Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
October 30, 2012
Image Size
13.4 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,166 (3 today)
Favourites
123 (who?)
Comments
375
Downloads
11
×
You Can't Even Argue This Point by SionnaDehr You Can't Even Argue This Point by SionnaDehr
I mean really, the phrase, "because God said so" makes more logical sense than "if animals can do itz totes fine!"
For the most part, people use this to try and say homosexuality is okay. I find that a problem. I find that a big problem. After all, I thought humans were supposed to be evolved beyond basic animalistic tendencies. Using this argument to try and prove what many view to be a lifestyle choice doesn't work very well.
May I draw you to this stamp [link] that explains the issue in better words than I ever could? Well, I just did so I will continue.
Animals do a lot of things that we find rather disgusting if a human does it. Like cannibalism for an example.
Links to Cannibalism:
[link](zoology) -for a general idea of it in the wild.
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]

Let's see, what else is out there? Oh yes! Rape in animals!
[link]

Of course, when searching for this on the internet, I mostly find shit about human abuse to animals concerning this subject. I'm not going to dig through the internet to find this stuff.

Now, what else can I list? Oh, wait, killing!
[link]

If I had the mindset to think of the right keywords, I would probably have a better time finding what I'm looking for. As it is, I have a head cold, so my research skills are down. Anyway, the list could go on and I'm sure if I looked harder under all categorical abominations (or what are considered abominations in the human race). My point is that if people are going to try and prove something right, they might not want to use the animal kingdom as a reliable source. Yes, I'm especially talking to you evolutionists who loooove using this excuse. Find something else, please?

Actually, if there are any other arguments out there, please feel free to comment and tell me the other reasons. I'm not as interested in refuting them as I am interested in knowing what people are saying.

EDIT
[link] Adding this because it accurately illustrates the sheer stupidity of the "animals do it so its okay" argument.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconashlynart-100:
AshlynArt-100 Featured By Owner 3 days ago  New member Hobbyist Artist
Someone gave me this reason. -.-
Reply
:iconfidofia:
fidofia Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
If you're not gay how the fuck does homosexuality concern you? Does it hurt you? Does it affect your standard of living?
Reply
:iconballisticpacifist:
BallisticPacifist Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2015
How does homosexuality hurt people like rape or killing?
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015   Traditional Artist
The point is not whether or not homosexuality harms individuals (which it arguably does).

The point is that this particular argument - "It is natural among animals, therefore it should be acceptable among people" - is extremely flawed and "moronic" since animals do many things that are unacceptable in human society.

Natural =/= good.  That is what this stamp is about.
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
The point isn't that homosexuality is ok isn't usually backed up with the animals argument, the "animals do it" argument is used to prove homosexuality is natural since humans are part of the animal kingdom; we're primates.

Also how the heck are rape and homosexuality the same? No one wants to accept rape, there's a whole movement dedicated to gay rights. Homosexual relationships are usually consensual, and rape isn't there is a difference :| arguing rape and relationships are the same is stupid.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
"Natural" does not equate to "good" or "acceptable."

Animals rape each other.
Animals commit acts of incest all the time.
Animals murder each other - male, female, young, or old.
Animals shun each other just because of their size or smell.
Animals will kill children of other animals in order to have sex with the female/mother.
Animals are cannibals.

All of those things are "natural" and "normal" in nature.  That does not mean they should be normal in our human society.

"Also how the heck are rape and homosexuality the same?"
^ Well, animals rape each other… It's all natural and normal for animals, why can't people do the same?
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl Featured By Owner Edited Feb 12, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
I know natural doesn't equal to good or acceptable the point I'm trying to make is that this arguement is used not for proving that it's acceptable but just that it's natural seeming as many religions and cultures deem homosexuality as biologically unnatural. The author of the stamp seems to be confusing these two.

I can see the silliness in trying to compare humans and animals completely but that's not what people are doing with that arguement, they're just proving it's not unnatural. Animals are halfway to being humans because humans have a lot of urges which echo theirs except we are more evolved and intelligent because we picked a good path of evolution.

