A Hypothetical "Gay" Cure

[ParanoiA]

Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis,

anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their

sexual practices. Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

· Homosexual behavior accounts for a disproportionate number of sexually

transmitted diseases. Mireya Navarro, “Federal Officials See Sharp Rise of

Hepatitis Among Gay Men,” The New York Times, March 6, 1992.

· 65 percent of all reported AIDS cases among males since 1981 have been men

engaged in homosexual behavior. Center for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS

Surveillance Report, Vol. 9, No. 2, May 1998.

· The 2002 update reported by the Center for Disease Control indicates that

62% of known HIV cases involve men who have had sex with other men, and

an additional 8% of those cases involve men who have had sex with other men

and use intravenous drugs. Thus, 70% of known HIV cases involve

homosexual men. And, another alarming finding is reported: only ¼ of

homosexual men with HIV get tested or discovered before the disease

progresses into full blown AIDS. Therefore, the number of homosexual men

who have HIV is potentially staggeringly high.

 

Interesting. Someone else brought up the Bonobos. And I'm sure someone has made this point before, in some capacity...but could it be plausible that homosexuality was or is declining within the human species? That perhaps, homosexuality used to be more common, but has declined as our species has advanced through evolution, because of some of the above?

[Wormwood]

Interesting. Someone else brought up the Bonobos. And I'm sure someone has made this point before, in some capacity...but could it be plausible that homosexuality was or is declining within the human species? That perhaps, homosexuality used to be more common, but has declined as our species has advanced through evolution, because of some of the above?

 

I haven't seen any actual numbers to this effect, so it's hard to tell. To me it seems like homosexuality is increasing in the U.S.. It seems to be a social phenomenon. Look at the Greeks for example, homosexuality had nothing to do with genes (unless most of the male population had this gene), and everything to do with society and conditioning.

 

That perhaps, homosexuality used to be more common, but has declined as our species has advanced through evolution, because of some of the above

 

For This to be true, homosexuality would have to be an inherited trait, which I doubt for obvious reasons.

[Sayonara]

If homosexuality doesn't perpetuate the species then how is it good?

In the same way that everything else we consider to be "good" is good without perpetuating the species, surely.

 

If someone loses a hand, we don't call that good.

No, we call that "bad". Being "bad" is not the same as being "I can't see why it's good". What are you trying to illustrate here?

 

Perhaps societies that have mastered survival to the ridiculous, lazy extent that we have, also have the time, resources, and progressive culture to allow those kinds of thoughts to worm their way into the mainstream.

"Worm their way in" implies some sort of nefarious intrusion. It's just a thing that happens. Yes, some people really like talking about it a lot, but that's an attribute of all humanity.

 

 

Yes. Ethics and morality are based around what is generally good for the group. They are social constructs with floating definitions. Homosexuals don't procreate and thus aren't good for the group.

Reasons why homosexuality is good for a social group have already been mentioned in this thread, and discussed extensively in others. The idea that "contributing to procreation" is the only thing of value for any given trait is a falsehood, and if you apply it only to homosexuality then you are making a case from special pleading.

 

They also have higher instances of STD's, which is bad for the group.

If I were you I would check the references, rather than just taking the word of one of the most vicious and harmful hate speech sites ever made.

 

Please do not post links to their content on here again. It is offensive.

[Dak]

Absolutely NOT!! Not even in the same ball park. I'm not passing a judgement at all - that's the whole point. I don't care if homosexuality is the next latest craze and all scientists believe we should be gay - my only remaining point is that you shouldn't pass a value judgement. You either advocate treatment for medical conditions or don't

 

I'm arguing in favor of not having an opinion.

 

the problem is, tho, that your not. by arguing that we should 'reccomend' teatment you're implying that theres something wrong with gayness, like only having one hand.

 

surely, if you want to abstain from passing judgement, you shouldn't reccomend that gay people do or do not get cured, and rather leave it up to them?

 

Hey buddy, this is your doing. You're the one that convinced me that heterosexuality was a medical condition, thereby chucking my supposition into the abyss.

 

i was just making the point that wether something is 'natural' or 'intentional' or the result of chemicals/whatever doesn't make it good or bad.

 

If homosexuality doesn't perpetuate the species then how is it good?

 

100% homosexuality would be bad, but we could tolerate much higher rates than current without humanity crashing.

