Replies

Homosexuality doesn't have a purpose, it is a disease. It is either a disease based on a genetic flaw, much like a cleft palette, or a behavioral disease, triggered by some event in utero or in the early developmental months/years. That it is a disease is clear because it prevents/limits humans from accomplishing the primary task of all life, procreating.

We have treated it for years as a moral failure, as though it was a conscious choice made by certain folks. It is not. I suppose society should be seeking a cure but those afflicted with the disease and their many advocates reject that possibility and demand the disease be treated as an "alternative life style."

There is no greater example of the stupidity, the self-serving arrogance, or the manipulativenes of liberals that their reckless support of the "alternative life style" silliness. It has killed millions and will kill millions more good people who might have been cured or, at least, helped if they were not so useful to the liberals.

Well, I'm not buying. While I am absolutely no fan (!) of the queer radical crowd, I do see that it is possible that the homosexual male has an evolutionary benefit to the tribe. Although gays do not by themselves reproduce, they may have historically assisted in the maintenance of the hunting band or tribe by making use of positive gifts that seem to go with homosexuality: artistic gifts (aiding communication), intuition (medicine/spirit-world), and if nothing else home defense (being left behind when the brute males go hunting they may be the only males left in camp to protect the females from marauding bands). Perhaps it's the other traits that are the evolutionary boost, with homosexual behavior a "professional hazard".

Homosexual behavior may be an overabundance of good gifts of a sort, crossed with sexual habituation (i.e., being 'recruited' at a young age).

No, they do serve a useful purpose. They just don't need to be confirmed in their bad habits. (This is why we don't allow philandering males have more than one wife at a time, either.)

(Appropos of nothing, I remember getting into an argument about Taliban Johnnie Walker--with a Bosnian Muslim. Seems Taliban Johnnie wanted to have four Muslim wives; something the rest of us mocked in the office that morning. The Muslim looked at us and rather coldly replied, "So he wanted four wives. How does that make him different from any one else in California?") (The answer of course what that he wanted his four wives installed in parallel, and not in series, like a good American....)

If you spend some time at the zoo, you will see our nearest relatives (either by evolution or by Creation) the Chimpanzee. There is no kind of sex act that Chimps will not try, and no combination that they will not present.

One reason we are human is that we repress easy gratification, and have to work for it. Still, our more natural cousins enjoy cheap and easy sex, while the state of repression is unnatural.

You make a point that I have made in the past, but the way you made it made me also consider something else.

I think that a good portion of the money spent on AIDS should be spent finding a cure to both homosexuality and pedophilia.

This isn't a bad conservative play. We love the people, we hate the disease. We could have telethons. We can fund disease institutes and make real progress.

What would be very interesting is if we found a cure. Talk about staying on point and working the problem. It might be the first meaningful application of genetic research in the search for a cure.