The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

The point I'm making is that without procreation, the ability to be gay would not present itself as an option. I therefore question how natural it is.

'Therefore' here suggests a logical link that I don't quite follow.

For me it's a simpler question - does homosexuality occur as a matter of nature rather than nuture in human beings.? If the answer is yes, then it has to be 'natural', notwithstanding what you have said about the prerequisite of procreation for this naturally occuring phenomenon to take place.

Interesting point of view, and one I can find some sympathy with, perhaps natural was the wrong word to pick (see they do teach English at school still ). That said, I can see little point of "mankind" (or any other species) other than to ultimately perpetuate "mankind" (or any other species), which you can do naturally with a man and a woman, and unnaturally with gay people - adoption, sperm/egg donorship etc.

I don't believe yet, that anyone has proven one way or the other that homosexuality is something genetic (i.e. within our biological make-up). So given Pru's opening gambit "That the yuk factor [against homosexuality] is socially engineered" [through religion], I could ask whether homosexuality is socially engineered too. Pru also put forward the proposition that "you could argue homosexuality is pointless" - which I am doing, "but it's difficult to argue it is wrong" which I don't believe I have - I said that "I believed it was against the general wellbeing of the human race", albeit, as William pointed out, probably not in an ultimately detrimental way.

[BWFC_Insane]

The point I'm making is that without procreation, the ability to be gay would not present itself as an option. I therefore question how natural it is.

'Therefore' here suggests a logical link that I don't quite follow.

For me it's a simpler question - does homosexuality occur as a matter of nature rather than nuture in human beings.? If the answer is yes, then it has to be 'natural', notwithstanding what you have said about the prerequisite of procreation for this naturally occuring phenomenon to take place.

Interesting point of view, and one I can find some sympathy with, perhaps natural was the wrong word to pick (see they do teach English at school still ). That said, I can see little point of "mankind" (or any other species) other than to ultimately perpetuate "mankind" (or any other species), which you can do naturally with a man and a woman, and unnaturally with gay people - adoption, sperm/egg donorship etc.

I don't believe yet, that anyone has proven one way or the other that homosexuality is something genetic (i.e. within our biological make-up). So given Pru's opening gambit "That the yuk factor [against homosexuality] is socially engineered" [through religion], I could ask whether homosexuality is socially engineered too. Pru also put forward the proposition that "you could argue homosexuality is pointless" - which I am doing, "but it's difficult to argue it is wrong" which I don't believe I have - I said that "I believed it was against the general wellbeing of the human race", albeit, as William pointed out, probably not in an ultimately detrimental way.

Given the expansion of population and the nature of our finite resources, surely more gay folk and therefore less procreation, may actually help the "general wellbeing of the human race".

To quote that film "nature will find a way".

[thebish]

To quote that film "nature will find a way".

not really sure what that means! but on the face of it - it is bollox - as the Dinosaurs and the Dodo discovered!

[Prufrock]

To quote Mummy, 'what does that even mean?'

I'm not suggesting we all turn gay. However, that it is a thing in humans, and is pervasive throughout the natural world suggests it is perfectly fine, and hardly likely to wipe out all the procreating members of society. Being weak, or slow, is also bad for the furthering of the species but we don't think they're disgusting.

To put it another way, you say you thing it is towards the general well-being of the human race that procreation occurs. Well, homosexuality has been around for millennia, and exists throughout the animal kingdom, and yet humans and animals are still here. That suggests it's probably fine, and so people should stop being massive tw*ts and trying to interfere in the private business of other folk, which has nowt to do with them. That'd be nice.

Are they not educating you kids to understand English these days?

I was saying there's lots of things occur in the animal kingdon that we don't adopt as a model for the human race, except where it's convenient for us to do so, such as death by natural selection. I will try and spell things out a bit clearer for you next time.

If that horse you're on gets any higher, you might hurt yourself if you fall off.