[ParanoiA]

the problem is, tho, that your not. by arguing that we should 'reccomend' teatment you're implying that theres something wrong with gayness, like only having one hand.

 

ONLY because all other treatments are "recommended". In other words, just being consistent.

 

Instead, you're advocating not recommending THIS treatment, yet recommending all of the others. That's the bias I'm talking about.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ONLY because all other treatments are "recommended". In other words, just being consistent.

Not really. Treatments aren't recommended to patients if the patient would not benefit from them enough to warrant the cost. If the patient doesn't care if he's gay or not, why recommend giving him a treatment?

[Sayonara]

Instead, you're advocating not recommending THIS treatment, yet recommending all of the others. That's the bias I'm talking about.

I think this is happening because most of us cannot fathom why something called a "cure" (which represents to many a fix for something that is bad) should be associated with homosexuality, due to the valid point mentioned a couple of days ago that something being medically bad affords a medical condition and not the other way around.

 

I am erring toward Severian's viewpoint that rather than seeing it as a "cure" such a treatment should be considered "the option to switch", which puts it in the same league as bleaching one's hair, rather than having a tumour removed.

 

In such a case no medical recommendation is afforded or even necessary, and we aren't lending homosexuality attributes for which we have no evidence. Although advertising would probably come up at some point...

[Wormwood]

Reasons why homosexuality is good for a social group have already been mentioned in this thread, and discussed extensively in others. The idea that "contributing to procreation" is the only thing of value for any given trait is a falsehood, and if you apply it only to homosexuality then you are making a case from special pleading.

 

What are you talking about? I never said that contributing to procreation is the only thing of value. What I said was that homosexuals don't procreate, and that does the group no good in insuring the survival of the species (since that is what most social constructs revolve around either directly or indirectly).

 

Also, I have not been able to find any of these benefits of homosexuals for society...would you care to list a few or tell me a post number or something?

 

 

If I were you I would check the references, rather than just taking the word of one of the most vicious and harmful hate speech sites ever made.

Are you saying that because you don't like the source, the info must be false? I could find the same info on another site if that would make you more comfortable. Almost every site on the subject is biased in one direction or the other. This was one of the few that actually cites their sources.

 

 

Not really. Treatments aren't recommended to patients if the patient would not benefit from them enough to warrant the cost. If the patient doesn't care if he's gay or not, why recommend giving him a treatment?

I'm sure Autistic patients don't care that they're autistic. People that are schizo often think they are totally normal and fine. As someone else mentioned, if you have a disorder that effects your judgment, then you might not be the best person to make the call. If we can all accept the harsh reality that certain conditions like colon cancer and STDs etc increase with male homosexuality, then we can see that this is a disorder which can potentially lead to many harmful side effects and should be curbed if there were a safe and effective way to do it. I think people that would opt to stay homosexual would either be people whose judgement was effected or people who enjoy the attention they get for being different. There is no valid reason to oppose treatment if one were available.

[Sayonara]

What are you talking about? I never said that contributing to procreation is the only thing of value. What I said was that homosexuals don't procreate, and that does the group no good in insuring the survival of the species (since that is what most social constructs revolve around either directly or indirectly).

But you neglected to provide the caveats (a) it doesn't do the group any harm either in that respect, or (b) that homosexuality may indirectly aid procreation in the group.

 

 

Also, I have not been able to find any of these benefits of homosexuals for society...would you care to list a few or tell me a post number or something?

The most recent was Cap'n Refsmmat's second-to-last post. There are more scattered about the place but I am not about to stand in for the search function.

 

Are you saying that because you don't like the source, the info must be false?

No, I am saying that it could be misrepresented. And if you read the PDF carefully, you will see evidence of that.

 

You must always at least consider the source. It's not as if GodHateFags.com have no agenda, is it?

 

I could find the same info on another site if that would make you more comfortable. Almost every site on the subject is biased in one direction or the other. This was one of the few that actually cites their sources.

I sympathise with the problematic situation on getting sources, but even if there are "few" sites citing their sources, anything has to be better than that place. We don't particularly want to chance sending our members there, particularly the younger ones.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What are you talking about? I never said that contributing to procreation is the only thing of value. What I said was that homosexuals don't procreate, and that does the group no good in insuring the survival of the species (since that is what most social constructs revolve around either directly or indirectly).

