straight love so I don't see why they shouldn't be married legally
I do support it.. my uncle is gay not married tho but I do see it as if they ain't hurting anybody by their decision then who cares if they marry whether it's male and male or female and female or male and female. their decision doesn't have anything to do with me.
no. i think we should use a different word for that. because to me, marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. not 2 men or 2 women. they should be allowed to live a "marriage like" life but whatever we call that relationship should not be the same name we call the unification between men and women.
I absolutely support it. People that love each other should be allowed to form legal and emotional bonds that they find satisfying. Also, in a more cynical sense, I guess I believe in sharing the misery as well as the joy.
It is done and dusted where I am from a plebiscite in favor.
Interestingly there is a really high divorce rate in lesbian (two women) marriages and a low divorce rate in gay (no women) marriages.
It seems women are the leading cause of divorce!
Huge no and it's cause the aids STDs are passed around like candy!
Omg I will end your life if we do this but w condom should work!
Ops you got HIV giggle giggle I'll give it to my next dozen partners for funs!
Women are more manipulative about giving it and take pleasure in making sure every one they kiss gets it before moving on. Like they make them get tests pretending Thier fake test is negative!
I don’t go out of my way to support it or believe the lgbt+ community should be pushing their agenda with kids but I’m not one to stop someone from their happiness. I’d rather have someone living their truth than lying to another person and robbing them of their time.
So long as it doesn't have to involve the church. I strongly believe a society should respect all it's inhabitants and grant gay people marriage in the eyes of the law but forcing it on the practitioners of faith that abolish homosexuality isn't very respectful. Also, I never understood why homosexual people would even want to wed at a church under a religion that view their relationship as a sin.
People can sex and marry whoever they want but i will not go out of my way to support a lifestyle that i dont necessarily agree with
I do not support gay marriage but have no problems with gay people on a day to day to basis.
As Mr. Burns famously said, "Let the fools have their tartar sauce." You don't believe me?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/X25rP4rTw3AMarriage is marriage regardless of who’s participating.
i don't care what other people want to do with their lives or relationships
I don’t really like the marriage use, it’s more like a civil union to get the same benefits as a married couple since marriage was intended for a man and woman because during the time it was established, women were property and second class citizens. I don’t care what they do, but they should probably use some other type of contract for that
Marriage is already broken... bitches get their child support without it now, so why does it even exist anymore? I don't give a fuck... let the butt fuckers and rug munchers do it as well.
There is no "gay" marriage as its not in the bible. Biblically speaking, it makes no sense at at considering "marriage" is also symbolic between christ and his church. Marriage between 2 churches is nonsense and there is only one christ Jesus.
My brother is gay. Doesn't bother me long as i am not expected to celebrate it. He is a guy. I am a guy. I married a woman. He is marrying a man. Outcome is largely the same except. I had my own children he will have to adopt.
Besides i know the science behind it and it is rather tragic
'Science'? There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
I didn't say there was lol. The assumptions are hilarious.
You implied the science behind it is rather tragic < To imply it is tragic is would mean there was something wrong.
Lol walked right into that one didn't you. No I said it was tragic because it is rather sad. Gay is completely natural and lots of evidence of it in nature. No what I am referring to is the fact that not everyone is gay. Being gay is an evolutionary trigger. Everyone has it actually but it is rather like a locked box. In most people that box remains locked their entire life. For some that box is unlocked upon birth. In animals it is common to see the gay animals as the weak, unneeded, essentially those whose bloodline should not carry on through that particular animal. So essentially humans that are gay have been selected by nature as not necessary for humanities continued survival. As such they do not need to procreate so they are attracted to same sex partners. In fact in nature the activation of that is one of the first signs of an animals negative effect on the environment around it and nature's attempt to correct that. We have seen it many times in wild animals. Stage 1 of restoring balance is same sex attraction to decrease breeding and offspring production. If that fails stage 2 is evolution of another species to hunt the threat so as to cull the numbers. Should that fail stage 3 typically involves the mutation, emergence and spreading of a virus, bacteria, pathogen, etc designed to wipe out large portions of the threat (we have not had an emergence like that in a long long time) and lastly if that fails stage 4 total ecological collapse triggering extinction level events designed to plunge the earth into an extreme cooling phase and restart the environment.
