*disclaimer* this is a late entry, cause I didn't catch the topic earlier <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure what the original question means.
Science does not make any pretense to label anything "right" or "wrong", it merely tries to find a model that fits the known facts as closely as possible.
Thus, I would say that homosexuality is scientifically neither right nor wrong, but an aberration that happens every once in a while (or, in the human scenario, quite a bit). Generally I'd just say let nature take its course and select out the genes that are responsible for homosexuality (if, indeed, a group of genes is its cause).
Given the technology behind artificial insemination and such is improving though, perhaps eventually society will no longer have a concept of sexuality anyway.
I have a few thing I like to say I do explay what i think about homosexualy in a scientic view a bit latter on, many in the first part i explan why. Right now Homosecuality apears to be at the largest point it has been in history, due to the large population, and the fact more people are free ammiting they are homosexual. In a purly scintific sence, as one population grows too large, controls start to take over to reduce the population down. Note how the cases of deaths due to sickness, and other Natural death grows with each year. That may because the population is so large that it more likely that a larger number will die to an illness. Follow the logic that nature is trying to control the human population, Several thing may have risen just to control the population. such as HIV, which with it long inactive time and meathod of spreading is that of the same meathod use to reprodue. Right now Humans have 6 or so billion people. we kill off animal, plants ect, to feed us and to eneteratin us. If Homoseculity is a "control" by nature to reduce the human to a better size then it works simmar to sickness. Assume that nature think humans wiould be most stable at 1 billion. that 5 billion exisses. Now of these 5 billion exess a few 100 million will kill them selfs due to stupid acts., but that is negigal comparted to the reamining 4.7 or so billion. let assume the sickness kills only a few 100 million also due to our medical techonly. (count out HIV and Cancer, which are controls, HIV being new, that have a big impact but over too long to take into immeate account.) That is about 4.3 billion that nature does not want because it killing other life at too high of a rate. if the rate of groth is 3 people for every 2 you can see that the world just keeps getting more over populated. So with Homosexuality Each person who is female that completely practices homosexual with no sex outside of marrage or civil unions would ellemate 3 furture people. about 2.193 billoin of those 4.3 are female. If only .731 (2/3 homosexual rate) where none-homosexul the the next generaltion would have 2.193. add this the wanted number woul yeald about 3 billon. Due to the way people minds work the number may get to the 1 billion nature wants in only a few generation., provide that "cloneing" does not become averalbe to reprodue, which is likely because that would reduce the good trains of the population in gerneral. So as i see it, it a population control. just like cancer and HIV, it good for nature, and nomatter how hard we try we just will keep hurting our selfs trying to fight nature. Smallpox and the Plage where wiped out, so HIV comes along to help deal with the population, the way it work make it very hard to cure. So we go and set up teaching methiod to stop is spread. Cancer we cause on our own. Homosexualy helps by reduceing the number of childern (NO CLONING i am pro-cloning but not for reprodution). Lot of homosexual people may try to spead how they live, cause more homosexual people to exist. So as long as HIV is not cured the popluation will drop untill the number people becomes stable. And if HIV is cure, let hope there are a lot of homosexual people who would not reproduce, other wise the worse will come, Because the large the population gets the more controls and the stonger each one is. untill the population start to drop to ideal levels where the controls would then stay the same.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
I only have 1 thing to bring up which doesn't classify it as right or wrong.
There's a aspect of homosexuality that bugs me, and its roots are scientific in nature so I think that it's valid here.
Take a population of half male, and half female. Now, assume for some wacked out crazy reason, that only females ever expressed any homosexual traits.
In a purely hypothetical sense, for every pair of females that were homosexual, there's a pair of males that are FORCED into either homosexuality or celebacy.
Now, the question of choice or genetics. If the above homosexual traits are genetic, then its all fine and good and the males in the example just get the short end of the stick. Because the other option of forcing the females to be heterosexual is just as wrong as forcing the males to live a celebate/homosexual life.
