[QUOTE=Amp]
How is homosexual by “definition” perverted? Homo is Latin for same and ** sexual** is, well English for sex. So by definition homosexual just means same sex. How do you get perverted out of that?
[/QUOTE]
Greek for “same”. “Homo” is Latin for “human”.
[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
I thought that the urge/desire to reproduce is evident in every animal species, including humans, and that urge was/is needed to ensure the survival of the species. If gays/lesbians are hard-wired without the urge to reproduce, well, that’s probably not ‘natural’, in the grand scheme of things.
[/QUOTE]
I’m afraid you’re not seeing the grand scheme of things properly.
[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
I said ‘urge to reproduce’, not ‘have kids’. In other words - the urge to pass on your DNA, to replicate the species.
One argument I’ve heard against homosexuals being hard-wired at birth is that if they were born that way (i.e., without the desire to pass on their DNA), then wouldn’t homosexuality ultimately die out?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly not! See my post above to learn why homosexuality is an excellent evolutionary strategy; one that MUST have evolved and one that will not be going away. There’s more to evolution than direct reproduction.
So what you’re saying is that evolution is the cause of homosexuality? Throw in school prayer and you’ve got the Religious Right trifecta 
I do have a serious question, though - Is anything known about how pair-bonding worked for gays in these hunter-gatherer cultures? Did they form long term relationships? If so, was there an evolutionary advantage for the partner who doesn’t share any genes with the children? Did each partner help their blood relatives only, or all the children in the extended family?
What amazes me is how ambushed refers to these theories of how homosexuals functioned in prehistoric times as known fact. The fact is, we know nothing about how homosexuals fit into societies in prehistoric times; the rest if speculation.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
What amazes me is how ambushed refers to these theories of how homosexuals functioned in prehistoric times as known fact. The fact is, we know nothing about how homosexuals fit into societies in prehistoric times; the rest if speculation.
[/QUOTE]
The same is true of any societal trend in prehistoric times, though. The only thing we can be certain of is that male-female sex occurred; we know nothing of how heterosexuals fit into societies, either.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
What amazes me is how ambushed refers to these theories of how homosexuals functioned in prehistoric times as known fact.
[/QUOTE]
Then you’re far too easily “amazed”. What I’ve recounted is the predominant theory of the evolutionary development of homosexuality. You do believe in evolution and natural selection, right? What I’ve said is on a scientific par with a great deal of evolutionary theory. There’s nothing amazing about it.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
The fact is, we know nothing about how homosexuals fit into societies in prehistoric times; the rest if speculation.
[/QUOTE]
What you’re arguing is precisely the same as the creationists on this point; i.e., if we didn’t observe it directly, it can’t be scientific. Bullshit. Evolutionary theory tells us a great deal about that which can never be observed directly. Furthermore, anthropology has told us a great deal about homosexuals in primitive societies, which is directly useful – along with other data – in understand how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived.
Read a book somtime.
[QUOTE=ambushed]
Read a book somtime.
[/QUOTE]
Calm down. And read some more, yourself.
The theory you have outlined is plausible. I tend to believe it has a certain amount of validity. However, the notion of the altruistic bachelor uncle is nowhere so solidly established as you have presented it. It may be correct or we may discover some other agent in the “evolution” of homosexuality, but neither declaring it as Truth nor lashing out at posters who question your declarations as too absolute and doctrinaire will make those hypotheses any more true.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Calm down. And read some more, yourself.
[/QUOTE]
I’m perfectly calm. I suggested Walloon read a book because he’s said as much to others who disagreed with him/her (and now you’ve joined in). It was a stab at wry humor, albeit with perhaps more stab than I’d intended.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The theory you have outlined is plausible. I tend to believe it has a certain amount of validity. However, the notion of the altruistic bachelor uncle is nowhere so solidly established as you have presented it.
[/QUOTE]
I believe I sufficiently qualified a sufficient number of my statements. I’m fully aware that it has not been proven and is in fact very difficult to prove, but a considerable number of much less plausible hypotheses are routinely covered (in the media, at least) with as much or more apparent certainty. I did not expect a message board to hold contributors to the same standard as a scientific journal.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
It may be correct or we may discover some other agent in the “evolution” of homosexuality, but neither declaring it as Truth nor lashing out at posters who question your declarations as too absolute and doctrinaire will make those hypotheses any more true.
[/QUOTE]
I admit I’m reading between the lines, but the hostile wording of his/her post led me to believe it was not merely a statement that this had yet to be proven but rather that what I wrote was wildly speculative. It struck me as a kind of counter-statement that homosexuality could be natural and beneficial. Certainly he could have made his position more clear and yet chose not to.
The OP recycles the old trope that basically all homosexuals and acceptance of homosexuality requires you to personally enjoy or want homosexual sex. That’s more than enough to tell me where he’s coming from.