As for my "boring, middle class, life." You know the square root of feck all about me, and yet you seem to be able to stereotype me, by your own opinions, I guess that's make you a general shithouse stereotyper too? Or does it only count, if you happen to be a minority that Pru has chosen to defend?

I'm not sure of the applicability of the parallel you draw between muslims (who I guess could pro-create) or people wearing burkha's (who I guess could procreate too) and gay people (who can't procreate without outside intervention)

The point I'm making is that without procreation, the ability to be gay would not present itself as an option. I therefore question how natural it is. Do I go on anti-gay marches? No. Do I go gaybashing? No. Do I object to people being gay? No. Have I had some good nights out on Canal Street? Yes. Do I have friends that are benter than a nine-bob note? Yes.

Do I think it's natural? No. Am I allowed to express that view in a society that promotes free speech? Yes.

Will I keep my oar out on a messageboard, when others quite blatantly don't?

Do yourself a favour.

Unless your name is Mr Example I'd pause before questioning the ability of others to comprehend English. I wasn't talking about you, hence why I didn't say I was talking about you. Also hence why it was in a different post, in which i didn't quote you. I don't know anything about your life, as you say, and so couldn't have been talking about you. I was making a general point about stereotyping sorts. It was addressed to a Mr Example. I thought this made it explicitly clear it wasn't directed at you personally, but if not I apologise.

I couldn't be replying to you as I'd asked the question 'what does that even mean?'

As it happens I still don't know. I'm still bemused as to what the intelligence of animals has to do with something being natural. It happens pervasively throughout the natural world, with no external stimulus, but it isn't natural. You could insert almost any word to do with the habits of any animal into that original sentence, except the word procreation itself, and come to the conclusion that nothing but sex is natural! So unless you are taking the very narrow line than football, conversation, pubs, cars, farming and abstinence are all unnatural, then I don't see how homosexuality can be. And if you are making that point, then what is the point of raising it? 'Oh look everyone here is something that couldn't have happened without procreation.

[thebish]

Unless your name is Mr Example I'd pause before questioning the ability of others to comprehend English. I wasn't talking about you, hence why I didn't say I was talking about you.

to be fair, Pru, I reckon everyone reading would have made the assumption you were referring to Worthy (I certainly did) - there doesn't seem to be any other obvious candidate for your rant in the preceding posts. to rant against an imaginary exemplar in your head in the middle of a conversation between real people is always going to lead to the conclusion that you are referring to something someone real has said...

[Prufrock]

I put it in a different post. I also pointed out it was aimed at 'shithouses stereotypers' who say a certain sort of thing. It was then addressed to a Mr Example. Ultimately I don't think it would be too difficult to expert an expert such as Worthy on the English language to comprehend that . Seriously, as I said above, it wasn't aimed at Worthy, I apologise to him if my lack of clarity meant he thought it was and I don't want this to go down an argumentative, antagonistic route on account of any babbling rant on my part. I still think theirs bus-sized holes in his argument though

[Worthy4England]

The point I'm making is that without procreation, the ability to be gay would not present itself as an option. I therefore question how natural it is.

'Therefore' here suggests a logical link that I don't quite follow.

For me it's a simpler question - does homosexuality occur as a matter of nature rather than nuture in human beings.? If the answer is yes, then it has to be 'natural', notwithstanding what you have said about the prerequisite of procreation for this naturally occuring phenomenon to take place.

Interesting point of view, and one I can find some sympathy with, perhaps natural was the wrong word to pick (see they do teach English at school still ). That said, I can see little point of "mankind" (or any other species) other than to ultimately perpetuate "mankind" (or any other species), which you can do naturally with a man and a woman, and unnaturally with gay people - adoption, sperm/egg donorship etc.