You didn't read my first comment correctly. I explained why they're different so either you're being purposesfully condescending or just simply didn't understand.

Rape= non consensual sex, a physical and psychological attack on a person which is immoral because it can cause great trauma (PTSD, suicidal tendencies etc) to the victim and make them almost unable to function because they can't trust other people and take great pains to get back into society after their attack as a result.

Homosexuality= netrual. I only say neutral because homosexuality is just at it's heart attraction to the same sex. Some use it for bad, but that's like all sexualities and no one wishes to legislate or ban straight people. Some are just normal people who wish to have a relationship just like anyone.

The majority of homosexual sex is consensual and is not rape every single time, it's not a trauma it's something shared between two people.

Heterosexuality is natural, why can't people rape like animals because hets have sex?
(I don't actually believe that it I just wanted to you to know how that sentence looks)
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Ah okay.  Maybe I did misunderstand you then.

What I am getting at is... even if homosexuality is natural - so what?  Rape is also natural.  Murder is also natural.  Ect.

Whether or not homosexual behaviour is natural has nothing to do with whether or not it should be acceptable.  But I'm fairly certain you also understand that.  ^^
Reply
:iconvikingponeswordsgirl:
VikingPoneSwordsgirl Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Why isn't it acceptable? Just because of this argument?

Human heterosexuality could be seen as dangerous too given that a woman can tear her um...birth canal, her organs shift around during pregnant and women are a little more likely to die when they are pregnant. Not to mention all the diseases you're susceptible to when pregnant. Is pregnancy safe because it's "natural"? Because that's what hetero sex is supposed to lead to without protection..

If you don't like homosexuality that's fine but it's not fair to say it's an unacceptable standard for everyone. Was interracial separation fair for everyone? After all both of those situations ie the acceptance of it is morally neutral...not really right or wrong but can cause more harm to the human race if it's limited excessively.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015   Traditional Artist
Err, where did I say that homosexuality was an "unacceptable standard for everyone?"

I will quote myself: "Whether or not homosexual behaviour is natural has nothing to do with whether or not it should be acceptable."
I'm pointing out that just because something is natural, does not mean that it should thus be considered acceptable.  I'm specifically referring to people who say, "If it happens in nature, it's therefore okay for it to happen in our society."  (i.e., "homosexuality is natural in animals, therefore it is acceptable in human societies")

I'm not arguing whether or not homosexuality itself is acceptable.  I'm just pointing out that:

Natural =/= good
And:
Natural =/= acceptable

Does that make sense?  It seems quite a few people have misunderstood my purpose here.
What I would REALLY like to know is how so many people started replying at once to me!  I always thought I was the only one who used the related tab to find argumentative stamps I like and then read the comments below them.  But apparently more people do that than I thought!  XD  (Or maybe more people just stalk each other's "Recent Activity" feeds more than I thought)
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Rape and murder are not consensual...
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Nope, but they are natural.  ^^
Reply
:iconhyenax:
Hyenax Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Why don't you just get off your high horse and stop believing you know everything about the world? I can admit I don't know everything, but I do know two things; homosexuality is OK because it is natural, consensual, and does not harm anyone. I also know that you are the most ignorant person I've ever met on the internet.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Edited Feb 13, 2015   Traditional Artist
Again… "A sure sign of a weak case is when a critic begins with ridicule.  The immediate move to the ad hominem is a sure sign of the lack of substance." Dr. Peter A. Lillback
Keep insulting me.  Keep throwing personal attacks at me.  It just makes your argument look very, very weak if you have to resort to rude comments to defend yourself.

Natural =/= good.

Consensual =/= acceptable.

"Does not harm anyone" has already been addressed with my other arguments.

I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that "homosexuality" is okay.  Making simple statements without backing them up means nothing in a debate.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Student Digital Artist
That still doesn't make them comparable.

