Does This "Disprove" Homosexuality?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your one of those people who believs that sex == love?

Interesting.

Last thing I ever expected is to defend Wiglaf on this point. Sex should be with the one you love, and only with the one you love.

Your situation has several other options that need to be considered Wiglaf.

If the gay men, or one of them choose to have sex with the women, because they don't love her and want to propagate the species, that is not quite right. The question then becomes, is the preservation of the species a more important moral constraint than to only have sex with the person that you love?

Ergo, would it be right to rape the woman in order to produce children? No. Therefore I am forced to conclude that there are more important things than the preservation of the human species.

Secondly, is it right for the gay men to get it on with each other? No, not if you believe that sex is not only for the purposes of love, but also for procreation. So the balance rules out both ends.

So then you are left with the two options that are valid, one being more so than the other.

Is it possible for everyone to remain chaste, in this situation? Yes. Yet, that would be a better outcome than either of the options presented by Wiglaf, better than option A, because you are not misusing sex, and both lead to the same option, the extinction of the human species.

Finally, you have a fourth option, that is not part of the analysis. First of all, would it be possible for one of the gay men to love the woman? Yes. Therefore, this is the best option of the four, for the gay man to love the woman, and to continue the propagation of the species. Thus, everyone is fulfilled, except for the one who does not change.

[Ben Kenobi]

And Wiglaf must be enjoying tying his usual allies up in knots.

It would be like me arguing for atheism, I know all the religious counter-arguments.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If you are arguing homosexuality exists, you cannot argue it is a biological evolution.

Where's your argument?

Wait... you never had one to begin with.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, is it right for the gay men to get it on with each other? No, not if you believe that sex is not only for the purposes of love, but also for procreation. So the balance rules out both ends.

So infertile couples are wrong to have sex?

We can deduce then, BK, that in order to avoid hypocrisy on your part (heaven forbid), after you've gotten married, you won't have sex with your wife except for attempts to produce children?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If you are arguing homosexuality exists, you cannot argue it is a biological evolution. Then, let's take it a step further. It doesn't seem to do anything but encourage people not to have kids. Fine, comrade Molly Bloom, perhaps you can make a test-tube monster baby or whatnot. But the fact remains, homosexuality represents a deviant gene.

Unless it doesn't exist, in which case all gay people are lunatics, and must be locked away, no pun intended.

So logic is alien to you as well as courtesy and commonsense?

Colour me shocked, Dalilah!


You don't know what a pun is, do you, either?

I'm not 'arguing' that homosexuality exists, since it self-evidently does.

And let me repeat again, all a lesbian and a gay man need to produce a child is the equipment they come possessed with in nature.

Or are the facts of life a closed book to you?



Now let's hope the other shut-ins don't make too much commotion banging their bedpans on your tinfoil hat.

[Whaleboy]

If you are arguing homosexuality exists, you cannot argue it is a biological evolution. Then, let's take it a step further. It doesn't seem to do anything but encourage people not to have kids. Fine, comrade Molly Bloom, perhaps you can make a test-tube monster baby or whatnot. But the fact remains, homosexuality represents a deviant gene.

Actually, whether or not it is the fact has been the subject of debate between non-bigots with scientific evidence on their side and insecure anally retentive bigots with blind ignorance on their side for years. If homosexuality served no evolutionary purpose, we, and other higher mammals (from wolves to dolphins) would not have evolved it, and if it were a “deviant” or malignant gene, evolutionary would have dealt with that eons ago.

Unless it doesn't exist, in which case all gay people are lunatics, and must be locked away, no pun intended.

Why? Firstly, the safest assumption is that it serves an evolutionary purpose, but let’s ignore that for the minute, leaving the other options of psychological and sociological determinism, like any form of learned behaviour. Next question. Gay people are lunatics? I’m bisexual, I know many bi and gay people and they’re benevolent, sane and intelligent, hardly lunatics. Why do they have to be locked away?

