admiral_ju00 Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Biological failure? Maybe you can define that a tad more clearly? An organism's fitness, or ability to reproduce a viable offspring(that is itself capable of reproduction) can only be considered a failure in terms of an evolutionary perspective. Not in it's physiological state! What about those animals or humans that are fully capable of reproduction(they are non-sterile or homosexual) but simply CHOOSE not to reproduce. Does that also make them a biological failure. When taking this under the very narrow definition you have provided, then yes, they are. That is however a wrong conclusion/decision.
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 "Homosexuals can't reproduce" is not true at all, and any argument based on it is wishful thinking, particularly since reproductive success has not been an individual fitness indicator for humanity for thousands of years.
MandrakeRoot Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 I agree with admiral here. Evolutionary arguments are a little misplaced in this debate since the human race doesn't really seem to follow the strict rules of evolution Technically someone that needs glasses should have less chance to reproduce, as does someone that is less intelligent etc... However clearly that is not the case. So the human race sort of cheats on evolution (for the moment) and therefore i dont think that any such argument could quite "finish" the debate here. OTher then that if we define a homosexual as someone that is only attracted to the same sex (there is no choice element). Then no they cant reproduce since they couldnt mate with someone of the opposite sex. Why would "love" (whatever its definition) not be seen in the animal world ? There are species of birds that stick with the same mate all their life, clearly they must be driven by something other then just the need to reproduce here i guess. J'Dona , are you actually saying that more people there are, more of them are gay ? So countries with a higher population density would contain relatively more gay people following your reasoning then ? (I doubt that to be true though) Mandrake
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 OTher then that if we define a homosexual as someone that is only attracted to the same sex (there is no choice element). Then no they cant reproduce since they couldnt mate with someone of the opposite sex. Again, "could not" is not the same as "would not", and "can't" is not the same as "won't". We've done all this before.
MandrakeRoot Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Here couldnt is a mental impossibility, not a physical one. Clearly physically a homosexual is just as much capable to reproduce (should he choose so !) as anybody else, but the point i am making is that if we define a homosexual as someone that is only attracted to the same sex, then there is no choice ! Never will he think of reproduction/sex with a member of the opposite sex, since the idea would disgust him/her. So he is mentally blocked to reproduce. I hope i am more clear ? So in the case of the definition i would say that cant=wont, couldnt=wouldnt Ofcourse you can imagine that some people might choose to have homosexual relations and then after again not etc..., but those would not be "real" homosexuals in the sense of the definition of not having a choice (in the sense of just being born that way). Mandrake
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Here couldnt is a mental impossibility, not a physical one. Clearly physically a homosexual is just as much capable to reproduce (should he choose so !) as anybody else, but the point i am making is that if we define a homosexual as someone that is only attracted to the same sex, then there is no choice !Never will he think of reproduction/sex with a member of the opposite sex, since the idea would disgust him/her. So he is mentally blocked to reproduce. I hope i am more clear ? So in the case of the definition i would say that cant=wont, couldnt=wouldnt Ofcourse you can imagine that some people might choose to have homosexual relations and then after again not etc..., but those would not be "real" homosexuals in the sense of the definition of not having a choice (in the sense of just being born that way). I don't know about you but I doubt the legions of gay men and women who have gone through one of the several available routes to conceive children are just "faking it". You're making the assumption that gender-oriented fidelity and (genewise) fecundity are linked, and they just aren't. A gay female couple for instance might both be completely monogamous and utterly devoid of attraction for males, but in order to fulfill our basic drives humans have the option of deciding to make a cost-benefit judgement and act on it: in this case, that might be artifical insemination or agreeing to engage the services of a surrogate father. Humans are weird, both evolutionarily and ecologically. Free will and the general craziness of the id will always ensure that artificial rules such as "if (A like X) { !! A+B; }" do not apply.
