This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Again, not my terminology, I'm just using what words people have provided. Replace it with 'abnormal' if you want. If someone had 6 fingers, is that simply abnormal or is it imperfect, or how would you define it? 'Different'?I'd like this better.
"Imperfect" seems to imply that the rest of the population is perfect. Abnormal seems more appropriate. There is no perfect state in evolution, but there is such a thing as status quo.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm happy to replace 'imperfect' with 'abnormal', none of my previous statements really change.
Post by
Laihendi
Really, with the advances that have been made in sex reassignment surgery in recent years, there's no reason for people to retain the sex they were born with if they are homosexual, so the morality of it is a non-issue.
Post by
Orranis
Evolution have given us intelligence. Intelligence as a trait is so remarkable that it allows us to overcome nearly every obstacle in our path. Because of this intelligence things that may have at one point been detrimental to survival are now neutral now that our intelligence is around to work around it. One such thing is homosexuality. With intelligence we are able to separate sex and baby making, so that homosexuals can be homosexual and still make babies. So I find the idea that "homosexuals don't naturally make babies and so are imperfect" to be extremely blind and in all honesty downright mean. I know you don't mean it to be mean, but it's not really fair to call something like this an imperfection based on a very narrow and dialectic analysis. I do not think what I'm saying is anything extreme or controversial.
Jubilee, I think you're missing what I'm trying to say. You're saying that homosexuality isn't imperfection because intelligence makes things evolutionarily netural. I don't think that's a reasonable argument, as there are plenty of 'imperfections' in humans that have to be overcome with intelligence. For example:
We don't have fur, so we get cold in winter. Intelligence has helped us control fire, construct shelters, develop heating sources.
Our species originated in West Africa. We evolved to not have fur. It was only the intelligence that allowed us to get so far from our environment in the first place that allowed us to live there.
We are susceptible to viruses and diseases. Intelligence has helped us develop synergistic drugs and antibodies to supplement our bodies' natural immune systems, which are not sufficient to survive on their own in today's world.
They're more than sufficient to survive on their own. I don't really understand what you mean. Drugs and antibodies are actually much less attributed to our ability to fight off disease as opposed to what it once was as opposed to Public Health. Basic sanitation and the way we live. But either way, our bodies are just as capable as they were before we developed any kind of society to fight off disease, and plenty of people would 'survive.' We would live less long, and more of us would die, but we would not immediately die out.
If somebody is sterile (in the sense that their reproductive system isn't functioning properly), the wonders of genetic science has given us the ability to inject their DNA into cells and clone them. Or even, work their DNA in with a partner's DNA to get, for all intents and purposes, an artificially created child.
How often does this actually happen? I'm actually curious, but I doubt it's widely practiced.
My point is, just because homosexuals can still produce babies via science doesn't mean by definition that the homosexual trait is not an imperfection (note that I'm not saying homosexuality *is* an imperfection, that was someone else - I'm just criticising your counterargument). That's not a logical argument.
That's not the argument. The argument is that a genetic imperfection is something that is detrimental enough in the environment the spoken of person or animal inhabits that it gets naturally selected out of the gene pool. As this has not yet happened to homosexuality, it is not a genetic imperfection.
Post by
Squishalot
The argument is that a genetic imperfection is something that is detrimental enough in the environment the spoken of person or animal inhabits that it gets naturally selected out of the gene pool.
False. The fact that it exists isn't evidence in and of itself that it's not detrimental enough in the environment to be naturally selected out. It can be in transition - there's no reason to suggest that the current state of
Homo sapiens
has removed all detrimental attributes already, because that, as Skreeran suggests, would imply that we're all perfect as is and have no further need to evolve.
How often does this actually happen? I'm actually curious, but I doubt it's widely practiced.
Never, sadly. There are a lot of prohibitions about stem cell research on humans. It's definitely feasible though, and I believe that there are successful tests on plants and animals.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
173035
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Hm, I was under the impression that we can combine DNA for the purposes of creating a single cell organism with a unique DNA. The issue is then converting that into something that is capable of growing into a person, but it's about there that the line in the sand was drawn by regulators.
Edit: Further note - if we can inject DNA into cells (with low takeup rate, but with high enough numbers, we can generate a few successful specimens), then theoretically, we can inject donor eggs / sperm with other DNA. So with a combination of genetic engineering + artificial insemination, we can probably do it, it's just not ethically permitted, and the cost would be astronomical.