I don't believe yet, that anyone has proven one way or the other that homosexuality is something genetic (i.e. within our biological make-up). So given Pru's opening gambit "That the yuk factor [against homosexuality] is socially engineered" [through religion], I could ask whether homosexuality is socially engineered too. Pru also put forward the proposition that "you could argue homosexuality is pointless" - which I am doing, "but it's difficult to argue it is wrong" which I don't believe I have - I said that "I believed it was against the general wellbeing of the human race", albeit, as William pointed out, probably not in an ultimately detrimental way.

Given the expansion of population and the nature of our finite resources, surely more gay folk and therefore less procreation, may actually help the "general wellbeing of the human race".

To quote that film "nature will find a way".

Well yes, but so would not providing famine aid in countries where they already can't sustain their own population Or more realistically birth control. I suspect that this is a "convenience" argument.

[BWFC_Insane]

The point I'm making is that without procreation, the ability to be gay would not present itself as an option. I therefore question how natural it is.

'Therefore' here suggests a logical link that I don't quite follow.

For me it's a simpler question - does homosexuality occur as a matter of nature rather than nuture in human beings.? If the answer is yes, then it has to be 'natural', notwithstanding what you have said about the prerequisite of procreation for this naturally occuring phenomenon to take place.

Interesting point of view, and one I can find some sympathy with, perhaps natural was the wrong word to pick (see they do teach English at school still ). That said, I can see little point of "mankind" (or any other species) other than to ultimately perpetuate "mankind" (or any other species), which you can do naturally with a man and a woman, and unnaturally with gay people - adoption, sperm/egg donorship etc.

I don't believe yet, that anyone has proven one way or the other that homosexuality is something genetic (i.e. within our biological make-up). So given Pru's opening gambit "That the yuk factor [against homosexuality] is socially engineered" [through religion], I could ask whether homosexuality is socially engineered too. Pru also put forward the proposition that "you could argue homosexuality is pointless" - which I am doing, "but it's difficult to argue it is wrong" which I don't believe I have - I said that "I believed it was against the general wellbeing of the human race", albeit, as William pointed out, probably not in an ultimately detrimental way.

Given the expansion of population and the nature of our finite resources, surely more gay folk and therefore less procreation, may actually help the "general wellbeing of the human race".

To quote that film "nature will find a way".

Well yes, but so would not providing famine aid in countries where they already can't sustain their own population Or more realistically birth control. I suspect that this is a "convenience" argument.

I think my point being that a certain percentage of homosexuality in species, could well be part of our genetic system through natural selection.

It would make sense as its seen in other species, and I'm 100% convinced that there will be genetic compositions that determine someones likely sexuality, of course environmental factors will play some part....

My ultimate point being that your argument that "it can't be natural cos it doesn't contribute to the wellbeing of our species" may well not stack up, if you assume a certain percentage of homosexuality within a species is part of natures defence mechanism. Which is as plausible and the counter argument I guess.....

[TANGODANCER]

Right. Here you go then. One oar dipped:

" Gay" people, or at least a section of them, are their own worst enemies. The word "gay" itself bears no relation to their persuasion of having different tastes in who with and how they want to spend their lives. Some of them are amongst the most miserable fxckers I've ever met. What's "gay" about that? Why not just say "same-sexers", or indeed, no tag at all? If they spent more time campaigning about the fact they get up in a morning, wash, eat, go to work, contribute to society by doing valuable work, wash iron, shop, party, dance, read, converse and, in our modern society raise kids who won't be forced to follow any set persuasion except of their own choosing, then folk might just accept them as not being in need of tags like "gays" and queers etc. Most of them live far better lives than some of the rag-tags who populate our society as "normal".

Add to that the fact they probably spend only about five percent of their lives engaged in any form of sexual practise, just like the rest of us - who spend far more time talking about sex than actually having it - and "bumming" might disappear as a major form of identification. For me it's the silly fxckers who charge about on floats dressed in bare-ass chaps and drag-queen outfits waving placards that convey "look what daft bxstards we can be" and call it gay-pride. That does more to alienate them as being normal people than anything else. Wanting to be equal and normal has some funny ways of expressing it; then again, life is full of silly fxckers.

