That's not the question posed in the OP. The question is - excluding religious concepts - whether homosexuality is an abnormal behavior. It clearly is abnormal. Being celibate is a behavior choice, it might be considered a mental abnormality but is not a physical abnormality. Being infertile is a physical defect and is abnormal.
Are you saying homosexuality is a physical abnormality? Should rights be denied to celibate people? - - - Updated - - - By the way Einstein, michael Jordan and Mozart were abnormal
Out of the 10,000,000 to 50,000,000 animal species, 1500 have individuals that show homosexual tendency (actually its usually bisexual tendency, not homosexual). Insignificant. Evolutionary advantage? Obviously you need to brush up on evolution. What possible benefit can there be in an individual being homosexual in a heterosexual species? It denies resources from other individuals which can reproduce, which hurts the survival of the species and violates the "prime directive" of evolution.
Rape, murder, stealing, pedophilia, and cross species sex are also found in animals too. Are they some evolutionary benefit?
You need to focus. The question was not about rights, but whether homosexuality in humanity is abnormal. In any heterosexual species, a homosexual individual is abnormal. That's not even debatable. Rights are a construct of humanity due to humans mental ability. Rights are fluid, they change. 3000 years ago, the known world was patriarchal, polytheistic, slave owning, and monarchical. That's what was accepted as normal and proper, and "rights" at that time reflected that worldview. Times have changed in much of the world and those concepts are not followed today, "natural rights" are considered more the norm. Times change, society changes, rights change.
Yes I grant your point that...traditionally and appropriately... gay men would marry a woman and then have gay lovers on the side.... and, remarkably that approach remains less controversial than gay marriage
Ignorance of evolutionary science is not my problem! http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/14932/20150531/homosexuality-benefit-species-new-study.htm Male fruitflies exhibiting homosexual behavior produced daughters who had more offspring than males who did not exhibit homosexual behavior. That is an evolutionary advantage!
Good questions. Why don't you do some research into the scientific literature and see what you can find and then start your own thread since that is off topic for this one?
Bingo...... Objective reality (as described by science). Doesn't care about more common or less common variants. Normalacy is just a linguistic construct. For example...There likely more of one gender than the other. Does that make the less common gender to be abnormal? Attaching the word normal to anything tells you NOTHING other than it is more common The word normal tells you nothing about better or worse In fact, "normal" is a pretty innocuous word.... until moralists grab hold
Correct. Significant deviation from the average can be considered abnormal. What you fail to understand is that abnormality itself is not necessarily good or bad. In nature, the vast majority of abnormalities have either no impact or a negative impact on the individual and species. Only a very small percentage of abnormalities provide a benefit to the individual/species. Being smarter than average confers a benefit, that should be obvious. Being homosexual in a heterosexual species confers a disadvantage to the species, and that should be obvious.
You have a OPINION that being homosexual is a disadvantage to the species. Here are the advantages it brings population reduction in an ever over crowded world reduced tension for competition over females It may be that homosexuality is the ABOVE normal position. Like genius. But that would just drive you crazy. LOL
Except that I just proved to you in post #36 above that homosexuality confers an evolutionary advantage in at least one species.
A questionable study. Did you even read what you posted? Perhaps you missed it - "....the daughter of a homosexual male often wound up having far more children of her own, ....." Did you catch it that time? A homosexual has no offspring, yet these "homosexual" flies have offspring. Obviously these are not "homosexual" flies, but flies engaging in some bisexual activity, that implies confusion or some other behavior. And how many flies of a natural population engage in this behavior (the study culled for flies that had the desired behavior)? If its a tiny percentage, then the second generation having more offspring (how many more?) is irrelevant. And if there is a high percentage of homosexuals in a hetero species, the species suffers significantly, the population declines, and any benefit of a much decreased second generation is questionable.
Actually it is you that fails to understand evolution. Homosexuality in humans appears to be a genetic advantage to the species. You lose.
Yes, it is natural, and not just for humans. Sex plays a social role, for instance, among various social species. And, what's important to remember, is that it is what it is. It's not going to cause the world to end or have any other cosmic consequence. It's just sexual critters doing what comes natural to them. Why it happens that a male or female should want to get sexual with another member of the same gender is certainly a complicated matter, but there's no use in denying that it happens and that it has entirely natural causes and consequences. In fact, there is nothing about us or what we do that is unnatural! That very thinking, that we are somehow above nature, is deeply flawed in the first place. Those most bothered about homosexuality are probably the most sexually insecure themselves. They consciously reject any non-binary sexuality, but deep down they probably do have certain homo-erotic feelings lurking. Now, unlike LGBT advocates, I won't suggest that people should explore that. As long as it doesn't have people harming one another, let them feel and think how ever they please.
Ironic! It is patently obvious that homosexuality does have some evolutionary advantage for humanity since it has been around for at least as long as recorded history. Denial of that advantage is your problem.
Simply stating it does not make it true. Unless you are going to post something factual and worth responding to, then you are a waste of time.
I would say the exact same in response to you. Saying "you fail to understand evolution" seemed to come very easily from you but you offer nothing to back it up.
Really? You are going to be that illogical as to claim that the long repetition of an abnormality means it is beneficial? You are actually going to claim that because it occurs then it is beneficial? Please go back to school and learn critical thinking and the scientific method. Many abnormalities recur throughout recorded history - birth defects, susceptibility to a particular disease, physical weakness and poor constitution, mental defect. Are you going to claim that all those are beneficial? Are you going to claim that repetitive abnormalities that result from radiation impacting genetic material is also beneficial even though it has nothing to do with reproduction?