So logic is alien to you as well as courtesy and commonsense?

Colour me shocked, Dalilah!

I find it comical how he almost by default focuses on gay men, who’s sex act is, shock shock, a little challenging to some (in more ways than one ). He’s probably filled his hard drive with AsianLesbianHousewivesXXX and “Mistress Helens after-school breast appreciation society” images.

BK:

You’re logic is better because you have a conclusion that agrees with me . However a few problems.

Secondly, is it right for the gay men to get it on with each other? No, not if you believe that sex is not only for the purposes of love, but also for procreation. So the balance rules out both ends.

I would suggest that sex for the purposes of love is more important than sex for the purposes of having children, and to be utilitarian about it, you’d gain more personal utility by doing so. Kant is useless when it comes to other people’s bedrooms… there must have been something in the waters of Konnigsberg. That is why your most straight-laced married heterosexual couple will usually have sex even though children are not the aim. Giving another pleasure is a wonderful way to show how you feel about someone.

Ergo, would it be right to rape the woman in order to produce children? No. Therefore I am forced to conclude that there are more important things than the preservation of the human species.

. A modification of that would be if the gay man consents and the woman consents. Does that justify him cheating on his love?

As a general rule I feel a little off-put by your frequent application of your personal morality as a universal maxim regarding sex. To be both (Mill, not Bentham) utilitarian about it, if they are both consenting adults, there is no problem. As an emotivist, for me it renders the whole question irrelevant anyway!

[Agathon]

Times have changed,
And we've often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, Anything Goes.

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes

When grandmama whose age is eighty
In night clubs is getting matey with gigolo's,
Anything Goes.

When mothers pack and leave poor father
Because they decide they'd rather be tennis pros,
Anything Goes.

If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose!
When every night,
The set that's smart
Is intruding in nudist parties in studios,
Anything Goes.

[RENO, PASSENGERS & CREW]
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes

[RENO]
If saying your prayers you like,
If green pears you like
If old chairs you like,
If back stairs you like,
If love affairs you like
With young bears you like,
Why nobody will oppose!

[ALL]
And though I'm not a great romancer
And though I'm not a great romancer
I know that I'm bound to answer
When you propose,
Anything goes...
Anything goes!

Some folks still don't get it.

[Last Conformist]

I find it comical how he almost by default focuses on gay men, who’s sex act is, shock shock, a little challenging to some (in more ways than one ).

He's probably worried about being anally raped. Does anyone know any rapists-for-hire in his vincity who could demonstrate to him that his fears are justified?

[Wiglaf]

If homosexuality served no evolutionary purpose, we, and other higher mammals (from wolves to dolphins) would not have evolved it, and if it were a “deviant” or malignant gene, evolutionary would have dealt with that eons ago

You're arguing that homosexuality is biological progress because it wasn't dealt with before? Huh? First of all ,you haven't shown at all how it is progress. Second, humans have entire bodyparts (ie appendix) that are useless but still present. Also we have obesity, which has long since outlasted its usefulness. The difference is that homosexuality is a direct threat to human reproductive potential.

Game Set Match!

Why do they have to be locked away?

You misread my original post. Homosexuality either exists or doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then so-called homosexuals are crazy. If it does, then homosexuals are biologically deviant, see above.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If you are arguing homosexuality exists, you cannot argue it is a biological evolution.

Actually, we can. It's quite possible that there is some societal advantage to having members who DON'T reproduce - just like there's an advantage to having altruism, despite the fact that it is individually maladaptive.

Moreover, since it exists, of course it is a biological evolution! Whaddya think, God created it?

[Whaleboy]

You're arguing that homosexuality is biological progress because it wasn't dealt with before?

The flaw in your analogy is that the appendix was useless as of relatively recently in our evolutionary history, and is expected in omnivorous species. You'll note that no such superfluous organ exists in "older" mamallian species, and yet homosexuality appears to be a general mammal trait in the more intelligent species. The appendix is soemthing of a wildcard evolutionary, it serves no positive or negative purpose regarding the odds of procreation.