It's 2011, whether we like it or not, and what is, is. Same-sex stuff isn't a millennium invention, it's been going on for donkeys' years. Some of us believe we'll one-day have to answer for how we live our lives, some dont. Fact. It's a personal thing. I share Worthy's views based on how we were brought up, but you'll do what you'll do in life regardless.

Oh,and I speak as somebody who lived alongside a neighbours son for many years, a lad who is getting married to a male partner in the near future. He's a grand lad and I wish him luck and prosperity. Then again, he's not somebody who leaps about round the gay village in a blond wig and a frock. (Not a Prufrock, by the way). They're just silly fxckers.

End.

[Worthy4England]

I put it in a different post. I also pointed out it was aimed at 'shithouses stereotypers' who say a certain sort of thing. It was then addressed to a Mr Example. Ultimately I don't think it would be too difficult to expert an expert such as Worthy on the English language to comprehend that . Seriously, as I said above, it wasn't aimed at Worthy, I apologise to him if my lack of clarity meant he thought it was and I don't want this to go down an argumentative, antagonistic route on account of any babbling rant on my part. I still think theirs bus-sized holes in his argument though

Told ya!

If the question whatever does that mean wasn't directed at me, then who was it directed at?

I did think you may have been directing some of the statements at me, but as they were not, I too apologize. I would offer to help you down off your horse, but that might be a bit ghey.

The point about "natural" is based on your comment about the "yuk" view being socially engineered by religion. Historically, I could find little argument that the yuk factor and homosexuality are linked, but with current Church attendances being what they are, I think there has to be a different or supplemental reasons (possibly other social engineering) in today's society.

I made the point that there's been nothing found as to why homosexuality exists genetically, so maybe that it exists because of social engineering too. The list you give as unnatural, many people would agree with you. Lots of people don't like football, drinking, cars wrecking the ozone layer, the way we farm etc. etc. Some of them, they actually campaign against some of them and are convinced they're wrong.

When it boils down to it, some people, myself included will probably never be convinced homosexuality is "right". That's different than actively doing something about that view point, to prove it's wrong, other than occasionally babbling on a forum.

[thebish]

page 236...

The reason I don't join in political discussuions is very simple: From the forming of the Magna Carta (which was more about wealthy land barons protecting their own properties, rights and interests than those of Joe peasant anyway) hundreds of years have passed in which various factions pop up every four years or so to tell us they've found the best way to do it all and run the country for the benefit of all. With all that practise and lessons learned,they still haven't managed it yet as far as I can see. Drop me an e-mail if it ever happens. For now, I'll abstain, thanks.

[Prufrock]

I put it in a different post. I also pointed out it was aimed at 'shithouses stereotypers' who say a certain sort of thing. It was then addressed to a Mr Example. Ultimately I don't think it would be too difficult to expert an expert such as Worthy on the English language to comprehend that . Seriously, as I said above, it wasn't aimed at Worthy, I apologise to him if my lack of clarity meant he thought it was and I don't want this to go down an argumentative, antagonistic route on account of any babbling rant on my part. I still think theirs bus-sized holes in his argument though

Told ya!

If the question whatever does that mean wasn't directed at me, then who was it directed at?

I did think you may have been directing some of the statements at me, but as they were not, I too apologize. I would offer to help you down off your horse, but that might be a bit ghey.

The point about "natural" is based on your comment about the "yuk" view being socially engineered by religion. Historically, I could find little argument that the yuk factor and homosexuality are linked, but with current Church attendances being what they are, I think there has to be a different or supplemental reasons (possibly other social engineering) in today's society.

I made the point that there's been nothing found as to why homosexuality exists genetically, so maybe that it exists because of social engineering too. The list you give as unnatural, many people would agree with you. Lots of people don't like football, drinking, cars wrecking the ozone layer, the way we farm etc. etc. Some of them, they actually campaign against some of them and are convinced they're wrong.