The idea that homosexuality in humans or animals is a kind of nature's control mechanism or a sign of being 'unnecessary' for survival is a big misconception. Actually, homosexuality is pretty common in the animal kingdom, and it's not about being weak or unneeded. Evolution and nature don't really work in those deliberate stages you mentioned. It's more about random changes and survival, not about judging who should be around or not.
Also, being gay isn't about nature selecting someone as not needed for humanity. It's just a natural variation, like many others in nature. It's important to understand and respect this diversity rather than boiling it down to a simplistic 'nature's culling' viewpoint.
If you want to dive into some of the science behind this, check out these articles. They explain things way better and in more detail:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02312-0
open.lib.umn.edu/.../
Actually, I have to point one thing out. Technically gays still can have children and there's 3 options (including adoption, yes but it's not the only option)
1. sperm donor. You're still reproducing, assuming some woman actually uses it.
2. surrogate mothers. Actually in the homosexual community, I've seen it again and again.
Since gays and lesbians technically can't reproduce, they can actually be surrogates.
and then yes there is adoption.
Lastly, no. It's not saying that they're 'unneeded.' because that factor is too loose. If that was the case, why in the hell do we still have genitalia if we don't bloody need it.(As a gay person myself I have done my own research.) The simple truth is, some people have kids, some don't, doesn't matter what sexuality, they can still reproduce (unless they're infertile which oof sorry for them then) Also that is comparing human reproductive genes and preferences to animal genes which is, again, too loose. That may be the case with animals themselves (yes humans are animals, but we're much more complex than most, and so is our sexual preference. That and technically this 'gay gene' isn't really locked because at the end of it all, it comes down to choice.) but it's not reliable to compare our sexual habits to that of animals. (Now I'm not saying you are wrong, okay?) The fact with humans is, sexual preference isn't necessarily genetic at least for us, unlike things that can pass down, autism, ADHD, and other mental/physical disorders.) It literally all comes down to choice for us. So no that's not nature saying homosexuals are unneeded for humanity's survival. Then finally it also comes to whether that person actually wants to reproduce or not. luckily, the majority does so it doesn't matter, and those who do, regardless of preference at least in guys' case: I listed to reliable options other than adoption if a gay guy or a lesbian actually wants to reproduce. Sperm banks and surrogates.
Well okay they can reproduce and that's where surrogates come in. If you are infertile, then yes you would need to adopt and that is a sad truth.
Last thing- Bisexuals exist thus trumping the gay gene in humans completely. Because if anything that's sexual preference in humans, not genetic. Those who are infertile do need to adopt as I said (assuming they want kids in the first place). But as long as you still have functional fertile reproductive organs and do desire children you can make them, gay or not. Thus, it comes down to choice like I said. If homosexuals want to reproduce they can get a surrogate (probably the better option frankly than a sperm bank.) either by donating the sperm to a single woman/or lesbians who want children, and requesting to be in contact/or see their children, etc.(again, if they want kids). That's actually pretty common in the homosexual community for a gay couple and a lesbian couple to take turns caring for kids as surrogates and it applies to the same with single women too.
I don't need to dive into the science behind it lol I am a scientist. Well I was I still own the laboratory and employee people. You can deny it all you want though.
See now I know your talking out your ass. You claim to be a scientist but as soon someone prevents you evidence and debunks your claims you pulled from some right wingers agenda ya start lying.
presents*
Now that depends on what your beliefs and perceptions are. The 2000 U. S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?
It may be that no one will ever know for sure. To some people, homosexuality is a matter of perception and definition. Furthermore, many people have trouble admitting their homosexuality to themselves, much less to a researcher. But when Gallup asked Americans for their best estimate of the American gay and lesbian population, the results made all the figures mentioned above look conservative. So I would say more think it is wrong than those that think there is nothing wrong with it. But ultimately, God calls it an abomination and His opinion is the only one that matters in the end.
@Orangekiss Religion is a personal belief, and if your religion requires you to hate someone based on their sexuality then that is something I wouldn't want to be apart of.
ok no. I'm not denying anything I'm stating an open fact, which a supposed scientist should know well. The if it's a gene animals that may be, but humans are far more complex on our sexuality and our intelligence than animals will ever be.
