This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Small scale murder and mayhem is not neutral in regards to the survival of the race. If everybody commits small scale murder, we're screwed.
If everyone commits murder it's not small scale =/ That's like an oxymoron.
I've completely lost your train of argument at this point. Would you agree with what I said "
as long as our sapience as a whole is helping us survive
the individual decisions are much more arbitrary "? As long as the netgain our species gets from sapience is in the green, it is a beneficial trait.
I will never accept that homosexuality is a biological flaw. It's just another way that humanity has come to express itself. We are not destroying humanity.
The net gain from our 'sapience' (I'm still not sure that's a proper word) may be in the green, but that doesn't mean that all traits associated with it are beneficial.
Is autism a biological flaw, or just another way that humanity has come to express itself?
Post by
Jubilee
The net gain from our 'sapience' (I'm still not sure that's a proper word) may be in the green, but that doesn't mean that all traits associated with it are beneficial.
But I never made that leap! I've simply been arguing that homosexuality is not an imperfection. Let me see if I can lay this out so you don't keep saying things I'm not saying:
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.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post by
Jubilee
We don't have fur because we evolved to not have fur in a situation where not having fur was beneficial. It's not an imperfection not the have fur. Then intelligence came along and we no longer needed fur anyways because we had fire and clothing which is much better than fur because they can be removed for hot weather and put on for cold weather. There is no need for fur and so non-fur genes are completely viable, and so it wouldn't make sense to say they are an imperfection.
Where is the imperfection in our body's letting drugs do the heavy lifting? Our bodies' resources are no longer tied up having to fight as many things. It would be redundant and a waste of resources for our bodies to have to produce antibodies that we are making and putting into our system anyway. That is not an imperfection, it's our bodies adjusting to the situation.
Your third example is only relevant if it's about some genetically carried sterility. The imperfection is that the trait cannot be passed on. Without science, it doesn't get passed on, dies out, and it's not an issue. With science it does get passed on, but in getting passed on it is no longer a problem or imperfection.
It all sums up in one point. Evolutionary imperfections are those thing that cannot survive in a species genetic code. If it can survive it's either neutral or beneficial. Because of our intelligence, we don't need to have heterosexual sex to have babies. The genetic disposition to homosexuality can now survive. Based on how popular and easy it is for homosexuals to have children this way will determine what level of saturation this genetic disposition maintains in the species. And it all balances out.
Do not tell me it's not a logical argument. The issue is very clearly an issue about what the definition of imperfection is and the role intelligence has in that. The side I'm arguing against says intelligence is not an evolutionary force on par with the rest and as a result anything that intelligence allows to happen that wouldn't happen without it is an imperfection. I think that's extremely narrow to discard intelligence as a valid evolutionary mechanism.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Jubilee, replace sterility with a propensity to develop cystic fiborsis, multiple sclerosis, dyslexia, autism, or any other disorder or disease that hampers a person's ability to act and interact in the way that they would want.
The fact that intelligence helps us to overcome, say,
bark-like growths
doesn't mean that said growths are a evolutionarily neutral trait. Intelligence doesn't make other traits neutral/positive, it compensates for the negative impact of other traits so that our 'sapience' (as you call it) on the whole is positive.
Multiple sclerosis is an imperfection. Just because intelligence helps to compensate with the impact doesn't somehow make it OK to have in the gene pool.
Squishalot, the use of the term "perfection/imperfection" isn't very logical either.
Pikey, I know, I'm just using the terms that others have supplied. Generally speaking, the use of 'imperfection' in this case is 'detrimental to the survival of the species'.
Post by
Jubilee
Are he and those who carry the gene able to breed at a sustainable rate? If they are breeding at a sustainable rate then it is completely evolutionary neutral. All that evolution cares about is whether genes are getting passed on at a sustain able rate or not. By what principle are you calling his condition an evolutionary imperfection when evolution itself doesn't care?
Post by
Pwntiff
Those bark-like growths are caused by a virus, just saying.
Post by
Jubilee
Those bark-like growths are caused by a virus, just saying.
I didn't know that. If that's so then my reply applies to any other example. If it is reproductively viable evolution has no problem with it.
Post by
Squishalot
Jubilee, did you just focus on a single example and completely ignore the rest of the traits in the post? No, people with autism will not breed at a sustainable rate if left to their own devices.
And Pwntiff - I wasn't completely aware of that either, thanks for clarifying.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
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.
Post by
Jubilee
It applies to all of them like I said. I'm done arguing though. I've got some imperfection to attend to =P
I don't support any suggestion that any living person has an evolutionary imperfection. Evolution lead the entire history of life to that point and those genes were born, and so those genes are every bit product of evolution as anyone else's. I reserve the label of imperfection for things that did not make it. If homosexuality disappears you (or anyone) have my blessing to call it an imperfection. Until then I would ask that you all be prudent in your application of the term imperfection, because whatever you think of the truth of that claim, it's not a nice thing to be called.
Post by
120504
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
What exactly do you call a trait that's existed for all of time and occurs both in the Human population and in the animal population anyways? I mean, could call it a disease as a lot of other defects have existed for that long, but should you? Since in this case, unless the unthinkable happens, and 99% of the population vanishes, leaving only a few male gay couples behind, it's never going to actually affect the population at large.
Though, if you've ever read Ys the Last Man, hard to tell if that was author influence or not the way so much of the world suddenly went bisexual and women started hooking up like mad, while still hunting for that one last male...and even the religious folks were doing it.
Post by
Pwntiff
And Pwntiff - I wasn't completely aware of that either, thanks for clarifying.
It was mentioned in the linked article. >.>
Post by
Squishalot
And Pwntiff - I wasn't completely aware of that either, thanks for clarifying.
It was mentioned in the linked article. >.>
I knew it wasn't normal :P Having said that, one could argue that there may have been a genetic weakness to certain types of viruses and diseases.
I reserve the label of imperfection for things that did not make it. If homosexuality disappears you (or anyone) have my blessing to call it an imperfection.
I disagree, because I believe you're defining it too narrowly. However, that's a separate argument.
Until then I would ask that you all be prudent in your application of the term imperfection, because whatever you think of the truth of that claim, it's not a nice thing to be called.
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'?
To me, encouraging or discouraging homosexuality implies that it's a choice. Most people will say that it's not a choice.
Semantics. By 'encouraging', I mean 'for society to encourage and promote the existence of', not 'encouraging people to come out of the closet'. Discouraging would mean persecuting and haranguing homosexual people.
It's the difference between looking at someone with autistic tendencies and saying "we should let them be themselves" and saying "we should treat and assist them to help them fit better with society". One is encouraging the behaviour, the other is discouraging the behaviour.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.