When it boils down to it, some people, myself included will probably never be convinced homosexuality is "right". That's different than actively doing something about that view point, to prove it's wrong, other than occasionally babbling on a forum.

Well that was always going to happen. I normally check through things before I post them, mainly so Bishy can't get me, and like all good prufreaders, start from the end. I stopped this time because I started giggling at having written not 'holes in', but 'hole sin'. The simple things.

The 'what does that even mean' was at you, the rest general rant. Clearly. .

I'm confused as to when you are talking about 'natural', and when you are talking about 'right'. The natural point seems bizarre. The language you couch it in is that for something to be natural it has to further the species? Is that right? Homosexuality is not natural because it doesn't lead to procreation? But neither does language, or running. Are they unnatural? Or is it that communication and running both help us stay alive and thus more likely to get chance to pass on our genes, in which case the theory that homosexuality occurs in a species, or some species, to look after abandoned young, and allow them to procreate, thus furthering the species. Or is it that homosexuality isn't just 'not procreation' but sort of anti procreation? In that case so are abstinence, masturbation, and to take it all the way, me sat at this laptop right now not having sex. Any possible time we have where we could be procreating but aren't could be said to be unnatural, because we aren't acting to further the species.

Maybe we are coming at it from completely different concepts of the word natural. Cars are, to me, natural. Sure they are man made, but from materials that occur on this planet, sourced by methods invented by people from this planet, and put together by people, using methods, from this planet. That's not to limit it to this planet, if we got things from other planets that could be natural, but without any outside help. Rabbits doing anything without deliberate interference from a 'higher power' would be natural. I quite like Russell Howards description of a flight back from Spain with two gays kissing and cuddling and getting ever more frustrated stares from a group of skinheads. One of the skinheads eventually roars 'it's not natural!', one of the gays looks over his shoulder and says, 'You're flying'.

All that said, this discussion of natural, whilst interesting, seems irrelevant. It's difficult to thing of a definition of natural which would exclude homosexuality, without excluding plenty of other things most rational people consider acceptable. It's very hard, for instance, to define homosexuality as 'unnatural' without also so defining heterosexual couples choosing not to have children, and that would be a very narrow definition of natural, in my view.

As for the question of wrong or right. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, and that people do saddens me. Equally I don't think it is 'right'. In my view it is morally neutral. I don't think we have a moral duty to procreate, I think most of us are programmed to, but I don't think it is a moral, right or wrong, issue. It happens, it doesn't affect anyone else, other than potential future people who don't exist yet, so ultimately I don't see how anyone can, or wants to comment on it.

As for freedom of speech. I'm all for it to a point. There, in my view, has to be a limit. Inciting hatred or violence seems to be about right. It is a high threshold, and should be. I don't think you have actually said you think homosexuality were wrong. If you had, I think it seems obvious to most but the left wing facists Bobo so loves that that wouldn't reach the threshold of 'inciting hatred'. If anyone does think such a thing, then by all means 'fight to death for their right to say it applies', but I'd still feel it was sad, and wrong.

[Worthy4England]

I think my point being that a certain percentage of homosexuality in species, could well be part of our genetic system through natural selection.

It would make sense as its seen in other species, and I'm 100% convinced that there will be genetic compositions that determine someones likely sexuality, of course environmental factors will play some part....

My ultimate point being that your argument that "it can't be natural cos it doesn't contribute to the wellbeing of our species" may well not stack up, if you assume a certain percentage of homosexuality within a species is part of natures defence mechanism. Which is as plausible and the counter argument I guess.....

A decent enough line of thinking, and one that has merit. I just happen to disagree with it. If there's not enough food in the animal kingdom, you go out and eat some other poor animal (cannibalistic or otherwise), or plant, or die. Enough of you die, there's enough food to sustain the lower population. Some research suggests that in the animal kingdom, there is very little permenant homosexuality, but lots of it on a non-permenant basis, which I think would discount it as a significant "reason" behind natural selection and or as a response to food shortages.

