Homosexuality is apparently a disease according to India's health minister
126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sanius;30953445]that's incredibly offensive[/QUOTE]
He may be completely wrong, but I don't see what could be construed as offensive in that one post.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30954115]He may be completely wrong, but I don't see what could be construed as offensive in that one post.[/QUOTE]
it implied that gays shouldn't have kids because nature tells them not to
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30953617]So why were there gay people before the earth was overpopulated[/QUOTE]
demon spawn obviously
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30954132]it implied that gays shouldn't have kids because nature tells them not to[/QUOTE]
Oh. I guess, but I didn't really see that implication in his post.
Not to mention he said almost the exact same thing as Omali.
[quote] 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"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals[/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30954132]it implied that gays shouldn't have kids because nature tells them not to[/QUOTE]
He didn't say that at all, he said they were biologically incapable of procreating unaided, and why that might be ecologically beneficial in animal populations. Which, unless human biology has drastically changed since I last looked, they are. He stated the facts, nowhere did he imply that they shouldn't.
I'm not seeing the supposed implication there.
I mean if they adopt, they'd be doing the world an extra favour. Obviously the population control argument doesn't really work when you can contribute to a sperm bank or whatever too.
[editline]7th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30954114]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)[/QUOTE]
Everything [I]is[/I] natural though. You need to think more meta.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30954165]I mean if they adopt, they'd be doing the world an extra favour. Obviously the population control argument doesn't really work when you can contribute to a sperm bank or whatever too.
[editline]7th July 2011[/editline]
Everything [I]is[/I] natural though. You need to think more meta.[/QUOTE]
I'm a zoologist/ecologist by trade. I'm talking about from the ecological perspective. I agree that everything is natural, because otherwise it'd be unable to happen in this universe, the physical laws would render it impossible. So everything we ever witness is natural. But the universe is broken down into areas, and schools of thought, and from the perspective of an ecologist, it is "unnatural" (Note the ""s) for a homosexual couple to reproduce, because in nature, that is life that is not as intelligent as us, the stuff accounting for the vast majority of the terrestrial animal kingdom, it is impossible without human interference.
I should mention that I'm talking about those animals/organisms which have a clearly defined male and female gender set.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30952032]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]
For being bi?
Thats as silly as hating crayons simply for being red! They can't choose that they're red, they just are that way!
[B]EDIT[/B]
Ok wow, that was the dumbest comparison. I am a massive dumb shit.
I'm sick of all this.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30954305]I'm a zoologist/ecologist by trade. I'm talking about from the ecological perspective. I agree that everything is natural, because otherwise it'd be unable to happen in this universe, the physical laws would render it impossible. So everything we ever witness is natural. But the universe is broken down into areas, and schools of thought, and from the perspective of an ecologist, it is "unnatural" (Note the ""s) for a homosexual couple to reproduce, because in nature, that is life that is not as intelligent as us, the stuff accounting for the vast majority of the terrestrial animal kingdom, it is impossible without human interference.
I should mention that I'm talking about those animals/organisms which have a clearly defined male and female gender set.[/QUOTE]
I still wouldn't use the word "unnatural". I'd say something like just "unlikely", because there's still a chance it could happen, and it doesn't make any judgement.
Unless that's the proper scientific terminology, which would make me kind of disappointed.
[QUOTE=J!NX;30954349]For being bi?
Thats as silly as hating crayons simply for being red! They can't choose that they're red, they just are that way!
[B]EDIT[/B]
Ok wow, that was the dumbest comparison. I am a massive dumb shit.[/QUOTE]
Even though you're kind of agreeing with me I feel the need to tell you that the metaphor was horrible
crayons aren't sentient
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30954367]I still wouldn't use the word "unnatural". I'd say something like just "unlikely", because there's still a chance it could happen, and it doesn't make any judgement.