If the above example was by choice, then it just seems to be condemning your fellow humans.
I know that the statement is far too hypothetical to draw upon directly in a real world discussion. But it's just food for thought.
You're assuming monogamous relationships...which doesn't seem to be the case, among some humans at least <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
edited May 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 2 2004, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 2 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming monogamous relationships...which doesn't seem to be the case, among some humans at least <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->I know that the statement is far too hypothetical to draw upon directly in a real world discussion. But it's just food for thought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Throughout this thread it seems to have been accepted as a given that their is a definate genetic basis for homosexuality. I feel I have something to new to add to this discussion by challenging that base assumption.
The general acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is a biological matter stems from a report released in 1993 by a homosexual doctor who karyotyped the genetic information of 50 pairs of homosexual brother to try and find a common gene. Apparently a gene was identified that could be found in upwards of 80% of the participents in the study, and the media couldnt get enough of it. Headlines around the world propounded what was seen as an ironclad defence of homosexuality - we were born this way.
Unfortunately, no one could ever reproduce the experiment to acheive the same results. In science, if you cant reproduce your experiment, then your hypothesis is suspect. <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm' target='_blank'>Further studies</a> has led to the conclusion that there probably is no large gene with a significant contribution to homosexual behaviour. However, as is often the way with stunning "advances in modern thought" on issues of sexuality, by the time the original proofs turn out to be highly suspect/blatant frauds (got Kinsey?), it doesnt matter as its already a widely accepted belief.
Homosexuality from a purely biological viewpoint it deleterious, be it genetic or psychological. Evolutionairy success is basically this - reproductive ability. Not personal survival, not social acceptability, but reproductive viability. The reproductive viability of homosexuals does not need to be outlined, its obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 3 2004, 08:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 3 2004, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Homosexuality from a purely biological viewpoint it deleterious, be it genetic or psychological. Evolutionairy success is basically this - reproductive ability. Not personal survival, not social acceptability, but reproductive viability. The reproductive viability of homosexuals does not need to be outlined, its obvious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> However since there's 6 billion of us, I guess there is room for different and unproductive behaviour, such as homosexuality. The case would be different if there would be 6000 of us. Then, homosexuality would be very wrong in the terms of 'normal' biological behaviour as it would hinder our reproduction and further the extinction of human race. Then it most likely would become socially unaccepted too.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 3 2004, 07:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 3 2004, 07:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [rather long post] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I'm understanding your meaning correctly; Didn't we already go through this? Yes, homosexuality is NOT purely genetical, but it is very likely to be influenced by some gene.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Marine, check my post at the top of the page. Generally speaking, 40% of behavior/personality is determined by genetics. That's a blanket statement, not a "we found genes to control these specific personality functions." It is likely that homosexuality falls under the blanket of "behavior and personality," and therefore is about 40% influenced by genetics. I'm not saying there's a **** gene. There may, however, be a gene or set of genes that predispose someone to homosexual behavior.
<!--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-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was not arguing design, I was pointing out that a worldview that draws off of science to explain mankind's orgins leaves no room for a personal, concious force. Yet, at the same time, people speak of natural selection as if it were another synonym for God.
As I said, just one of my pet peeves.
<!--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-->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? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An advanced society is not nesscesarily a strong one. A military with F-22 Raptors and M1A2 Abrams tanks will fall if they only have two of each against a mob of determined millions of people throwing rocks. The former society is advanced, yet not strong, and the mobs of primitives, though not advanced, are strong in their strength.
Seeing a marked growth in the homosexual population would mean, as I stated before, a stronger society, even if 10% were not to reproduce, could still expand due to the sheer hulk of thier numbers.
A society that can shape it's evolution is certainly advanced. However, being a homosexual is not an act that conciously shapes the evolutionary path of a species on a biological level. At best, it is an argument for the idea that such behavior is acceptable and healthy. Though it may be an influence in memetic evolution, it will not affect a societies biological strength; that is determined by their numbers and abilty to use resources.
