simon17
I have nothing against homosexuality but I think its clearly not "natural" in a Darwinian sense. It doesn't allow for reproduction, and therefore has no longterm surivial value (in fact it has negative survival value).
Sorry, but you are wrong. Given the high incidence of homosexual behaviour in many species (in cases such as bonobos and some macquaces it is pretty much part of their normal behaviour), then it cannot, per se, be seen as a trait with negative consequences for the simple reason if it were, then we wouldn’t see it as much as we did, as those carrying it die out.
In cases such as those mentioned above it is part of the normal social structure of a species and is an evolutionary stable situation that must have benefits to persist, just as with hyper-masculinity and matriarchal social structure in hyenas.
You are also wrong because you assume that it is a genetic trait inheritable from father to son. If human homosexuality IS a genetic trait, then it could be inheritable from mother to son, on the X chromosome. This would make it evolutionary neutral, as it’s inheritance would separate to its expression.
Of course, as seen in other species it is rarely an exclusive behaviour; most animals that do exhibit homosexual behaviour do procreate. Historically there have been many humans who have displayed homosexual behaviour and procreated. Often due to persecution they have had sham heterosexual relationships or genuine ones with the addition of partners of the same sex.
And today many gay people want to have children; their sexual orientation has no effect on this desire.
The differentiator with humans today is that it is now, in many civilised countries, socially acceptable to have exclusive homosexual relationships with no heterosexual behaviour. This makes having kids difficult, but especially with lesbian couple is no absolute bar; I know several such couples with children. Male-male couples have a harder time of it for obvious reasons, but again, many would love to have children.
But all of this misses the point (and the remainder of this isn’t specifically at you simon17, it’s about the “if it is genetic it is OK’ argument.
If homosexuality is NOT genetic and IS ‘choice’ (not saying it is, just if) does this actually make it wrong?
Humans exhibit all sorts of non-genetic behaviour that just affects themselves and those they exhibit it with. Like windsurfing.
If windsurfers were, by benefit of being windsurfers, inimical to peaceful society, violent and dangerous, the sort of people who because of being windsurfers were far more likely to do harm to their non-windsurfing fellow man than non-windsurfers, then windsurfing could be argued to be bad, wrong, asocial, ‘a menace to our youth’.
But neither windsurfing or homosexuality make someone more likely to harm their fellow man than non-windsurfers or non-homosexuals. So it is not bad, wrong, asocial or ‘a menace to our youth’.
You have nasty windsurfers, nasty men, nasty women, nasty white people, nasty black people, nasty heterosexuals and nasty homosexuals; being an asshole is truly an equal opportunity state of being.
Whether homosexuality is the result of choice, genetics, enculturation or the uterine environment is neither here nor there. It is not wrong because it doesn’t harm others, just like stamp collecting is not wrong because it does not harm others.
To present a contrary argument to those who say otherwise is to pander to the mythological beliefs they normally espouse, and in a way dehumanises homosexuals and removes our eyes from the most pertinent fact; that homosexuality is an expression of love just as often as heterosexuality is, and that love is what we need more of in this world.
Those who say that homosexuality is wrong have their filthy, petty minds focused on the act of sex, not on the act of love. This is not surprising; if you can control and constrain someone’s sexuality through their religious belief system, then EVERYTHING ELSE is easy.
Of course, as has been mentioned above, as with literalistic beliefs in creation, clinging to Biblically (or other mythological texts) sanctions against homosexuality is essential to fundamental literalists. As soon as they concede that one part of their text of choice is outdated or allegorical, then their house of cards collapses and they can no longer feel morally superior to their fellow man by living their lives in line with that text, or claim their future will be different due to this.