 

Also, I have not been able to find any of these benefits of homosexuals for society...would you care to list a few or tell me a post number or something?

Evolution isn't just "what makes you have more kids." It's also about "what keeps you alive," and even "what makes your group beat the other groups" (group selection). And perhaps homosexuality evolved as a way to establish bonding between members of a group, therefore providing an advantage over other groups by giving the group members a motivation be more altruistic.

 

 

 

I'm sure Autistic patients don't care that they're autistic. People that are schizo often think they are totally normal and fine. As someone else mentioned, if you have a disorder that effects your judgment, then you might not be the best person to make the call. If we can all accept the harsh reality that certain conditions like colon cancer and STDs etc increase with male homosexuality, then we can see that this is a disorder which can potentially lead to many harmful side effects and should be curbed if there were a safe and effective way to do it. I think people that would opt to stay homosexual would either be people whose judgement was effected or people who enjoy the attention they get for being different. There is no valid reason to oppose treatment if one were available.

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of unprotected sex. It may in some cases, but not necessarily all.

 

And how does homosexuality affect your judgement? It's not like rabies or something.

[ParanoiA]

I think this is happening because most of us cannot fathom why something called a "cure" (which represents to many a fix for something that is bad) should be associated with homosexuality, due to the valid point mentioned a couple of days ago that something being medically bad affords a medical condition and not the other way around.

 

Me too, that's why I keep saying "treatment", because 'cure' also implies a value judgement. Maybe treatment actually does too, but more objectively implies an adjustment to the medical condition - trying desparately not to imply bias.

 

And actually, doctor's do apply a value judgement. That's a point I missed on my crusade for recommendation of treatment for all medical conditions. One doctor will recommend pimple treatment, while another doesn't. Both will treat, of course, if requested.

 

I don't see why this should be any different, actually. Do you have issues with a doctor recommending pimple treatment? That's a value judgement as well. Bowing to the whims of society that says pimples are ugly and are bad.

 

I am erring toward Severian's viewpoint that rather than seeing it as a "cure" such a treatment should be considered "the option to switch", which puts it in the same league as bleaching one's hair, rather than having a tumour removed.

 

This would be my answer if required to answer today. It's obvious though. So, it's no fun to discuss.

[Killa Klown]

Actually a heard of a study that shows that homosexuality is a type of mental illness. I mean think about it it's practically a man thinking he's a woman kind of, isn't that a bit crazy, would you want to hang out with someone who thinks he's oprah or cher that would sure as hell freak me out. I also read in my towns newspaper that scientist have come out with a cure. I believe it works by excreteing male hormones for the man to feel horny for woman (since it is NATURAL). And trust me acting like something your not in NOT normal or okay it's sick and you should be punished for that, because if a person acts like a dog there straight up CRAZY but if a man acts like a woman or thinks like a woman that some how normal and accepted, WOW society is blinder than I thought.

[ParanoiA]

And how does homosexuality affect your judgement? It's not like rabies or something.

 

No, he means it effects your judgement of remaining homosexual. That was the context of the statement. Obviously, the patient being effected by the condition cannot be objective about treating it or not.

 

The counter argument being that our heterosexuality keeps us from being objective about treating it or not also.

 

Edit: I just realized I called you a Hetero. I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything by it.

[Sayonara]

Me too, that's why I keep saying "treatment", because 'cure' also implies a value judgement. Maybe treatment actually does too, but more objectively implies an adjustment to the medical condition - trying desparately not to imply bias.

I think 'treatment' probably carries less of an implication.

 

And actually, doctor's do apply a value judgement. That's a point I missed on my crusade for recommendation of treatment for all medical conditions. One doctor will recommend pimple treatment, while another doesn't. Both will treat, of course, if requested.

I would hope though that in the majority of cases the difference in their judgement comes from their professional medical opinion as to how best to address the needs of an individual patient, rather than personal bias.

 

For instance to borrow your pimple analogy, a doctor who waves away angsty teenagers with pimples as time-wasters is indeed judging his patients' conditions according to some level of response he has set for himself, but he may well go to some length to help if he recognises that a patient has such a severe case of acne that they risk facial scarring. Or at least he should.

 

I don't see why this should be any different, actually. Do you have issues with a doctor recommending pimple treatment? That's a value judgement as well. Bowing to the whims of society that says pimples are ugly and are bad.

