your premise that homosexual humans have no desire to procreate simply because they have no desire to "copulate with members of the opposite sex" is completely unsupported. Contrary to the beliefs of some, sex and procreation are not exclusively one and the same.
Yeah, no kidding. In fact,
most people engaging in sex don't do so for procreation. That seems fairly obvious or the contraceptive companies would go under and so would abortion clinics. My question is how and why does biological evolution reconcile this?
Supposing that you even have the slightest comprehension of what the "naturalistic worldview" entails, how would you suppose that it is incompatible with social acceptance of homosexuals. The ability to pass one's genes on to the next generation holds no moral, societal or ethical significance to "naturalists."
Jaderis, perhaps this is all too close to home for you, so I understand why you might meet this with perturbation. Even still, surely, on some level, you can recognize this as being problematic. If nature removes the desire to procreate with members of the opposite, isn't that counterintuitive of everything we know/think about evolution? The sociobiological implications are difficult to resolve.
We have people that impute everything to instinct and come up with ad hoc reasons for why an organism does what it does. Well, if nature actually removes the instinctual drive to breed, what does that say about the homosexual? It tells me that its purely sociological, not natural. You either have to drop evolution or disassociate yourself from the notion that homosexuality is a 'natural' occurrence. And if dropping one or the other seems impossible, then at least you could recognize, from an evolutionary point of view, that homosexual is inferior. Remember, I'm not the one making the rules about evolution-- evolutionists have already done that. They implicate themselves.
We are not trying to make up some excuse for accepting homosexuals because we (and I hope I am not speaking too broadly) do not find anything inherently wrong with them (me).
I understand how you could think that. I really do. But at the same time, a serial rapist may not view his activities as inherently wrong. He may delude himself into thinking that his baser inclinations are just his instincts telling him that he must procreate. Obviously, his 'feelings' on the matter don't make the reality.
Yes, if the desire to procreate was completely and in every way expunged from the individual then their particular genes and other unique mutations would not be passed on except through (possibly) their siblings/relatives. However, this doesn't seem to be the case because many homosexuals DO have the desire and the ability to have children.
Indeed, many do. Why, then, would nature go against itself? Why would it instinctually offer the desire for children, but not the natural way to have children? Again, this is looking at the scenario from a naturalistic point of view.
No one else has suggested that, to my knowledge, on this thread. I have never taken the term "weaker" to have any correlation with my own personal well-being. I don't know why you brought it up.
If you read the early manuscripts on the interpretations of Darwinism, there is a definite sense of purpose ascribed to it. The purpose of life assigned by these people was that life only has one function, and that's to survive, and to delay the inevitable by procreating. In essence, by disseminating our genes, we somehow become immortal in this way. Now, neo-Darwinists no doubt realized the implications of such a philosophy and in a sense, wised up and sought to expand its meaning. After all, something this meaningless is difficult for beings who strive for meaning to contend with.
It brings into question any number of things, such as, but not limited to: Homosexuality, morality, abortion, contraceptives, murder, stealing, eugenics, and on, and on, and on. Indeed, something more praiseworthy than such a trite and insipid concept doesn't speak to us as social creatures. So, there has been a shifting of the goalposts for a number of years. And now it seems that many evolutionists are trying to subvert that classical approach of Darwinism in an attempt to be politically correct. Well, nature isn't P.C. And if there is no objective morality, what do you they care about being politically correct when it comes to nature?
quote:
But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint?
Yes, but you are, again, confusing the desire and ability to procreate with the non-desire to have heterosexual sex.
Then you can't call it instinct. These are a contradiction in terms. You can't in one instance say that sex is instinctual only to turn around and impart rules to it.
And consider this as well. If this sexuality were really about love, then it shouldn't matter what sex anyone is, right? Therefore, if you remove the will to procreate, but only have homosexual sex as being measured strictly for sexual gratification, then where does love fit in? I don't understand that.
Because my (and many others') "emotions" towards the same sex do not supplant the desire (whether it be biological, cultural or what have you) to have children. In the past, some have entered into "marriages of convenience," or simply had wanton heterosexual sex in order to have children, but now, we have many technologies that can help us to fulfill that desire (for both homo- and heterosexuals).
Yes, but finding ways around nature doesn't help the evolutionary argument for why homosexuality exists at all. Yes, you could be artificially inseminated, you could adopt, you could have sex with a member of the opposite sex, but I'm talking about nature. Why would such a thing be selected for. Why would nature subvert itself? That makes no sense to me.
quote:
Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain?
Do you ask this question to people who get colored contacts?
No. Because the answer is obvious. They 'want' different colored eyes, not that its natural. Perhaps we could make the same argument for homosexuality.
Nature, at least for humans, is simply the starting point. Culture, individuality, and all various societal influences play a HUGE part in our development and being.
..... There it is. There is nothing left to discuss. Homosexuality is either a choice, directed by societal influence, or nature is in confusion which undermines the basic principles of evolution. The two are incompatible.
quote:
If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature?
But people do this all the time. Have you never heard of fasting?
You can only fast for so long. My point is, if nature gives us instinct for a reason, what reason is there to select homosexuality? And how far down does the rabbit hole go as far as what we get to decide is instinctual and what is societally induced? Couldn't we make the argument that old men desiring fertile, pubescent females is merely an instinct to procreate with the healthiest stock? And yet, we have a moral aversion towards pedophilia. Again, couldn't we make excuses for rape as some evolutionary basis? Just how far down the does the rabbit hole go? Where is the line drawn in the sand?
Seriously, though, why are you so concerned about going against nature? I know most "naturalists" are not, so if you are trying to play devil's advocate (WRT to your side) here, it is not working since you are taking up a caricatured version of the opposing side.
Because logic would dictate that the two premises are incompatible. I only caricature what is presented to me. I didn't make up the rules, I'm just showing people how the two will naturally cancel each other out.
There is no "why."
There is always a "why." Everything happens for a reason.
We can look at the possible effects of it or try to find some correlation to other factors, but there is no "why" when it comes to evolution. It just happens. You are the one trying to equate some kind of higher ramifications with homosexuality.
No, not I.... They. Again, I didn't invent the story. And yes, there is a "why" in the story of evolution. You have a stomach. Why?: To break down food. Why do you need food?: To convert it to energy. Why do you need energy?: So you can animate yourself, and so on. And when you break it all down, we are left with the big questions, like, "Why are we here."
No. No purpose at all. It happened.
Nothing,
just happens. It all happens for a reason. Now, whether that reason was intentional or not is a matter of theological debate.
If genes are responsible for homosexuality and they never get passed on, then so be it. I certainly don't care. I'm sure "nature" doesn't care, either.
Nature may not care what happens one way or the other, but if natural selection is a
non-random function, then weaker/stronger applies the the argument.
it makes no sense because I haven't seen anyone propose that homosexuality is "nature's way of abating the population" or that homosexuality is some sort of natural experiment in this thread.
I have. And if you read the OP's points, he has met homosexuals that have said the same thing. In other words, they are inventing reasons for why they are a-okay with nature and that they are actually beneficial. Sounds like purpose to me.
Anyway, can't finish the rest now... gotta head out the door.
It was a good post. Sorry I didn't it after you initially wrote it. Somebody bumped the thread so I got a chance to read it.
"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-
)
™ Version 4.2