scrappy Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know what the appeal is of discussing homosexuality as a "hot topic"; my straight friends are very uninterested in whether someone is gay or not. It doesn't seem to be any more interesting than whether a person has blonde or brunette hair. The guy who started the thread has a very, very flawed argument. He's saying "Gay is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was gay, the species would die out." Couldn't we use that exact same argument elsewhere? Ignoring scientific fertility treatments, we could say, "Being a woman is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was a woman, the species would die out." It's annoying when people try to attack homosexuality through evolutionary theory. I don't know why every aspect of human existence has to be related to passing on genes. I'm a scientist, but I don't try to analyse every single aspect of my life to try to see if it measures up to evolutionary principles! Check out the "Kin Selection and Homosexuality" thread. Kin selection is not an attack on homosexuality, instead it provides a natural excuse for it. Please take a closer look at the opening post of that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know what the appeal is of discussing homosexuality as a "hot topic"; my straight friends are very uninterested in whether someone is gay or not. It doesn't seem to be any more interesting than whether a person has blonde or brunette hair. The guy who started the thread has a very, very flawed argument. He's saying "Gay is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was gay, the species would die out." Couldn't we use that exact same argument elsewhere? Ignoring scientific fertility treatments, we could say, "Being a woman is unnatural and wrong, because if the whole world was a woman, the species would die out." It's annoying when people try to attack homosexuality through evolutionary theory. I don't know why every aspect of human existence has to be related to passing on genes. I'm a scientist, but I don't try to analyse every single aspect of my life to try to see if it measures up to evolutionary principles! Why try to explain it? Because it's interesting. Homosexuality occurs in a wide variety of species, including humans, and by it's nature, seems to be contrary to the basic evolutionary drive to pass on genes. This in and of itself is enough to attract scientific interest. People are interested for precisely the same reason people are interested in hive insects with sterile workers and species which can choose between sexual and asexual reproduction - it takes the typical Darwinian strategy and adds a new twist. Explaining a trait which seems to be contrary to what one would expect is always interesting. As for why an evolutionary explanation - because there's clearly a genetic factor. There's a high level of twin concordance, and several other methods also show high heritability. This means that genes must be involved somehow, thus evolution comes into play. Finally, I don't think anyone here is using science to condemn homosexuality, and if they do, you have my word as a mod that they'll be on the receiving end of my banhammer very, very quickly. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I don't think homosexuality is entirely biological in origin, neither do I believe that it is completely socially constructed. Homosexuality is not some monolithic entity, but exists along a homosexual continuum punctuated by readily distinguishable "homosexualities", with one form of homosexuality blending imperceptibly into another form of homosexuality. Although some "homosexualities" maybe purely biological in origin, others can involve aspects of both genetics and social constructionism, and still other "homosexualities" can be entirely socially constructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for what they believe or do, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. When the gays were let out of the closet, a wide range of perversion came from the back of the closet and followed them into culture seeking their own rights. Are these all due to genes? Just because a dog humps a human's leg, does that mean the bum blasting animals is a natural part of nature? Human's are capable of anything. Just because it exists does not make it natural behavior. If one looks at the breeding behavior of animals, it is not uncommon with social animals for the males to fight. There is a saying among guys that a stiff di..k has no conscience and can make a man do what he will regret later. Maybe this competition evolved from a defensive need against being taken for a female because of confusion within the lower brain. I seriously doubt any animal would confuse the sexes. Males and females smell different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I was confused for a 'Natural Female' last night..............his girlfriend was a little jealous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now