How do we encourage the science of homosexuality?

by sabastious 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

simon17

Given the high incidence of homosexual behaviour in many species (in cases such as bonobos and some macquaces it is pretty much part of their normal behaviour)
I would hardly the incident rate of homosexuality in nature to be "high". Extremely few animals compared to the total number of species engage in this. And then, also, even the ones that DO, are mostly not HOMOsexual animals, though they may have some same-sex interactions. Maybe they're swingers or bisexuals or whatever, but that is a different thing. A homosexual is only attracted to his/her own sex, and therefore would only have sex with his/her own sex, and therefore would not be reproducing. Ergo, no progeny and their individual genes (not just the homosexual ones if there are such things) would cease to be passed on. Therefore, it is an entirely negative trait in evolution. I'm going to stick by that, but I'll read more.
Given the high incidence of homosexual behaviour in many species (in cases such as bonobos and some macquaces it is pretty much part of their normal behaviour)
Well thats nice but if you're not human, an animal would have to be bisexual to cash in on their desire for children (if one exists), otherwise it just wouldn't work. If you're a gay bonobo, the in vitro fertilization option is just not happening!
If homosexuality is NOT genetic and IS ‘choice’ (not saying it is, just if) does this actually make it wrong?
No, but I never insinuated that it was wrong anyway. I'm just saying pure homosexuality is a negative trait in evolution. You can twist isolated examples and gene theory as much as you like, but the fact is, the result of pure homosexuality leads to the exact opposite of evolution's stated goal. Its not brain surgery; look at all the posts on this page. They are all saying "we should be for gay people because it cuts down on overpopulation" Its an obvious observation that its going to lower offspring and end genetic lines of most homosexual individuals. There are people born that hate children and never want them. Maybe there's a biological reason for that. Whatever it is, it too is contrary to evolution. Its "unnatural" in that sense. But its not like i'm going to say or think "what a freak" when I see a 50 year old happy single guy. And the same goes for a gay or lesbian person.
The bottom line is we shouldn't have to show a biological reason FOR homosexuality in order to accept it. And the argument for homosexuality shouldnt have to feel the need to defend every possible argument at the lengths we have been. So its contrary to natural evolution? So what? Its your choice, its not hurting anyone else, so go ahead and life your life your way.
Heterosexuals also enjoy sex even when there is no possibility of producing offspring. Reproduction is only one of many reasons for sexual activity.
Yes, but in evolution, having sex has as itsultimate purpose to produce offspring.
trevor

The ultimate purpose of food is to stay alive, to survive. If all food was plain and tasteless, we would still be driven to eat to satisfy our hunger. Instead nature has provided an abundance pleasurable and enjoyable food.
Nature, through evolution, seeks not only to ensure survival but also seeks to provide pleasure in what we do. It has been called 'the pleasure gene.' Many people eat more than they need to survive because it is a pleasurable activity. The ultimate purpose of sex is survival of the species but, as with food, it is not its only purpose.
simon17

The ultimate purpose of food is to stay alive, to survive. If all food was plain and tasteless, we would still be driven to eat to satisfy our hunger. Instead nature has provided an abundance pleasurable and enjoyable food.
Nature, through evolution, seeks not only to ensure survival but also seeks to provide pleasure in what we do. It has been called 'the pleasure gene.' Many people eat more than they need to survive because it is a pleasurable activity. The ultimate purpose of sex is survival of the species but, as with food, it is not its only purpose.
Thats still backwards. We need food to survive and flourish so we've evolved so that eating is pleasurable. We need sex to survive and flourish so our body has evolved so that sex is pleasurable. We DO NOT need homosexuality or attraction to the same gender to surive and flourish. In fact, that has zero reporductive value.
trevor

We DO NOT need homosexuality or attraction to the same gender to surive and flourish. In fact, that has zero reporductive value.
Maybe you don't, Simon, but if you were gay perhaps you would. It could be that in an overcrowded world evolution is diverting the sexual drive to same sex activity in an attempt to stem the tide of babies being born.
Homosexuality could just be an evolutionary tactic to ensure the survival of life on planet earth. It may even be necessary for humans to disappear in order for other life on earth to survive. We arrived here last and have already done a lot of damage.
DanaBug

