Homosexuality is:

[synexo]

Considering all the debate on the subject, I thought a show of hands may be in order.

[simon1603]

I would love to choose an answer, but not being homosexual i can pick one of the answers. None of them seem right and none of them seem wrong. Im stuck in the middle somewhere.

 

Went for reproductive disorder, maybe something goes wrong during pregnancy or something?

[coolcat13]

none of the above its just the way certain individuals obtain hapiness

[GeneralLee]

Damn synexo, what ya doing with all these stats? Writing a book???

 

:)

[StevenofNine]

None of the above, and for the most part, probably none of your business.

 

 

[maverick]

i think the topic has gon far enough dude.

 

i find this poll offensive, none of the above are correct or necessary.

 

 

[tinpusher]

I refuse to take part in your childish little poll.

The options in your poll show that you have a marked dislike for gay people and attempts to paint them with a brush of intolerance.

Perhaps you should look to your heart to find the correct answer to your question, because anyone who would waste as much time on this issue as you have is probably harboring some homosexual tendancies. If this is the case, then you should see a counselor and perhaps he or she can help you overcome your self-loathing and that will allow you to be happy with your self and embrace your sexuality. And if it isnt the case just remember that a persons sexuality is personal and, therefore, none of your business.

Being gay, just as being straight, is a perfectly natural and perfectly normal thing; just as being born with blond, brown, black, or red hair is natural and normal.

 

[Oma]

I think it's too simple a poll - I lean toward homosexuality being a possible trait in us all and/or that some gay people just follow a trend (subconciously)....

I can't pick one - in fact, I can't pick any.

[Sunrise]

I refuse to take part in your childish little poll.

The options in your poll show that you have a marked dislike for gay people and attempts to paint them with a brush of intolerance.

Being gay, just as being straight, is a perfectly natural and perfectly normal thing; just as being born with blond, brown, black, or red hair is natural and normal.

 

Well I personally wouldn't find any offence in any sort of poll about being heterosexual.

Homosexuals* rave about wanting equality (which I assume would include being the topic of conversation and the brunt of jokes from time to time), but when they are given the equality/topics of conversation/jokes, they are the first to go up in arms and moan about it. This behaviour, I feel, does nothing except ensure they remain without equality.

 

* Or many other minorities

 

[synexo]

i think the topic has gon far enough dude.

 

i find this poll offensive, none of the above are correct or necessary.

 

 

People forget, it is not some sort of fundamental right to 'not be offended'. Regardless, you should not be offended, dude. 'none of the above' is one of the available answers. In fact, I am almost certain that it will have the greatest number of votes, because people who do agree with one of the other options will be split between multiple decisions. What I am curious to see is what percentage of people believe the idea that seems so prevelant in our discussions, that being that there is absolutely no disorder associated with homosexuality.

 

As to whether or not I have homosexual tendencies, I'm probably 'more gay' than your average heterosexual. I'm not too macho, I'm perverted, and I like to cuddle. As it happens though, I only seem to have erections around women.

[tinpusher]

What I am curious to see is what percentage of people believe the idea that seems so prevelant in our discussions, that being that there is absolutely no disorder associated with homosexuality.

 

If that were true, then you would have made that one of the options in your poll since you say that you believe the reason most people pick "none of the above" is because they think that it is some combination of one or more of the above. So I must reiterate that the options you provided show your bias. If you want to get solid irefutable statistical results you must allow for the possibility that someone will disagree with you.

[razorlock]

If you look at this topic in purely biological terms, there are a couple of things to note.

1) Your perspective on creation itself. Is man an intentended creature or the product of matter organizing itself according to the underlying characteristics of matter.

2) If you conclude the former, then reproduction could be argued to be an integral part of the specifications of life. If you conclude the latter, reproduction is just a trait exhibited by a self replicating entity. Put it this way: depending on your take on life, functional reproductive strategy is either the norm - a must - or a could.

 

I myself lean more towards the view we have come into existence as a result of mechanics rather than intent. In that view being naturaly inclined to form parterships that have the spontaneous potential to reproduce is no more than a prerequisite of us being here. It does not mean there is any specific perfect way of being. All is organised chaos. All is valid. In this context is important to distinguish between cause and purpose. Think of it this way. Rain does not fall so that trees can grow. Rather trees can grow because rain falls. It's not predetermination, but rather mechanics.

True once we're here we have the ability to choose. These are guided by values. These are partially hardwired and form a biological program of do's and don'ts. This is what we call instinct. Homosexuality, when adhered to strictly, may cause extinction. Many of those organisms that would attempt this type of reproduction, or none for that matter, are incapable of achieving offspring. Thus those organism with an aversion to this type of (attempted) reproduction survive. Their aversions are inherited. This is what gets tranmitted through our genes. Succesfull strategies of survival then cause aversion to unsuccesfull ones. All of this is purely mechanical. None of it concludes that it is wrong. It's just not reproductively viable.

 

Thus: homosexuality is a reproductive dysfunctionality, not a moral one. It's a valid way of being. It doesn't mean the person (biological-machine) is broken. Just doesn't help procreation.