I don't see it as a value judgement. It may be that the cost of the treatment outweighs the benefit of clearing up the acne a bit early (economical decision, something the NHS tries to be good at), or it may be that the acne is not severe enough to warrant risking the side effects of a tetracyclin or whatever the fashionable antibiotic is at the time (clinical decision).

 

It can go the other way too. The kid who is at risk of facial scarring is likely to have treatment suggested, because there is a perceivable risk of physical harm to him.

 

The whole thing is fraught with ins and outs even when we are just talking about pimples.

[ParanoiA]

Actually a heard of a study that shows that homosexuality is a type of mental illness. I mean think about it it's practically a man thinking he's a woman kind of, isn't that a bit crazy, would you want to hang out with someone who thinks he's oprah or cher that would sure as hell freak me out.

 

I'm a bit more freaked out by killer clowns actually. I've not read up on the whole gay culture, but I think it's pretty common for there to be a feminine partner as well as the masculine one. So, how does the masculine homosexual fit in your theory?

 

I believe it works by excreteing male hormones for the man to feel horny for woman (since it is NATURAL).

 

But it's also natural for a man to be horny for another man.

 

And trust me acting like something your not in NOT normal or okay it's sick and you should be punished for that,

 

For many homosexuals, acting like something they're not means acting hetero, and you're right, that's not healthy.

[Sayonara]

I think people that would opt to stay homosexual would either be people whose judgement was effected or people who enjoy the attention they get for being different. There is no valid reason to oppose treatment if one were available.

I only just noticed that final sentence.

 

On what civilised planet you have ever heard of do perfectly lucid and self-actuating patients have to have a "valid reason" to oppose treatment, and who decides what a "valid reason" is?

 

 

Actually a heard of a study that shows that homosexuality is a type of mental illness. I mean think about it it's practically a man thinking he's a woman kind of, isn't that a bit crazy, would you want to hang out with someone who thinks he's oprah or cher that would sure as hell freak me out. I also read in my towns newspaper that scientist have come out with a cure. I believe it works by excreteing male hormones for the man to feel horny for woman (since it is NATURAL). And trust me acting like something your not in NOT normal or okay it's sick and you should be punished for that, because if a person acts like a dog there straight up CRAZY but if a man acts like a woman or thinks like a woman that some how normal and accepted, WOW society is blinder than I thought.

If you honestly think that gay men are men who think they are women, then I am afraid it is you who is blind.

 

Unless of course you have never been exposed to at least a partial cross-section of gay culture, in which case you are bound to drink in the token screaming queens you see on so-called comedy shows and think that they are somehow representative.

 

I would urge you to base your strongest views upon what you can personally perceive and deduce. This does of course require some degree of observation, and perhaps also interaction (I don't mean you should shack up with a bloke, obviously - but maybe go to a gay bar or a community meeting or something).

 

No, he means it effects your judgement of remaining homosexual. That was the context of the statement. Obviously, the patient being effected by the condition cannot be objective about treating it or not.

Err... not being nit-picky or anything, but if your judgement is affected in terms of remaining homosexual, doesn't that still qualify as the subject of Cap'ns question?

[Sayonara]

For many homosexuals, acting like something they're not means acting hetero, and you're right, that's not healthy.

Just as a side note, so as not to feed Killa Clown's misunderstandings, there are in fact also masculine gay men who are NOT acting.

 

In fact they are quite common. We don't notice them as much because they don't advertise their presence by screaming "hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyaaaaaaaaaaaa!" and trying to generate attention. Instead they go and do manly things which, let's be honest, are fairly unremarkable things for a man to do, and don't really draw the eye.

[Killa Klown]

homosexuality is not a choice, it's something you just have, but luckily now there may be cure and even though it may not be a choice because there could be something wrong with how your body works thereby causing you to think the way you think like homosexuals now than abnormal unbalance in their bodies can be fixed like it should be.

 

 

NO paranoiA it is not normal for homos to act hereo thats why they have to be cured in the first place.

[Sayonara]

homosexuality is not a choice, it's something you just have, but luckily now there may be cure and even though it may not be a choice because there could be something wrong with how your body works thereby causing you to think the way you think like homosexuals now than abnormal unbalance in their bodies can be fixed like it should be.

 

Where are you getting all this tripe from? Please search the forums for threads with "homosexual" or "gay" in the title and read them carefully.