<!--QuoteBegin-kittycat+May 3 2004, 04:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kittycat @ May 3 2004, 04:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->In other words, wouldn't widespread homosexuality be a sign of the advance of a society? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok now I am scared <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since I can't figure out who you're quoting, I'll quote from you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It would be much more accurate to say that the absence of homosexuality would indicate a fragile society. Either it would not be able to survive the loss of reproduction, or the society is intolerant (which can be in of itself a sign of fragility, or at least a fault line, usually in the form of having a false basis for power).
Different %'s of the population wouldn't matter that much, considering statistics. More of it would likely be random noise than significant.
(Tangent)-This will probably only be read by those who are very serious about the topic, as I have not read nearly all of the posts on this topic.-(Tangent)
Returning to the main question: <i>Is homosexuality wrong (in a scientific sense)?</i>
I'm going to get right to the point. There is the question of homosexuality being morally wrong, and there is also the question of it being scientifically wrong.
For it to be scientifically wrong, we would have to give some context, and show that homosexuality violates this paramount context. For example: is it a genetic defect which undermines the very purpose of the human race's purpose? I believe you guys have already discussed this.
The question of whether it is morally wrong, which may or may not have been addressed, is one strictly concerning values. Values are subjective in nature and come from opinion. Leaving that aside, if we were to take the naturalistic view and ask ourselves objectively if homosexuality is "wrong," we can simply say that it occurs somewhat naturally--and there is nothing wrong about that. That would be the most scientific view of homosexuality in the moral sense. Otherwise, it's all subjective from there.
There exists a truth in morals, as the opposite (moral/cultural relativism) is contradictory. However, figuring out which morals are the correct ones is daunting, to say the least. You also have to figure out if something is even a moral issue (like whether a funeral is a happy or sad occasion, which varies between cultures).
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 1 2004, 07:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 1 2004, 07:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Another example: Dr. Alan Turing... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
He committed suicide, because he didn't feel accepted. This is a practical flaw, not a theoretical one. If society did not care whether or not Alan Turing was ****, he would have had a longer life span continuing his remarkable research.
I see this as a flaw in society, not his sexual preference.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+May 6 2004, 04:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ May 6 2004, 04:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+May 1 2004, 07:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ May 1 2004, 07:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Another example: Dr. Alan Turing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
Does that show a defect in the society mechanism? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That parallels saying, "If such-and-such were white..."
Either way, you can't really blame a man for the faults (or consequences thereof) of others.
I realise that it society's fault rather than his own (I didn't mean to suggest otherwise). I was just musing that although Nem was saying that society is an example of evolution, one of the examples he gave also showed how society could be constricting our growth. It just seemed weird is all.
Well, natural selection no longer applies, since even the weak survive.
If you'll allow me to shed my own theory on this, I believe that there is a rapidly growing new type of evolution I call "social evolution." Meaning, your social status and "who you know" largely determines your place in society, hence your income and your success in life. It works much the same way, except if you fail, you don't die, you just don't have any children to pass on your genes (which in some ways is just as bad).
Unfortunately, in such a society that we are in now, having uncommon sexual orientation is definitely a minus in your social status. Alan Turing was just a victim of this. In natural selection, sexual orientation probably would have made little to no difference, since there is no 'social' evolution in a pack of wild animals (at least none that care about sexual orientation). The genes might not spread, but his presence ensures the spreading of other animals in the pack by protecting them when in danger etc. etc.
In this new type of evolution, sexual orientation does matter to your success, even if it probably shouldn't.
He has a good point as to that this is more of a psycological than biological occurance. While evolution yes, is deemed by the adaptation and mutation of different species - homosexuality is perhaps just another fluke of nature, and might or might not die out.
