secret said:
Where did you get that from? Did you make that up?
I'm guessing that is writen by a gay, link?
Just on that note, calling someone a gay is almost offensive as calling them a faggot. It removes the adjective nature of it and implies that, is all they are. But the sexual orientation of the writer makes no change to the validity of the argument, in the same way that you being straight does not change whatever validity your arguments may have.
Sam04u said:
Why is everyone so blind... always?
Homosexuality is a 'Social Disorder', it makes regular men and women exhibit 'unnatural' sexualities, it also prevents men and women from reproducing, it is a socially, donateable characteristic. ie(It can be spread from individual to individual and is more prone in people with an insermountable almost inanimate surplus or lack of oestrogen).
What evidence is there that it can be spread? Really the only thing I could believe that could happen is latent feelings could appear. However, in most cases that would be bisexuality rather then homosexuality.
Sam04u said:
A prime example of this is in San-Francisco California, 18% of the population are homosexuals. Yet just 50 Miles, south of that section of the state it's as low as 6%... explain that?
Umm that is an idiotic argument, minority groups traditionally form communities. In the same way that you would be more likely to find a person of Chinese decent in China Town in Sydney then down south in say Walla Walla.
Sam04u said:
Enough with arguing.
A) It is unnatural
B) People can 'attribute' Homosexual Characteristics
C) It is a negative to society.
You have failed to provide any evidence that is unnatural other then molesting the theory of evolution and saying "OMG JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T BREED IT INSTANTLY MAKES THEIR GENETIC TRAITS LESS LIKELY TO GO ON BECAUSE LYK OMG HUMANS AREN'T SOCIAL ANIMALS WHO FORM FAMILY STRUCTURES AND SIMILAR" I would agree that in solitary animals I cannot see how homosexuality would have any positive aspects, apart from the possibility of survival of more male fetuses with the resulting homosexual animals useless, however, in social structures they would still have a use.
You also failed to provide evidence that people can obtain Homosexual characteristics, or indeed have defined what homosexual characteristics are. The (exclusive for homosexuality) sexual attraction to ones own sex is the only characteristic, to say more is stereotyping.
As to C) I suggest you read an article called "The in-crowd" Written by Joan Roughgarden in the 17 Jan 2004 issue of New Scientist, but since in your profile you say books are for hippies and english teachers I highly doubt you will.