by MataM 46 Replies latest members adult
LOL---well I was born with blue eyes----do I need treatment??? Stupid analogy--but they excel at that.
People say stupid things all the time, my problem is when a person is in front of a crowd saying such things,.... believe me when I say if he was in a public area(people other than JWs) trying to disguise hate speech with "whatever type of reasoning" would get him POPPED.
Wanda Sykes (stand up comediene) If homosexuality is
A choice of life style, then that mean that we have choices.
So one morning an heterosexual could wake up and say
to himself, today Iam going out and find me A man and
perform A sex act. Not the exact words but you get my
meaning. It,s not A choice but the person. It took me
a while to understand this. Once I stop believeing in
the Bible, it became clear.
I would think that viewing homosexuality as a "evolution" of sorts would be a very HARD sell, there is no advatnage to being homosexual and far more disadvantages.
Homosexuality reduces ( eliminates really) the chance of the genes of the two individual in questions to go into the future gene pool.
There is no genetic advantage to being homosexual so I would think/assume science would view it as a "birth defect" in that way.
Of course there have been openly bisexual cultres that did "jsut fine" of a bit, like the Spartans, but being purely homosexual would be, in the genetic sense and evolutionary sense, a "bad thing".
I have to agree with PS on part of the post. In order for this to be evolutionary, it has to be suseptible for natural selection. Natural selection only works on succesful reproduction. Science WOULD NOT view it as a birth defect though! They simply view it as irrelevant in evolution. For instance, blue eyes don't necessarily make a person more successful reproductively (unless it plays a role in sexual selection, but brown eyed people reproduce too)--so while blue eyes don't necessarily play in natural selection, it is a variation of a trait that is passed on to offspring. And so may be homosexuality--we don't have all the answers yet.
But one thing we DO know, some people are naturally homosexuals, that's where they feel at home and in sync with themselves, it is who they are. They are not a threat to anyone, and we don't need all the answers. How would a person feel having to defend the fact that they had blue eyes and were told it was a choice that they are free to change? Crazy stuff.
NC
Science WOULD NOT view it as a birth defect though! They simply view it as irrelevant in evolution. For instance, blue eyes don't necessarily make a person more successful reproductively (unless it plays a role in sexual selection, but brown eyed people reproduce too)--so while blue eyes don't necessarily play in natural selection, it is a variation of a trait that is passed on to offspring. And so may be homosexuality--we don't have all the answers yet.
Not to speak for science but anything that works against "survival" ( propegating of the species/genes)could be viewed as a "birth defect".
Would it be viewed as such? by some I am sure ( science in of itself doesn't make statements, people do).
A group that was homosexual would die out because they couldn't procreate.
Unless two different groups ( lesbian and Gay) decided to work together for mutual benefit.
Point being that at the genetic level, anything that reduces, much less eliminates, one chances to procreate would be looked at as a genetic "birth defect", much like being born with no uterus or no sperm production.
If I entertain the thought,....Hmmmmmm
Population control via same sex
Population control via war
Killing others in mass scale would be a more important "birth defect" to look into.
A group that was homosexual would die out because they couldn't procreate.
No PS, it cannot be viewed as a birth defect. And it's also not true that homosexuals will die out because they cannot procreate. As evidence I offer---well the world. We pass on many, many genes that are never observed in the phenotype. Both my parents had brown eyes---so blue eyes should die out---right? But I and my brother have blue eyes. Brown eyed people can carry blue eyed genes (although this is an oversimplification for discussion). Heterosexual parents, could theoretically, carry homosexual genes. And this is assuming that ONE gene causes homosexuality---many expressed traits are influenced by endless combinations of genes--for instance, skin color.
If homosexuality has it's origin in genetics, then heterosexual parents everywhere are passing those genes on to their offspring. It would not be a birth defect but a genetic trait. Just because it is not subject to natural selection does not mean it will die out. People that choose to believe it is a birth defect could make the same argument for brown skin, almond shaped eyes, and shortness.
NC
Killing others in mass scale would be a more important "birth defect" to look into.
One can take the "surival of the fittest" argument on that one.
But the propensity towards violence that humans have CAN indeed be viewed as a "birth defect" from a "high moral ground".
But violence can be used to procreate and to pass on the genes of one person or group into future generations unlike homosexuality.
No the propensity toward violence is not a birth defect.
Chimpanzees are violent, territorial, and abusive to their females. One day in deep time, there was an extended drought. This severly changed environment and forced some individuals (chimps) to take to the trees for food. Another group (bonobos) was free to continue foraging for plentiful food on the ground. Bonobos are just full of love and sex and comraderie. Their environments caused this change in social behavior, and speciation. Bonobos and Chimps are very close genetically. WE are closer to chimps genetically. Not a birth defect---natural selection. Not survivlal of the fittest---but an adaptation to deal with a drought that brought about profound social changes.
NC
No the propensity toward violence is not a birth defect.
Didn't say it was, I asaid it COULD be viewed as such from a moral high ground.
Chimpanzees are violent, territorial, and abusive to their females.
They don't know any better.
That we are closely related to them means very little in reality.
I am far more closely related to Osain Bolt than to any chimp but the chances of me breaking the 9 second mark in the 100 meters is ZERO.
If homosexuality has it's origin in genetics, then heterosexual parents everywhere are passing those genes on to their offspring. It would not be a birth defect but a genetic trait. Just because it is not subject to natural selection does not mean it will die out.
There are many genetic defects that are passed on from parent to child, doesn't change them being defects.
I think maybe you are having issues with the term " birth defect" and that's fine, I don't care much for it either, would you prefer " unproductive genetic trait"?
In terms of propegating the species ( what sex is used for at the genetic level), homosexuality is NOT a favorable genetic trait and nothing can change that or change that some will view it that way.