secretsmile Posted June 25, 2004 Author Posted June 25, 2004 Also, at the risk of sounding patronising, this is a science debate forum, so you should give others a chance (more than 16 minutes anyway) to respond to a large post before claiming to be the victor without hearing any major responses yet. Point made, I was ahead of myself there, I apologize. Also, there's not much in the original post to be refuted; you've provided a lot of examples of homosexuality in nature (which nobody argues about) and proceed to claim that it is a genetic defect, without any evidence for that. Aside from saying "no" or "why?", nobody can really respond to that. What I should have said was that is it a biological defect because it differes from the norm, it is a chemical imbalances and chromosomal disorder. No one seems to see what "abnormal" means; there isnt necessarily anything right or wrong, good or bad with abnormalities. All it means is that something is different from the norm. Cancer is found all throughout nature, but a tumor is still considered a cluster of abnormal cell source. Something is abnormal if it differs from the norm. Simply because something is a disease or not doesnt show that its abnormal or not cancerous cells are abnormal because the majority of the human body is made up of normal cells. Comparitively, homosexuality is abnormal because the majority of humanity is heterosexual, that is my point Skye. The primary biologic function of sex is to procreate. Humans have taken the act and indulged in the carnallity of it, but the main purpose of sex is to produce children. The fact remains: as a species that reproduces sexually rather than assexually, there is no biologic reason for homosexuality and that makes them abnormal. Many of your info is unfound, and flawed. How is it unfounded and unflawed? Every "classification" of homosexuals as gentically flawed or suffering from a disease or whatever are all based on speculations, most of which do not make sense. How do they not make sense? Homosexuality is not an inherent trait. Its the after-effect of a process during the developmental stages of a persons life. This process may or may not be due to genetics, but it is an abnormal process. I cant prove alot of this, but can you disprove it? Can you prove your stance? Since no one can prove or disprove it, how can you be so sure that its not abnormal? Some scientists say one thing, others say another. The truth of the mater that there is no clear proof for one side or the other. However, there are theories, and this is one of them. Theories are considered valid until disproven. A biological variation is still abnormal... it differs from the average Coming from someone who says things like "blue eyes, left-handedness, etc are neither of these things, but simply inherent traits", or the instant classic that is "we do not produce clones, as the genetic line will eventually fray and produce mutations (this is why incest is illegal)", the information you provided is likely to be dismissed summarily by a lot of people as you are clearly using unresearched bluster in an attempt to justify a predetermined position, which is the very antithesis of scientific research and will be looked down on by anyone with half a brain. Cloning will destroy a genetic line, because the material used becomes less and less viable. think of it this way: a copy of a copy is never as good as the original. and thos things are traits; thats basic biology.
dryan Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Has anyone seen Saved!? From what I've heard, it makes fun of conservative religion dealing with homosexuality. And it's supposed to be incredibly funny. On a side note, I'm going up to Chicago this weekend to help my sister move into a new apartment. Right now she lives in Boystown, and there is a Gay Pride Parade scheduled for Sunday and it goes by a block from her apartment. This should be ...interesting.
Hero Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Has anyone seen Saved![/u']? From what I've heard, it makes fun of conservative religion dealing with homosexuality. And it's supposed to be incredibly funny. religious people are so funny! they get all worked up about these things. take pictures! An organism's fitness' date=' or ability to reproduce a viable offspring(that is itself capable of reproduction) can only be considered a failure in terms of an evolutionary perspective. Not in it's physiological state![/quote'] well then the evolutionary perspective is what i was hitting on. no one mentioned it yet, so i did. biological failure speaks for itself...if you dont reproduce, according to evolutionary terms, you would have failed your biological purpose. not that it would bother anyone anyhow. What about those animals or humans that are fully capable of reproduction(they are non-sterile or homosexual) but simply CHOOSE not to reproduce. Does that also make them a biological failure. yes is does. why is that such a horrible thing to say or think? Why would "love" (whatever its definition) not be seen in the animal world ?There are species of birds that stick with the same mate all their life' date=' clearly they must be driven by something other then just the need to reproduce here i guess. [/quote'] animals dont contain the emotion "love." it either comes out of instinct or loyalty. they are good examples of love, (the examples of ducks ect you gave) but through research-it is not. i think it's a stupid argument. "Homosexuals can't reproduce" is not true at all' date=' and any argument based on it is wishful thinking, particularly since reproductive success has not been an individual fitness indicator for humanity for thousands of years.[/quote'] such hateful words...calm down! and since when does sperm=sperm or egg=egg? of course they can Raise children, but one they are not their own, or it is not one of the two parents-and it did not occur in the natural homosexual "environment." even though fitness hasn't been an indictor for success in "thousands of years," i believe it still has a place in this argument. the argument was "is homosexuality a deffect," and certainly going off the observations in the biological and evolutionary field-one can conclude that homosexuality is indeed a genetic flaw.
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 such hateful words...calm down! I fail to see why you would chose to describe that post as "hateful". and since when does sperm=sperm or egg=egg? Meaningless. of course they can Raise children, but one they are not their own, or it is not one of the two parents-and it did not occur in the natural homosexual "environment." How ignorant can one person get? even though fitness hasn't been an indictor for success in "thousands of years," i believe it still has a place in this argument. the argument was "is homosexuality a deffect," and certainly going off the observations in the biological and evolutionary field-one can conclude that homosexuality is indeed a genetic flaw. Based on that comment, I don't think you'd know evolutionary fitness if it came and bit out a chunk. Incidentally, the logic "I think this random effect is a biological flaw therefore it is genetic" is complete nonsense.
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Posted June 25, 2004 Cloning will destroy a genetic line, because the material used becomes less and less viable. think of it this way: a copy of a copy is never as good as the original. and thos things are traits; thats basic biology. Maybe you should do some research into cloning techniques. This thread is a small monument to the ignorance and prejudice we have already dispelled in other threads on the same topic. I don't see why anyone should have to put up with going through all that again.
Recommended Posts