Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Asha
As far as I'm concerned, speculating about a scenario in which homosexuality is so commonplace that humans can only reproduce through artificial means to avoid extinction ... that's pure science fiction. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you believe most men would PREFER to be gay were it not for social pressures. Last I checked there were ample heterosexuals to keep this planet overpopulated.

You were the one who attempted to prove the "naturality" of the situation by observing farm animals. However, let's take it out of the realm of "science fiction", and I guess posing a hypothetical question qualifies as science fiction, let me risk another that hopefully will be less offensive: Which sexual orientation is best prepared to propogate the species? Going to another debate I've had recently, using the part of Darwin's theory that many choose to ignore (ie: Survival of the Fittest), if homosexuality were naturual, would not Darwin's theory dictate that it must be the dominant orientation in order to survive?

I think you are qualifing "homosexuality" as a genetic distinction, like color of the skin. If so, there would be no homosexuals, as their parents obviously had sex with the opposite sex. It's not like that, it's not apt to the netural selection as it's almost "random". If 5% of the birds ramdomly lose their abilities to reproduce, would birds vanish from the Earth after some generations? I think not.

That's exactly my point. It can't be considered genetic or "natural", or it wouldn't exist. Anyone who's taken Behavioral Psych 101 will tell you it's a learned behavior that can and has been changed in the past.