• Homosexuality is apparently a disease according to India's health minister
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Theorisable;30938365]Maybe not a disease but isn't homosexuality a mental disorder? It is not part of normal development or culture, therefore would be classed as a mental disorder, right?[/QUOTE] are you from fox news? i heard they hire people like you there
Guys guys, I need help. Since homosexuality is a disease I need the cure! Help I'm sick!
[QUOTE=Bordercrosser;30947665]Guys guys, I need help. Since homosexuality is a disease I need the cure! Help I'm sick![/QUOTE] We need to test you for the Freddie Mercury disease!!!
Is anyone really surprised that India does shit like this I once talked to an Indian girl on Omegle and for some reason my bisexuality got mentioned, she was surprised that I wasn't in jail for it because she believed that India's approach to alternative sexualities was the most liberal in the world
[QUOTE=Omali;30940769]Homosexuality is natural, though. It appears in other species, and I remember recently seeing a scientific article speculating that homosexuality may be a natural response to overpopulation but that they need more information to develop that theory. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/url][/QUOTE] That's the running theory that Zoologists/Biologists/Ecologists work off of.
For fucks sake, when can we move away from this whole anti-gay fiasco and progress as a species?
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30952082]That's the running theory that Zoologists/Biologists/Ecologists work off of.[/QUOTE] indeed gays are a natural response to overpopulation as it says, and they play a useful role due to the fact they will not produce children
[QUOTE=Anteep2;30953206]indeed gays are a natural response to overpopulation as it says, and they play a useful role due to the fact they will not produce children[/QUOTE] I'm 100% gay AND transgendered and I sure as hell WILL be having children with my partner when the time comes.
Haha, disease. Ignorant fuck. It's a mental disorder, not a disease.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;30953206] gays are a natural response to overpopulation as it says, and they play a useful role due to the fact they will not produce children[/QUOTE] that's incredibly offensive
[QUOTE=LordApocca;30953442]Haha, disease. Ignorant fuck. It's a mental disorder, not a disease.[/QUOTE]Well fuck you too, it's naturally occurring, not liking chocolate isn't a mental disorder, is it?
This doesn't even make sense, with India having the whole third gender thing.
[QUOTE=Nerts;30953559]Well fuck you too, it's naturally occurring, not liking chocolate isn't a mental disorder, is it?[/QUOTE] could we stop using appeal to nature? it makes both sides look like complete idiots. literally everything is naturally occurring
[QUOTE=Kyle902;30953423]I'm 100% gay AND transgendered and I sure as hell WILL be having children with my partner when the time comes.[/QUOTE] Adoption though, you cannot have your own biological children with your partner. What he's saying is 100% accurate from a biological perspective and why homosexuality is encountered across the animal kingdom. The "overpopulation response" is the theory that has any backing to it if you go through the literature.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;30953206]indeed gays are a natural response to overpopulation as it says, and they play a useful role due to the fact they will not produce children[/QUOTE] So why were there gay people before the earth was overpopulated
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30953616]Adoption though, you cannot have your own biological children with your partner. What he's saying is 100% accurate from a biological perspective and why homosexuality is encountered across the animal kingdom. The "overpopulation response" is the theory that has any backing to it if you go through the literature.[/QUOTE] surrogate mothers. [editline]6th July 2011[/editline] Your point is invalid.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30953595]could we stop using appeal to nature? it makes both sides look like complete idiots. literally everything is naturally occurring[/QUOTE]I mean it as in it's "human nature", it's something instinctual, not something that you put thought into. I did word that badly though.
