| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 09:23:41 AM · #651 |
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring?
Originally posted by Louis:
So? Leaving aside that for all intents and purposes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all derive from the same historical source, what difference does it make? Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post regarding moral code and majority view. A majority view does not mean the corresponding moral code is a good way to live. Sometimes, it is an abominable way to live, and antithetical to the basic premise of eschewing suffering for oneself and everyone else.
|
actually I think this question should be posted on the "other" thread.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 09:37:44.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:31:33 AM · #652 |
Originally posted by Flash:
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring? |
Other species exhibit homosexual behaviors when the population density starts to exceed the available food supply. Survival of the species as a whole might dictate that it's better that certain individuals don't reproduce. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:36:14 AM · #653 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You think slavery was an 18th century "normalcy"? |
Yes. There were open slave auctions in many states and countries, and not just tolerated but supported by church and government officials. Heck, the Southern Baptist Convention was specifically founded to defend the biblical right to own slaves! It was considered normal practice at the time and, though still practiced in some areas today, human slavery is considered abhorrent in most modern societies. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:37:51 AM · #654 |
Originally posted by Flash:
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring?
|
Your presumption is that all members of a species are required to procreate to sustain the population. This is not true. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:42:03 AM · #655 |
Originally posted by Flash:
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring? |
The question also seems to have some sort of assumption that evolution or procreation should be a moral imperative.
Is it a normal action for a couple who are barren to stay together ?
Should couples that are too old to have children not be allowed to marry in a church ?
Should the union only be allowed if both parties are healthy and fertile ?
Should they be force to separate if combined they might be more likely to produce some sort of genetic illness in their offspring ?
These are all similar questions to the one you posed. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:25:45 AM · #656 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring? |
Other species exhibit homosexual behaviors when the population density starts to exceed the available food supply. Survival of the species as a whole might dictate that it's better that certain individuals don't reproduce. |
So why are rates of homosexuality higher in one of the most wealthy nations of the world?
I've heard a different reason, but I'll keep it to myself. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:26:44 AM · #657 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... human slavery is considered abhorrent in most modern societies. |
Please inform the 800,000 yearly that are enslaved. Or those who prey upon the nearly 80% who are women - "servicing" their customers/clients.
Please inform the "johns" that most modern societies consider slavery abhorrent. The "johns" from every continent, every society, and every social strata.
Please don't forget to inform the buyers of goods produced by the other 20% who are under the age of 16, enslaved in sweat shops.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 11:29:16.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:33:02 AM · #658 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
How do those who support evolution and homosexualtiy, square their reasoning? If evolution is the result of species survival, then how does a species survive that does not procreate? How is homosexuality a "normal" action by a species that requires a male and female to produce offspring?
|
Your presumption is that all members of a species are required to procreate to sustain the population. This is not true. |
My "presumption" is that a species evolves due to procreation. If those that espouse evolution are also the same who defend homosexuality in Humans as "natural", then to me, this is illogical.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:36:35 AM · #659 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your presumption is that all members of a species are required to procreate to sustain the population. This is not true. |
My "presumption" is that a species evolves due to procreation. If those that espouse evolution are also the same who defend homosexuality in Humans as "natural", then to me, this is illogical. |
From the National Geographic link YOU posted in the other thread- "homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight." |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:42:02 AM · #660 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your presumption is that all members of a species are required to procreate to sustain the population. This is not true. |
My "presumption" is that a species evolves due to procreation. If those that espouse evolution are also the same who defend homosexuality in Humans as "natural", then to me, this is illogical. |
From the National Geographic link YOU posted in the other thread- "homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight." |
Which was one example of my providing "multiple" views on any particular topic. The other link I posted had this quote:
"Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:
Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."[15]"
It is just an interpretation. The very kind that you intently challenge - when it is religious.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:57:39 AM · #661 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... human slavery is considered abhorrent in most modern societies. |
Please inform the 800,000 yearly that are enslaved. Or those who prey upon the nearly 80% who are women - "servicing" their customers/clients.
Please inform the "johns" that most modern societies consider slavery abhorrent. The "johns" from every continent, every society, and every social strata.
