Okay, you’re right, atypical is closer to my intended meaning. I did not mean to imply anything negative about it.
Yes, they’re all glitches, though to a different degree than homosexuality.
And I didn’t mean to to imply anything negative with the word glitch. I tried to find a better word, but that was the most non-negative one that I could think of while still communicating the meaning.
Well, Absolute, after reading your clarifying posts, you don’t sound bigoted or homophobic to me.
Assuming that it is a glitch, perhaps it’s one evolution can’t fix. As I understand it, evolution sometimes gets “stuck”; it has trouble evolving away from a characteristic. If whatever causes homosexuality is basic enough, evolution may not be able to evolve away from it.
As far as why it’s so common, I don’t know, but I think the processes that cause it, whatever they are, are fairly common. More and more, non-gender stereotypical behavior is found to have a brain/hormonal basis. Gays and transgendered have portions of the brain structured like that of the opposite sex, girls exposed to male hormones at a certain age become “tomboys”, and so forth. In my opinion, such things range from the harmless, to outright medical problems. Homosexuality is well into the “harmless” range, at least in humans.
I’d also like to point out that while homosexuality may very well be a glitch in animals, there’s no reason to consider it such in humans. Animals don’t, as a rule, contribute much to the species beyond producing the next generation, nor do they have a higher purpose(s). Humans do. Straight or gay, a human can contribute enormously without children and they can choose a purpose in life that has nothing to do with reproduction. Just as important, animals aren’t smart enough to know where babies come from; a lesbian, say, who wants a child is smart enough to get sperm, with or without a man attached.
And if Jesus is Satan, then it is wrong to be a Christian.
You can wind up with all sorts of wacky conclusions when you start from flawed premises.
In what way? How do you measure the degree of glitchiness? There’s no reason that homosexuality should restrict someone’s life, so I’m not sure why you would consider it any different from being over 6’ tall?
Glitch implies that there is a right way for something to be, and that the subject is objectively wrong. While being straight is certainly more common, being gay seems to be part of the natural diversity that contributes to robust and successful species.
How can sexual orientation be considered a “glitch”? My understanding is that sexual preference is not a binary function, but much more of a continuous one. Just like height or hair color or the length of your nose, there is an almost normal distribution to these characteristics. Where do you draw the line between glitch and non-glitch?
The hypothetical alien would be veering more to the norm by picking a gay person than it would if it picked a Jew. Gays are a far larger percentage of the worlds population than Jews. Does this mean Jews are “abnormal?”
Evolution doesn’t select traits according to better or worse. If a trait can be passed on through the generations, evolution is irrelevant. No trait is anymore a glitch than any other. Polydactyl cats are rare, but if polydactylism can be passed from one generation of cats to another, it’s by definition a successful trait.
Homosexuality is a ‘glitch’ in the same way that my choice not to reproduce is a ‘glitch’. I’m not behaving like some mindless organism that can only comprehend the good of the species through creating offspring. Perverted, isn’t it?
What about bonobos? Bonobo society is very peaceable and bonobo females don’t have to worry about rape or domestic violence like their chimp cousins do. This is because they have lots of lesbian sex. By using sex to cement friendships with other females, they form empowered relationships and basically “run” the tribe. Generally, all bonobos are bisexual (although some show marked preferences) and this bisexuality allows them to live much more peaceably than their chimp cousins. Considering that we are closely related to the bonobos, doesn’t it show that homosexuality could be a lot more normal than you think?
If the support is something he would provide if the person weren’t gay, that’s being bigoted.
Cite? Could I see a copy of the design document for the human race? Also, I think the people at Johns Hopkins would like a copy.
This statement offends me. Greatly.
If all you mean by “disgusting” is that the homosexual sex act offends your aesthetic sensibilities, then who cares? Everyone has different turn-ons and turn-offs. Some of your favorite things are probably bedroom dealbreakers for other people.
However, the only person who needs to hear this stuff from you is your spouse/lover/potential partner. Making it a point to proclaim your personal turn-offs for all to hear is edging into bigot territory. After all, what could you be trying to accomplish by doing so, besides making others feel uncomfortable or embarrassed?