Again, for us, homosexuality isn't a genetic, it's a choice and a preference. Again.. There's no science to it, and I know my sexuality, good sir. If it was as you say, then why the hell do we still have the reproductive fluids? I'm not denying any facts, I'm denying false evidence with real facts from actual experience (sort of). I'm already gay, and I've seen it thousands of times in the homosexual community as one. Natural selection will never influence personal choice (i mean it can, but the chances are slim, and again if there is any science behind it, explain bisexual people because if a 'gay' gene exists I'm sure that one exists too. Hell I know actual doctors who know that stuff well (Including my own doctor). And even he said it's not a gene for us like it is in animals, it's a choice. And who knows human anatomy better than a damn doctor (s) because I'm sure if you went to a handful, they would also tell you it's a choice. And I have actual sources that can prove my own evidence further. Actually in fact, genes play very limited role if any at all in homosexuality. Sexuality is just complex at least for us, animals are a different story that I will not delve into. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are usually that way by choice. I'm not going to ever have kids, but there are gay guys who do, and they don't necessarily have to adopt (unless both men are infertile.) Surrogates, surrogates and surrogates.(Sperm banks too if absolutely necessary but the chance of you actually meeting a child of yours as a sperm donor is too slim, which is why I put surrogates over donating sperm.)
@Orangekiss love, if your god thought it was an abomination, why do they even exist? With all the power gods supposedly have this should be easy for them to shut down. Heck its a big misconception: I know friends who do go to church (I do not, but that's another story that doesn't belong here.) and never once did they have an issue with homosexuality.
@JacobJordan Firstly your "science" seems more like an unsubstantiated theory. Secondly you imply that gays are of no use to the larger community, which is clearly wrong. Well-known homosexual Alan Turing basically saved Western civilization by breaking the Enigma code in WW2.
@AngryCarl false I said they are not needed for the continuation of humanity. They are just as useful as everyone else. Nor is it unsubstantiated. It occurs quite often in nature it occurs often enough that we can predict which species is liable to go through it next should they continue damaging the ecosystem. I and about 15 others wrote a multi hundred page document containing our findings. The cause of homosexuality in animals is a form of population control. In non sentient animals it prevents them from reproducing. In humans as someone pointed out they can utilize a surrogate or donate sperm. So among humanity it is not as effective. What is vastly more interesting is the apparent growing comfort of wild animals in proximity to humans. Animals that normally would run from humans have begun to display signs that they are not as scared of us as they originally were. Genetic samples of those animals has shown an interesting change in their biology as well compared to 10, 20 or even 40 years ago. Not conclusive evidence as of yet but based on the information it seems like some animals are beginning to evolve to potentially hunt us. That is the second phase we see in nature should the first phase not work. Still early but we shall see. The last major phase 3 event humanity went through was the bubonic plague. The Spanish flu was rather odd in that there were no leading factors that one can normally track to associate it with am attempted correction by nature.
Right now my lab is going through samples of viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites etc that have been sealed under the currently thawing permafrost. Stuff that has not seen biological life since the dinosaurs or before. We have to break them down into their building blocks to determine which (if any) pose a threat and determine how much of a threat (if at all) they pose to humanity. The ones that pose the biggest threats will be prioritized for study and developing treatment, vaccines or cures. As things stand right now various parts of earth are on the verge of ecological collapse. It is not information spread all that much but it is one of the main driving forces behind the push to move away from fossil fuels.
Technically, no one human is actually needed for humanity's continued survival but rather the mass, and if anything ecological collapse has more to do with urbanization than natural selection. Pollution is one of the biggest playing factors out there- Global warming too, but then there are too factors we can't control because it is beyond our control and it has nothing to do with natural selection: climate change and continental drifting which are tied: as the climate changes and continents drift, they slowly get closer or further from the equator, which causes climate changes from rising/lowering temperature, which is also causing collapse. The only thing life can do is adapt to changes, it's slow but it happens. Though even life can't adapt quickly when pollution/urbanization are messing with the environment to: so the thing damaging humanity's survival is humanity itself. And half the stuff we do doesn't help. Yes there are people who clean up the environment which does help a bit. Then comes global warming, which the primary factor is again pollutants, many of which are greenhouse gasses, heck even water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most we can do is delay it and no one human is going to help survival or ecological issues. Everyone pitches in, in some way or the other.