 

NO paranoiA it is not normal for homos to act hereo thats why they have to be cured in the first place.

I could be wrong, but I think ParanoiA's point is that homosexuality itself is normal and not 'unhealthy'. He is making the distinction that homosexuals who force their own behavioural heterosexuality are creating a problem for themselves.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, he means it effects your judgement of remaining homosexual. That was the context of the statement. Obviously, the patient being effected by the condition cannot be objective about treating it or not.

 

The counter argument being that our heterosexuality keeps us from being objective about treating it or not also.

Fair enough. Following from that, nobody's really qualified to make the judgement better than anyone else, because heterosexual people will be biased the opposite direction. So if the biases are equal, than the best-qualified person for judging personal effects of the choice is the person directly affected by them.

 

Edit: I just realized I called you a Hetero. I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything by it.

Don't panic - you were right in the first place.

[Wormwood]

But you neglected to provide the caveats (a) it doesn't do the group any harm either in that respect, or (b) that homosexuality may indirectly aid procreation in the group.

 

True it doesn't do any harm directly. However, neither does shizophrenia. On "A" I can admit that you are probably right, but on "B" I have to fully disagree, or at least question how you could possibly come to this conclusion.

 

 

The most recent was Cap'n Refsmmat's second-to-last post. There are more scattered about the place but I am not about to stand in for the search function.

All Cap offered was a possibility based on speculation. If we can just make up anything that we wish to be true, then we won't get very far.

 

No, I am saying that it could be misrepresented. And if you read the PDF carefully, you will see evidence of that.

 

You must always at least consider the source. It's not as if GodHateFags.com have no agenda, is it?

Certainly they have an agenda...I challenge you to find a site on the subject that doesn't. If it makes you feel better, I already knew what info I was looking for, that was just the first site that had it together with sources cited. Like ANY internet source, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

I sympathise with the problematic situation on getting sources, but even if there are "few" sites citing their sources, anything has to be better than that place. We don't particularly want to chance sending our members there, particularly the younger ones.

 

Fair enough. I will refrain from using that as a source. Since I already did though, can we discuss the info found there?

 

I only just noticed that final sentence.

 

On what civilised planet you have ever heard of do perfectly lucid and self-actuating patients have to have a "valid reason" to oppose treatment, and who decides what a "valid reason" is?

Certainly not the person with the personality disorder . People can refuse if they wish, but there is no reason to. It's like staying depressed because you like it better on principle.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally Posted by Me' date=' a few posts ago

Evolution isn't just "what makes you have more kids." It's also about "what keeps you alive," and even "what makes your group beat the other groups" (group selection). And perhaps homosexuality evolved as a way to establish bonding between members of a group, therefore providing an advantage over other groups by giving the group members a motivation be more altruistic. [/quote']

 

You say homosexuality evolved. Wouldn't that require homosexual parents to pass this trait on to offspring? Wouldn't this be a problem with your theory for obvious reasons? That's like saying that we "evolved" sexual sterility.

 

 

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of unprotected sex. It may in some cases, but not necessarily all.

Not true. Damage and complications to the colon and anus still occur if a condom is worn. So protected, or unprotected is not something I am considering.

 

And how does homosexuality affect your judgement? It's not like rabies or something.

We are all operating under the premise that a "cure" can be found. If that were true, then homosexuality is much like a personality disorder. They have a malfunctioning mechanism of attraction. Thus their judgement is not "normal". Just like someone with depression. Does someone with depression have the right to abstain from meds? Sure, but does that mean that he is the best person to make the call? Not always.

[YT2095]

something Just hit me like a bolt out the blue when I read the Thread title (probably as a result of forum hopping too quickly).

 

Why does anyone think that "Gayness" (if there is such a word) Needs to be CURED?

 

the question itself presumes too much for a start!

 

just a Thought

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

All Cap offered was a possibility based on speculation. If we can just make up anything that we wish to be true, then we won't get very far.

It's done in bonobos, and they're related to us.

 

You say homosexuality evolved. Wouldn't that require homosexual parents to pass this trait on to offspring? Wouldn't this be a problem with your theory for obvious reasons? That's like saying that we "evolved" sexual sterility.

Then we'll follow through with the bonobo example. Perhaps bisexuality was the original trait, and homosexuality emerged when we didn't have to worry as much about having lots of offspring.

