posted
What do you mean by "making complex sexual decisions"? Obviously there are different possibilities, and the fly only does one out of each mutually exclusive set, but that's not what is generally meant when one says something is a "choice" for humans.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is an "underlying biological imperative driving" then how can there be a choice--at least a meaningful, free choice? It's got to be one or the other.
These underlying biological imperatives do not dictate how we choose to live our lives. Someone could find themselves with feelings towards others of the same sex, and not act on them. The same way someone can feel attracted to a friend's spouse and not act on that.
quote:If the entire human race were homosexual, then the human race would become extinct. How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
This is a question one should ask if our species was in danger of dying from underpopulation, and if there was any real belief that 100% of the species was going to be homosexual. Since neither of those two things are the case, the question is silly.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here we go again! Do you all see what I mean? On the one hand, its "A choice." On the other hand, "the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice."
There is not necessarily a contradiction, depending on how you read it.
The decision to have sex (of any kind) is a choice, most of us will agree, I think. For some it may be harder than for others. However, what might not be a choice is the drive to engage in homosexual sex. That could well be what BlueWizard was talking about.
Just because there is a biological imperative to do something does not mean it must in all cases be done.
quote:I do not see how a homosexual "biological imperative" can exist, since it is not a part of reproduction. If the entire human race were homosexual, then the human race would become extinct. How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
Fugu's response addresses this objection of yours in its entirety, Ron. You should abandon that particular argument - how can it be genetic if it doesn't breed? - because it just doesn't withstand even mild scrutiny.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here we go again! Do you all see what I mean? On the one hand, its "A choice." On the other hand, "the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice."
There is not necessarily a contradiction, depending on how you read it.
No contradiction at all; ron just didn't read it correctly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuality may be a very natural response to population increases. There are too many people so we need less breeders. In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes. In a way, they are quite naturally homosexual. I suppose it should be equivalent to mental retardation and they should be afforded the same regard as someone with down syndrome. We should be understanding of the fact that they are naturally outside the laws of natural selection, thus a dead end road. Homosexuals deserve our sympathy and support. As a society we should encourage their unions, thus preventing the propagation of their defective genes. Forcing a born homosexual to pretend to be straight due to the heterosexual intolerance of a society only results in the unatural propogation of genes destined to die. Homophobia in a population only increases the homosexual population by forcing the unnatural union of hetero with homo. We should encourage and embrace gay unions to prevent the spread of their genes.
posted
If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring. That offsping was not intended to reproduce. The intolerance of society forcing them into an unatural relationship wich propogates genetics that were not intended to replicate.
Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior. The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics. The intolerance of society forcing a born homosexual to live a hetero life would propogate these genes and increase the homosexual population. Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural. You cannot deny both.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuality may be a very natural response to population increases. There are too many people so we need less breeders. In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes. In a way, they are quite naturally homosexual. I suppose it should be equivalent to mental retardation and they should be afforded the same regard as someone with down syndrome. We should be understanding of the fact that they are naturally outside the laws of natural selection, thus a dead end road. Homosexuals deserve our sympathy and support. As a society we should encourage their unions, thus preventing the propagation of their defective genes. Forcing a born homosexual to pretend to be straight due to the heterosexual intolerance of a society only results in the unatural propogation of genes destined to die. Homophobia in a population only increases the homosexual population by forcing the unnatural union of hetero with homo. We should encourage and embrace gay unions to prevent the spread of their genes. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes.
Because, after all, genetics is the perfect method of humanity dealing with itself and the world, right?
Nonsense.
quote:The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.
This is of course equally nonsense. Homosexuality occurs in animals as well. Are you suggesting there's some sort of animal intolerance that directs homosexual animals to breed and thus perpetuates homosexuality?
quote: Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural.
Who said anything about denying? I'm asking, "So what if it's unnatural?" (Though of course it isn't. What it is is uncommon, which is not at all the same thing.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, there's a lovely children's book called The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle that has as one of its themes (God, I hate using that word) the distinction between what is unnatural and what is unusual.
