Is Homosexuality Wrong?
MrMojo
Join Date: 2002-11-25 Member: 9882Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-25 Member: 9882Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">strictly on scientific terms</div> Well, I'll keep this quick because I have to go soon. Let me just say before you read this, that I'm completely for **** marriage but this is something I've just noticed.
Taking an AP Biology cource for almost three trimesters now, I've learned a lot about plants, animals, and other organisms. I've also been told, and shown that the ultimate goal of any organism is to reproduce. That's how evolution occurs. Fungi, plants, mammals, fish, all of the evolutions of these life forms have been in order to have a better, more efficient reproduction. Flowers are a way to reproduce. So are mushrooms.
Now, speaking on biological terms ( as in, no religious/personal beliefs please), homosexuality would be a mutation that goes against the struggle to reproduce. It seems, no matter what I believe, to be a harmful change.
However, of course, since humanity has pretty much taken the world over, combating diseases and mental conditions, allowing many harmful mutations to go on, I doubt that homosexuality is wrong now. We don't really lose much no matter what genes we have, based on the amount of people in the world and the fact that we're not struggling for survival against other creatures.
Taking an AP Biology cource for almost three trimesters now, I've learned a lot about plants, animals, and other organisms. I've also been told, and shown that the ultimate goal of any organism is to reproduce. That's how evolution occurs. Fungi, plants, mammals, fish, all of the evolutions of these life forms have been in order to have a better, more efficient reproduction. Flowers are a way to reproduce. So are mushrooms.
Now, speaking on biological terms ( as in, no religious/personal beliefs please), homosexuality would be a mutation that goes against the struggle to reproduce. It seems, no matter what I believe, to be a harmful change.
However, of course, since humanity has pretty much taken the world over, combating diseases and mental conditions, allowing many harmful mutations to go on, I doubt that homosexuality is wrong now. We don't really lose much no matter what genes we have, based on the amount of people in the world and the fact that we're not struggling for survival against other creatures.
Comments
Social animals, and humanity has to be called one of the most social species on the planet, don't have to necessarily reproduce themselves to ensure the longevity of their heritage, be that genes, memes, or a combination of the two.
An example:
Take siblings, two sisters. As they grow up, the younger sister marries and gets children. The older one doesn't, but soon starts looking after her nephews and nieces if her sister can't be around. The children grow up, and develop a relationship almost as strong with her as with their mother. A lot of what they learn and of the believes they adapt stem in fact from their aunt. They profit from the additional care invested into them, and lead successful lives, procreating themselves.
The older sister has achieved an evolutionary success not much smaller than her younger sibling, and she could've been in a homosexual relationship for the whole of this time without of hindering this achievement.
Another example:
Dr. Alan Turing was one of the quite possibly most brilliant mathematicans of the last century. He helped the Allies crack the codes of the Axis' Enigma machines and made significant contributions towards the development of the digital computer in the process. It's safe to claim that his society, be that considered Great Britain, the Allies, or humanity as a whole, profitted greatly of this mans achievements. He also loved men - but I can guarantee that his mementic heritage - which you are building upon while reading this post - has 'immortalized' him to a by far greater extent than any form of biological procreation could've ever allowed for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems, no matter what I believe, to be a harmful change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we come back to this, and in reality you are in fact correct. For that person, it is a technical genetic death and would in fact negatively impact on what genes they were carrying. If for example, a gene for a certain eye colour or similar was with it, those genes would be negatively affected in the population.
In an evolutionary sense it would be almost completely pointless, because males would probably stick around to do things like hunting/guarding, while women would more or less not get a choice in reproduction (not the case today however, but then natural selection is largely irrelevant today too).
I doubt it did anything significant.
back on-topic...
Homosexuality could and can be considered a negative trait; but <u>ONLY</u> early on in the evolution of a species. Why? If 80% of a early species numbering fairly few (lets say 200 individuals) were homosexual, after their life expecancies had gone by and they had perished, there would only be about 20% of the group left. As well, because homosexuality dies with the individual, a totally homosexual population will die out fairly quickly.
Now lets <i>assume</i> homosexuality is in someone's genes. If those individuals die off, then you will end up with a totally non-homosexual society. However, as that society grows and increases in number, those genes may come back and *poof* you have a new homosexual group of people. Of course, that's if homosexuality was caused by genes... but quite frankly we dont know what causes homosexual behaviour, so dont hurt me for saying what i just said! ("Decision making" could also be considered, and treated like, a trait in a individual so replace "genes" with "decision making". Dont hurt me for that, either. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<u>Early on - AKA: "Pre-History"</u> = bad for the entire group's survival chances. (Less actual breeding couples producing offspring > Less offspring that may live > Death of the group or a large portion of it)
<u>Later on - AKA: "Now"</u> = group can stand to lose "X" # of individuals. (The rest of the groups breeding and offspring production makes up for the homosexual individual's lack of offspring production) Still, that's a amount of the population that isn't producing offspring...
[Hmm... looks like i stayed away from everything even related to my beliefs or religious things, so it looks ok... please delete it if it isn't tho.]
Socially/sociologically, it's a different story. One could argue that homosexuality allows close bonds to form between any two community members, not restricting the closeness of an intimate relationship to male-female pairings. One could also argue that homosexual relationships ultimately erode traditional familial bonds, resulting in a more dysfunctional society (this is a secular stance held by many who oppose homosexual marriage). There is not sufficient data to back up either claim, though non-scientific studies (e.g. investigations carried out by media, such as newspapers or TV news programs) seem to suggest that a family headed by a homosexual couple is not significantly different from a traditional family.
It could easily result in no children (obviously equivalent), children that die or otherwise can't reproduce (not that common), or entirely average children (which doesn't exactly help evolution.
It is statistically unlikely for even random mating to improve a gene pool, which is why some kind of selective-mating (generally on one's ability to survive to raise more kids) is required for that kind of improvement.
It could easily result in no children (obviously equivalent), children that die or otherwise can't reproduce (not that common), or entirely average children (which doesn't exactly help evolution.
It is statistically unlikely for even random mating to improve a gene pool, which is why some kind of selective-mating (generally on one's ability to survive to raise more kids) is required for that kind of improvement. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to disagree. Having "averaged" results when reproducing <i>does</i> help evolution. If you'd like evidence, I have two main points: the general health and disease resistivity of purebred animals vs. mixed breeds, and studies such as those done by Langlois (search for terms such as "langlois averaging" or "face averaging" to find pages such as <a href='http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>)
If health and looks are both improved by averaging, one could argue that evolution would push the human species towards whatever the "average" would be between hetero- and homosexuality. (I'm no biology major, so I'm not sure if I'd be guessing correctly if I were to say that the average would be bisexuality)
I'm sure you and your Princeton degree will pwn me into next week on this, but why do you limit evolution to genetic heritage? Doesn't our mementic and social heritage, which I cited earlier on and whichs effect you acknowledge, affect the evolutionary process of our species just as much?
So the idea of evolution being in direct conflict isn't really true, especially in highly evolved organisms.
Interestingly enough, some Native American groups based their social structures on that of the wolf. In many ethnic groups it was not uncommon for men to marry. Not sure if there were sexual releations involved, but the "wife" basically went through the same life of women in the tribe, caring for children, cooking, etc. It was actually a revered position in their society.
Perhaps homosexuality is Natural selection evolving in responce to the society we have created as humans in a whole. As stated humans slowed/stopped natural selection, but wouldn't homosexuality be taking genes OUT of the pool? kinda like natural selection used to do... except without the dieing?
Perhaps Homosexuality is natural-selection evolving to how we changed the "rules".
Again, i must stress this isn't a opinion, just a thought i had while reading it.
Interesting, I never heard of this before. Do you happen to know a good information site or reading tip on the topic?
* An interesting read for anyone who wants to learn more about evolution at the genetic level: <i>The Selfish Gene</i> by Richard Dawkins. He argues that the actual "unit" of natural selection is not the organism, but the <i>gene</i>. As organisms form packs, herds, families, cities, etc for their survival, so genes pool their resources and create "survival machines" - animals, plants, etc - to more effectively copy themselves and live on.