Please don't forget to inform the buyers of goods produced by the other 20% who are under the age of 16, enslaved in sweat shops. |
More dodgeball posting? You asked if human slavery was considered normal in the 18th century, when it was practiced with open church and government support in this country and other "modern" civilizations. Now you're pointing to black market prostitution and sweat shops (both of which face large scale opposition from many countries) as if that were considered normal, endorsed behavior. Post all the links you want, but it's going to take a LOT of tap dancing to pretend that slavery in any form is as accepted today as it was in the 1700's. *sigh* This is a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:07:48 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is just an interpretation. |
That caveat doesn't actually dispute the findings, and you're welcome to offer some alternate interpretation of pairings between black swans, penguins, etc. I suspect you're going to have a tough time explaining the observed behavior as anything but homosexual, and whether it's natural or animals have free will too... either way, your arguments are dead in the water.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:08:37. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:23:58 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
More dodgeball posting? You asked if human slavery was considered normal in the 18th century, when it was practiced with open church and government support in this country and other "modern" civilizations. Now you're pointing to black market prostitution and sweat shops (both of which face large scale opposition from many countries) as if that were considered normal, endorsed behavior. Post all the links you want, but it's going to take a LOT of tap dancing to pretend that slavery in any form is as accepted today as it was in the 1700's. *sigh* This is a complete waste of time. |
Lets do the math. 800,000 yearly at 80% = 640,000 forced into prostitution. 640,000 x 5-10 johns/day = 3.2-6.4 million johns/day. 3.2-6.4 million johns/day x 365 days/year = a whole lot of people endorsing the behavior. That is a whole lot more endorsing than was ever practiced in the 18th century Southern US. You can slice it or you can dice, but you can't ignore the numbers.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:26:42 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is just an interpretation. |
That caveat doesn't actually dispute the findings, and you're welcome to offer some alternate interpretation of pairings between black swans, penguins, etc. I suspect you're going to have a tough time explaining the observed behavior as anything but homosexual, and whether it's natural or animals have free will too... either way, your arguments are dead in the water. |
Why don't we start with this alternative:
"[Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.]"[12]
Don't forget this alternative:
"[In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.]"[11]
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:32:01.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:29:55 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
From the National Geographic link YOU posted in the other thread- "homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight." |
I'm going to have to disagree with the last clause. No evolutionary weight? Homosexuality is nearly as large a genetic disadvantage as possible (it isn't complete because homosexuals are known to have children on occasion). When we've been arguing that a slightly more curved spine confers a genetic advantage and more survivability, one cannot simply gloss over homosexuality as "carrying no evolutionary weight".
Perhaps your meaning was the trait also confers a genetic advantage at some level, but I'd have to gather suggestions before I'd buy into your argument.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:44:41 PM · #666 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Lets do the math. 800,000 yearly at 80% = 640,000 forced into prostitution. 640,000 x 5-10 johns/day = 3.2-6.4 million johns/day. 3.2-6.4 million johns/day x 365 days/year = a whole lot of people endorsing the behavior. That is a whole lot more endorsing than was ever practiced in the 18th century Southern US. |
Not per capita, as a proportion of the population. Remember that slavery was the law of the land until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation -- what more evidence of "widespread approval" would you need than legislation?. Oh, and people going to war to defend it?
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:46:33. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:53:38 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm going to have to disagree with the last clause. No evolutionary weight? Homosexuality is nearly as large a genetic disadvantage as possible (it isn't complete because homosexuals are known to have children on occasion). When we've been arguing that a slightly more curved spine confers a genetic advantage and more survivability, one cannot simply gloss over homosexuality as "carrying no evolutionary weight".
Perhaps your meaning was the trait also confers a genetic advantage at some level, but I'd have to gather suggestions before I'd buy into your argument. |
There are entire SPECIES that have evolved to a situation where MOST individuals NEVER reproduce; honeybees, for example. How does this imapct your argument?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:01:03 PM · #668 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My "presumption" is that a species evolves due to procreation. If those that espouse evolution are also the same who defend homosexuality in Humans as "natural", then to me, this is illogical. |
One genealogical explanation is that the genes for homosexuality appear to result in increased fertility for women. Within a community this evolutionary advantage appears to outweigh the evolutionary disadvantage that arises in connection with some offspring being biased towards non-reproductive sex.
If we were to take a theist's view, of course, we could always say "because god made it that way" and there would be no more need to think. Except that maybe, because homosexuality does exist, we could deduce that all religions that condemn homosexuality but attribute god with perfection must be false...
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 13:03:47.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:43:34 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are entire SPECIES that have evolved to a situation where MOST individuals NEVER reproduce; honeybees, for example. How does this imapct your argument?
R. |
Ya, that's an interesting point, eh? But a) I'm not sure the workers are incapable of reproduction (check out the wiki for parthogenesis. and b) bee society has evolved to be so completely and utterly different from our own that I'm not sure any takehome can be made. One can almost think of the whole hive as a collective organism as they are generally all clones. Nothing of the sort can be found in the human world.