Personaly, xonsidering how im fairly comfortable with my sexuality (heterosexual)nothing is wrong with homosexual people, i know quite a few myself (my uncle is g.ay) and they are good people. Homosexuality itself might go on for the years to come, but i dont believe that it is a form of evolution, and i dont believe that is a bad thing either - if the entire world was ratioed down to a hundred people, something like 27 of them would be g.ay, in short, homosexuals present no big threat to human evolution, and thus no threat to nature.
I think the question is ridiculous. Its almost impossible to have a well defined definition of "Wrong" without a religion. If there is no infinite being giving the rules on what is right and wrong then "wrong" just becomes a point of view. Discussing whether Homosexuality is "wrong" is like say is Metal music better then hip hop?
After reading the posts I have a couple more things to add:
Firstly people have said homosexuality shows an advance in society. I don't think this is correct at all. If you look on a time scale of now to 2000 years ago. Then that might seem the case. However if you look at biblical history. Places like Sodom and Gammorrah had widespread homosexual and promiscuity. Infact, in the bible, homosexual seems to be a milestone in the downfall of a society. It seems that after homosexuality comes the acceptance of rape. Which we still consider as immorral.
But then some people may think that the bible is innaccurate as it is written by a nation of people who religiously believe homosexuality is wrong.
Alot of people have given an example of a scientist who has bettered humanity, whilst being homosexual. But that goes against one the original writer's assumptions:
He said that the ultimate goal is to reproduce.
Really, if that was the only goal then homosexuality is clearly "Wrong" because you cannot reproduce as a homosexual. But really I think this assumption is wrong. If this was the case, then homosexuality would be wrong, but then so would a number of other things society (and religion) accepts and encourages. For example marriage would also be wrong (I can reproduce alot faster if I impregnated a different women every night). Or laws against rape? Rape should be a good thing if this were true. And what about contraceptions?
Some people have offered different purposes for living.
Bettering the human race Or leaving something that is not as tangible behind (like scientific idea or inventions).
However I could not give my oppinion on this without bringing religion into it.
In conclusion, I don't think its possible to think of homosexuality as a good thing. But then it is also hard to think of it as a Wrong thing, without a better assumption of "What is the point of living".
Scientifically driving up an off-ramp on the interstate can't be good, but then again when it comes to homosexuals they don't get sick from it (assuming they have NO VD's)
If it is a psychological problem, then this implies there is some sort of behavior or treatment that causes a person to be g.ay. What possibly could this behavior or treatment be? There has been evidence to suggest that this behavior surfaces as early as age 3. Boys that tend to want to wear dresses and play with dolls over doing more "boyish" activities. Now of course this doesn't apply to every case, but most.
So could it be the parents? I don't think so.
How far fetched would it be to say it was a biological problem? It isn't that it would imply the mother or father would have to be g.ay. I mean some biological patterns have strange behaviors and skip generations etc. I think it makes more logical sense. I don't think people get subjected to any behavior or treatment that would make them **** so early in life when sex is the last thing on their minds.
<!--QuoteBegin-[TSA]Yautja_Cetanu+May 8 2004, 05:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([TSA]Yautja_Cetanu @ May 8 2004, 05:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the question is ridiculous. Its almost impossible to have a well defined definition of "Wrong" without a religion. If there is no infinite being giving the rules on what is right and wrong then "wrong" just becomes a point of view. Discussing whether Homosexuality is "wrong" is like say is Metal music better then hip hop? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I avoid religion like the plague and yet I still have moral standards, right and wrong. One does not need to follow, as finding the truth yourself is no harder than it was for some guy who started a religion (assuming that was his goal, as religions can be quite profitable). Faith can be replaced by persistance.
<!--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-->If it is a psychological problem, then this implies there is some sort of behavior or treatment that causes a person to be g.ay. What possibly could this behavior or treatment be? There has been evidence to suggest that this behavior surfaces as early as age 3. Boys that tend to want to wear dresses and play with dolls over doing more "boyish" activities. Now of course this doesn't apply to every case, but most. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note: Never said it was a psychological <b>problem</b>.