A volcanic eruption of the Krebs Cycle is also natural. Thaf doesn't mean it is morally comparable
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015   Traditional Artist
Why is it not morally comparable? ^^
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconwolff-bites:
Wolff-bites Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Respect!! :)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconbrihanna25:
brihanna25 Featured By Owner Feb 6, 2015
So it's okay to randomly hump each other in public places?😂
Reply
:iconprimaltimediamond:
Primaltimediamond Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
whoa all the hate on this stamp it's ridiculous, but it sure opened  my eyes because you're right. 

Animals rape yet we think rape is bad
animals canibalise we think that canibalism is bad 

yet when homosexuality gets brought onto the table it's suddenly "BUT ANIMALS DO IT SO IT'S OK"  I understand why it's being said and I don't have anything against homosexuality but it's some really backwards logic 
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Exactly.  If the argument doesn't work all across the table, it certainly won't work for a specific dish or piece of silver. 
Reply
:iconprimaltimediamond:
Primaltimediamond Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
holy shit all those people replying to you...the stupidity I can't understand it >>
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015   Traditional Artist
Yeah, well… oh well.  x'D  I think most of them don't understand the point I'm getting at (I don't think many of them understand logical fallacies).  But I've also had some pretty decent discussions on this thread, so there is still hope!
Reply
:iconprimaltimediamond:
Primaltimediamond Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I saw, my faith in humanity has restored some XD 
Reply
:iconhyenax:
Hyenax Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Homosexuality is OK. Anything which does not cause harm to another person is OK. This deviation is not OK.

Case closed.
Reply
:iconsionnadehr:
SionnaDehr Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
So, by your logic, self harm, of any kind, is okay. We shouldn't try to discourage it. We shouldn't take people who are harming themselves intentionally aside and try to help them because they're not hurting anyone else. They're just exorcising their right over their own bodies after all, right?
:)
You still missed the point of my stamp.
Since you did, I'll help you.
Consider this: animals don't care whether or not they cause harm to others. They don't have a clue. In many cases, harming another one of their species is an act of dominance (see wolves or any other carnivorous beastie). With people saying humans are no different than animals doesn't that mean animalistic morality is totally and completely up for grabs. Which means that your point is automatically invalid and the case is, most certainly, not closed.
You're welcome 
Reply
:iconhyenax:
Hyenax Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Well self harm isn't OK but if they really want to do it then that's their choice, it's not harming anyone else.

And I never tried to justify harming other people so what are you even talking about? I said homosexuality is OK. That has nothing to do with harming another person, and if you believe that it does then please explain to me how.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Why is homosexuality okay?
Reply
:iconhyenax:
Hyenax Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Because it doesn't harm anyone. Why isn't it ok?
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Edited Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist

The idea that homosexuality doesn't "harm anyone" is only partially true.  Perhaps homo/bisexual couples are not immediately damaging their partner like rape or murder would.  However, man-on-man intercourse in particular has significant risks; research has shown the fragile anus is not meant to be penetrated, and there are even more imminent risks to fecal exposure.  

As stated by Centers For Disease Control and Prevention: "In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.  Gay and bisexual men can be infected with HPV (Human Papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States. Some types of HPV cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancer. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men."

And also:

"Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010… For gay and bisexual men, HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs are of particular concern… The rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men."  (Emphasis mine)

There is also the fact that it is mentally harmful, as both lesbians and gays tend to have higher stress levels and periods of depression than heterosexuals.  Lesbians also tend to have a higher rate of obesity and smoking (indirect results of a lesbian lifestyle), which increase health risks.

Obviously, it does harm the individuals involved, so you will have to pick a different argument besides that.  The burden of proof is on you to support the idea that homosexuality is "okay." 

Reply
:iconwolff-bites:
Wolff-bites Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Anyone can suffer from depression and stress, perhaps if people didn't hate on gays and lesbians so much and tell them that their way of life is wrong then they wouldn't become depressed.

Not all gay men have sex. It's their choice anyway and if they choose not to wear protection etc. it would only harm them; not you. So why does it bother you?
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Of course anyone can suffer from depression and stress; lesbians are just more likely to suffer from those two things (along with smoking addictions).

"Not all gay men have sex."
So you are admitting that gay sex is indeed harmful, then?

