diana

My point is, its presumed "evolutionary undesirability" is based on the assumption that we all must breed in order to be evolutionarily useful to our species, which is false.

Yours is another against the "homosexuals aren't evolutionarily useful" argument, but its just too far from the salient point for my taste. The person who makes the evolutionary argument is demonstrating is lack of understanding of evolution, and that might be a more effective thing to correct. If you just attack their poor math, even if you manage to make your point understood and the person agrees with you in the end, they are still working from the mistaken assumption that all members of a species who don't breed do not contribute to the survival of their species. All you're likely to do is launch them off on another argument based on that same mistake.

d

premjan

is there a reason we have to be "evolutionarily useful to our species"?

Yahzi

Um. Are we talking about the same thing? My math problem considers a person either a) having two of his own kids, or b) having no kids but helping his brother raise his nephews and nieces.

How is "not having any of his own kids" different than "not breeding?"

Newton Joseph

While interning for my 3000 hours at a low cost counceling center that is necessary for a licenses as a psychotherapist my supervisor with a Ph.D. and a lesbian, said that homosexuals and lesbians who live together generally lose some sexual libido.

Little Sister

In one of my coming out books it was called "lesbian bed death". I've never had the problem, thankfully, but same sex relationships seem to go through an initial "bunny stage" then slow down a little later in the relationship, just like straight couples.

seebs

Wow, how totally shocking; the idea that people who have been together for a while might be used to each other, and less frenetic in their explorations... How STRANGE!

Sheesh!