To everyone else: we’ve all had this discussion over normalcy before. We all understand the concept: calling something “normal” or a “glitch” or whatever, requires a very particular subjective understanding of what humanity or any part of human life is FOR (and I think many of us here have no such understanding: we don’t believe there such a pre-exissting design or purpose outside of human needs and judgements). But because this is a judgement, there is no good way to come to full agreement about it. This is especially futile in the case of our OP here, who obviously does have a very strong idea of what humanity and human qualities are “for”: so strong that he thinks they are inherent, obvious, and unarguable. He even holds the rather unjustifiable idea that evolution and nature “intend” certain things. I don’t think this is going to end well.
Does homosexuality have a positive benefit? Sure: obviously. For homosexuals. It does doesn’t seem to hurt anybody else.
What does “perverted” mean? Well, it is a term often used to denigrate a certain non-approved form sexuality (though sometimes, this denigration is part of a form of sexuality, for instance, Evil Captor’s). So, it’s just another value judgement. Subjective. We’re back where we started.
[QUOTE=Absolute]
I ask this because this seems to be the opinion of some people (gay and straight) I’ve met: that if you have any aversion to homosexuality, hell, if you’re not practically willing to screw someone of the same sex, you’re a bigot. And that doesn’t really make sense.
[/QUOTE]
I suspect you’re indulging in a little hyperbole here, but perhaps not; I would say that a person making the above(graped by me, for emphasis) statement is indulging in bigotry, since bigotry is partiality to your own group/kind and intolerance of others.
But anyway, as others have said, disliking something personally is not the same as condemning it or being generally opposed to it; I dislike caviar; I tried it a few times, even tried to like it, but it’s just not going to happen - now the stuff just turns my stomach, but if you or anyone else wants to eat it, knock yourself out! There are other things (in a broader sense than foodstuffs) that I have decided I personally dislike without even trying them; perhaps this makes me unadventurous, but hardly bigoted unless I embark upon a campaign to persuade others that they too, should not partake.
I thought everyone was bisexual
From the moment I saw it, I considered the kinsey scale such an oversimplification as to be pointless; a one-dimensional line to describe human sexuality? Pshaw!
[QUOTE=Absolute]
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? Homosexuality is the completely opposite of normal sexuality.
[/QUOTE]
Even if you don’t realise it yourself, I think you’re starting to show your hand. You backed off from calling it a perversion, which was good, but you’re really clinging to the idea of “normal”, which in this case, is definately inching toward bigotry. We like to classify a lot of things as binary options, even though they really aren’t. Sexuality covers a wide spectrum with “pure” hetero- or homo- as only the most extreme ends of the curve. Historically, there wasn’t even the concept of straight or gay, even though people engaged in both types of relationships. By naming it, we tend to pretend there are no other options or descriptors. I think indie-girls in glasses rockin’ cat-and-girl haircuts, knee-high stockings and doc martens are totally hot, but there’s no name for that. There’s not really any way to say that any one type of sexual attraction is the opposite of another. If you look for exactly the same things in a woman that another woman does, do you really have opposite sexualities? How is hers not normal?
[QUOTE=Absolute]
Would you grant that transexuality is a glitch?
[/QUOTE]
Only for the person experiencing it, because it involves a disconnect with how the person relates to him/herself. It has nothing to do with how they relate to anyone else.
[QUOTE=Absolute]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be suffering from some form of the naturalistic fallacy. “Is” doesn’t equal “should”. All evolution and science can tell you is what something did or currently does, and how it does it. It has no goal or purpose.
There are plenty of traits that are invisible to evolution because their existence or nonexistence doesn’t affect the survival of the organism. Really, if you ascribe to the “selfish gene” theory, it’s probably one of the best guarantees of success. Aside from that, what is “useful” now may not be in the future, and traits that had no utility before, may suddenly become advantageous in a new environment.
As for what humans would look like if we were intelligently designed, I would think we’d be solid body organisms that reproduced asexually, so I don’t see how that helps your argument.
But again, the fact that a penis delivers sperm to an egg through a vagina does not mean that is a “purpose”. It’s just one of the things it can do. We essentially “make” purpose by how we choose to use or experience something. In fact, most of evolution involves co-opting a structure or system that was originally used for something else. Considering the ratio of sex acts to actual births, I think it would be difficult to say that the purpose of sex is procreation. If anything it’s “getting our rocks off”.
So, yeah, homosexuality is perfectly natural.