 

Not true. Damage and complications to the colon and anus still occur if a condom is worn. So protected, or unprotected is not something I am considering.

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of sex. That may be true in some cases, but not necessarily all.

 

We are all operating under the premise that a "cure" can be found. If that were true, then homosexuality is much like a personality disorder. They have a malfunctioning mechanism of attraction. Thus their judgement is not "normal". Just like someone with depression. Does someone with depression have the right to abstain from meds? Sure, but does that mean that he is the best person to make the call? Not always.

"Malfunctioning" implies "bad." You're ignoring the possibility that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two equally viable possibilities. You're not making a great case to the contrary, anyway.

[Sayonara]

True it doesn't do any harm directly. However, neither does shizophrenia. On "A" I can admit that you are probably right, but on "B" I have to fully disagree, or at least question how you could possibly come to this conclusion.

Virtually everything that humans do socially originally comes from biological impulses to protect the clan so that it can survive and flourish. Why should homosexuality be singled out as something that does not contribute?

 

Can you really not see how breeding males in a mixed group might be advantaged by having non-breeding, non-competitor males in that group? (As a fairly basic example).

 

Regardless, this thread is not about the "value" of homosexuality or whatever arbitrary reasons one can come up with for eroding or negating any such notions of value. This is a thread in which we discuss a possible medical inequity in a scenario where a hypothetical treatment has been developed for a non-harmful biological state.

 

All Cap offered was a possibility based on speculation. If we can just make up anything that we wish to be true, then we won't get very far.

Speculation which has been borne out by other scholars. As I said, there are plenty of better discussions of it on the site.

 

Certainly they have an agenda...I challenge you to find a site on the subject that doesn't.

It's not just that they have an agenda. It's that they are extremists in their pursuit of it.

 

If it makes you feel better, I already knew what info I was looking for, that was just the first site that had it together with sources cited. Like ANY internet source, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

So that's fine then. If you remember, I said "if I were you I would check the references", as opposed to "ignore that PDF entirely!".

 

Fair enough. I will refrain from using that as a source. Since I already did though, can we discuss the info found there?

Going to have to come back to that because I need to make dinner. I AM HUNGREEE.

 

Certainly not the person with the personality disorder .

Given what you replied to, does this not imply that you do not consider gay people to be lucid or self-actuating? If so, on what basis should anyone agree with that analysis?

 

People can refuse if they wish, but there is no reason to.

No. There is no reason which you can conceive of. This is an argument from incredulity.

 

It's like staying depressed because you like it better on principle.

It's not though, is it? It's more like staying gay because you like having sex and/or relationships with people of the same gender, and/or don't particularly feel that your emotions are any less real or any less valuable than those of the next person.

 

 

You say homosexuality evolved. Wouldn't that require homosexual parents to pass this trait on to offspring?

No.

 

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of sex. That may be true in some cases, but not necessarily all.

 

Not to mention that:

 

1) "Gay sex" is not the same as "bum sex" (will leave the details to your imagination),

 

2) Bum sex is not exclusively within the domain of homosexuals,

 

3) Vaginal sex is hardly beneficial.

 

 

In short, consensual damage that might possibly happen and which is deemed acceptable by the person receiving the damage is no basis on which to label someone's entire being as "bad".

[Wormwood]

It's done in bonobos, and they're related to us.

 

So? So is throwing feces (which also sometimes manifests with mental illness). What does this demonstrate?

 

Then we'll follow through with the bonobo example. Perhaps bisexuality was the original trait, and homosexuality emerged when we didn't have to worry as much about having lots of offspring.

 

Then how was the trait passed on? Either there is no such thing as homosexuality, or it is a social construct if what you say is true. Or perhaps there was some mass horizontal gene transfer?

 

Logically, it seems it could only be a malfunctioning mechanism, or a social construct.

 

You're assuming homosexuality == lots of sex. That may be true in some cases, but not necessarily all.

 

Touche sir.

 

"Malfunctioning" implies "bad." You're ignoring the possibility that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two equally viable possibilities. You're not making a great case to the contrary, anyway.

 

The implications are meaningless. "Good" or "bad" or "warm and fuzzy" are irrelevant. We are a species that reproduces sexually, thus the mechanism is malfunctioning. If homosexuality produced offspring, then you could say it was an equally viable option. As it stands, it is just a deviation from a pretty set standard.