** Though some would claim sociology isn't actually a science anyway... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Interesting, I never heard of this before. Do you happen to know a good information site or reading tip on the topic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Google the term "Berdaches", what they were known as. There looks to be lot of good websites and articles on the topic.
my scientific reason.. was that it is made an exit.. as in.. yeah.. our bodies are desgined that was.. it was a sscientific point imo no need to <span style='color:orange'>Judging by where Nem's from, this remark was particularly unthoughtful of you.</span>
Natural selection is not alive. It is not sentient, it does not think, or pick at whim. It is an name given to an effect, like gravity or electricity. Yet, people speak of it all the time as it if were Gaia herself.
Sorry.
Homosexuality would not nesscesarily be an earmark of an advanced society, meerly one where an individual's genetic code is not explicitly needed to carry on the species.
This happens naturally as the population increases in size. In the relativly huge societies we have today, there are enough recipients for memes to carry on any meme, and enough strength in unity to no longer need to select the best and brightest and breed leaders. The stronger the society, the less reliance on the individual.
my scientific opinion on homosexuality is that it is like a virus (I know I'm gunna get flamed for this) the ecosystem (that we know as earth) can only contain so much life so naturely organisms designed to halp slow the increase of said life, like for example the ant would eat the blade of grass, the lizard would eat the ant(and many more), the lizard would then be eaten by a larger creature along with many lizards and creatures of varying size, this was designed to help support the ecosystem so that it could help the inhabitants in the great scheme of things. this is just anyother way the ecosystem (AKA Earth) is trying to slow the process of reaching it's critical mass (and we humans are sure putting up a hell of a fight against good 'ole mother nature)
again I reinterate that this was probably poorly worded and will probably unintentionally send the great flames on me I do not have any problems with the lifestyle and choices of homosexuals
(please don't hurt me)
Sounds like you're making more of a case for the condoning of cannibalism, not nature's rejection of homosexuality.
No. I too, have wondered, if homosexuality is such a defect, then why do we see it in such large quantities of people?
The answer came to me one day and I do think I have a plausible theory.
As you said earlier Nem0, humans are indeed a very social species, and our society affects our evolution as well.
So what happens is this:
- Someone is born a homosexual.
- In the culture they live in, being a homosexual is a big big big taboo, or even a crime, so they marry with the oppisite gender regardless to fit in, as putting their own personal happiness aside so they will not be an outcast is more important to them.
- The person raises a family, and passes their homosexual genes on.
- Their children live the same life as their parents. The process repeats itself.
- After about 1000 or so years of this, homosexuals become so populus society is forced to accept that homosexuals are a big part of their world, in due part because of how their society was before.
- Finnaly, in todays world, a homosexual is free to be who they are and not feel inclined to reproduce.
- Conclusion: Homosexuality today is the biggest it will ever be. After a few generations it is going to die off as they are not passing off their genes. But in today's world, homosexuality is something our society MUST accept.
Now, as far as homosexuality is wrong - it is no more wrong that being born with any other birth defect.
Seriously.
Who here took pennisilin as a child to fight off strept throat? Right there, a small defect was corrected in your life, and you may not even realize. The infant mortality rate was so much higher before pennisilin, it is amazing. Who here was born with a c-section cut to their mother's womb?
I know I was. I know if in today's world we didn't have such medications and sciences, I'd be dead, and chances are most of you guys would be too.
Codemning such a birth defect because it is strange to our society - this is backwards, as it was our society which promotes the surrival of all of us; therefore in turn making sure our defects are passed on.
Why should a society remain so that it is in a vicious cycle, making us pass our genes even if it does not like them? So incredibly flawed and tormenting.
Homosexuality is a birth defect, but it is no more wrong than poor eyesight.
my scientific opinion on homosexuality is that it is like a virus (I know I'm gunna get flamed for this) the ecosystem (that we know as earth) can only contain so much life so naturely organisms designed to halp slow the increase of said life, like for example the ant would eat the blade of grass, the lizard would eat the ant(and many more), the lizard would then be eaten by a larger creature along with many lizards and creatures of varying size, this was designed to help support the ecosystem so that it could help the inhabitants in the great scheme of things. this is just anyother way the ecosystem (AKA Earth) is trying to slow the process of reaching it's critical mass (and we humans are sure putting up a hell of a fight against good 'ole mother nature)
again I reinterate that this was probably poorly worded and will probably unintentionally send the great flames on me I do not have any problems with the lifestyle and choices of homosexuals
(please don't hurt me) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't a virus. It's a disadvantageous mutation, like Albinism or colorblindness. In an ancient society in which natural selection played a more direct role in which individuals passed on their genes, such mutations would likely cause the individual to die before reproducing (or in the case of homosexuality, fail to reproduce through lack of interest in the opposite sex). In today's society, civilization makes up for disadvantageous mutations, lessening their negative impact on evolutionary "fitness."