Also, your argument, while well stated, reflects some problems with gender identity and human sexuality in general. For one, homosexuality has nothing to do with dresses, or boyish activities. If it was, then there wouldn't be a difference between people who cross dress, with homosexuals with transexuals. Which there is. Cross dressers are not necessarily attracted to men, homosexual men don't necessarily want to be women so on.
Human sexuality is not set in stone and hardwired. Ever wonder why some guys like blonds more than brunettes? Is it a biologically hardwired trait handed down from his father? Of course not. How about some men who like women with dimples? Or blue eyes? Its silly to think its biologically based, but yet we think that men can only be g.ay because of some biological "problem" or trait.
yeah I'm a homosexual but there's wayyyy too much information here for me to read right now, I'll come back later and read in more detail. One thing though, some of the posts stated that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end - thanks to science, they're quite wrong. I saw on the news the other day that two female eggs were used to create a baby (rat I think) without a male component, so assuming I actually heard the TV correctly, this could be the next stage of evolution, rather then a disadvantageous mutation <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't see how you can discuss this issue without bringing in moral values.
I mean, why do you think death or extinction is bad for any population? The backdrop of this discussion is that if a population fails to reproduce, then whatever caused it to do so must be bad. Where do you derive this notion of "bad" from?
Btw, please don't consider an scientific advancement as a form of evolution. If fusing 2 female eggs to form an embryo is an "evolution". Then I propose that we do away with it and go ahead with cloning instead. That'd be the ultimate goal, wouldn't it? Being able to do something doesn't mean that we are evolving to be or use that something we made.
Comments
I'm not sure what the original question means.
Science does not make any pretense to label anything "right" or "wrong", it merely tries to find a model that fits the known facts as closely as possible.
Thus, I would say that homosexuality is scientifically neither right nor wrong, but an aberration that happens every once in a while (or, in the human scenario, quite a bit). Generally I'd just say let nature take its course and select out the genes that are responsible for homosexuality (if, indeed, a group of genes is its cause).
Given the technology behind artificial insemination and such is improving though, perhaps eventually society will no longer have a concept of sexuality anyway.
I do explay what i think about homosexualy in a scientic view a bit latter on, many in the first part i explan why.
Right now Homosecuality apears to be at the largest point it has been in history, due to the large population, and the fact more people are free ammiting they are homosexual. In a purly scintific sence, as one population grows too large, controls start to take over to reduce the population down. Note how the cases of deaths due to sickness, and other Natural death grows with each year. That may because the population is so large that it more likely that a larger number will die to an illness. Follow the logic that nature is trying to control the human population, Several thing may have risen just to control the population. such as HIV, which with it long inactive time and meathod of spreading is that of the same meathod use to reprodue. Right now Humans have 6 or so billion people. we kill off animal, plants ect, to feed us and to eneteratin us. If Homoseculity is a "control" by nature to reduce the human to a better size then it works simmar to sickness. Assume that nature think humans wiould be most stable at 1 billion. that 5 billion exisses. Now of these 5 billion exess a few 100 million will kill them selfs due to stupid acts., but that is negigal comparted to the reamining 4.7 or so billion. let assume the sickness kills only a few 100 million also due to our medical techonly. (count out HIV and Cancer, which are controls, HIV being new, that have a big impact but over too long to take into immeate account.) That is about 4.3 billion that nature does not want because it killing other life at too high of a rate. if the rate of groth is 3 people for every 2 you can see that the world just keeps getting more over populated. So with Homosexuality Each person who is female that completely practices homosexual with no sex outside of marrage or civil unions would ellemate 3 furture people. about 2.193 billoin of those 4.3 are female. If only .731 (2/3 homosexual rate) where none-homosexul the the next generaltion would have 2.193. add this the wanted number woul yeald about 3 billon. Due to the way people minds work the number may get to the 1 billion nature wants in only a few generation., provide that "cloneing" does not become averalbe to reprodue, which is likely because that would reduce the good trains of the population in gerneral. So as i see it, it a population control. just like cancer and HIV, it good for nature, and nomatter how hard we try we just will keep hurting our selfs trying to fight nature. Smallpox and the Plage where wiped out, so HIV comes along to help deal with the population, the way it work make it very hard to cure. So we go and set up teaching methiod to stop is spread. Cancer we cause on our own. Homosexualy helps by reduceing the number of childern (NO CLONING i am pro-cloning but not for reprodution). Lot of homosexual people may try to spead how they live, cause more homosexual people to exist. So as long as HIV is not cured the popluation will drop untill the number people becomes stable. And if HIV is cure, let hope there are a lot of homosexual people who would not reproduce, other wise the worse will come, Because the large the population gets the more controls and the stonger each one is. untill the population start to drop to ideal levels where the controls would then stay the same.