Even if homosexuality were to be labeled as a "flaw" because it prevents reproduction, it still exists, so what difference does it make aside from hurting gay peoples' self esteem?
Why do we 'treat' autism but not homosexuality?
(again, big caveat that I'm not in favour of any such thing, only playing devil's advocate to illustrate that certain traits already are treated (ahahaha pun...) as 'flaws'...)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
About homosexuality being an evolutionary flaw, that's
debatable
.
^ Not sure if anyone read this earlier.
Post by
Squishalot
About homosexuality being an evolutionary flaw, that's
debatable
.
^ Not sure if anyone read this earlier.
I did. I also read the part of the article saying that the findings weren't able to be replicated.
Post by
Jubilee
Again, not my terminology, I'm just using what words people have provided. Replace it with 'abnormal' if you want. If someone had 6 fingers, is that simply abnormal or is it imperfect, or how would you define it? 'Different'?
That's what you've been arguing the whole time? =S That is precisely why I shouldn't argue for more than 2-3 replies because anything past that is going to end up meaningless.
Of course it's abnormal! 98% of the population is heterosexual, 2% is homosexual (and everything else). If 2% of the population is anything - gay, >7 feet tall, have an IQ >160, have superpowers - then they are abnormal. That says nothing about some made-up perfection.
Post by
Patty
I did. I also read the part of the article saying that the findings weren't able to be replicated.
It seems I scanned over that part. :/ My apologies.
Post by
xaratherus
The issue being argued is that something that is evolutionarily bad shouldn't be encouraged. Therefore, if homosexuality is evolutionarily bad, it shouldn't be encouraged, forming moral justification for attempting to restrict it.
The base concept of the issue seems flawed though. It makes the assumption that you can, in some way, encourage or discourage homosexuality. How exactly do you do that? We don't even know what sexual orientation
is
- whether it's genetic, hormonal, environmental, or some combination of those causes.
The best you can argue is that you could discourage homosexual
activity
. But why, exactly, would that result in evolutionary improvement? Homosexual intercourse is an evolutionarily 'neutral' act anyway; it doesn't result in the propagation of any genetic traits, positive or negative.
In relation to evolution, the best one could argue is that a homosexual would not propagate any positive traits that exist in his genes because he would not procreate - but even that is not a valid reason. A homosexual is not sterile. I could go out today and "sow my seed" and ensure that my genes carried on into the next generation.
Thinking this through, the entire basis of the topic is flawed. The removal of negative genetic traits through direct action of the species is not necessarily viewed as a morally positive action, which is what is being implied here.
For instance, autism is primarily thought to be a genetically linked disorder, and I think it's safe to say most would consider it a negative evolutionary trait to pass on. But our society doesn't advocate the involuntary sterilization of autistic people, nor is it commonly acceptable to dissuade them from procreating.
By the argument of this topic though, we
should
, because it would ensure that this negative trait is not as frequently passed on within the species.
Post by
173035
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
@Jubilee: I seem to recall a study done in the Netherlands that claimed at least 12% of the population is homo or bisexual. I'll see if I can find it again, but I do know that in countries where people feel free to be honest when answering questions about their sexuality the percentage is considerably higher than 2%.
Based on everything I've read, that 12% number is more around the number of people who have had a same-sex encounter. Nearly every survey seems to puts actual lesbians at a bit under 2% and male homosexuals at 2% or a little above.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
@Enigma
No, in my opinion. It's just like if people asked whether or not having red hair is immoral. Obviously having red hair is not immoral, but if half of the population of your country believe it is, you're forced to address it.
Being a ginger is immoral though.
Post by
Gone
Really, with the advances that have been made in sex reassignment surgery in recent years, there's no reason for people to retain the sex they were born with if they are homosexual, so the morality of it is a non-issue.
I can think of three off the top of my head
1) money
2) pain
3) children
Also for all peoples talk about advances it's still a very risky procedure, and for most people the end resaults don't look ad natural as they would want.
Post by
Skreeran
Not to mentioned that transexualism (is that the right word?) is even more stigmatized than homosexuality.
Post by
Jubilee
Really, with the advances that have been made in sex reassignment surgery in recent years, there's no reason for people to retain the sex they were born with if they are homosexual, so the morality of it is a non-issue.
I must have missed this post. Being homosexual has very little to do with being transsexual. I have no desire to be a man and I have no desire to be with a woman who wants to be a man.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.