 

Let me make sure I underscore the difference between a disorder and a dysfuntionality. A disorder presuposes a correct way to be, a goal. Dysfunctionality just indicates a hinderance to achieve a result, not that this result has any value.

 

If you break this entire argument down to either life being about A ) physical mechanics (reproducing) or B ) spiritual process (development), it works out the same way.

Even if you believe in predetermination (God), does he care more about who you are and how you live or that you reproduce? Plenty of clerics (priests) don't reproduce, think they'll go to hell?

[c0g]

You forgot to add a choice in your poll:

 

0 This is Stupid

[maverick]

i think the topic has gon far enough dude.

 

i find this poll offensive, none of the above are correct or necessary.

 

 

People forget, it is not some sort of fundamental right to 'not be offended'. Regardless, you should not be offended, dude. 'none of the above' is one of the available answers. In fact, I am almost certain that it will have the greatest number of votes, because people who do agree with one of the other options will be split between multiple decisions. What I am curious to see is what percentage of people believe the idea that seems so prevelant in our discussions, that being that there is absolutely no disorder associated with homosexuality.

 

As to whether or not I have homosexual tendencies, I'm probably 'more gay' than your average heterosexual. I'm not too macho, I'm perverted, and I like to cuddle. As it happens though, I only seem to have erections around women.

 

 

ok, so dont listen to me.

 

read everyone elses posts.

 

 

[c0g]

It doesn't mean the person (biological-machine) is broken. Just doesn't help procreation.

 

but it does help with procreation....

 

< repost >

 

I hold each and every one of these statements to be both self-evident, and independently verifiable:

 

In a beehive, only one couple breeds. Every other member of their nation works for the protection of these offspring. This is an extremely effective arrangement used by multiple colonial insect species.

 

In any species, one mated pair raising multiple offspring consumes fewer resources than multiple mated pairs each raising one offspring. Each pair that does not breed frees up unused resources, while still contributing to the over all advantage of the group. Many advanced mammals like wolves use this tactic, where only one or two pairs breed, while the entire pack helps to raise the offspring.

 

In every species of mammal ever observed, sexual contact between individuals of the same sex are known to occur.

 

Homosexuals contribute to and promote the survival of the various species that produce this behavior by contributing to the likelihood of survival of breeder’s offspring. From a gay doctor treating an adolescent illness, to a gay teacher supplying survival skills to youth, to a gay farmer growing food. Or for that matter; a gay dolphin fighting off sharks, or a gay wolf regurgitating part of the kill back at the den for pups, or a gay monkey acting as lookout for the troop while mothers feed.

 

Being a productive member of a species while asking nothing for your own offspring is a major contribution to the chances of species wide survival. This selfless act provides relief of habitat pressures by limiting competition within the species for resources needed for the rearing of offspring. So, although reproductive sex is between a male and a female, it is more likely that the offspring will survive to breeding age thanks to the contributions made by homosexual non breeding pairs or individuals within the over all population.

 

Any individual member of a species that is contributing to the over all survival of that species is directly benefiting the entire species.

[razorlock]

Understand what you're saying, but it's a bit too mechanistic for me. But those are just my sentivities. Next to that, looking at the dispersal patern of reproductive couples, the strategy bees use isn't the same as we do. There are just not enough homosexuals around to sustain that assumption.

Interesting angle though.

[S0V13T]

This is gotta be the most flambouyant display of biggotry I've ever seen in this forum. I thik you forgot to include the option

 

() Irrelevent. Personal preference is no one's busniess but their own.

 

I cant wait to see the next poll ...

 

White Power

 

()Necessary

()Awesome

()Only way to go

()All of the above

()None of the above

 

// Not gay, and definatelly not into the whole biggotry thing

[c0g]

Understand what you're saying, but it's a bit too mechanistic for me. But those are just my sentivities. Next to that, looking at the dispersal patern of reproductive couples, the strategy bees use isn't the same as we do. There are just not enough homosexuals around to sustain that assumption.

Interesting angle though.

 

Your right, we need more Drones!! That’s why "They" are trying to make everyone gay!!!

 

But seriously, the 5-15% homosexual portion of our species is still contributing to the rearing of offspring, while lessoning the competitive habitat pressures. This ratio has served us well for a long time, but we are changing faster than evolution can keep up. At this point in our development, it could be argued that we could benefit from a larger percentage of non-breeders, whether gay or just celibate trekies.

 

[Cerberus]

I dont know, but from a semantic point of view all of the options seemed to be stacked in a negative way. By implying that something is a disorder implies that there is something inherantly wrong with it. While scientific studies have shown that there is a mental disposition for certain people to become homosexual, it certaintly doesnt imply that there is anything wrong with it, nor are such studies conclusive.

 

I would have to agree with the rest of the open minded community here in saying that I find this particular poll distasteful.

 

Needless to say I voted for none of the above.

[Weyoun]

I have to agree that this poll is set up in a vary negative way. Even if you do beleive it to be a disorder, it is not very scientific to set up a poll where every real option is leaning on one side of the debate. It is really obvious the answers that you are hinting for, regardless of the "none of the above" option.