The debate "It's better to be straight than to be gay" was started by
an anonymous person on
June 17, 2019, 4:43 pm.
83 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 60 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
maksonmakson posted 5 arguments, boispendaddy posted 1 argument, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments, A posted 1 argument, YEET posted 1 argument, Manuel posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
babymarie posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Rodolfo, Threelip, MADHURA, hollieg, boispendaddy, fireball4thewin, MrStealyogrill, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Allirix, sk25, A, Steelheart, Manuel, YEET, jrardin12, Zsheaffer, cavargas3, Sleepless, HusamAli, Dreezy, ProDavid, athaleoz, Edith123, econt5, Shrivali_16 and 58 visitors agree.
swara, sakshi, babymarie, pankaj1407singh, Communistguy, fry, jennalyse, mwest0097, suwani, codyray16, Batman, Persephone and 48 visitors disagree.
I...I don't know how too respond to that LoL!
My personally opinion is that is better to be straight, because I'm straight and it's naturally to be straight, but we can't do here nothing, everybody can choose what he want to be.
Umm... That's really opinionated and can really be debated because it? about preference.
In nature yes, in primal times yes, today not really, since reproducing is no longer our main concern we can love whoever we want. those are my belives
Biology doesn't support your view at all. I feel I have to reiterate the point a made several comments ago.
From a sexual selection perspective being straight benefits an individual's genetic survival. But, gene survival depends on maximising a group survival for social creatures. That's why we have empathy and a compulsion to self-sacrificing altruism. For social creates, like humans and mammals, kinship selection and group selection are just as powerful as sexual selection. This is especially powerful in polyamorous groups which humans were during our savagery and barbarian stages of development.
Homosexuality has been shown to improve child nurturing and cooperation in communities. This is why it's just as prevalent in mammals (who are social and must nurture babies) as it is in humans
You are absolutely wrong about what "creates homosexuality". And, you're implying that reproduction is, not only an objective goal, but a good goal, which would be an appeal to nature.
Homosexuality is not as productive for the human race's survival than Heterosexuality is. Heterosexuality is more preferable for reproduction. Homosexuality isn't at all productive. The purpose for sexual function is for reproduction. Biology supports my statement & personally I feel like Homosexuality (In my opinion) is more of a psychological condition simply because the human's natural sexual release (in the anatomy) of hormones is initially for reproductive purposes & (correct me if I'm wrong) this is, over time, redirected towards the same sex as a result of multiple (Possible) causes, some of which include : molestation at a young age (victim's perspective), (constant) exposition to homosexuality, curiosity (even at a young age) etc
(So Woman + Woman = No Babies)
( Man + Man = No Babies)
(Man + Woman = Babies)
All of this is my opinion however & you can feel free to argue against it. But I am also against homophobia. I don't believe that people should be treated like they are less than humans because of their sexuality. One can also adapt to or adopt sexual preferences.
Better for what? Unless the only metric you're going by is "better at producing babies" I disagree. overall, being straight is no better than being gay or hi or however else you learn as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.
What ever God created you to be, that is ALWAYS best. When people think they know more than God and Christ, we end up screwed.
From a sexual selection perspective being straight is key to an individual's genetic survival. But, from a kinship selection or group selection perspective the survival of the gene itself is based on the group's survival, and homosexuality has been shown to improve child nurturing and cooperation in communities. This is why it's just as prevalent in mammals (who must nurture babies) as it is in humans
Firstly, you're committing a slippery slope fallacy. Very few people are homosexual so it's not an issue of survival, so don't act like it is. Secondly, homosexuality has been documented several times in nature, so it isn't necessarily unnatural (which isn't what you said, but seems as if that's where you might lead to). Thirdly, there is so "correct". There is no purpose; the closest one could argue is an evolutionary purpose of survival, but as we've already concluded: that is not even close to an issue.
"Nothing in the science of biology supports homosexuality" is what you're saying right? I'm curious if your thought experiment about separating sexes is the only basis for this assertion.
Nothing in the science of biology supports the idea that same sex is biologically correct. Don't believe me? Ask yourself what would happen to the entire human race if at some point in time, Men and women were completely separated from each other. The answer, of course, is evental Human Extinction because no reproduction is taking place
it's better to be who you are and not what people want you to be and if your gay there's no problem with it and it's not better to be straight if your gay
From a natural perspective, being straight is a key trait to a human's survival. Society being created since the primitive human age has somewhat skewed this point of view though. Survival is no longer necessary as we have come to evolve with a sense of morals. It could be argued that being gay is a mental illenss/disability. I would mostly agree with this theory, but that is another conversation. I still chose to agree with this topic as being straight is still natural and they can breed, give mother and father figures in children's lives, etc.
you're right, that's what i thought but i couldn't put it into words. and you actually just kinda made me feel a little bit better for not having such qualities. hahhahah, thanks
that will work to your advantage if your at the top of certain attractive qualities (looks, career, humor, etc). but they will work against you if you lack those qualities. your thinking in purely quantitative terms and ignoring qualitative factors.
I think that the competition factor is still outweighed by the percentage of people that could feel attraction to you and that you could feel attraction to them
by your math there are certainly more options for straight people, but they also have more competition.
when you do find someone as a gay person, they will have fewer options besides you. that can make for more stable relationships
No, you misunderstood me. If you're gay and you choose to act as you're straight, that's bad. But if you're straight and behave as you are straight, it's better than to be gay and behave as you are gay. I'm not talking about the behaviour, I could put it as "It's better to feel opposite sex attraction than to feel same sex attraction."
so thinking in terms of math and ease of selecting mates is worse then being whatever you naturally feel.
I agree, it is. so what?
it's better to be honest with yourself then to live a lie
simply because of the chances. Since there are more straight people, straight people are more likely to find a partner, and therefore more likely to be happy.