"I
t would only harm them; not you."
If it doesn't harm me, I should therefore not care.  Technically, girls who get raped don't "harm" me or involve me, either.  Does that mean I shouldn't be bothered by it, since it doesn't involve me?

How about homeless individuals?  The cold weather does not harm me, so why should I care if it harms them?
If I see a kid being bullied at school, why should I intervene?  It does not harm me, it only harms them.  And if it doesn't harm me - "why should it bother me?"

And I am curious as to where you got the idea that gay sex bothers me, as well.  I am not here because sexual intercourse between homosexuals bothers me.  

I'm here because misinformed individuals making false claims and assessments bothers me.  Such as the ones here denying that homosexual lifestyles can be harmful.  I'm here only to correct that.  If you want to have sex with another woman, I wouldn't be bothered by it at all… but if you were to then say "homosexual lifestyles aren't harmful," then I would step in and point out that you are wrong.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhyenax:
Hyenax Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Well first of all, you are assuming all gay people have sex which is not true, so that invalidates about 90% of your argument. Secondly, are you saying every gay person is depressed and overweight just because they are MORE LIKELY to be? That also is not true. Why don't you just stop living in the past and accept that being homosexual is OK. Note I said "being homosexual" not "gay sex" - you might want to learn the difference.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Err, no, I am not making either of those assumptions.  I am pointing out that gay sex is harmful, and since sex tends to be an important aspect of sexual relationships, it is reasonable to thus conclude that homosexual relationships encourage harmful activities (such as homosexual sex).  Sexual relationships, after all, tend to include sex.

Please check my wording, I specifically said, "lesbians and gays tend to have…"  That is different from saying "every gay person is depressed and overweight."  I'm not sure where you drew that idea from.

"Note I said "being homosexual" not "gay sex."
So you are admitting that gay sex is indeed harmful, then?

"Why don't you just stop living in the past and accept that being homosexual is OK."

"A sure sign of a weak case is when a critic begins with ridicule.  The immediate move to the ad hominem is a sure sign of the lack of substance." Dr. Peter A. Lillback

C:

Perhaps I would accept that "being homosexual is OK" if you were to present me with a logical argument explaining why homosexuality is acceptable.  Simply stating that it is "OK" is not an argument.
The burden of proof is still on you.  I'm still waiting for you to present a logical argument to support you claim that "homosexuality is OK."

Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmonochrome-crystal:
Monochrome-Crystal Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
YES! YES YES YESSSSSSSSS!!! THIS STAMP!!!! And let's not forget about BULLYING in animals! Yes, animals bully each other as well. In fact, in cows, what is considered "lesbian sex" is actually one cow bullying the other. That's right: the cow on top isn't trying to mate with the other cow but she is in fact trying to break the bottom cow's ankles. Just wanted to put that out there...
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Yes, animals will ex-communicate a member of their group just because of the SIZE or SMELL of the other animal.  Do you see anyone saying that humans should do the same since it's natural for animals to do that?  ^.-
Reply
:iconsnowpuff77:
snowpuff77 Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2015
That one about cannibalistic hens? The poultry at my school farm had no shame pecking and eating an egg that a boy carelessly dropped on the ground. Guess I shouldn't be surprised about a bigger approach. Rape in animals? Aw, Geez... I once saw 3 male ducks chasing a female duck, knock her down, then try to pile themselves on her. Ugh! Talk about gang rape!
Reply
:iconjonathanskits:
JonathanSkits Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2014
Ikr what if someone said that jumping off a cliff was the best thing not everyone's going to do it
Reply
:iconnerdlebooyimi:
NerdleBooyimi Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconask--frightspark:
Ask--Frightspark Featured By Owner Nov 14, 2014
((guys heterosexuality happens in animals
so does eating to survive
and drinking two parts hydrogen one part oxygen



cmon guise we're better than this))
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
… What are you trying to say?  u.U
Reply
:iconwwwarea:
wwwarea Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2014
Sometimes it's a good thing. Hmm, in terms of why we must believe something so bad it's self would be good to compare.
Like a nature argument against some sexuality it's self.. Many non-human animals do it. <That's fair in terms of an argument claiming something not natural.. Know what I mean?