It certainly wouldn't account for the human part of the animal kingdom, say in the UK, where food is plentiful...

[Lord Kangana]

" Gay" people, or at least a section of them, are their own worst enemies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

I think my point being that a certain percentage of homosexuality in species, could well be part of our genetic system through natural selection.

It would make sense as its seen in other species, and I'm 100% convinced that there will be genetic compositions that determine someones likely sexuality, of course environmental factors will play some part....

My ultimate point being that your argument that "it can't be natural cos it doesn't contribute to the wellbeing of our species" may well not stack up, if you assume a certain percentage of homosexuality within a species is part of natures defence mechanism. Which is as plausible and the counter argument I guess.....

A decent enough line of thinking, and one that has merit. I just happen to disagree with it. If there's not enough food in the animal kingdom, you go out and eat some other poor animal (cannibalistic or otherwise), or plant, or die. Enough of you die, there's enough food to sustain the lower population. Some research suggests that in the animal kingdom, there is very little permenant homosexuality, but lots of it on a non-permenant basis, which I think would discount it as a significant "reason" behind natural selection and or as a response to food shortages.

It certainly wouldn't account for the human part of the animal kingdom, say in the UK, where food is plentiful...

Aye but thats not how natural selection works. Maybe millions of years ago "homosexual genes" were found to confer some sort of advantage to a species and they've stuck in ever since. Of course that doesn't necessarily translate to an advantage in the here and now, this instant, this country etc....But over the course of millions of years evolution, its more than possible to see it could confer an advantage. Certainly as plausible as saying it doesn't!

[thebish]

Aye but thats not how natural selection works. Maybe millions of years ago "homosexual genes" were found to confer some sort of advantage to a species and they've stuck in ever since.

[Worthy4England]

Well that was always going to happen. I normally check through things before I post them, mainly so Bishy can't get me, and like all good prufreaders, start from the end. I stopped this time because I started giggling at having written not 'holes in', but 'hole sin'. The simple things.

The 'what does that even mean' was at you, the rest general rant. Clearly. .

I'm confused as to when you are talking about 'natural', and when you are talking about 'right'. The natural point seems bizarre. The language you couch it in is that for something to be natural it has to further the species? Is that right? Homosexuality is not natural because it doesn't lead to procreation? But neither does language, or running. Are they unnatural? Or is it that communication and running both help us stay alive and thus more likely to get chance to pass on our genes, in which case the theory that homosexuality occurs in a species, or some species, to look after abandoned young, and allow them to procreate, thus furthering the species. Or is it that homosexuality isn't just 'not procreation' but sort of anti procreation? In that case so are abstinence, masturbation, and to take it all the way, me sat at this laptop right now not having sex. Any possible time we have where we could be procreating but aren't could be said to be unnatural, because we aren't acting to further the species.

Maybe we are coming at it from completely different concepts of the word natural. Cars are, to me, natural. Sure they are man made, but from materials that occur on this planet, sourced by methods invented by people from this planet, and put together by people, using methods, from this planet. That's not to limit it to this planet, if we got things from other planets that could be natural, but without any outside help. Rabbits doing anything without deliberate interference from a 'higher power' would be natural. I quite like Russell Howards description of a flight back from Spain with two gays kissing and cuddling and getting ever more frustrated stares from a group of skinheads. One of the skinheads eventually roars 'it's not natural!', one of the gays looks over his shoulder and says, 'You're flying'.

All that said, this discussion of natural, whilst interesting, seems irrelevant. It's difficult to thing of a definition of natural which would exclude homosexuality, without excluding plenty of other things most rational people consider acceptable. It's very hard, for instance, to define homosexuality as 'unnatural' without also so defining heterosexual couples choosing not to have children, and that would be a very narrow definition of natural, in my view.