Matthew hit on the explanation I had heard that sisters of homosexuals are more fecund than other females. I found the original article, however, and I would highly caution against thinking this is a done deal. The author himself made some pretty strong statements about not overinterpreting his results.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 13:45:48.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:58:15 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But a) I'm not sure the workers are incapable of reproduction |
I'm not sure that homosexuals are incapable of reproduction either. In fact, in general I'm fairly sure they are. But they've obviously [ made choices or in a situation or have preferences or are genetically disposed ] to make that unlikely, much like the worker bee example.
Plenty of heterosexual people decide not to reproduce either, for a variety of reasons. This seems a somewhat fruitless [sic] line of reasoning.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 13:58:57. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:11:20 PM · #671 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But a) I'm not sure the workers are incapable of reproduction |
I'm not sure that homosexuals are incapable of reproduction either. In fact, in general I'm fairly sure they are. But they've obviously [ made choices or in a situation or have preferences or are genetically disposed ] to make that unlikely, much like the worker bee example.
Plenty of heterosexual people decide not to reproduce either, for a variety of reasons. This seems a somewhat fruitless [sic] line of reasoning. |
I'm unclear about which line of reasoning you are talking about. Surely heterosexuals that decide not to reproduce do not do so because of a genetic imperative (ie. they have a gene that tells them not to reproduce). IF we are going to assume that homosexuality is genetic (and it may or may not be), then we can assume their unlikeliness to reproduce can be attributed to their genes. and IF we do that, we need to explain a genetic advantage to the gene(s) that can overcome the genetic disadvantage unless we assume that each and every mutation is de novo.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:22:13 PM · #672 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Lets do the math. 800,000 yearly at 80% = 640,000 forced into prostitution. 640,000 x 5-10 johns/day = 3.2-6.4 million johns/day. 3.2-6.4 million johns/day... |
I'm not sure where you got those numbers (I didn't see them in the links you posted), but the number of slaves and how many times the same person participates in an activity (they're not different johns every day) are both irrelevant to a statistic of acceptance. I'm pretty sure the slaves themselves don't condone the activity, and the johns may not even know a prostitute was coerced into the trade.
If you want to play with number like that, then hey... 6.5 billion people a day didn't participate in those activities. If you're trying to use the daily actions of less than .001% of the world's population to support an argument of common acceptance, then I'd call that a dismal failure. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:28:01 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IF we are going to assume that homosexuality is genetic (and it may or may not be), then we can assume their unlikeliness to reproduce can be attributed to their genes. and IF we do that, we need to explain a genetic advantage to the gene(s) that can overcome the genetic disadvantage unless we assume that each and every mutation is de novo. |
Matthew already posted a possible explanation below. A gene that results in more fertile or promiscuous parts of the population might more than offset the lack of production from another part of the population. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:31:47 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IF we are going to assume that homosexuality is genetic (and it may or may not be), then we can assume their unlikeliness to reproduce can be attributed to their genes. and IF we do that, we need to explain a genetic advantage to the gene(s) that can overcome the genetic disadvantage unless we assume that each and every mutation is de novo. |
Matthew already posted a possible explanation below. A gene that results in more fertile or promiscuous parts of the population might more than offset the lack of production from another part of the population. |
Which is why I was confused about what Gordon wasn't getting. I'm not here to discount that theory, although I think the jury is still out. I personally do believe homosexuality has a genetic predisposition (although I also think environment plays a requisite role as well).
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:53:47 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IF we are going to assume that homosexuality is genetic (and it may or may not be), then we can assume their unlikeliness to reproduce can be attributed to their genes. and IF we do that, we need to explain a genetic advantage to the gene(s) that can overcome the genetic disadvantage unless we assume that each and every mutation is de novo. |
I'm just pointing out that this argument from genetics only to try and understand behaviour is about as meaningful if you apply it to a heterosexual couple who decide not to reproduce either.
Genetics and evolution as a sole means to explain behavior seems a fairly weak notion. The genes may need to reproduce to continue to exist - but that doesn't mean the humans who are made by those genes have to care/ participate/ etc.
As mentioned earlier - perhaps that gene line continues in the female side, is recessive, or a variety of other ways genetic information propagates without manifesting. Or perhaps it is only partly a genetic predisposition and partly a fairly heavily repressed notion in society - at least up until fairly recent generations. That'd be a pretty reasonable behavioral explanation why a 'non-optimal' genetic characteristic still propagated. Plenty of examples of gay men with children in past generations. |
|