As I remember it, what actually happens is when a male does decide to harass or attack a female, the females gang up on him, unlike chimps where the males gang up on the females and the females act as individuals. Humans, unfortunately, are closer to chimps than bonobos in this; throughout history, it’s almost always been many men vrs one woman. Even when it wasn’t, the men were typically organized, and the women weren’t. I doubt it’s a coincidence that women’s rights coincided with the rise of women’s rights organizations.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? Homosexuality is the completely opposite of normal sexuality. Being over 6’ tall is incrementally above the normal height.
If would were 10’ tall or 2’ tall, I’d call that a glitch too.
Can you give me a cite for that? I’ve never seen any evidence that supports your last sentence.
Obviously there is no hard-and-fast line. I don’t know where I’d draw the line, but a 1 in 10 occurrence is, in my opinion, more on the glitch side of it than not. And I doubt that the 1 in 10 figure is accurate anyway.
Would you grant that transexuality is a glitch?
Your choise not to reproduce is made consciously, not biologically. Unless you have no desire to have sex, in which case I’d say yeah, that’s a glitch too, on the same level of homosexuality.
And I already reconsidered and retracted what I said about homosexuality being perverted.
First off, we’re talking about people, not bonobos. You can’t really make comparisons - I’ve had dogs hump my leg, that doesn’t mean they’re into bestiality.
Second, you’re talking about bisexuality, not homosexuality. It sounds to me like a homosexual female bonobo would be a glitch.
I have never seen any evidence that shows that there are positive benefits to homosexuality.
Why? I don’t mean to imply anything negative by it.
I say it’s a glitch because it has no benefit and serves no purpose. If humans were intelligently designed, I see no reason why homosexuality would exist. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. But, biologically, mentally, whatever, homosexuality deviates from how human sexuality is supposed to function. The fact that evolution has, for some reason, been unable to get rid of it is strange, but I don’t think that makes it normal.
How do I know how human sexuality is supposed to function? Because the whole (evolutionary) purpose of sexuality is reproduction. That is the purpose of the sexes, the genitalia, and all that. If we reproduced like amoebas, then sexuality would have no purpose. But we don’t, and so it does.
And homosexuality is different from choosing not to have children, especially if you accept that the former is hard-wired at birth. That choice is usually made consciously: most childless people I know still have sex, but just use birth control. If someone has no children because they feel no desire to have sex, then I’d call that a glitch too.
I am honestly amazed that people actually consider homosexuality to be “normal”.
Define normal. That’s the problem with your question. Humans come in lots of varieties.
Is having six fingers normal? Is having one blue eye and one brown eye normal? Is as noted earlier having red hair or being left handed, or any of the other things that a minority of humans have…normal? Why should sexual orientation matter more, than the ability to digest milk?
I don’t know if you answered this or not, if your alien picked up a left handed, white skined blonde, who could digest milk fat, and was hetrosexual; would that person be a good representation of the human race? Would that person be a better representation than a dark skinned, right-handed person with lactose intolerance who happened to be gay?
If so, why?
I like homosexuality as a counter-example to intelligent design. However, a little thought will give you some advantages of it. A family with a homosexual uncle would have the advantage of an additional hunter supporting children without the disadvantage of additional mouths to feed. Thus, genes in the mother or father for homosexuality might tend to propagate through these kids, who have a better chance of success, while dying out in the homosexual person himself. I’m not saying this happens, but it shows there can be non-obvious advantages.
How do I know how human sexuality is supposed to function? Because the whole (evolutionary) purpose of sexuality is reproduction. That is the purpose of the sexes, the genitalia, and all that. If we reproduced like amoebas, then sexuality would have no purpose. But we don’t, and so it does.
First, kudos to you for being willing to back away from using words with connotations you didn’t mean. But, is genius normal? The percentage of the population with IQs above 140, not to mention above 160, is far smaller than the percentage of homosexuals. If you’re using “normal” in a statistical sense, no problem, but it seems you are using it in a judgemental sense (even if you don’t mean to) which is why you’re getting this reaction. Are you treating the diversity of human characteristics the same, or does this one get special attention?
As a gay person, I do not consider you a bigot if you do not like the esthetics of watching two men have sex. But what about two women? Does THAT turn you on?
I am not a sexist. But do you know what two large, perky boobs on a beautiful young woman look like to me? Like two big growths that shouldn’t be there. Like when you see a person with a huge swelling on one side of the face, kind of like the Elephant man.