There's a aspect of homosexuality that bugs me, and its roots are scientific in nature so I think that it's valid here.
Take a population of half male, and half female. Now, assume for some wacked out crazy reason, that only females ever expressed any homosexual traits.
In a purely hypothetical sense, for every pair of females that were homosexual, there's a pair of males that are FORCED into either homosexuality or celebacy.
Now, the question of choice or genetics. If the above homosexual traits are genetic, then its all fine and good and the males in the example just get the short end of the stick. Because the other option of forcing the females to be heterosexual is just as wrong as forcing the males to live a celebate/homosexual life.
If the above example was by choice, then it just seems to be condemning your fellow humans.
I know that the statement is far too hypothetical to draw upon directly in a real world discussion. But it's just food for thought.
<!--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-->I know that the statement is far too hypothetical to draw upon directly in a real world discussion. But it's just food for thought. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The general acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is a biological matter stems from a report released in 1993 by a homosexual doctor who karyotyped the genetic information of 50 pairs of homosexual brother to try and find a common gene. Apparently a gene was identified that could be found in upwards of 80% of the participents in the study, and the media couldnt get enough of it. Headlines around the world propounded what was seen as an ironclad defence of homosexuality - we were born this way.
Unfortunately, no one could ever reproduce the experiment to acheive the same results. In science, if you cant reproduce your experiment, then your hypothesis is suspect. <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm' target='_blank'>Further studies</a> has led to the conclusion that there probably is no large gene with a significant contribution to homosexual behaviour. However, as is often the way with stunning "advances in modern thought" on issues of sexuality, by the time the original proofs turn out to be highly suspect/blatant frauds (got Kinsey?), it doesnt matter as its already a widely accepted belief.
Homosexuality from a purely biological viewpoint it deleterious, be it genetic or psychological. Evolutionairy success is basically this - reproductive ability. Not personal survival, not social acceptability, but reproductive viability. The reproductive viability of homosexuals does not need to be outlined, its obvious.
However since there's 6 billion of us, I guess there is room for different and unproductive behaviour, such as homosexuality. The case would be different if there would be 6000 of us. Then, homosexuality would be very wrong in the terms of 'normal' biological behaviour as it would hinder our reproduction and further the extinction of human race. Then it most likely would become socially unaccepted too.
If I'm understanding your meaning correctly;
Didn't we already go through this? Yes, homosexuality is NOT purely genetical, but it is very likely to be influenced by some gene.
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was not arguing design, I was pointing out that a worldview that draws off of science to explain mankind's orgins leaves no room for a personal, concious force. Yet, at the same time, people speak of natural selection as if it were another synonym for God.
As I said, just one of my pet peeves.