I'm correcting you because I don't want people to get the wrong impression. There is absolutely no evidence that someone can "catch" homosexuality, as you might catch a cold or the flu. It's not a virus.
it was poor wording and I apoligize for that
My, thank you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
--
<!--QuoteBegin-Moquiao+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moquiao)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->my scientific reason.. was that it is made an exit.. as in.. yeah.. our bodies are desgined that was.. it was a sscientific point<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I have to do is quote Leg on this one:
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Natural selection is not alive. It is not sentient, it does not think, or pick at whim. It is an name given to an effect, like gravity or electricity. Yet, people speak of it all the time as it if were Gaia herself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For all science can prove, humanity was not designed, nor was any of the human bodys parts intended for a specific purpose before the constant makeshifting process we call evolution came around and forced the animals that were to become us to adapt.
Our hands were once climbing tools, this doesn't make me using them to type this forum post wrong. Our hair was once a defense against the elements, that doesn't make bald people criminals against nature. Our brain was once merely used to discern between plants one can and can not eat, but obviously, most of us have repurposed that, as well.
There is no final human design science could prove, thus homosexuality can't violate this design.
--
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- Conclusion: Homosexuality today is the biggest it will ever be. After a few generations it is going to die off as they are not passing off their genes. But in today's world, homosexuality is something our society MUST accept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Please excuse me not quoting the full of your argumentation, I did read and hopefully understand it, but I'm trying to keep this stringent.)
I think we're reaching the point where the initial assumption that homosexuality is a purely genetic trait starts hindering our discussion. For all that can be proved nowadays, it can just as well be a conglomerate of personal decisions (=mementic traits) and genes, and even if it is one day discovered that homosexuality is indeed caused genetically, it's still well possible that the responsible gene is not a on-off switch, but that homo- and heterosexuality are indeed nothing but the far ends of an inherent bisexuality (Informations taken from Francis Fukuyamas 'Our Posthuman Future'. Coil, the other books are still on my list, but they've got to take a backseat to Jenkins and Chomsky at the moment <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
In both cases, homosexualitys spread would not behave as you described it, either as the 'birth defect', or its absence, wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor of the amount of homosexuals in a given populous, or because homo- and heterosexuality could never be discerened, which would mean that we'd keep the potential of it for as long as we keep reproducing (Keep in mind that even recessive genetic traits will never die out provided a sufficiently big population.). One could also go into the mementically enabled ways of reproduction such as in-vitro fertilization or cloning and their possibilities regarding the reproduction of a possible homosexual gene.
--
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality would not nesscesarily be an earmark of an advanced society, meerly one where an individual's genetic code is not explicitly needed to carry on the species.
This happens naturally as the population increases in size. In the relativly huge societies we have today, there are enough recipients for memes to carry on any meme, and enough strength in unity to no longer need to select the best and brightest and breed leaders. The stronger the society, the less reliance on the individual.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm inclined to agree with you, but wouldn't the described situation - a society, and thus species, that has largely bested the more basic aspects of evolution and is indeed unconciously and possibly soon conciously shaping its own evolution - have to be considered advanced, at least in the evolutionary-scientific sense of the word?
(Please excuse me not quoting the full of your argumentation, I did read and hopefully understand it, but I'm trying to keep this stringent.)
I think we're reaching the point where the initial assumption that homosexuality is a purely genetic trait starts hindering our discussion. For all that can be proved nowadays, it can just as well be a conglomerate of personal decisions (=mementic traits) and genes, and even if it is one day discovered that homosexuality is indeed caused genetically, it's still well possible that the responsible gene is not a on-off switch, but that homo- and heterosexuality are indeed nothing but the far ends of an inherent bisexuality (Informations taken from Francis Fukuyamas 'Our Posthuman Future'. Coil, the other books are still on my list, but they've got to take a backseat to Jenkins and Chomsky at the moment <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you see, even though homosexuality is definitely not purely gene-related, without those who are born as homosexuals and live as such, there will be less of those who <i>aren't</i> born homosexuals, but are rather raised that way[there are many homosexuals in their neighbourhood for example].
