The problems with homosexuality

boo boo · 08-03-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Of course not. As with the fish, the efficiency of a strategy depends on the environment.

Imagine that the whole world is full of women and gay people who refuse to have sex with them. What do you think the fitness would be of the one heterosexual male in that population?

Unless he was a hideous monster, it would likely be quite high and his heterosexual male children would thrive in such a world. Remember that a strategy that does well when a few does it may not be good when the majority does it. It's efficiency depends on the environment - which changes.

You are applying your idea of evolution to a whole species, talking about the "darwinian success" of homo sapiens and homosexuality. You can't do that, at least not without a solid educated foundation in evolution. It makes more sense to talk about the fitness of f.ex a specific gene in a specific environment. As that gene as well as others increase or decrease in the human population, the environment that gene is evolving in changes and, in response, so does it's effect on fitness.

He would be the luckiest motherf*cker ever.

Bigots think homosexuality is a contagious disease, they think because more people are coming out so rapidly it means more people are becoming homosexual at a rapid pace. Christians think it's a result of Satan's corruption and a sign of the end times.

~~Harry~~ · 08-03-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Of course not. As with the fish, the efficiency of a strategy depends on the environment.

Imagine that the whole world is full of women and gay people who refuse to have sex with them. What do you think the fitness would be of the one heterosexual male in that population?

Unless he was a hideous monster, it would likely be quite high and his heterosexual male children would thrive in such a world. Remember that a strategy that does well when a few does it may not be good when the majority does it. It's efficiency depends on the environment - which changes.

You are applying your idea of evolution to a whole species, talking about the "darwinian success" of homo sapiens and homosexuality. You can't do that, at least not without a solid educated foundation in evolution. It makes more sense to talk about the fitness of f.ex a specific gene in a specific environment. As that gene as well as others increase or decrease in the human population, the environment that gene is evolving in changes and, in response, so does it's effect on fitness.

I sincerely doubt homosexuality is a reproductive efficiency strategy... considering it is counterproductive to reproduction since reproduction is between a man and a women which is why facades and illusions such as 'love' exist. And if the fertility thing is, then the homosexuality is just a side effect.

it all does ultimately boil down to darwinian success at the very base of things. Say there was no society, or anything of that sort, just bare instincts... you think it would somehow be beneficial to have random homosexuals and that it would be not a genetic anomaly?

Guybrush · 08-03-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry

I sincerely doubt homosexuality is a reproductive efficiency strategy... considering it is counterproductive to reproduction since reproduction is between a man and a women which is why facades and illusions such as 'love' exist. And if the fertility thing is, then the homosexuality is just a side effect.

Homosexuality may indeed be a side-effect of a strategy which increases fecundity, for example genes that cause male homosexuality may increase fitness in females and vice versa for female homosexuality. If that is the case, I would argue that it is natural - not an anomaly - because in a natural, normal, healthy human population, you will have gay people. If that hypothesis is true, the presence of gay people indicates the presence of genetic components that increase fecundity after all.

The reason I responded to you in the first place was that you called it unnatural.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry

Say there was no society, or anything of that sort, just bare instincts... you think it would somehow be beneficial to have random homosexuals and that it would be not a genetic anomaly

Beneficial to who? To me? If I'm gonna live in a world without a society in it, I don't really care one way or another if there are gay people in it. I don't think you understand how evolution works. It's not something we do for the betterment of the species. It just happens, part because of the way things are (mutations happen for example) and part as a response to the environment through natural and sexual selection - not because we need to or because it's good for "us".

~~Harry~~ · 08-03-2010, 09:30 AM

Beneficial to reproduction, obviously, which would be the only thing (besides eating, breathing, sleeping) that we would be present for without society.

There are plenty of people walking around with other genetic ailments, too. That doesn't make it natural just because it's there.

Let me clear up that by natural I mean no genetic mistakes/differences in chromosomes/etc what-so-ever. Not that they create themselves, or anything. Just that as being birthed with social anxiety or something of the sort, it's not 'natural'. (not putting the two on the same plane, just saying) I think you're having a difficult time understanding what I mean by that.

Guybrush · 08-03-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry

Beneficial to reproduction, obviously, which would be the only thing (besides eating, breathing, sleeping) that we would be present for without society.

There are plenty of people walking around with other genetic ailments, too. That doesn't make it natural just because it's there.