[QUOTE=Nerts;30953632]I mean it as in it's "human nature", it's something instinctual, not something that you put thought into. I did word that badly though.[/QUOTE] literally everything humans do is human nature
[QUOTE=Kyle902;30953625]surrogate mothers. [editline]6th July 2011[/editline] Your point is invalid.[/QUOTE] To be fair I think it would be better to adopt a kid But it's your choice of course
[QUOTE=Kyle902;30953625]surrogate mothers.[/QUOTE] True, but that's a hell of a lot of expense to go to, being as if it's to be fully your biological children, you have to denucleate an egg and replace it with nuclear material from one of the male partners. (It's actually a lot easier for lesbians than it is gay men) And, of course, you have to find a woman willing to be a surrogate mother, and more importantly, willing to give up the child when she's carried it to term. The bonds of motherhood and all that. The point being, without resorting to SCIENCE! you would not be able to have children that were biologically your own. And Zeke129 - Local overcrowding. Humans have always grouped together for protection, etc. Overcrowding does not mean global, it's a biological response to overcrowding in your immediate local population, which Humans have been doing since we learned how to live in caves and then build houses.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30953648]literally everything humans do is human nature[/QUOTE]I don't think I know enough psychology to be able to argue this properly.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30953649]To be fair I think it would be better to adopt a kid But it's your choice of course[/QUOTE] I probably am going to adopt rather then surrogacy I was just pointing out that it is possible without adoption
-read thread completely wrong-
[QUOTE=Kyle902;30953738]I probably am going to adopt rather then surrogacy I was just pointing out that it is possible without adoption[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I really don't see how my point is invalid. Homosexuality is entirely a natural thing, for the reasons stated (actually go learn the associated science before sweepingly declaring my point invalid), and under "natural" circumstances a homosexual couple would be incapable of having their own children. Science has got a way around it, but that does nothing to alter the fact that homosexuality is (around 80% certain to be so) a biological response to overcrowding, with other factors (biological, psychological, etc) influencing who expresses it. All the biological systems that work to keep you ticking do not know or care that science can allow you to have your biological children should you so wish. Sanius, I know you rated me dumb because of bringing up the "natural" argument, and I agree with you that it's a stupid argument, however, in no way was I arguing that homosexuality was unnatural, entirely the opposite. Actually follow the thread of reasoning and see where I'm coming from before you start doing shit like that. I was talking about a medical procedure, which is "unnatural" in that you could not do it if you did not have access to some pretty decent lab/medical equipment. I was also talking about homosexuality from a biological/ecological perspective, which humans are NOT exempt from however you might wish it.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30941311]It doesn't work like that.. And just for the sake of argument, God would allow love between two males too, it's just the close-minded people that don't.[/QUOTE] True. But then he'd send you to hell to burn for all eternity so he's really, REALLY fucking petty. God, you're a douche.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30953820]I'm sorry, I really don't see how my point is invalid. Homosexuality is entirely a natural thing, for the reasons stated (actually go learn the associated science before sweepingly declaring my point invalid), and under "natural" circumstances a homosexual couple would be incapable of having their own children. Science has got a way around it, but that does nothing to alter the fact that homosexuality is (around 80% certain to be so) a biological response to overcrowding, with other factors (biological, psychological, etc) influencing who expresses it. All the biological systems that work to keep you ticking do not know or care that science can allow you to have your biological children should you so wish[/QUOTE] Everything humanity does is completely and utterly natural. Yet again your point is invalidated.
science is natural
To elaborate. unnatural means something goes against nature. However everything humanity has done goes along quite nicely with the natural order of things. Ergo everything we do is natural.
anything that happens in nature is natural everything is natural
[QUOTE=Kyle902;30954018]To elaborate. unnatural means something goes against nature. However everything humanity has done goes along quite nicely with the natural order of things. Ergo everything we do is natural.[/QUOTE] I'm not referring to it in that way. I'm referring to it ecologically. Ecologically, homosexual couples can not have children (Due to the normal biological process not working for them), ergo homosexual couples being able to have children is ecologically unnatural. I'm talking about it from the perspective of your biology, which does not account for our intelligence. The ways in which we are exactly the same as every other animal which is incapable of bending the rules as we are due to our intelligence. From that perspective. You guys are the touchiest people I think I've met. "THERE IS ONLY OUR TRUTH, EVERYTHING IS NATURAL, THERE IS NO OTHER PERSPECTIVE" - Which is a load of crap. Socially/Psychologically - Homosexual couples having children is normal. Biologically - Not so much (as in, your base biology does not allow for it)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.