<!--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-->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? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An advanced society is not nesscesarily a strong one. A military with F-22 Raptors and M1A2 Abrams tanks will fall if they only have two of each against a mob of determined millions of people throwing rocks. The former society is advanced, yet not strong, and the mobs of primitives, though not advanced, are strong in their strength.
Seeing a marked growth in the homosexual population would mean, as I stated before, a stronger society, even if 10% were not to reproduce, could still expand due to the sheer hulk of thier numbers.
A society that can shape it's evolution is certainly advanced. However, being a homosexual is not an act that conciously shapes the evolutionary path of a species on a biological level. At best, it is an argument for the idea that such behavior is acceptable and healthy. Though it may be an influence in memetic evolution, it will not affect a societies biological strength; that is determined by their numbers and abilty to use resources.
<a href='http://nonoobs.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=493' target='_blank'>Here</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok now I am scared <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I can't figure out who you're quoting, I'll quote from you. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It would be much more accurate to say that the absence of homosexuality would indicate a fragile society. Either it would not be able to survive the loss of reproduction, or the society is intolerant (which can be in of itself a sign of fragility, or at least a fault line, usually in the form of having a false basis for power).
Different %'s of the population wouldn't matter that much, considering statistics. More of it would likely be random noise than significant.
Returning to the main question: <i>Is homosexuality wrong (in a scientific sense)?</i>
I'm going to get right to the point. There is the question of homosexuality being morally wrong, and there is also the question of it being scientifically wrong.
For it to be scientifically wrong, we would have to give some context, and show that homosexuality violates this paramount context. For example: is it a genetic defect which undermines the very purpose of the human race's purpose? I believe you guys have already discussed this.
The question of whether it is morally wrong, which may or may not have been addressed, is one strictly concerning values. Values are subjective in nature and come from opinion. Leaving that aside, if we were to take the naturalistic view and ask ourselves objectively if homosexuality is "wrong," we can simply say that it occurs somewhat naturally--and there is nothing wrong about that. That would be the most scientific view of homosexuality in the moral sense. Otherwise, it's all subjective from there.
I don't know if that helps.
Dr. Alan Turing... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
Does that show a defect in the society mechanism?
I see this as a flaw in society, not his sexual preference.
Dr. Alan Turing... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dr. Alan Turing, sadly, was driven to suicide over his sexual preferences. If he was "straight", and had become older, he might have been able to contribute even more to Computer Science. In turn, that might have rewarded the society.
Does that show a defect in the society mechanism? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That parallels saying, "If such-and-such were white..."
Either way, you can't really blame a man for the faults (or consequences thereof) of others.
If you'll allow me to shed my own theory on this, I believe that there is a rapidly growing new type of evolution I call "social evolution." Meaning, your social status and "who you know" largely determines your place in society, hence your income and your success in life. It works much the same way, except if you fail, you don't die, you just don't have any children to pass on your genes (which in some ways is just as bad).
Unfortunately, in such a society that we are in now, having uncommon sexual orientation is definitely a minus in your social status. Alan Turing was just a victim of this. In natural selection, sexual orientation probably would have made little to no difference, since there is no 'social' evolution in a pack of wild animals (at least none that care about sexual orientation). The genes might not spread, but his presence ensures the spreading of other animals in the pack by protecting them when in danger etc. etc.
In this new type of evolution, sexual orientation does matter to your success, even if it probably shouldn't.
it automatically assumes that homosexuality is a function of biology and not psychology.
Scientifically speaking, I can train my body to be aroused sexually by a doorknob if I wanted to, but it has nothing to do with biology.
A **** father may not necessarily have a **** son, and a **** daughter may not have a **** mother. So the link to biology is faulty at best.
This assumption that it is a biological charateristic is debatable alone.
Edit: Why is the word g.ay edited out?
Personaly, xonsidering how im fairly comfortable with my sexuality (heterosexual)nothing is wrong with homosexual people, i know quite a few myself (my uncle is g.ay) and they are good people. Homosexuality itself might go on for the years to come, but i dont believe that it is a form of evolution, and i dont believe that is a bad thing either - if the entire world was ratioed down to a hundred people, something like 27 of them would be g.ay, in short, homosexuals present no big threat to human evolution, and thus no threat to nature.