Let me clear up that by natural I mean no genetic mistakes/differences in chromosomes/etc what-so-ever. Not that they create themselves, or anything. Just that as being birthed with social anxiety or something of the sort, it's not 'natural'. (not putting the two on the same plane, just saying) I think you're having a difficult time understanding what I mean by that.

Okay .. You need to understand things from a gene point of view.

Imagine that you are a gene. You work in a way that you decrease fecundity in males, but at the same time, when you are in a female, her fecundity is increased so much by your presence that on the whole, having you in a population of 50/50 male to female ratio leads to a net increase in overall fecundity. Is your presence in a population "beneficial" to reproduction or not?

When discussing stuff like this, you have to look at the evolution of the genes - the genetics - not the people who possess them. I think you have a hard time getting your perspective right.

~~Harry~~ · 08-03-2010, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Okay .. You need to understand things from a gene point of view.

Imagine that you are a gene. You work in a way that you decrease fecundity in males, but at the same time, when you are in a female, her fecundity is increased so much by your presence that on the whole, having you in a population of 50/50 male to female ratio leads to a net increase in overall fecundity. Is your presence in a population "beneficial" to reproduction or not?

When discussing stuff like this, you have to look at the evolution of the genes - the genetics - not the people who possess them. I think you have a hard time getting your perspective right.

Your point still makes no relevance to the naturalness of homosexuality. It, in that case is a SIDE EFFECT. It is not the homosexuality that benefits, but the supposed fertility you mention that is what it happens to accompany.

Guybrush · 08-03-2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry

Your point still makes no relevance to the naturalness of homosexuality. It, in that case is a SIDE EFFECT. It is not the homosexuality that benefits, but the supposed fertility you mention that is what it happens to accompany.

Okay, so if you accept that a healthy human population contains genes that normally result in a minority of homosexuals, do you consider this minority unnatural?

The way I see it, it's probably been with us for millions of years and there are a lot of homosexual people in the world, so one shouldn't call it an anomaly or something unnatural.

~~Harry~~ · 08-03-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Okay, so if you accept that a healthy human population contains genes that normally result in a minority of homosexuals, do you consider this minority unnatural?

The way I see it, it's probably been with us for millions of years and there are a lot of homosexual people in the world, so one shouldn't call it an anomaly or something unnatural.

Yes.

An so have many illnesses.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying it is 'unnatural'

boo boo · 08-03-2010, 10:22 AM

We do so many things that are not natural. Is being "natural" something humanity has to be confined to for the rest of it's evolution?

I don't think enough people are catching the gay that we have to worry about the human race going extinct. You should be open to the idea that maybe homosexuality isn't an illness or defect but part of a biological mechanism installed in animals that serves the purpose of keeping their species from overpopulating. Totally something we could use right now.

adidasss · 08-03-2010, 11:20 AM

Just as a thought experiment, why not think of homosexuality as a benign anomaly with no particular biological purpose? I think the major reason why people try to argue that it's not an anomaly (I hate to use the word unnatural, it's too "charged" and doesn't make particular sense) is because others tend to use it as an excuse for discrimination and moral/value judgment. I think if we exclude any sort of theology from morality, the principal standard for morality should be "does it harm others". And the answer regarding homosexuality is clearly negative. :\

08-03-2010, 11:20 AM	#270 (permalink)
adidasss Slavic gay sauce Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Abu Dhabi Posts: 7,993	Just as a thought experiment, why not think of homosexuality as a benign anomaly with no particular biological purpose? I think the major reason why people try to argue that it's not an anomaly (I hate to use the word unnatural, it's too "charged" and doesn't make particular sense) is because others tend to use it as an excuse for discrimination and moral/value judgment. I think if we exclude any sort of theology from morality, the principal standard for morality should be "does it harm others". And the answer regarding homosexuality is clearly negative. :\ __________________ “Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle. Last.fm

08-03-2010, 09:30 AM	#264 (permalink)
~~Harry~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Leith Posts: 72	Beneficial to reproduction, obviously, which would be the only thing (besides eating, breathing, sleeping) that we would be present for without society. There are plenty of people walking around with other genetic ailments, too. That doesn't make it natural just because it's there. Let me clear up that by natural I mean no genetic mistakes/differences in chromosomes/etc what-so-ever. Not that they create themselves, or anything. Just that as being birthed with social anxiety or something of the sort, it's not 'natural'. (not putting the two on the same plane, just saying) I think you're having a difficult time understanding what I mean by that.