Cannibalism is an interesting subject. Going after someone and eating there arms and cooking them? Yikes, but I question why people has to taboo it JUST because it's "cannibalism". If someone eats someone's arm without consent, then that isn't anything nearly as bad as just "cutting an arm" it's self without consent..
I'm only basing this off my own questioning of societies and there beliefs.. Hmm
Reply
:iconthecrossoverer89:
TheCrossoverer89 Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2014
these guys believe in evolution, but yet continue to whine about how natural means 'okay', I do believe in evolution, but I think its more than just growing arms and legs, its DEVELOPING A FUCKING MIND.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
Fun fact: evolution also discourages homosexuality (and bisexuality especially) since it neither helps nor contributes to a species survival or improvement!  ^^
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 12, 2015  Student Digital Artist
If that were true then why would biologically more intelligent species be the only ones it occurs in? It is obviously more complicated than that.

A study on the correlation between homosexuality and fertility showed people with homosexual relatives are more fertile than those without. www.livescience.com/2623-gays-… It obviously has positive correlates indirectly.

Another factor you are forgetting is that pure homosexuality is rare among animals. In many species bisexuality is the norm and it was at times for periods in human history as well. The term "homosexual" did not exist as a reality until the spread of Abrahamic religions to Europe. Before then Hellenistic Societies were largely bisexual.

With higher order animals often sex is not just reproductive but has social purposes too and relieves stress. In numerous studies life-long virgin animals have been shown to live shorter lives.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015   Traditional Artist
I'd say for the same reason the "more intelligent species" also still can suffer from illnesses, disorders, and birth defects: genetic traits and mutations.

Theoretically… evolution is the improvement of life as a whole - as time goes on, organisms become more complex, more "evolved," and generally better than their older counterparts.

So, how does evolution improve organisms?  Through a special thing called natural selection.  
Natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest) picks out the weaklings, so that only the strong organisms are left, and therefore only strong genes remain in the gene pool to be passed onto the next generation.

How do you pass on strong genetics to the next generation?  Through a magical thing called sex and reproduction.  Do you know what you need to make this happen?  A male organism and a female organism (or in the rare cases, an asexual organism).
Basically, only the organisms that can reproduce are able to contribute to the next generation.  Any organism that cannot contribute to the next generation due to health issues, poor reaction, low intelligence, or infertility is a hindrance to evolution that eventually gets done away with due to natural selection.

I'm sure I do not need to delve into the details on how homosexuals are unable to naturally reproduce, and therefore unable to contribute to the gene pool.
Unable to contribute to improving the next generation = a failed organism in an evolutionary worldview.

Bisexuals are even more dangerous from an evolutionary perspective, since they tend to pass STDs and poor genes from the homosexual organisms to the heterosexual organisms.  Not very good for survival, but the "good news" is that this behaviour eventually kills itself out.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce to sustain any possible genetic "homosexual trait," and any homosexual trait carried down to the next generation via bisexual intercourse is likely to carry down diseases with it that will eventually end that line, too.

So there you go!  The relationship between homosexuality and evolution (plus a bonus paragraph for bisexuality) in a miniature essay!  Hopefully it doesn't sound too cold, but this is science we are talking about - and feelings don't really have a place in scientific research or theory.  
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2015  Student Digital Artist
"So, how does evolution improve organisms?  Through a special thing called natural selection.  
Natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest) picks out the weaklings, so that only the strong organisms are left, and therefore only strong genes remain in the gene pool to be passed onto the next generation."

Ah because natural selection is that simple. There is nothing more.... No genetic drift, no sexual selection, no social behaviors.


For higher order life forms sexual selection is more powerful than natural selection. Once structures, such as packs, are established it is no longer merely "survival of the fittest". Psychology, getting along with others, being attractive, and other factors become more important than genetic superiority or mere strength.  

