Sex at Dawn

Under the same rationale you could eliminate all infertile people and post-menopausal women as well - as the article says. Or at least stop them from having sex. As their sex is not "useful" for reproduction - and if they didn't have sex society wouldn't fall apart - wouldn't it be more fair to believe that if gay people shouldn't have sex then anyone who is not able to reproduce should be banned from it too?

If the purpose of heterosexual sex is bonding first and reproduction second, the purpose of homosexual sex is bonding, full stop. Bonding between people serves society; If homosexuals couldn't have sex, they very likely would be a lot more frustrated, depressed, isolated etc etc etc which probably would hurt overall harmony and productivity in our society.

What you are questioning is the purpose of homosexuality itself, which I don't think Christopher Ryan has set out to investigate nor explain.

I'm not convinced that genocide could be anything but deeply damaging to society.

"The right way to have sex"? When did anyone say that homosexual sex is the "right way" to have sex? I don't recall that being stated anywhere. Yes, sex is required for reproduction (although with today's technology, that is no longer even an issue). If the only purpose of sex was to produce offspring, then our species would only have sex when the woman was completely fertile and ready to have a baby. But we don't. We, as humans, have sex whenever we feel like it, which goes against this idea of sex being simply for reproduction.

Reproduction is certainly A part of sex, but it's not the only part. Like this article states, sex is a social act. It brings people closer together, and makes them feel good. Honestly...do you know of many couples who are married and strictly have sex ONLY when the female is primed and ready to carry a child and DON'T get any sort of pleasure or enjoyment out of the act of having sex? My guess is that you don't.

You do realize that women can be homosexual, right?

Maybe if you got your doctorate you'd be exposed to enough alternate lifestyles that you might be less judgmental of the ones that don't match your own.

If we eliminated all gay people then we'd have to disband the military since all the service members are gay.

A disproportionat number of our artists and philosophers have been gay. Homosexuality has existed across all of time and in all cultures. Diversity creates strength wether in nature or human nature. These (and other) facts show me that homosexuality has a VITAL place in society. Another question could be, If all the homophobes were killed would society suffer?

I think that killing an entire group of people would be a bit more detrimental to society than people of the same gender having sex, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion...

I think that killing an entire group of people would be a bit more detrimental to society than people of the same gender having sex, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion...

Really, now? "Society wouldn't be at any kind of loss?" Below is a random list of gay people in political and cultural history. I just included a random sampling of a few of them. If you can read over this list and still say "society wouldn't be at any kind of a loss" without their contributions, then I respectfully suggest you must be an uneducated, uncultured fool.

Edward Albee
Czar Alexander I
Alexander the Great
Hans Christian Andersen
Susan B. Anthony
W.H. Auden
Josephine Baker
James Baldwin
Samual Barber
Leonard Bernstein
Benjamin Britten
Truman Capote
Richard Chamberlain
Queen Christina of Sweden
Noel Coward
E.M. Forster
Michael Foucault
Will Geer
George Gershwin
Roman Emperor Hadrian
John Maynard Keynes
Leonardo da Vinci
Michelangelo
Cole Porter
Francis Poulenc
Maurice Ravel
Eleanor Roosevelt
Bayard Rustin
Stephen Sondheim
Gertrude Stein
Alice B. Toklas
Peter Iljits Tchaikovsky
Gianni Versace
Gore Vidal
Tennessee Williams
Virginia Woolf

@jtyrelb: once again, you are of the ilk that reduces the worth of gay people, or women, to their sexual organs and reproductive ability. The OTHER things that keep our species going, IS compassion, creativity, ethics, love, courage, intelligence. Any species can reproduce.
But humans are unique that beyond that, they have skills that are far more cooperative. Think about the collective intelligence that builds the space shuttle. Or created vaccines, surgical techniques and medical equipment that expands our progress and survival. Non parental and parental couples are both important to the support of any given community. For it's non parents whose income is taxed heavier, who labor at longer hours and if the parents are killed, take over the duties of that void in a child's life.

Santorum and his ilk are so devoid of imagination, and refuse to give credit where it's due. Especially to the gay community, who could and should be extraordinary ALLIES in life's journey we all must take. Hand in hand.
Indeed, only recently Alan Turing was posthumously apologized to by the British government, and he's been honored for his participation in war intelligence. He was THE most instrumental in cracking the Enigma Code of the Nazis. Perhaps but for him, billions of lives would either have been lost, or many countries would be saluting Seig Hiel and expanded fascism in way no one wants to think about.
Alan Turing was gay, and punished for it.
But he saved so many lives, without actually being a father himself.

You see no purpose in gay sex? I see no purpose in your prejudice, stereotyping and disgraceful lack of understanding that gay sex is important to GAY PEOPLE. And as pointed out, it's for the purpose ALSO of bonding, of affection, of expression of love. Which is a very healthy thing for ALL humans.
The constant expectation that gay people give up or be expected to never have such a thing in their lives. To live isolated from having a family, or forming a romantic bond, or caring for children, IS another calculated cruelty that certainly has no purpose WHATSOEVER.

Easy to see ideas are generally wrong.

For one thing you are confusing society with propagation, and even then you are clearly not thinking too deeply. Given the amount of care a human requires throughout childhood, their survival is dramatically increased by having non-reproducing individuals in their group who can give support to the parents.

Other than that, to borrow your words, I'm not convinced that you serve any useful purpose for society. And if you were killed, society wouldn't be at any kind of a loss. In fact I suspect we would see a very slight increase in general happiness and goodwill across the globe. ;p

You do know that in World War Two, homosexuals also ended up in the concentration camps along with Jews, gypsies, communists, mentally ill people and intellectuals (the homosexuals were mandated by law to wear pink triangle badges). So, Hitler already TRIED to mass exterminate gay people and look where that got him?

Are you seriously comparing Rick Santorum to Superman? Superman believes all beings are created equal--to the point where he not only DOESN'T use his phenomenal powers to his own benefit, but to help everyone he meets, without asking if, say, they are attracted to people of the same sex.

Santorum with Superman's powers would be a nightmare to the human race.

Superman, unfortunately, is fictional. Santorum, unfortunately, is not.