Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well obviously evolution isn't conscious, but that's essentially how it works. If one moth is black and the other is day-glo pink, and they both sit on a dark tree branch, the bird will see the pink one first and eat it, so the pink moth won't mate and pass its genes on. Meanwhile the black moth escaped to pass its genes on. More black moths will be born and less pink moths will be born. So in a sense, if a mutation is "bad" it will not be continued, for long anyway, because the creatures with the mutation won't be able to mate.
|
My point is that human society has "advanced" to a point where the most decrepid among us typically can go on living, the rest of nature doesn't have that safety web. There is no Social Security in the rain forests. I think the biological/genetic Darwin argument doesn't apply to a lot of human behavior (though in some cases I wish it would). Looking at homosexuality through that lense isn't very helpful for making decisions about what do morally with legislation towards homosexuality.
Quote:
|
All that aside, however, my point stands - - whether something is biologically improbable or not should have no bearing on how people treat someone with it. Homosexuality IS an abnormality - most people don't have it, therefore it's not normal to have it. The trouble is that for some reason people think "abnormality" and "bad" are synonyms, and they're not.
|
Agreed.