Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The point, of course, is that yes, homosexuality is biologically improbable - it certainly doesn't enhance a species' survival chances if some of its members won't mate with the opposite sex and therefore have kids. However, just because something is biologically improbable does not mean it is immoral, wrong, or bad. It also does not mean that we should pass laws against it - unless of course he also wants to deny the right of deaf people to marry.
|
Well, to make a point against biological determinism making any sense... I don't think looking at evolution as a law, with some sort of environmental judge saying "yes, that's a great mutation, keep it!" and "boooo! bad mutation, you're a goner!" makes much sense. Talking about human behavior as though it is solely determined by genetics misses a lot of the complexities of human existence. Society is structured in a way where we don't really need that much to live and get by. We aren't in the wilds, we're not hunting and gathering, and there are billions of us so obviously something is working. It is much easier to talk about genetic determinism with other animals and plants.
Now, to go along with that, for the sake of humanity, homosexuality makes a lot of sense. Have an overpopulation problem? ... Well, genetically then, it would make sense for more and more humans to be homosexual to save resources for the "tribe" at large. Of course, being homosexual doesn't prevent childbirth in the least... so... it is negligible at best.
Of course, I don't really think the question of homosexuality and genetics matters in the least because I see no problems with homosexuality at all.
And on a final note, why are we still talking about this?