Am I a racist? It so happens I am not turned on by Chinese/East Asian men. Not meaty enough, practically no body hair. Frankly, I tried it once and I felt like I was a child molester having sex with a pre-pubescent boy! Yecccchhhh! Turned me right off! But that does not make me a racist. I would actively oppose any racist measures or racial slurs against the Chinese or other east asians. I love Chinese food, Asian culture. I respect and am friends with many asiatic persons. I do not demand that Chinese marriages be illegal.
Maybe some Chinese gays (or women) find westerners unappealing from a sexual point of view. Big brutes, overmuscled and usually too fat, covered in body hair. Like having sex with an ape.
But then again, there are gay whites who are crazy about east asians. And I know at least one gay Chinese guy who seems to be most turned on by the most caucasian characteristics he can find. Very fair, tall, hairy, mucular blonds are his idea of heaven. He actually dislikes sex with other asiatics.
Are you bigoted against pregnant women? No? Have you ever watched the “wonderful, non-perverted, perfectly natural miracle” of child birth? Bring yer barf bag!
There is nothing wrong with personal esthethic preferences. And any gay person who tells you you are a bigot because you do not like to watch or have gay sex is a fucking idiot.
Finally, about furries. I did not even know what a furry was until I went to the cite you gave. But here we have the usual trap that is always set for gay people. We are asked to justify every other form of eroticism.
The idea seems to be that there are only two forms of sex. 1) George on top of Martha with a marriage licence in one hand or 2) all the other forms of sex from consenting adult homosexuality to furries to child rape to necrophilia and bestiality.
If you try to say that one item from list 2) is all right, the argument goes, then you must justify them all.
Bullshit! I am not falling into that trap. I am a gay man attracted to other consenting males. I hold no brief for anyone else.
It’s really not. I’m assuming you’re taking heterosexuality as your “normal sexuality”, in which case the complete opposite might be being sexually attracted to trees. Or pigeons (can you tell i’m looking out the window?). Even if we only include human attractions, the direct opposite of your “normal sexuality” would be to be attracted to overweight, ugly children of the same sex as yourself that you hate. By placing the emphasis on the male-female aspect of heterosexual relationships, you’re missing that that is only one defining feature; the sole difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, sure, but far from the only feature of sexuality.
[QUOTE=Absolute]
How do I know how human sexuality is supposed to function? Because the whole (evolutionary) purpose of sexuality is reproduction. QUOTE]
Well, I will say this for you, Absolute, you sure like to deal in absolutes! So every time you have sex with your woman you and she are hoping and praying for another pregnancy?
Once your woman reaches menopause you will cease to have sex altogether?
You have never used contraception?
The average human being has maybe 10,000 to 30,000 orgasms in a lifetime (counting masturbation). Evolution wanted us to have that many offspring?
Why are human females the only ones who want sex even after they are pregnant?
Think what the words “whole purpose” mean. Does every function and behaviour have to have one and only one purpose? Could social interaction and cohesion, or even just the release of stress and tension through pleasure not be an equally important (or even MORE important) auxilliary purpose of sex?
As the Bible says, “It is not good for man to be alone”.
By using the term “glitch” and what you’ve said since it appears that you would correct it in the womb if you could, like blindness or a deviated sceptum. Is that correct?
There is evidence that it does serve a purpose, as others have noted. A percentage of gay relatives could provide added resources for existing children. It could simply be a byproduct of the complexity of human brains. If your definition of benefitial is that it leads directly to reproduction then the majority of human activity serves no purpose.
And you failed to address the fact that plenty of homosexuals reproduce. It’s not a bar to having kids, so your whole point pretty much goes out the window.
You know, the Marquis de Sade came to exactly the opposite conclusion. He insisted that the vagina was a “square,” such that hetero sex was a bit of a round-peg-in-a-square-hole arrangement. Not such a surprising conclusion, given his proclivities.
But anyway… Absolute, so long as your aversions don’t “deter [you] from supporting gay rights,” I think you’re in the clear. You can be a small-b bigot, and keep your mouth shut in the right company, and no one will be the wiser. That’s what most of us do plenty of times anyway. Otherwise the word “tact” has no meaning, right?