Homosexuality was considered a mental illness up until the 70s. Then the militant homosexuals got it removed from the list. Perhaps a better explanation of homosexuality is that it is a developmental problem which results in an immature and flippant view of sex and renders the sufferer unable to fulfil their potential through raising a family.

My view of homosexuality as a negative trait is also with regards to the wider society. Are you denying that the homosexual lifestyle is typified by disease and dysfunction?

Homosexuality is not catergorised as a “mental illness”.

And, no, I’m not dismissing genetic influence in same-sex attraction, on the contrary, I’m saying you’re confused about the purpose/behaviour i.e. the non-reproductive nature does not mean homosexuality is “contrary to natural selection”, or “a very negative trait”, as I explained above.

As for the rest of your insidious, delusory, fallacious post… words fail me. Seriously.

I have reread your previous points. Let me be clear on where you’re coming from. Are you dismissing any genetic influence in same-sex attraction?

I say homosexuality is a negative trait – as far as society is concerned (although also for the happiness and fulfilment of the homosexual) – due to a) the ‘tribe’ is weakened when men don’t act like it and are consumed by lust; b) society is deprived when good genes don’t get passed on; c) increase of disease; d) hedonism brings down nations, because normal family life is what binds and strengthens society.

Of course homosexuals are able to reproduce. I maintain that homosexual behaviour is caused by temptation/mental illness. Probably due to the sexual desires of the ’sinner’/'victim’ not having properly matured, which could be caused by various factors.

It always comes down to ancient Greece and Rome? Even then, isn’t it the case that it was more pederasty than anything else. Name me one other culture, pre-1980s, where there was same-sex ‘marriage’.

The stated purpose of the modern homosexuality cult is to change the values of society and that means devaluing true marriage and thus society itself will fall.

Before answering further questions, would you please acknowledge that you have actually read my post above and understand the process of natural selection with regard to homosexuality. I don’t think you do. Unless you have actual peer-reviewed evidence to state your “case”.

Do you accept that gays/lesbians/bisexuals can actually conceive/give birth to children, yes? i.e. egg + sperm = zygote… regardless of whether the female egg is from a bisexual/lesbian and the male sperm from a bisexual/gay man.

“Disease? Not benign.”
Your opinion does not count.

As for taboo in most societies. Rubbish. It wasn’t taboo in ancient Rome and they did awfully well.

Why has homosexuality been taboo in most societies? Fit young males’ genes not being passed on to benefit the tribe? Disease? Not benign.

Do you believe homosexual attraction is genetic – mainly or partly?

Not true, blatantly false and is strictly a *religious* view of homosexuality, not a biological view, nor a scientific one, and not certainly one held by any anthropologists. In terms of natural selection, homosexual behaviour is a benign trait in most instances and becomes adaptive within certain social contexts.

“Surely the proliferation of homosexuality is contrary to natural selection?”

No, and again, not true. Look at the evidence. There are many purposes of sex, far more complex than procreative concerns. It is a common fallacy to assume that all components of a behavioural act are under equal selective pressure in natural selection.

In terms of the biological distinction between sexual and somatic reproduction, homosexual behaviour is a survival strategy, not a reproductive strategy. You’re blinded by the “non-reproductive” nature of homosexuality (not to mention your dogmatic adherence to scripture, but I digress) and once genes are passed on biologically, they then need protection/nurturing aided by reciprocal altruism tendencies within the environment.

Heterosexual behaviour serves non-conceptive functions such as the maintenance of long-term bonding. After all, natural selection should favour homosexual behaviour, irrespective of the participants’ motivation (or morals), if the behaviour promotes fitness-enhancing alliances. Also, natural selection allows for genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an *environment* to survive, reproduce etc. Over the eons of time (on which we disagree), homo/hetero both allow for this environment to exist – so your comment “homosexuality is contrary to natural selection” is false, look at the biological evidence (not your scripture).

Stewart, you do realise that gays/lesbians/bisexuals can actually have children, yes? Because one is gay/lesbian/bisexual does *not* rule out the propagation of one’s genes i.e. female egg + male sperm = zygote – regardless of whether the female egg is from a bi/lesbian and the male sperm from a bi/gay man. Evolution by natural selection is exactly that, *natural*. There is no “moral censor” within.

You may not agree with it, but, once again, all the evidence from research shows you to be wrong.

There’s no ‘bigger picture’ than looking at Creation from the Almighty’s POV.

I would politely suggest that “several decades ago” you started falling prey to the lies of the world. You have shown this to be true by comparing human sexuality with animals’.

Homosexuality is a very negative trait as far as evolution is concerned (if you believe in the TofE). If it was genetic, it would have been bred out. Peter Tatchell admits it’s a complex issue. Surely the proliferation of homosexuality is contrary to natural selection?

Succinct and to the point. Thank you.

‘would do well to try to grasp the real reason we are here……’

Intriguing.