Unless that's the proper scientific terminology, which would make me kind of disappointed.[/QUOTE]
The chance is so vanishingly slim as to be impossible for organisms that fit the rigid male/female divide (Note: I'm not referring to animals which can change gender [Like clownfish, which are capable of sequential hermaphrodity and have an interesting life cycle, and also a great example of how population circumstance can dictate biology] or are hermaphroditic) as to be practically impossible (as they'd no longer fit the rigid male/female gender roles) such that we call it "unnatural". Which is a term we use to describe things that could not have occurred without human intervention.
im really confused, I thought india was great with homosexuality with their whole third gender thing
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)[/URL]
gives whole new meaning to the phrase "he's got the gay"
[QUOTE=Craigewan;30954417]The chance is so vanishingly slim as to be impossible for organisms that fit the rigid male/female divide (Note: I'm not referring to animals which can change gender [Like clownfish] or are hermaphroditic) as to be practically impossible (as they'd no longer fit the rigid male/female gender roles) such that we call it "unnatural". Which is a term we use to describe things that could not have occurred without human intervention.[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Okay, point taken.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;30938204]clearly this man has a poor scientific education[/QUOTE]
its india what do you expect
[QUOTE=Ermac20;30954883]its india what do you expect[/QUOTE]
india has many good educational facilities and the education from there (depending where you're located) is more than fine
however being from an Indian background the country is so sexually frustrated and backwards on things like that, it makes me wonder how the hell the country turned out like it did
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30954397]Even though you're kind of agreeing with me I feel the need to tell you that the metaphor was horrible
crayons aren't sentient[/QUOTE]
I know thats why I said "I'm a massive dumb shit".
Because I am.
If its unnatural then how come it occurs in nature? There are many more intelligent animals in nature that can be bi or homosexual and it has been documented.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
[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]
Studies show that females related to gay people are more fertile and have even more children. So in fact it helps create more people.
There is nothing unnatural about gays and there is nothing wrong with them,
but when the role of a species is typically seen as to survive long enough to procreate, what advantage does homosexuality bring about to the species in order to allow it to survive? When and why did homosexuality come about? That is what I am interested in.
As for those studies, I haven't heard of that but hey you might as well enlighten us a bit more than just that.
May I ask why are all the dumbasses these day's are in charge of the government?
[QUOTE=Anteep2;30962578]There is nothing unnatural about gays and there is nothing wrong with them,
but when the role of a species is typically seen as to survive long enough to procreate, what advantage does homosexuality bring about to the species in order to allow it to survive? When and why did homosexuality come about? That is what I am interested in.
As for those studies, I haven't heard of that but hey you might as well enlighten us a bit more than just that.[/QUOTE]
Less population, of course.
By now we have too many people around... to be honest, we need that help.
Homosexuality isn't unnatural, other animals do it. Hell, some plants do it.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;30968879]Homosexuality isn't unnatural, other animals do it. Hell, some plants do it.[/QUOTE]
its some natural response to high populations, to try and sorta 'lower' the reproduction rate. At least some articles say... don't count on me though.
how do gay plants even work?
[QUOTE=Anteep2;30962578]There is nothing unnatural about gays and there is nothing wrong with them,
but when the role of a species is typically seen as to survive long enough to procreate, what advantage does homosexuality bring about to the species in order to allow it to survive? When and why did homosexuality come about? That is what I am interested in.
As for those studies, I haven't heard of that but hey you might as well enlighten us a bit more than just that.[/QUOTE]
Gay penguins will often adopt a chick when the biological parents are dead. They can still contribute to the population even if they can't procreate themselves.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J68WZ63L8dk&feature=related[/media]
And that thing from family guy where theres a gay blood sample and a big alien bursts through his body
[editline]7th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;30969078]its some natural response to high populations, to try and sorta 'lower' the reproduction rate. At least some articles say... don't count on me though.
how do gay plants even work?[/QUOTE]
I think he's getting gay and hermaphrodite confused
India's health minister
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;30968879]Homosexuality isn't unnatural, other animals do it. Hell, some plants do it.[/QUOTE]
Mushrooms have thousands of sexes
I bet the n-sexual mushrooms have so much fun
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30971636]Mushrooms have thousands of sexes
[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how that works but it sounds exciting
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30971636]Mushrooms have thousands of sexes
I bet the n-sexual mushrooms have so much fun[/QUOTE]
those mushRooms have menTal disesases!!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.