"Bisexuals are even more dangerous from an evolutionary perspective, since they tend to pass STDs and poor genes from the homosexual organisms to the heterosexual organisms.  Not very good for survival, but the "good news" is that this behaviour eventually kills itself out.  Homosexuals cannot reproduce to sustain any possible genetic "homosexual trait," and any homosexual trait carried down to the next generation via bisexual intercourse is likely to carry down diseases with it that will eventually end that line, too"

Where are you getting this information from? Anecdote?

One thing you are not realizing is most STDs are not detrimental to natural selection, which is why they have been able to be passed on. Animals don't live more than 10 years in the wild so HIV is not a problem for a chimpanzee, they won't live long enough for it to kill them in the fits place.

Humans in the wild lived to be 17-40 on average. Disease in general can only get big when populations get big and populations come into contact with one another. Bisexuality does not "spread" STDs anymore than sex in general. Herpes is a disease that affects heterosexuals the most. www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/n… 17% of America, and 50% of African American women currently have herpes. Infection rates for homosexuals are lower than heterosexuals by a factor of three www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/68…

Bisexuality is not a "bad gene". There is no "gay" or "bisexual" gene in the first place, at least not one demonstrated to exist. These are social behaviors. Attraction has more to do with hormone levels than genes. 

In pack animals that segregate genders 6 months out of the year bisexuality is the only way for them to have sex off of the mating season. You are also operating on the assumption that bisexuals are all more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Bisexuality has existed for millions of years. In some species, such as Bonobos and Sheep, it is the norm. It isn't something evolution can kill off, and if it could, it would have millions of years ago.

You obviously did not read the article I linked on the reproductive advantages of the relatives of homosexuals.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015   Traditional Artist
I heavily simplified it to help us end up on the same page.  The times I've avoided doing that have resulted in lots of wasted time due to having to explain (and then re-explain) natural selection and it's relationship to homo/bi/sexuality.

"From an evolutionary point of view we only have one function in life, and that's to reproduce." - Lewis Wolpert (Atheist Biologist)
I cannot seem to find the article I read before on bisexuality and it's role on spreading STDs, so I am prepared to stand corrected on that.  You seem to be more educated on it than I, and I am actually very happy about that.  Individuals like you are hard to come by.

"Bisexuality is not a "bad gene". There is no "gay" or "bisexual" gene in the first place, at least not one demonstrated to exist. These are social behaviors. Attraction has more to do with hormone levels than genes. "
Ah, so you then believe homosexuality and bisexuality are voluntary sexual lifestyles that individuals choose to pursue?  

I did read the article.  But please note that homosexual individuals can still only contribute to the gene pool by having heterosexual sex.  Homosexual sex activities, however, cannot contribute, in a genetic sense, (for obvious reasons) to the next generation.
Reply
:iconbcollins39302:
bcollins39302 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 13, 2015  Student Digital Artist
"From an evolutionary point of view we only have one function in life, and that's to reproduce." - Lewis Wolpert (Atheist Biologist)

Yes from a simplistic point of view discounting all of the behaviors which have arisen that do not benefit survival or reproduction... Almost every mammal, including humans, have mating rituals. Simple survival of the fittest does not explain their existence; a mating ritual adds time to reproduction and factors to reproduction aside from the fitness of those involved. They are also often loud, and showy in a way that attracts predators.

"Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual’s survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex... there are many examples of females choosing mates based on less useful traits (e.g., song complexity) or even traits detrimental to survival (e.g., brightly colored plumage, as in the case of the peacock)" evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite…

A simple survival of the fittest model does not explain complex life. When species reach a higher level of intelligence they choose mates not on physical fitness, but on other features that attract them arbitrarily. A complex bird song, or big ass feathers do not benefit survival in a way that makes you pass on your genes; they just make you more attractive. This is sexual selection. There are examples in nature of submissive bisexual males in some species, such as the Ruff, being the individuals females are most attracted to www.willyvanstrien.nl/pdfs/eng… Ruffs have 3 types of males, dominant ones who control territory, Satellite males who are nether dominant nor submissive, and Faeders.