With malanthrop's participation, this thread is rapidly approaching "burn the witch!" standards. All I have to say to that is that she may be a witch, but she's our witch. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't propose that is was either natural or a choice but one or the other. My sarcasm moy not have translated well. Is homosexuality a choice or are they born that way? If it is genetic it is self defeating. There are many "uncommon" choices but they are not equivalent to the natural ones.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has already been satisfactorily demonstrated that homosexuality in animals is not "self-defeating".
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexuality would result in the extinction of a species. You are confusing bisexuality with homosexuality. Bisexuals are deviants while homosexuals are naturally non reproductive. Animal behavior cannot be held up as an example for human beings. I wouldn't kill and eat my girlfreind's children so that she would go into heat sooner for my benefit. Chimpanzees do this. Are we animals, or humans???
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality would result in the extinction of a species. You are confusing bisexuality with homosexuality. Bisexuals are deviants while homosexuals are naturally non reproductive. Animal behavior cannot be held up as an example for human beings. I wouldn't kill and eat my girlfreind's children so that she would go into heat sooner for my benefit. Chimpanzees do this. Are we animals, or humans???
posted
But we do see exclusive homosexual relationships in animals. Fruit flies, for instance. We see even more other sorts of non-breeding individuals perpetuated in species, over and over again. For instance, if all bees were worker bees, there would be no more bees.
But evolution isn't about individuals having offspring, it is about genes perpetuating. So a group of animals where some of them don't breed can (and does) occur in order to increase the chances of some of those genes succeeding.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're only the second person I've known in ten years to catch that. But it has more to do with my perspective in an anthropoligacal sense.......Society is bad.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: Archaea splitting off later than Bacteria? Isn't that the opposite of the current 'best guess'? It is a very fuzzy field of study, of course, so I don't think there's really a consensus.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only the second person? I assumed everyone here found it rather obvious. I know I've seen other people bring it up (though not on this forum).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or just the second person who didn't think it was obvious and thus didn't bother to point it out.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also about how genes express differently in the opposite sex.
A gene that, in a male, might make him gay would, in a female, make her more fertile. And indeed, sisters of gay men tend to have more children.
Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
A gene that is beneficial to reproduction in one sex can be detrimental to another.
In other words, you can't kill us off by giving us what we want. But don't worry. When there's a cheap and easy pre-natal test for homosexuality, I'm sure all you good, god fearing, heterosexuals will abort us.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mucus: Archaea splitting off later than Bacteria? Isn't that the opposite of the current 'best guess'? It is a very fuzzy field of study, of course, so I don't think there's really a consensus.
I don't think so, I think its been that way for at least 8 years or so and I don't think its changed.
Of course, I brought it up for the narrower question of are humans animals.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought results based on cell structure showed Archaea was very different, and the rRNA result was fuzzy enough people are willing to discount it in light of the other evidence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
They are brother and sister. Sharing genes is more complex than that. Maybe they'll both like women or men. Have you watched Little People Big World? Twins, one's a midget, the other isn't but both parent's are. Having two midget parents doesn't guarantee you'll get the midget gene, it's 50/50. Having one midget parent reduces the odds even further. If homosexuals are born that way you must admit it is a consequence of genetic ineheritence. Genetic inheritence is dependent upon hetosexual relationships.
I've suggested that societal discrimination against homosexuality has resulted in an increase in homosexuality. This premise is soley dependant upun it being genetic rather than individual choice. Are homosexuals born that way? Is it a choice? If it isn't a choice I believe in equal rights for them. If not, they are simple deviants. Please, share your opinion, genetic or choice.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
That is obviously what I was talking about since I mentioned brothers and sisters previously. They are related, not identical. I should have said "Sister" and left out "twin" for clarity's sake.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You're only the second person I've known in ten years to catch that. But it has more to do with my perspective in an anthropoligacal sense.......Society is bad.
Did you follow the link? That was kind of the point of me pointing out what your name meant.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If homosexuals are born that way you must admit it is a consequence of genetic ineheritence. Genetic inheritence is dependent upon hetosexual relationships."