After reading the posts I have a couple more things to add:
Firstly people have said homosexuality shows an advance in society. I don't think this is correct at all. If you look on a time scale of now to 2000 years ago. Then that might seem the case. However if you look at biblical history. Places like Sodom and Gammorrah had widespread homosexual and promiscuity. Infact, in the bible, homosexual seems to be a milestone in the downfall of a society. It seems that after homosexuality comes the acceptance of rape. Which we still consider as immorral.
But then some people may think that the bible is innaccurate as it is written by a nation of people who religiously believe homosexuality is wrong.
Alot of people have given an example of a scientist who has bettered humanity, whilst being homosexual. But that goes against one the original writer's assumptions:
He said that the ultimate goal is to reproduce.
Really, if that was the only goal then homosexuality is clearly "Wrong" because you cannot reproduce as a homosexual. But really I think this assumption is wrong. If this was the case, then homosexuality would be wrong, but then so would a number of other things society (and religion) accepts and encourages. For example marriage would also be wrong (I can reproduce alot faster if I impregnated a different women every night). Or laws against rape? Rape should be a good thing if this were true. And what about contraceptions?
Some people have offered different purposes for living.
Bettering the human race
Or leaving something that is not as tangible behind (like scientific idea or inventions).
However I could not give my oppinion on this without bringing religion into it.
In conclusion, I don't think its possible to think of homosexuality as a good thing. But then it is also hard to think of it as a Wrong thing, without a better assumption of "What is the point of living".
Hmmmm....
If it is a psychological problem, then this implies there is some sort of behavior or treatment that causes a person to be g.ay. What possibly could this behavior or treatment be? There has been evidence to suggest that this behavior surfaces as early as age 3. Boys that tend to want to wear dresses and play with dolls over doing more "boyish" activities. Now of course this doesn't apply to every case, but most.
So could it be the parents? I don't think so.
How far fetched would it be to say it was a biological problem? It isn't that it would imply the mother or father would have to be g.ay. I mean some biological patterns have strange behaviors and skip generations etc. I think it makes more logical sense. I don't think people get subjected to any behavior or treatment that would make them **** so early in life when sex is the last thing on their minds.
I avoid religion like the plague and yet I still have moral standards, right and wrong. One does not need to follow, as finding the truth yourself is no harder than it was for some guy who started a religion (assuming that was his goal, as religions can be quite profitable). Faith can be replaced by persistance.
Note: Never said it was a psychological <b>problem</b>.
Also, your argument, while well stated, reflects some problems with gender identity and human sexuality in general. For one, homosexuality has nothing to do with dresses, or boyish activities. If it was, then there wouldn't be a difference between people who cross dress, with homosexuals with transexuals. Which there is. Cross dressers are not necessarily attracted to men, homosexual men don't necessarily want to be women so on.
Human sexuality is not set in stone and hardwired. Ever wonder why some guys like blonds more than brunettes? Is it a biologically hardwired trait handed down from his father? Of course not. How about some men who like women with dimples? Or blue eyes? Its silly to think its biologically based, but yet we think that men can only be g.ay because of some biological "problem" or trait.
but:
Men have a G-Spot in their anus and can reach a organism.
I mean, why do you think death or extinction is bad for any population? The backdrop of this discussion is that if a population fails to reproduce, then whatever caused it to do so must be bad. Where do you derive this notion of "bad" from?
Btw, please don't consider an scientific advancement as a form of evolution. If fusing 2 female eggs to form an embryo is an "evolution". Then I propose that we do away with it and go ahead with cloning instead. That'd be the ultimate goal, wouldn't it? Being able to do something doesn't mean that we are evolving to be or use that something we made.