[quote=Salt Seller]
I think absolute is more or less accurate in describing transexuality as a glitch, and I think it helps highlight why he’s mistaken in thinking homosexuality is a glitch. A big difference between homosexuals and transexuals is that transexuals tend to see their condition as something that needs to be corrected. It’s not uncommon for them to refer to being transexual as a birth defect. This is not at all a common viewpoint among homosexuals, who don’t see it as a defect or something that needs to be corrected.
absolute, I think the problem with your terminology is that you keep using words that unmistakably imply something that ought to be corrected. Something with a “glitch” is, pretty much by definition, less worthy than something without it. If someone offered to sell you an iPod, but one had a minor glitch that it took twice as long to boot up, but otherwise worked perfectly, you’d take the one without the glitch, right? It wouldn’t even be a question. And that’s a prejudice. When you call homosexuality a flaw, even a really, really, really small one, you’re showing a prejudice against homosexuals. I wouldn’t call you a bigot over it, it doesn’t make you a bad person. It’s… well, it’s just a glitch, I guess.
I have a deep emotional aversion to male homosexual practice in that, to me, nothing could be more disgusting than to have sex with a man. Of course, I have just as deep an emotional aversion to snakes. I also know that there are men who are sexually attracted to other men. And there are people who enjoy playing with snakes. (Please, let’s not go making connections between snakes and penises – I’ve been in plenty of locker rooms, grew up with three brothers and raised two sons, and I’ve never seen a penis swallow a mouse whole.)
I do not believe the OP (why do I never check names on this thing before hitting the “Reply” button!?) is not necessarily a bigot, and I have some problems with his use of the word “perverted.” Depending on which anthropologist you talk to, homosexuality is either an anomaly that works against survival of the species, or it is actually a survival mechanism that assures an emotional bond for someone who otherwise would have difficulty attracting a mate. I’m not a scientist, and I can’t provide any evidence either way; my personal philosophy is that overall civilization is advanced enough (technologically, anyway) that “survival mechanisms” are much less important than community attitudes. And in that area, I think we still have a long way to go.
I think **Apos ** makes a good point about equating the acceptance of something with enjoyment or even approval of it. One doesn’t have to enjoy something to understand that others do. On the other hand, I don’t necessarily think this thread is going to end badly. And I think we should discuss the subject as often as possible, because it’s through discussions like this that I’ve been able to clarify my emotions and my opinions about many subjects, including homosexuality. And isn’t that what StraightDope is really for?
I don’t think humankind will ever answer the question, “Is homosexuality normal or is it a glitch?” because, in time, the question will become moot (it already is for homosexuals, and becoming more so for the rest of us.) I do think that homosexuality MUST be studied, because that’s the only way we can understand it and, eventually, stop fearing it. A humorist recently chastized people who use the word “homophobia” because it implies a fear of homosexuals, and the guy just wasn’t afraid of people who (insert any gay stereotype here.) But I think homophobia truly is a fear; it’s an irrational, survival-based fear, because to heterosexuals, homosexuality is counter-intuitive – like me picking up a snake.
And as long as the OP doesn’t start suggesting that homosexuals should have “separate but equal” lives, then I just can’t tag him as a bigot. It may be unfair of him to label homosexuality as a perversion, but it’s just as unfair to label anyone who supports civil rights for all human beings as a bigot.
Note: I didn’t read the whole thread, and I apologize in advance. I only wanted to offer an opinion. Let the debate continue 
If you consider homosexuals to be disgusting, then yes, I think that could be a bigot.
If, however, you cannot imagine being in a homosexual, intimate situation without being disgusted, then you’d probably just be straight.
Personally, your assertion that homosexuality is “perverted” leads me to believe that, yep, you might be a bigot.
You are entitled to your opinions and convictions, though. YOu say that you support people whose activities disgust you. I think that that is a highly (and enviably) magnanimous attitude.
So, no, I don’t think the situation warrants the label of “bigot.” It’s be nice if you could be more accepting, but you’re doing a hell of a lot better than most people who are unsettled by homosexuality.
I am convinced as a physician of many years that homosexual males are primarily that as a result of genetics.
I do not believe that male homosexuals voluntarily choose males over females.
True there are always exceptions…And I am not convinced that the genetic factor plays a large part in female homosexuals.
If I am correct…and in my experience the majority of physicians believe in the genetic etiology, how could homosexuality bring back such negative opinion by so many? Its not my bag, but if males prefer being with males, so what?
As far as normal or abnormal is concerned: I think that most people consider something normal if it agrees with them and abnormal if they do not agree.
[QUOTE=OliverTwistofLime]
I am convinced as a physician of many years that homosexual males are primarily that as a result of genetics.
[/QUOTE]
What about homosexual females?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
What about homosexual females?
[/QUOTE]
Whoops. I see you address that. What makes you think the genetic factor plays less of a part in female homosexuality?
Please join, Salt Seller, we need posters like you.
The answer to the question in the title is yes. If you said that, I would call you a bigot. If you just thought that, I wouldn’t – even if I could somehow read your mind. But only a 'phobe would say ‘disgusting and perverted’ in reference to gayness. Anyone might say the idea of anyone having sex with anyone else is unappealing to them – no problem there. But those are loaded words, and no one but a bigot or someone raised on Mars could possibly utter them and seriously expect to escape criticism.