Oh, there are appliances for heterosexual conversions, too? Hey, Snark, hold out for a complete houseful!! 
Actually, my parents said they were giving my wife a dishwasher for a wedding present. But she said I left streaks. 
I’m all for it.
The more gays there are, the fewer guys there are competing for chicks.
Yes, but the more gays there are, the more chicks there are competing for chicks!
I like your way of thinking
Let’s go through this word by word:
homosexuality: okay
is: okay
the: “an” would probably be more appropiate, unless this person thinks that this is the only behavior that can lead to exctinction.
active: definitely wrong. Homosexuals do not do anything to actively regarding exctinction (at least not more than other groups). The only relevance that homosexuality has to do with extinction is not what homosexuals do but what they don’t do, so “passive” would be appropiate, but not “active”.
promotion: this implies that one acts with the intent of achieving something. I doubt that there are very many people for whom the extinction of humanity was a significant criterion for their sexuality.
of: okay
human: why specifically human? Are humans special in some respect?
exxtinction: while homosecuality may reduce the number of people, I do not see it leading it to extinction.
As several other posters have mentioned, humans probably aren’t going to become extinct from overpopulation. If a species’ population level is already close to extinction, a sudden increase that goes beyond their resources can lead to extinction, but I do not see humans as being in that situation.
Lemur866
[quote]
I would also strongly disagree with theories that homosexuals serve a “function” in society by caring for relatives, or preventing overpopulation. That’s not how reproductive biology works. Individuals do not exist to serve the purpose of society, they exist to serve themselves.[/quote[
There are plenty of examples of cooperative behavior, such as sterility in ants, menopause, and mutual defense among herd animals. Evolution isn’t about individuals; it’s about genes, gense that may be shared by fellow individuals.
The misguided moralists (G. Gordon Liddy among the most visual and vocal proponents) who INSIST homosexuality is learned or chosen behavior as opposed to a genetic predisposition, should actually welcome and embrace the genetic theory. Given that homosexuals, male or female, reproduce at a rate far below hetrosexuals (sorry, this seems obvious but I can’t quote evidence), it is only a matter of time before this “recessive trait” is selected out of the human species. I also believe that, despite enlightened societal tolerance of homosexuality, which encourages their visibility, there are documented data which suggest that, as a proportion of the population, homosexuality is, in actuality, decreasing. Can anyone confirm or refute this assertion with scientific evidence? To Liddy’s credit, I did actually hear him say on his program about three weeks ago, in response to a letter or fax someone had written, that it was a “mental defect”. However, were someone to press him on the issue, I’m sure he would insist that it is a “chosen” mental defect. Liddy himself has obviously “chosen” to be mentally brilliant.
Survey says: XXX
The animal kingdom (including humans) is chock full of examples of altruistic behavior, from baboons acting as babysitters for others’ infants (and, on occasion, fighting and dying fending off predators who want to eat the other baboon’s infants) to primitive Pacific island societies who revere and keep elders alive, even if they are not related, because the elders are the ones who remember what to do when the typhoon hits.
The way evolutionary scientists explain this type of behavior is that the partially related baboon (cousin, aunt, etc.) is helping to pass on the shared genes. The point is that individuals can and do serve the cause of evolution by existing to serve the purpose of society. Under the theory discussed above, homosexuals fall into this category.
Sua
Forgive me ahead of time, eloquence isn’t with me this morning.
Throughout natural history, the weak species tend to be weeded out, and the strongest tend to grow as a species. Now the above quote seems to imply that nature is saying, “Whoa, shit, these humans are getting a bit too big in the grand scheme of things… I gotta start cutting down.” So Mother Nature says “Abracadabra” and starts turning a small portion of human population against the whole.
Excluding decidedly UN-natural things, like nuclear war and such, species are not wiped out by itself. Species want to live. Species do not sabotage themselves.
And obviously, homosexuality is not a bigger species hunting us down for dinner.
So I would say that homosexuality is just a trait we all have. Certainly not a plot concocted by the Illuminati of the natural world to weed out the humans.
Not that we all have. I mean that some people are naturally good at math, some have a great ear for music, and some prefer the same sex over the opposite sex.
From my perspective as a lesbian teenager…
I didn’t “choose” to be gay. If I made a choice, it was to acknowledge my feelings and come out of the closet. I think that if people who maintain that homosexuality is a choice would speak to people who came out at about the age that I did (13-14) they might change their opinion about it’s nature. Being out in high school is brutal.
You know, we’re never going to be able to figure out what percentage of the population is gay. What exactly makes one homosexual or bisexual? Is it an attraction to a member of the same sex? Is it an acknowledgement of that attraction? Is it action upon that attraction?
I think that because of the nature of society, a lot of people who are attracted to the same gender never act on it. (I know one girl who came out to me when she… wasn’t exactly sober… and the next day she threatened me with bodily harm if I told anyone. She still says she’s straight, and I doubt she’ll ever admit her attraction to women. I feel sorry for her.)
Obviously, those people are never going to answer polls. And it’s the same thing with a lot of gay people- I mean, how many people would admit that they’re gay to a random person who is trying to determine how many gay people are in the population?
And then there’s the issue of when they figure it out. Some do very early on, some after they’ve been married for years.
As to what causes homosexuality… I personally think there is a strong genetic component. The idea that teens en masse can influence sexuality… I think that groups can, at best, influence experimentation, but there’s no way that daring someone to kiss another girl is going to make them join the Lesbian Avengers.
As for the extinction of the species? Oy. That’s right, we’re going down in rainbows.
If anyone kills us all, it’ll be those damn rednecks.
My, that was wordy.
andygirl