The Faeders are submissive bisexual males, which female Ruffs also happen to be much more attracted to. The dominant territorial Ruffs have to keep them around just to attract more females so they have a better chance of passing on their genes.

I see similar things happen with humans; many males and females are attracted to homosexual and bisexual members of the opposite sex. We have fetishes devoted to it such as Yuri and Yaoi. You can also observe things like that with Gibbons. 

You can also see this in less intelligent life-forms as a  sneaky-intelligence factor of submissive males, which sexual selection favors. There are many species of Cuttlefish where submissive males disguise themselves as females to sneak into areas controlled by dominant males to mate with a female Cuttlefish and often wind up confusing the dominant males www.livescience.com/21374-cutt…

"Ah, so you then believe homosexuality and bisexuality are voluntary sexual lifestyles that individuals choose to pursue?"

Is that really the only other possibility? Are all conditions either genetic or voluntary? 

As I bisexual I am inclined to believe all heterosexuals are making a choice to only act on one side of their sexual urges, however I then realize I am doing the same thing heterosexuals do when they say being bisexual is a choice.

Of course having consensual sex with someone is a choice, but attractions are not generally voluntary. You don't intend to be attracted to someone, you just either are or aren't (usually unless you have a low enough sex-drive to the point where you can choose who to be attracted to. A low sex drive is much more detrimental to passing on your genes however than bisexuality)

With higher order intelligence, group survival, not individual survival, is the biggest form of natural selection. Some theorize group survival leads to social practices such as mating rituals which then lead to culture. 

As for homosexuals not passing on their genes, it is curious that 30% of men in the U.S. who identify as gay, have a biological child.

In the case of HIV in the U.S., bisexuals did contribute to its spread, but globally it is clearly not a "bisexual" or "homosexual" disease. Infection rates are higher with LGBT populations in industrialized nations largely because condom use is lower. There is also the factor of weaker lining in an anus in comparison to a vagina, but condoms are almost 100% effective at stopping the spread. 

In Africa heterosexuals are the most afflicted group.

For skin infections such as genital lice, warts, and herpes, women are more prone to contracting them so they are more often spread through heterosexual intercourse, but also not necessarily. Condoms cannot protect from warts or herpes unless those areas happen to be exactly on the spots condoms cover. Genital lice cannot be stopped by condoms for obvious reasons.

Again though, in nature genital lice, herpes, warts, and even HIV would not necessarily be highly detrimental to reproduction; well herpes would be because it can infect infants being born and kill them within weeks. Life-expectancy in nature is not long enough for some diseases we worry about to become problematic.
Reply
:iconbbchild:
BBChild Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2015   Traditional Artist
Just as a note, I am reading everything you've sent me - I just don't have much to add to about half of that.  It's really interesting to read, though, and again, I am very happy to have this kind of discussion since they don't come by often.

"Is that really the only other possibility? Are all conditions either genetic or voluntary?"
Well, you did say it is a "
social behaviour," and behaviours are (voluntarily) learned.  I asked to clarify whether or not you meant that to mean such homosexual "behaviours" are by choice, since I don't often hear LGBT supporters argue that.

The way I see it is that hormones and sexual attraction is involuntary, but acting on that through behaviour is by choice.  I think we both agree on that.

"As for homosexuals not passing on their genes, it is curious that 30% of men in the U.S. who identify as gay, have a biological child."
Which is again only possible via heterosexual intercourse (or artificial means).

"In the case of HIV in the U.S., bisexuals did contribute to its spread, but globally it is clearly not a "bisexual" or "homosexual" disease. Infection rates are higher with LGBT populations in industrialized nations largely because condom use is lower. There is also the factor of weaker lining in an anus in comparison to a vagina, but condoms are almost 100% effective at stopping the spread."
I find that to be pretty interesting.  As another note, I don't believe HIV is an orientation-specific disease, I just understand that bisexuals are able to spread it (along with other STDs) from the homosexual community to the heterosexual community and vice versa.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: