Can our society thrive better without homosexuality?

Using the same “theory”, you might as well argue that society would thrive better if there were only clones, each identical to the other. Makes just as much sense (if not more).

By the way, that wasn’t a “documentary” that you were watching. That was proselytizing.

I would ask myself whether there was a shred of reproducible evidence for any opinion found in this movie before I proceeded along this train of thought. Let me give you a hint. That movie is probably the last place I would ever look to for advice about how to think.

Any civilised society worthy of the name thrives on diversity & tolerance, amongst other things.
Easy really.

@wundayatta Thats true, but what about others that look at the movie? When I made that comment, I was in the company of other people and they did not say anything but they all looked at me really funny….I hope I am not offending anybody by this, if I am I am sorry

My only concern, that somewhere down the road, if the majority of the population became homosexuals, where would the future children come from?

A persons sexual choice is just that…...their choice.

Pretty bad documentary; like @syz said, I would call that propaganda. Our world would be better off without bigots, racists, sexists etc. When homosexuals bully and kill straight people, we’ll see.

I am trying to think of a negative impact, and doing the math, and it just works out to more lonely women for me and attractive lesbians.

I am going to go with Homosexuality is a boon to the human race.

@john65pennington Homosexuality is not a choice. Moreover, it is unlikely that the majority of the human population would ever be homosexual. All of the research on its biological causes suggests otherwise.

Homosexuals are often high achievers. They are wage-earning, tax paying contributors to society just like everyone else.

They have been marvelous artists, writers, musicians and other contributors to our culture.

This sounds more like “propaganda” than documentary to me. It is obviously pushing an agenda, I would be very wary of using this as a source for information of any kind.

Nope. Overcrowding is a big problem as it is without adding any more breeders.

I agree with everyone that it’s a terrible documentry. If it said homosexuals ‘plauged’ society, well, I just find that offensive. You can’t eliminate something like that. Same with the violence, war, and crime. While the last three shouldn’t exsist, they do, and, at this point, there isn’t a chance of stopping it. Besides, if our society didn’t have or embrace homosexuals, we’d sorta be a bit communistic, right? Or am I wrong on this?

Your details betray the lie of your question. You claim that you are not “bashing” anyone, but then you refer to an anti-gay propaganda piece as a “documentary”, and claim that homosexuality is a “choice”. This is false, and a rather disgusting lie to begin with.

Get yourself some actual facts, stop listening to idiotic propaganda, and realize how backwards your world view is.

@john65pennington

According to Professor Archibald Bunker, “Even if the homasexuals achieve there agenda and convert a majority of us to they’re lifestyle, the minority of us will still be able to make babies.”. ;-)

No, this is nonsense.

@MrItty The only one that you are bashing here is me…and I would appreciate it if you stop….further more I don’t like being called a liar….WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!!!! GET OFF MY CASE…OK!

@SavoirFaire ” its biological causes ”

What are the biological causes of homosexuality?

_________

To the OP…

There are a couple of theories presented to me that I will share with you. I have no data to share other than what I’ve discussed with people I respect.

One theory suggests that homosexuality is a necessity of evolution. The theory suggests that homosexuality is an evolutionary mechanism of natural selection… a check/balance on preventing overpopulation.

Another theory suggests something similar, but the evolution is not one of biological overpopulation, but instead, a marker in the evolution of a society. Supposedly, a rise in homosexuality is directly relevant to how much a society has strayed from its founding principles. It is very natural for societies to do this. Societies evolve, and they should. A rise in homosexuality is a marker that change is about to peak. Once it does, the evolved society will then become the norm, and homosexuality frequency will once again lower, until the new society begins to evolve again.

This is related to the arts, and the need for the human mind to evolve away from traditional paradigms. Homosexuality is but one expression of the human mind insisting upon expanding away from the current model. It is a sign that current society is broken, and like everything else, must evolve or die. Keep in mind that society is not broken because of homosexuality. But rather homosexuality, along with extreme art, extreme music, extreme fashion, extreme philosophy, extreme fanatical religion… those are all signs that society is about to evolve. This is a good thing. A basic rule of life is evolve or die.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Your theories don’t hold up to the fact that homosexuality has been identified in practically every mammalian and avian species, at (very) roughly the same rate. And there are indicators that homosexuality in humans tends to be present at a relatively stable rate across racial, social, and economic groups. I would posit that it has been a relatively stable rate throughout the history of our species, as well.

I personally find your ideas that homosexuals represent an “extreme” in style, art, etc. as a gross generalization, an expression of stereotyping.

Homosexuality is not a plague. I am appalled by the idea of it being considered on par with war, violence and crime.

Our society can thrive better without ignorance.

Society would be better without disabled people, they cost money.
Society would be better without religion, it divides people.
Society would be better without liberals, they stop productivity.
Society would be better without conservatives, they’re stuck in the past.
Society would be better if there were no diversity in race, race creates hate.
Society would be better if it was more homogenous, we would get along better.
Society would be better everyone had the exact same education, nobody would be left behind.
Society would be better if men were in charge, women don’t know how to run things.
Society would be better if there were no homosexuals, they ruin our moral values.
(all of these have, at one time or another, been said by a large group of people)

Get my point?

Hogwash is hogwash.

Sigh. Ok, I am going to try my best to follow the quidelines here. First of all, this documentary sounds like religious propaganda, with a great deal of witnessing involved. I have a huge mental block against anyone having the gall to try to ram their personal beliefs onto anyone else.

Second, like others have stated, no one chooses to be homosexual. You either are, or you are not. People that claim to have changed their sexual preferences were simply experimenting with homosexuality.

Third, there is no cure. To cure someone means there was something wrong with them in the first place, and there is nothing wrong with being gay. All of these people who claim to be able to cure homosexuality (pray the gay away) are money grubbing frauds, who are going to have a great deal to answer for, when the time comes.

i live in a gay friendly city. We have an entire area that has been revitalized and is now booming with businesses, shops, art galleries, and really cool different restaurants. It is a major draw for for tourist money, as there are always fun, new, things going on. The revitalization of this area is due to one thing – gay couples who came into a rundown area, bought and rehabbed the old houses, and they are deserving of ALL of the credit for the boon this has brought to my city.

But, I digress. So, to answer your question. No, our society would not thrive more with no homosexuals. And, I find your question and your faux tolerance of gays to be rather sad, not to mention offensive. To claim that making a society thrive requires only the elimination of everyone who thinks, feels, looks,and acts differently that you sounds very familiar. Not a era we should even consider repeating. I do think, however, that society would thrive if we got rid of bigotry, narrow mindedness, and religious fanatics that think everyone should conform to their antiquated morality.

Might I ask as to when and on what channel you witnessed said documentary? Because, to be brutally honest, I do not believe you ever saw one.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Apparently, a mixture of genetics and hormonal environment of the womb. It’s an easy Google search.

It would seem that I have offended some people here, for that I am sorry. I wish that I could close the thread…

@syz “Your theories don’t hold up…”

Not my theories. Just theories I found interesting.

@syz “fact that homosexuality has been identified in practically every mammalian and avian species, at (very) roughly the same rate….”

I’m aware of that data. Don’t know if it is fact or not. Some argue that it’s a dominance issue, not homosexuality. I really don’t know. But I’m glad to know both sides of any argument.

@SavoirFaire “Apparently…”

Apparently? Have someone discovered the gay gene? This is news to me. I think it would be huge news to everyone. Maybe I’m just not up to date on the latest.

You should never fear offending anyone by asking a question @Eggie. Answers can be offensive… but questions shouldn’t be. When questions are viewed as offensive it’s usually because people don’t like talking about the subject. Don’t worry about it. You composed your words very sensitively.

@Eggie I’m not offended. I thought it was a pretty objective question, but I did assume you were just a young person that watched something and had some questions.

My first reaction to this question was WTF?
There are sooo many things that society can do without and I don’t think homosexuality is one of them.

Yes definately. The same as if fluther would be better of with no jellies that had names starting with E. Oh crap sorry Eureka.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The question he asked was fine. The details he added, which revealed his personal opinions, on the other hand, were incredibly offensive.

@Adirondackwannabe – no problem.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I say “apparently” because science is inductive, meaning no study is ever the final word. And you’ll note that I said it’s a combination of genetics and hormonal environment. No “gay gene” needed.

Which part of the OP details is “incredibly offensive” @MrItty?

Thanks @SavoirFaire.

Documentary, bwahhhaha.

Seeing how I’m queer and as are all my friends and we happen to be quite productive for this god-forsaken place, I’d say no.

The world would be a much, much poorer place without them. Their creative genius has marked civilization through the centuries. It’s been true since there was music, painting, sculpture, theater, architecture, couture, poetry, literature, and I’m sure I’m missing more.

It’s pretty hilarious as well that it seems to be becoming a stereotype that gay people are business/sucess oriented. They are everything except bad. :P

The Gaia Theory and its philosophy is much more accepting of homosexuality and is much less paradoxal when it comes to why homosexuals even exist when compared to its counterpart; The Selfish Gene Theory, formulated by Dr. Richard Dawkins.

No; just because there would no hatred of homosexuality does not mean our society would thrive better.

Our society is flawed in many ways because of people with bigoted mindsets who have a distaste for not only gays and lesbians, but for all things strange, too.

Besides, since homosexuality does exist, we can logically say that if it didn’t, there would still people who wouldn’t stop trying to commandeer the liberties of other living beings.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Claiming that the hate-filled propaganda piece he watched was a “documentary”, claiming that one’s sexual orientation is a choice, referring to homosexuality as a plague. All disgustingly offensive.

It’s true, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So if you trust the Bible’s view on human morality, it would make sense that increasing homosexuality would spell disaster for civilization.

The Bible also says that slavery should be legal (Leviticus 25:45), that rape victims should marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28) and that genocide is a godly form of warfare against rival cultures (Deuteronomy 13:12, 20:16, the entire book of Joshua).

So here are some other questions you might want to ask, based on the premise of that documentary:

“Can society thrive better if slavery were legal like the Bible says it should be?”
“Can society thrive better if women were still treated as property objects?”
“Can society thrive better if Bible-fearing Christians could simply kill all the men, women and children of rival religious cultures?”

@MrItty “Claiming that the hate-filled propaganda piece he watched was a “documentary””

It’s quite common for propaganda to be presented as documentary. In the face of a friend, the OP stood ground for different ways of life. Without seeing the film in question, and without empathizing with the environment in which it was presented to the OP, your disgust may be premature.

Your opportunity to educate is lost in disgust. I understand that your persecution may seem to justify an automatic disgust, and give you reason to feel that attacking the OP is in order. But isn’t the resolve found in open dialogue? Especially with one who’s come to the table with questions?

I know that’s very difficult. Here I am suggesting that you offer more understanding to the background that someone carries with their questioning. And yet I know that you have your own background as well, which influences the temper of your response.

These discussion won’t progress to fully understanding one another until we consider discovering where the other person is coming from. To know where the other person is coming from requires a bit of patience and inquiry beyond attacking disgust.

@MrItty ”...claiming that one’s sexual orientation is a choice…”

If you feel differently, then take advantage of an opportunity to educate someone who may not feel the same as you. Please understand that attacking in disgust may have the exact opposite effect that you desire. If the OP doesn’t have much experience or understanding with the gay community as you do, then their ability to form words on the subject may not be fully developed to your satisfaction.

Not everyone comes to the table with equal understanding or the ability to express themselves on such sensitive matters. In context with the other details in the OP, the essence of meaning may not be as bold as you presume. But like you, there are issues that I’m very sensitive to as well. I’ll sometimes see key words jump out that simply enrage me beyond the ability to reasonably understand them in the context they were intended.

@MrItty “referring to homosexuality as a plague”

Can we at least acknowledge that the OP referred to “plague” to describe the position of the video, and not necessarily there own?

@Paradox25 Scientific theories are not normative, and so cannot be more or less accepting of something. And being counterintuitive is not the same as being paradoxical. Gene selection is compatible with there being evolutionary advantages to homosexuality, even if it’s not immediately obvious to you why that is the case.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Wish I could add 10 GA’s to that reply. Well put.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Well said and thank you…first this guy called me immature and now he is calling me a liar…..personally I think he needs to show some more respect for people here. Furthermore on the word of “choice”, everyone makes a choice reguardless of the curcumstances. A homosexual( which is a human being like everyone else with the same rights as and feelings like everyone else) can still make a choice other than being with someone of the same sex…he/she might decide upon other choices other than what they feel…not saying that they should make other choices but I am just making the point that there is always a choice in every situation and people should not judge anyone by the choices they made. I believe that is up to God to judge because everyone makes bad and good choices to suit their lives and those choices that we make are never suitable to everyone on planet earth.

It’s alright. We all come to the table with assumptions. I do it all the time. I don’t think any real harm was intended by anyone.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies yes, we disagree on the interpretation of the OP’s details. I admit there is more than one way to interpret them. You prefer to interpret them with the best of intentions. More power to you.

Sure… peace.

@Eggie yes, and feeling “that way” about a woman on her period IS immature. That was my whole point.

Okay, let’s take RealEyes approach – if you’re not “bashing” gay folks, then please explain:
1) why you refer to homosexuality as a “choice”,
2) why you referred to that propaganda as a “documentary”, and
3) why you quoted it saying that homosexuality is a “plague”?

By all means, educate me as to your reasons.

1) I explained that some threads earlier….you need to read
2) It was a documentary and (if you were more educated) you would know that some documentaries can be false and project propaganda.
3) I DID NOT QUOTE homosexuality as a “plague” on my behalf…I represented “plague” because of what the program was showing its viewers. I personally don’t view homosexuality as a “plague” and if you would be more open minded you would see that.

@SavoirFaire I’m yet to see Dr. Dawkins give a clear answer on how his extreme version of Social Darwinism can correlate with there being evolutionary advantages to homosexuality. Dawkins theories also do not take into consideration how female animals have been known at times to nurture the young of other animals of both their own species and even outside of it, which obviously is not very beneficial to the preservation of the stronger male’s genes.

There is alot more to this than I’ve posted but ironically there is alot of evidence to support the Gaia Theory as well if you’ve ever read about it. The links are there. There are holes in Dawkins’s theories too. According to Dawkins (from what I’ve read) there is nothing beneficial about homosexuality relating to the preservation of the stronger male’s genes or survival of the fittest. If you know anything about the Gaia Theory you would find out that there is a benefit in homosexuality, as well as other animal behaviors that seem to violate Social Darwinism. I never said this was a paradox because it was deliberate, but because of what each theory is saying.

1) ah, I see, you edited a previous answer after posting it, explaining the “choice” thing. You’re still new to fluther, so maybe you don’t yet know this – when you edit an answer, it doesn’t automatically show up edited. One has to manually refresh the page. When someone is just leaving a fluther.com page open looking at new responses, one does not see an edited response. Rather than claiming that you “explained” it and that I “need to read”, perhaps you could have noted that you edited a prior response to fill in the answer to that question?

1b) You are confused as to what homosexuality is. It is not the state of “being” with another person. The choice of whether or not to be with another person is called “celibacy”, and that choice is open to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is the notion that a person is attracted to members of their own gender. That is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. Did you choose to be attracted to women? No. You might choose whether or not to be with women, but you did not choose to be attracted to them.

2) No. A documentary, by definition, documents facts. Not opinions, not propaganda, not lies. If it lies, if it gives opinions, it is not a documentary. Your confusion surrounding the definition of that word adequately explains my question #2. So well done, there.

3) Being “open minded” has nothing to do with it. As I stated to RealEyes, your comment could have been interpreted in multiple ways. She chose to interpret it painting you in the best light. I did not. You now claim that you meant it the way she interpreted it. So be it. I have no reason to doubt you. But as it’s written? There was no compelling reason to ascribe more possible weight to either interpretation.

Oh Christ. Richard Dawkins doesn’t advocate social darwinism at all, @Paradox25.

Dawkins explicitly explained how female animals nurture young of other animals in The Selfish Gene. That’s like a major component of the book (the foremost example being parasitic cuckoos).

You literally know nothing about what Dawkins has written about. And this is coming from someone who thinks Dawkins is probably wrong on his gene-centered view of evolution.

@Paradox25 on second thought, is it possible that you are just confused about the meaning of social darwinism?

Finally, about Gaia theory (actually it’s a hypothesis), I’m actually sympathetic to the idea. But it has nothing to do with the genetic basis of homosexuality. That’s part of the problem of Gaia, there is no proposed mechanism. Your statement, for example, is just handwaving and you might as well be arguing that the Earth Mother uses Magick to make animals gay.

@MrItty I think that you chose not to interpret it any other way and I still think that you need to show some respect for people. You talk about me not earning my respect well you are not earning any either.

@Eggie the difference is I don’t care whether or not you respect me. I’m not complaining about you disrespecting me.

@Paradox25 I must admit, I’m not particularly familiar with the Gaia hypothesis, but there immediately seems to be a big problem with it. Wouldn’t the Gaia hypothesis indicate that the human race would have been eliminated long ago – at the start of the industrial revolution, perhaps?

@MrItty That is the difference between you and me..I care about respecting others and I complain about others that disrespect me.

And this has quickly gone completely off topic. My apologies to the mods, who will surely be here shortly to remove several of these off topic posts. I’m done responding in this thread.

I apologize to the mods for my off topic answers

@syz, in one sense, no: not if humans spread the seeds of Earth-life into space. We could function in a reproductive capacity.

In another, more pragmatic and scientific and less starry-eyed handwaving sense, also no, because if the Gaia hypothesis is true the planet’s self-regulatory capacity happens well after the fact of catastrophes like us. Look at the Oxygen Holocaust, for example.

@Qingu I’m not ditching you here but I really have to go. I’ll give you a more detailed response when I get back. I have read the material of both theories. Note: Wasn’t Gaia switched from a hypothesis to a theory?

Not even close, @Paradox25. More like switched from “crackpot bullshit” to “maybe it can be treated as a valid hypothesis ‘cuz Lovelock is being intellectually honest at least”

Edit: aw shit. The Wikipedia page says “it’s properly treated as a theory.” Citation: Lovelock’s book. LOL.

@Qingu That seems rather ridiculously speculative, and the hypothesis itself feels uncomfortably new-age-y and “spiritual” to me. Maybe I’ll do some reading…..

@syz, I haven’t studied the idea in great detail, but I do find it interesting in terms of complex systems theory. The idea that Earth is a complex system is trivially true. Many complex systems (storms, fire, living cells, ant colonies) exhibit self-regulating qualities. The nature and extent of the “Earth system’s” self-regulatory capacity is something worth examining, I think, though it’s true that proponents of Gaia have often slipped into new-age bullshit.

Sorry if I’m repeating, but I haven’t yet read the other responses.

Put aside the skewed view of the documentary and judge for yourself, @Eggie – do you think homosexuality really harms anything? Does it really belong grouped with war, violence, and crime, all of which have very obvious negative consequences?

I don’t.