Baloney. Useless premise and even granting that, false conclusion.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if he's yet read my post pointing out there are lots of species with non-breeding individuals.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm suggesting complete tolerance. Embrace homosexuals and allow them to realize what they are at a very young age. Instead of chasing girls, the gay leaning junior high boy will openly seek other boys. He'll live in a free society that is accepting of his preference and pair up with an unreproductive partner. Since he is naturally gay due to his genetics and accepted in society, he will freely choose to not replicate his genes into the next generation. I offer tolerance and acceptance as early as possible for the elimination of your kind. Is it a choice or are you born that way??
Give the gays everything they want and they will diminish. I belive they grow in population due to intolerance. Survival of the fittest no longer applies to human beings. We are not animals. The least successful among us reproduce at he highest rate.
B> What do you propose happens when science progresses far enough that men can reproduce with men and women can fertilize other women? It's closer than you think. (ie: They've already made sperm out of stem cells.)
However, I encourage you to continue to stand behind us. Even if you're doing it for you're own misguided reasons.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we are going to engineer a society which is completely tolerant of homosexuality, then wouldn't we have to build three locker rooms in each school? You wouldn't want homosexual boys in the boys locker room. I say three locker rooms, because that would be cheaper than building four locker rooms, and presumably homosexual boys would not react adversely to being placed in the same locker room with homosexual girls. Of course, then we would have to watch out for boys (and maybe some girls) who are only claiming to be homosexual.
The only real alternative would be to have one big locker room for all genders. That would probably lead to a great increase in enrollment at parochial schools, as parents react against the hedonism of general society.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to break it to you, but there are already homosexuals in the locker rooms of the world, and there have been forever.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I hate to break it to you, but there are already homosexuals in the locker rooms of the world, and there have been forever.
I think this was directed at me, you've got me all wrong. I don't care about homosexuals in locker rooms because I'm worried they are checking me out. In fact it's more that I am so decidedly squeemish about my own body, I doubt anybody is checking it out much less lusting after it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Give the gays everything they want and they will diminish. I belive they grow in population due to intolerance. Survival of the fittest no longer applies to human beings. We are not animals. The least successful among us reproduce at he highest rate.
Wait, this is just baffling.
On the one hand, natural selection matters-homosexuals will be reduced through natural causes over time if they're allowed to couple and subsequently not reproduce.
On the other hand, natural selection doesn't matter, because apparently right now it's exhibiting itself in the very unnatural growth in the homosexual population due to widespread intolerance at best?
That's just nuts. And, of course, the first point as fugu and others have illustrated repeatedly and in some detail, complete bunk. Homosexuality isn't just a thing that can be naturally selected out of the human race. It occurs entirely on its own.
At some point you'll have to acknowledge that, malanthrop, because I doubt people are just going to forget it.
Just for further clarity: Homosexuality cannot be bred out of the human race via natural selection.
-----
Ron,
quote:That would probably lead to a great increase in enrollment at parochial schools, as parents react against the hedonism of general society.
Seems to me we've had segregated locker rooms for generations in this country, but the spread of hedonism hardly seems much inhibited by it:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh--quite true. Perhaps that explains the popularity of parochial schools today. If it weren't for the burdensome cost of paying for both public schools and parochial schools, probably most parents would send their children to parochial schools.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh--quite true. Perhaps that explains the popularity of parochial schools today. If it weren't for the burdensome cost of paying for both public schools and parochial schools, probably most parents would send their children to parochial schools.
Does today's popularity of parochial schools (though I personally think that has a lot to do with academic standards as well as concerns about morality) seem to be having a substantial impact on the 'spread of hedonism'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just for further clarity: Homosexuality cannot be bred out of the human race via natural selection.
I think you probably could, actually, by applying a stringent 'eugenics' program for a few thousand years. Although that's not exactly natural selection, to be sure. But yeah, anyway, evolution does not work the way malanthrop apparently thinks it does.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
