First of all, deviancy is not nessesarily a bad things,and second, you don't hear people say that vegetarians/left handed people as social deviancy, they also derived from social normal since their proportion compared to the total population is small. Homosexuals consists about 3-5% of world population according to some studies, to other studies, they consist up to 10% of world's population, either way, that's a significant proportion of people, in nature, you would call that a variation of a genetic phenotype, kind of like a purple flower/yellow flower sort of situation, such rare phenotypes like purple flowers of a certain plant may exist as a variation trait, and because variations need to be maintained, such rare phenotypes may actually have evolutionary advantages. Homosexuals acts somewhat like a rare phenotype that actually plays an important role in maintaining population stability and variation, but in real life, we can't openly embrace such variations can we? (I'm not talking about my country Canada of course, I'm talking about certain parts of the world)
But of course we can never be sure that homosexuality exists entirely as genetic variation, some people argue it's influeced by envinronment, I see their points. ( if that's the case, it would be a subconscious influence, still not a choice by the way) How is this subconscious influence any different than say, I'm influenced by my dad to like Chinese culture, or Michael grow up in Manhattan and influenced to like modern architecture? etc. etc. Afterall, it's not harming the society, it's not causing physical pain and people are not dying because they suffer from "homosexuality", so my question is, why would anyone ever want to treat homosexuality as a disorder? Oh, and I actually think homosexuality makes some evolutionary sense(as a genetic variation), contrary to popular beliefs, I'll save that for later.
Now when people say homosexuality gives absolutely no benefit, I'm quoting dan1966, it doesn't make any sense to me. Is our existence based on producing benefits? And more importantly, how are homosexuals producing any less benefits than heterosexuals? Aids, child molesters, drug abuse and having hundreds of partners? That can't possibly be it can it? Because first of all, non of those are exclusive to homosexuals, all people can be subjected to these problems (surprise!). And second, it may be true that homosexuals maybe slightly more exposed to these problems, but association doesn't mean direct causation, it's not so much homosexuality that causes these peoblems, have you thought about the social intolerance, ,the pressures the society put on these people, which may prevent them from building stable relationships, and some are mentally broken who actually have to turn of a whole list of negative coping mechanisms? If we could only be more tolerant, more acceptive, maybe it can be different? Please make sure you're not blaming the victim.
And straight people are just so amazingly beneficial, say hello to 50% divorce rate and foster kids!
Not to mention there are actually many gay partners who went through life long commitments and had happy lives together. When you say gay/lesbians produce no benefit, are you sure the statement is not a generalized one based on typical stereotypes. If you cannot judge people and evaluate them as uniques individuals, and start to lump groups together, then you're stereotyping, it's just that simple!And finally, about the "god plan" thing.
To religious people, I want to ask that do you really know every detail about God's plan?
To atheists, do you know every detail about nature's plan? Because clearly, people are quick to judge that gay people should not exist because it doesn't follow "god's plan", or it doesn't make evolutionary sense, I mean afterall, reproduction is our only purpose in life right ?
We certainly love to act as nature's speakperson. 
I'm not religious, I'll go the nature way, natural selection is incredibly complicated, the most respected biologists can't say they understand everything about it. Reproductive success is an advantage, but it is not nesessarity the only fitness measure. This is a gene (homosexuality) persisted over thousands years of human civilization that we're talking about, and still going strong today, and actually existed far longer than that, because we observed it in various animal species.So, if this gene (or combination of genes) refused to go away despite the fact these people have little reproductive success, then it must have some evolutionary advantage, doesn't it?
Think of it this way, I know it's a stereotype, but this has some truth in it, gay males are very often emotionaly sensitive, they had significant contributions to the world, in term of art, music, fashion, architecture design and philosophical ideas. And we know variations are important for the survival of a specie, if we think about it, why can't the homosexuality trait be a trait that add more flavors to humanity, and actually help to create a more ideal Science/Art balance, and could be helpful to prolong the harmony of our society, and therefore helpful to our survival? Doesn't it not make sense, that the traits could simply be a rare phenotype and provides variation to the gene pool? and that it's perfectly natural, just not necessarily meant to exist for reproduction success? I've already mentioned this purple/yellow flower thing at the beginning of this post.
We don't understand everything about nature, not about natural selection either, and please don't pretend that we know it all. And as long as we don't understand nature's true intentions and plans, it's better to just respect it. And love our own people, Provided that their "uniqueness" does not directly harm anyone!
variations is just variations, please don't fear it.
yeah, I think I just summed up everything I wanted to say in the last few posts, it's all just my opinions of course.
I apologize for the wall of text, I apologize for my English.
Again I might be blurring the line between pedophile and child sex abuse. 
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed