I think you're missing the point. Homosexuality is an undesirable trait from an evolutionary standpoint. Alas, it's in our gene pool so we should use modern medicine to cure it or at least mitigate its effects.

If homosexuality were an undesirable trait from an evolutionary standpoint, I find it unlikely its genetic bases would be so rampant in our species.

You seem to be making the ridiculous claim that maladaptive evolutionary traits are undesirable.

Hell, let's have it your way, let's genetically modify ourselves to be serial rapists, nothin' more adaptive than that. Cure all the non-rapists with the undesirable evolutionary trait.

There's also the obvious fact that competition is largely intra-species, rather than inter-species.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 19 2015 10:25pm

America is a huge country, don't be naive by trying to generalize over 300 million people.



There are thousands of undesirable traits in humans from an evolutionary standpoint. We have risen above natural selection and are able to survive as a species through our intellect and understanding.

It's not rampant...homosexuals/bisexuals are what, 2% of the population? My point is that when we find an undesirable trait, we should treat it medically. It's a pretty non-controversial stance.


Yes, we are able to survive and fix those undesirable traits i.e. cripples. Why shouldn't we do the same thing for homosexuals?

Well first you would have to demonstrate that the trait is somehow harmful to the individual or to society in order for it to be undesirable. The lack of an ability to reproduce is a non-issue. Partly because homosexuals can and do reproduce through sperm donations etc but also because there is no social detriment caused by this (according to you) 2% of the population not reproducing.

Pronouncing a trait as undesirable based on your personal disgust at it or your religion's opposition to it is nothing but conjecture. You need to demonstrate actual consistent harm caused by the trait.

Undesirable to whom again?

I should also note that even if you could somehow pull something out your arse which could demonstrate sufficient harm caused by this trait you still wouldn't treat it with dangerous, pseudoscientific procedures or therapy that do not change the trait.

If a person is born with epilepsy for example then that sucks and can cause extreme harm to the individual but you don't send them to prayer camp and tell them how evil they and that they are possessed by demons and that they should pretend they don't have epilepsy.. That doesn't cure it, it just causes social stigma towards the condition and psychological trauma for the individual - they still have the condition.

The whole point of your existence is to reproduce. That is your only biological purpose in life. Homosexuality GREATLY hinders that.



It's self-evident and has nothing to do with religion.

I respect your argument. However there are a few key points to be made here:

1) It's a complete waste of time and resources, if there were a million humans left on the earth, then we could consider asking homosexuals to give up their lifestyle in the better interest of humanity

2) Cripples, etc. want to be cured. If someone with cancer does not wish to go through chemo, we don't force them. That's a basic tenet of freedom.

3) There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a medical illness, it's simply a mutation that occurs in a small percentage of the population. It does not pose any serious risks that heterosexual people aren't subject to.

4) Let Freedom Ring.

I have no "point" to my existence, nor a purpose, and nor do you. Why should I care whether I reproduce or not?