@JacobJordan That sounds wrong in principle. Evolution is a survival mechanism, not a way of protecting the ecosystem. How would animals "know" that they were becoming too populous? And what would be the biological mechanism for producing gayness?
@AngryCarl evolution is not just survival of a species but also preservation of an environment. Deer for example evolved to survive off plants if left unchecked they destroy eco systems so nature has created a predator that evolves to hunt deer. That predator if left unchecked would kill all deer so nature has created migratory movements to allow for replenishment of the herd. Some amphibious creatures are capable of self reliant reproduction or changing from male to female or female to male based on population. It is not something animals have control over it is a biological mechanism that trips when an animal begins to be a threat to the environment. Every animal has several failsafe triggers in their genetics to prevent complete destruction of an ecosystem as well as several external threats that evolved to thin the damage caused. Example Yellowstone national park. Humans killed and/or drove off all the wolves thus removing the main predator for the deer. The deer grew exponentially and over the course of many years vegetation vanished, bugs disappeared, insects fish birds bears rivers dried up they introduced a small population of wolves. It was a project that began on January 12th 1995. And is to this day one of the most successful wildlife reintroduction programs on earth. The entire ecosystem was collapsing as a result of human hunting. Even with the safeguards evolved into every animal it was not reverting. Upon introduction of the wolves and over the last now 30 years Yellowstone has entirely changed. Healthy foliage, insects, birds, rivers, bugs, everything has stabilized. This has been going on for a very long time all over the world.
Currently we know of closing on 2000 species of animals that exhibit SSB (Same-Sex Behavior). So to answer your question animals have no control over being attracted to same sex. Nor do humans. Not every biological change is related to the survival of the species. Many of them are in relation to survival of an ecosystem. We still aren't 100% certain how or why it is part of the genetic make up.
There is no hate involved. It is going by the rules set down by God. If you don't believe in God that's your choice. But then gays should not shove their life style down our throats either, or try to indoctrinate children to their lifestyle, especially when gays keep saying they are born gay. So why do they want their children to be gay too?
@Orangekiss while I am not religious at all I absolutely agree. They just need to live their life and stop trying to make us accept it. Most people I know don't care until then. Then they start getting annoyed and don't want to support them.
@JacobJordan It sounds like you believe there is an omnipotent, intelligent entity controlling animal behaviour to preserve the ecosystem in a specific condition. Is that an accurate summary?
@AngryCarl is that what I said? No. Every single living thing on earth evolves to be in a state of equilibrium with the surrounding environment. This includes what may be perceived as a negative for sentient species. Or a disadvantage. It has nothing to do with some omnipotent being. Every living thing has advantages and disadvantages over other living things.
@JacobJordan So then gayness is just an evolutionary accident?
@AngryCarl nothing is an accident when it comes to evolution. It has a purpose. The question then remains what purpose and to what end. In nature we see it happen regularly. Question is why... from our findings animals that exhibit SSB (same-sex behavior) produce less offspring than animals not exhibiting SSB. As a result it slows down the growth of an animal populace. Thereby decreasing over time an animals effect on the ecosystem. However unlike animals and despite us being animals by definition. Humans are the only species that is strict when it comes to SSB. In nature animals that display SSB do not ALWAYS maintain that. Also unlike other animals humans have the ability to utilize a surrogate, sperm donation and other forms of reproduction should they wish to reproduce despite the evolutionary safeguard being activated. That is the difference of sentience over non sentience. Ultimately doesn't seem to mean to much as we have begun seeing evolutionary changes in animals that have a propensity to attack humans as it is. That is the second stage that brings balance back to an ecosystem. Every living thing via evolution and genetics and biological design is meant to be in a state of equilibrium with everything else. Humans are an exception and it shows.
I do not care what relationship agreements consenting adults make. I just do not trust the third party in marriage, the government.
neutral, not supported.
I'm not going to tell people what to do with their lives even when I don't agree with it.