As for the question of wrong or right. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, and that people do saddens me. Equally I don't think it is 'right'. In my view it is morally neutral. I don't think we have a moral duty to procreate, I think most of us are programmed to, but I don't think it is a moral, right or wrong, issue. It happens, it doesn't affect anyone else, other than potential future people who don't exist yet, so ultimately I don't see how anyone can, or wants to comment on it.

As for freedom of speech. I'm all for it to a point. There, in my view, has to be a limit. Inciting hatred or violence seems to be about right. It is a high threshold, and should be. I don't think you have actually said you think homosexuality were wrong. If you had, I think it seems obvious to most but the left wing facists Bobo so loves that that wouldn't reach the threshold of 'inciting hatred'. If anyone does think such a thing, then by all means 'fight to death for their right to say it applies', but I'd still feel it was sad, and wrong.

Trying to keep my view simple (which is obviously failing miserably)

The only reason I can see that we're here in existence, is that we procreate and perpetuate our existence through that very act, and ultimately die. Everything else is just pretty much incidental. Therefore the only natural thing to do on the planet is procreate and everything else is shades of unnatural, conditioned by the societies we live in.

Conversation is really just conditioning. If I wanted a leg-over as a cave-man, I just hoiked someone over the head with my club and had sex - notwithstanding that someone else might have hoiked me over the head for doing so. Conversation not essential. Running is an interesting one, we needed to do that, I guess when we needed to catch food or run away from dinosaurs, we very rarely "need" to run today other than to keep fit etc. But conversation and running are only conditioned responses in today's society. We don't NEED them to perpetuate our existence. That said, running and conversation don't preclude us breeding either - some could argue that they enhance our chances. I don't think any of the other things you listed prevent us from breeding apart from 2, abstinence and couples who don't want kids.

Being homosexual, abstinence and couples who don't want kids does preclude breeding (by choice) unless they occasionally change that choice. I would ask therefore as you did in your original post, whether that makes it a pointless existence? In my view yes, perhaps I should just start calling gays pointless instead of unnatural, but it's certainly unnatural, by my way of thinking as it contradicts the only real reason we're on the planet that I can come up with and that I currently know about. (I don't for one minute accept that my real reason for being here is to enhance shareholder value! It's just incidental.)

[Worthy4England]

I think my point being that a certain percentage of homosexuality in species, could well be part of our genetic system through natural selection.

It would make sense as its seen in other species, and I'm 100% convinced that there will be genetic compositions that determine someones likely sexuality, of course environmental factors will play some part....

My ultimate point being that your argument that "it can't be natural cos it doesn't contribute to the wellbeing of our species" may well not stack up, if you assume a certain percentage of homosexuality within a species is part of natures defence mechanism. Which is as plausible and the counter argument I guess.....

A decent enough line of thinking, and one that has merit. I just happen to disagree with it. If there's not enough food in the animal kingdom, you go out and eat some other poor animal (cannibalistic or otherwise), or plant, or die. Enough of you die, there's enough food to sustain the lower population. Some research suggests that in the animal kingdom, there is very little permenant homosexuality, but lots of it on a non-permenant basis, which I think would discount it as a significant "reason" behind natural selection and or as a response to food shortages.

It certainly wouldn't account for the human part of the animal kingdom, say in the UK, where food is plentiful...

Aye but thats not how natural selection works. Maybe millions of years ago "homosexual genes" were found to confer some sort of advantage to a species and they've stuck in ever since. Of course that doesn't necessarily translate to an advantage in the here and now, this instant, this country etc....But over the course of millions of years evolution, its more than possible to see it could confer an advantage. Certainly as plausible as saying it doesn't!

Nobody has found homosexual genes as far as I can tell. Ever.

Maybe while they're looking, they will find god.

[Lord Kangana]

Gayism is natural birth control before we discovered pigs bladders and rubber. Considering we're running at 7 billion, I'd say we should be doing everything we can to encourage it.

[thebish]

Nobody has found homosexual genes as far as I can tell. Ever.

see above...