@Paradox25 First, gene selection theories are not limited to the particular views of Richard Dawkins. It is intellectually dishonest of you to link to the former and talk only of the latter. Second, gene selection views are not social Darwinism. Social Darwinists try to apply the mechanisms of natural selection to social and economic issues. Virtually no one today thinks this is a good idea. Even your own stalking horse rejects it:

“Let us understand Darwinism so we can walk in the opposite direction when it comes to setting up society.”
—Richard Dawkins

I’m not sure where this idea that Dawkins is a social Darwinist comes from, though I know it has been repeated in some of the least trustworthy places. Perhaps it is a matter of people reading the title of The Selfish Gene incorrectly. The emphasis should be on “gene,” not on “selfish.” It’s about genes being selfish, not about us having a gene for selfishness. Thus there is no problem with altruism having evolutionary advantages.

Note also that I said nothing against the Gaia hypothesis nor its compatibility with the notion that homosexuality can have benefits of some kind. Indeed, you have conveniently skirted the entire point of my actual response: scientific theories are not normative, thus they cannot be more or less accepting of something. You have also ignored something else that I’ve already said: science is inductive, meaning no study is ever the final word. I have not said that any theory is without holes that need patching. Using your own ignorance as an argument, however, is fallacious. That you haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it does not exist.

Homosexuality is a natural fact in the animal world, regardless of anyone’s theory. It’s not only in humans. It’s only man that has opinions about it, but such is the nature of man. To denigrate something that is different from you is also, unfortunately, part of the nature of many people.

@SavoirFaire Gaia requires the cooperation of all living organisms for the betterment of the whole, unlike the survival of the fittest theories. I have not read as much Dawkins material as I have about Lovelock’s. I was in the process of ordering some of Dr. Dawkins books. I never claimed that it was genes that make us selfish. The only book I have read by Dawkins was his book titled “The God Delusion”, Which shows his own bias ironically.

@Paradox25, “Gaia requires the cooperation of all living organisms for the betterment of the whole, unlike the survival of the fittest theories”

No, it really doesn’t. Lovelock isn’t silly enough to throw Darwinist competition and natural selection out the window. He merely argues that this competition is part of a greater, dynamic system that self-regulates. (Edit: Also, competition vs. cooperation is a false distinction anyway. Cooperation can arise spontaneously from competition. This is a major issue in game theory.)

You should really, really read the Selfish Gene, even if you don’t like Dawkins’ thoughts on religion. It’s a great book. Again: I don’t even totally agree with it, I think group selection can play a role in addition to gene selection, probably. But the book is really illuminating in just how much about life can be explained by looking at genes as the basis.

@Qingu I’m definitely purchasing the book (and maybe a few more). It seems there are quite a few evolutionary hypothesis/theories out there and I’m not familiar with them all.

@Paradox25 As noted by @Qingu, Lovelock’s version of the Gaia hypothesis does not require cooperation (even if it requires some sort of meta-coordination). Second, it is odd that you feel so comfortable criticizing Dawkins’ view on evolution without having read the book where he puts that view forward. I, too, find The God Delusion to be disappointing; indeed, I am not a fan of the New Atheist movement in general (including the contributions to it by Daniel Dennett, my fellow philosopher and a man whose contributions to the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of biology I respect enormously).

Not only is it bad form to dismiss all of a person’s views on the basis of a disagreement over one of their views, it is particularly strange to dismiss work one has not read in the area on which the dismissed author is an expert on the basis of disagreeing with a work one has read in a different area. It is unsurprising that the zoologist Dawkins might not have the most refined ideas when it comes to the philosophy of religion. As such, dismissing his scientific theories on the basis of his book on religion simply makes no sense.

Finally, you’ll note that I did not say anything about your own understanding of The Selfish Gene. What I did was speculate on one reason that some people (not necessarily you) might misunderstand Dawkins’ view and say something about how that misunderstanding might be partially alleviated.

I can see the high-fiveing, Atta boy backslapping, loud soap boxing fest is high here, but it is expected.

I guess one has to determine what ”better” is? If gays disappeared tomorrow but there was still gossip, hatred, contentions, murder, stealing, etc., etc. their departure would have no effect on things. So, I would have to conclude gays in themselves are not the lynch pin to all of the world’s woes (which is a bane for them), it is not as if straight people were the nicest and most upright; their sins are just different.