Homosexuality is not conducive to raising kids, and yet evolution has not eliminated it, it has propagated it, whereas according to your logic it would have been evolved out pretty soon if it was useless. That leads us to a few possible answers. There is a gene and it serves a purpose. There is a congruation of genes that serves a purpose. There is an indirect evolutionary psychological consequence to a number of genes. Or combination of one of the above with certain environmental factors, according to the hierarchy of needs.

Also we have obesity, which has long since outlasted its usefulness.

Bare in mind we evolved to cope, physiologically with hunger, with lack of food, and yet in the last few thousand years, a blink in evolutionary history, we have plenty. Your analogy is woefully flawed thus.

The difference is that homosexuality is a direct threat to human reproductive potential.

Why? With 1/10 people as homosexual, that leaves 9/10 to reproduce? And I don't see a lack of humans roaming the Earth, do you?

Game Set Match!

Ummm, you're still holding the ball!

You misread my original post. Homosexuality either exists or doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then so-called homosexuals are crazy. If it does, then homosexuals are biologically deviant, see above.

If you can make a case for homosexuality not existing I'd be very amused! . But please, don't stop on my account, do explain!

I think we have more than adequately explained how the notion of biological deviance is fallacious in itself and fallaciously applied here.

[Last Conformist]

Wiglaf's speaking of "biological progress". That should be enough indication that arguing with him isn't gonna help.

Quite apart from the fact that he's a liberal nutjob for denying creationism!

[Ancyrean]

Actually, I have doubts about the idea that homosexuality is genetical. It comes more sensible to me that it is behavioral (although I concede genetical studies may in the future prove otherwise).

First of all, I take it that homosexual behaviour is observed in nature, across species. I wonder then, if the cases of homosexuality in nature involves individual animals that are exclusively homosexual, or if they are only occasionally displaying homosexual behaviour. Seeking a genetical explanation, if the former (exclusive homosexuality) is the case, then that gene should never succeed to pass on. If the latter is the case (bisexuality), then the presumed evolutinary purpose of homosexuality (to prevent overbreeding, as suggested in this forum) is moot since the "homosexual" animals still go ahead and mate with females.

If there are some other yet unfathomed evolutionary reason for homosexuality, then it cannot be "pure" homosexuality since the gene needs to be passed on-requiring hetero sex (still talking about nature here).

Therefore, to the extent that homosexuality is observed in nature, it might be more logical to argue that it's a constant behavioral occurence, for a whole variety of reasons (just as an example; perhaps undertaken by non-alpha male individuals which seek relief this way -and no, I mean no cynical remarks here).

Shifting to human homosexuality, human behaviour being infinitely more complex, I can think of no reason to doubt that a human being can be inclined to feel love or attraction towards an individual of the same sex (although this is alien to me), if you believe true love trancends the body and is about the soul (meaning: you don't have to insist on seeking genetical proofs to make your sexual preferences appear "acceptable").

As for sexual pleasure from homosexual sex, it might very well be the case that it's a matter of taboo in the sense that most of us are disposessed against approaching (WINK WINK ) an individual of the same sex, because of the set of values of society in which we grow up.

I wonder how we would feel about homosexuality if we were grown up in a society where it was a perfectly normal, or even expected, thing to do (ancient Greece -and Rome- comes to mind).

[Bereta_Eder]

Not forgeting the Sultans and their harems... Unfortunately there it was forced rape of boys....

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Not forgeting the Sultans and their harems... Unfortunately there it was forced rape of boys....

Homosexuality sure was a practice in the Ottoman palace (as it was in other eastern courts), but in my post I was referring to the society, in which case ancient Greece (and to an extent Rome) is a good example of a society in which homosexuality was commonplace and even expected.