This likely means that homosexuality will never disappear(very few genes are completely gone, except for those that cause instant death I suppose), but it will reach a very low minimum in a hundred years or so.
It will decrease, at any rate, like forlorn stated.
Although, just like most everything else, it's bound to go in waves, and we're at/near the top of one.
It could easily result in no children (obviously equivalent), children that die or otherwise can't reproduce (not that common), or entirely average children (which doesn't exactly help evolution.
It is statistically unlikely for even random mating to improve a gene pool, which is why some kind of selective-mating (generally on one's ability to survive to raise more kids) is required for that kind of improvement. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to disagree. Having "averaged" results when reproducing <i>does</i> help evolution. If you'd like evidence, I have two main points: the general health and disease resistivity of purebred animals vs. mixed breeds, and studies such as those done by Langlois (search for terms such as "langlois averaging" or "face averaging" to find pages such as <a href='http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your "average" and my "average" are different. Mine is the average of all humans capable of reproducing, regardless of genetic fitness, and yours is the average of the beings that would actually be chosen with selective mating. Or something like that.
Actually, the dogs case is more a call for genetic diversity than "average"-ness. If the population is large, than it is possible to both increase diversity and reduce the number of bad genotypes. In the case of the purebreads, their mates are being chosen on artificial grounds (just like in marriage, love), rather than some level of fitness when dogs get to choose on their own. It's a contrast of goals: the human breeders value outward beauty at the expense of health, the breed-ees seek mates that will likely give them healthy puppies instead of ones that look like themselves. The dogs with poor health will be unable to find mates, and thus their poor genes will pass from the gene pool, yet the healthy mutts still bring diversity.
Beauty isn't really so much even a genetic trait, but rather more based on social standards (in Langlois' case, the facial beauty standard is close to the mean of the population). Consider even the difference in ideal weights between societies. Our stick-figure supermodels are appalling in some other parts of the world.
This likely means that homosexuality will never disappear(very few genes are completely gone, except for those that cause instant death I suppose), but it will reach a very low minimum in a hundred years or so.
It will decrease, at any rate, like forlorn stated.
Although, just like most everything else, it's bound to go in waves, and we're at/near the top of one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This could only be the case in the first of the two scenarios I described, and even in it, a further-going tolerance of homosexuality and the ensuing higher chances of mementic spread (imagine, say, a media culture treating homosexual relationships as just as normal a topic as heterosexual ones) could counter-act any decline based on genetic 'knock outs'. I'd argue that it's very difficult to assert a future development in this area, especially considering that we can't even hope to have halfway correct contemporary numbers.
Homosexuality, as a behavioral/personality attribute, likely follows this distinction.
Is there a gene or set of genes that makes someone ****? Doubtful. Is there a gene or set of genes that predisposes someone to homosexual tendencies? Probably. The final deciding factor, though, is probably that person's upbringing. I'm not saying that being around **** people will make such a predisposed person "turn ****" -- I doubt it's that simple, and is probably a combination of many factors unique to each individual.
One hypothesis I read a long time ago is that *everyone* is equally capable of being attracted to both men and women. In most people, however, there exists a behavioral "turn-off" towards members of the same sex. In people where this turnoff is absent, the result is bisexual or homosexual behavior. Just a hypothesis, but it's an idea of nature+nurture to define homosexuality.
In my opinion, an open and accepting society that doesn't punish homosexuality will result in more homosexuals, merely because that percentage of the population with the predisposition towards it will be more likely to express it. Does that mean the doom of humanity, or society, or anything else? Not likely. Informal studies have shown that a homosexual couple is no worse at raising children than a traditional family, and may even be better because they give the children a more complete, open-minded world-view.
Forlorn might be right -- that acceptance of homosexuality will ultimately lessen the number of homosexuals in society because they are not pressured to "act straight," marry someone of the opposite sex, and procreate. The nice part is that they still may adopt, and therefore their behavioral contributions to humanity (rather than their genetic ones) may still be passed on.
And hey... with all the developmental engineering on the horizon, it may soon be possible for a child to genetically have two fathers or mothers instead of one of each. Pretty cool if you ask me.