In fact, that has zero reporductive value.
That may not be true. Nicolaou linked the article about a 2004 study. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article493668.ece
The findings suggest that the same genes that trigger homosexuality in men also promote fertility in women, and that this could explain how they survive in the population when gay men themselves are unlikely to breed. The genes are instead passed on through the female line and the enhanced fertility they confer on these women ensures that they are inherited by plenty of children.
Same group in 2008:
Male homosexuality is difficult to explain under Darwinian evolutionary models, because carriers of genes predisposing towards male homosexuality would be likely to reproduce less than average, suggesting that alleles influencing homosexuality should progressively disappear from a population. This changed when previous work by Camperio Ciani and collaborators, published in 2004, showed that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than average.
They concluded that the only possible model was that of sexually antagonistic selection. The other models did not fit the empirical data, either implying that the alleles would become extinct too easily or invade the population, or failing to describe the distribution patterns of male homosexuality and female fecundity observed in the families of homosexuals. Only the model of sexually antagonistic selection involving at least two genes – at least one of which must be on the X chromosome (inherited in males only through their mother) – accounted for all the known data.
http://www.physorg.com/news132983648.html
simon17

Maybe you don't, Simon, but if you were gay perhaps you would.
No, thats not what i'm talking about. Maybe (actually probably) a gay person needs gay companionship to live a complete and happy life. Fine. That has nothing to do with procreating, passing on their genes, and making offspring. Homosexuality does not help that goal, in an evolutionary sense. I full realize that humans are now much more than mere animals, pawns in the game of evolution. That doesn't change the fact that from that one standpoint, homosexuality has no utility.
It could be that in an overcrowded world evolution is diverting the sexual drive to same sex activity in an attempt to stem the tide of babies being born. Homosexuality could just be an evolutionary tactic to ensure the survival of life on planet earth. It may even be necessary for humans to disappear in order for other life on earth to survive. We arrived here last and have already done a lot of damage.
No, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evolution works. The natural process of evolution does not look ahead and prepare for future events, intentionally sacrificing short term goals. I agree with your premise that it may very well be a good thing in the end, but evolution doesn't have a long-term plan like that.
trevor

It’s interesting discussing this with you Simon, though I fear we may be drifting towards the science of evolution rather than the topic. I agree that evolution does not have a set purpose or goal. Evolution is just a name that we give to the process of natural development and survival.
At the same time nature is aware of itself and maintains a balance. If that balance becomes threatened it can cause changes in organisms in order to restore balance. Humans procreating in such large numbers, has become a threat to all life on earth. Homosexuality could be part of evolutionary development. That is only a theory and I won’t be marching for gay pride to prove it!
I would suggest that most creatures would be better off without mankind on earth. There are forms of life on earth much older than man and it is likely they will outlast our species.
simon17

It’s interesting discussing this with you Simon
I thought it was interesting too
That is only a theory and I won’t be marching for gay pride to prove it!
Well I think we can both agree that no matter what science says about homosexuality, we'll treat them and their personal choice with the same respect as any other fellow human who makes non-harmful choices that are different than our own.
I would suggest that most creatures would be better off without mankind on earth. There are forms of life on earth much older than man and it is likely they will outlast our species.
You are definitely correct about that, right now anyway. Maybe humans will wise up and become fabulous at protecting wildlife in the future, creating sanctuaries of all kinds. Or maybe we'll force most animlas into extinction. Its hard to say. Right now our record is pretty bad though.
NomadSoul

An interesting question would be, if scientist found out there was a gene controlling this and they found a way to disable it. Would homosexuals volunteer? Would religious fanatics try and make this into a law? Is it unethical to even offer such alternative?
Would this change modern warfare by creating a weapon that would turn a population into homosexuals? lol Okay maybe that's too far out.
simon17

An interesting question would be, if scientist found out there was a gene controlling this and they found a way to disable it. Would homosexuals volunteer? Would religious fanatics try and make this into a law? Is it unethical to even offer such alternative?
I don't see why they would volunteer unless they were a victim of stigma or bullying or things like that. Or maybe if they really wanted to raise a family. Otherwise, why change yourself?
Relgions would be a crossroads, as they'd have to support genetic manipulation and experimentation. I'd guess they would not support it because it would be opening Pandora's Box for them really.
WHy would it be unethical to offer the alternative? They offer trans-gender surgeries, etc. It would be unethical to force it.

How do we encourage the science of homosexuality?

Share this