Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality . . .

Frosstbyte · 06-20-2006, 01:31 PM

I very specifically defined my terms in my post. As stevie and I have pointed out, we're talking strictly about the propagation of DNA and genetic material, not about any social or moral basis. I don't know what other word would appropriately describe it that is appropriate other than wrong. I don't mean it's bad, I don't mean I think it's morally reprehensible, I very honestly couldn't care less who people have sex with, love or with whom they want to spend their lives. I have gay friends, I have gay relatives. I don't think they are sick or wrong or messed up or anything else. It's not a single attribute by which I define people I know, it's just part of who they are. And that's not really even the point.

Homosexual wiring, assuming it exists innately and isn't a learned biological phenomenon is neither the biological norm (as defined in your terms by the fact that it occurs in only 5-6% of males and 2-3% of females) nor is it a conducive condition to passing on genetic material. You are correct that not all animal social phenomena requires all members of a species to reproduce, but the examples you describe either have a completely alien reproductive fashion or are designed to ensure that the biggest, strongest genes are passed on to the next generation.

Human society does not select for survival of the fittest. We've engineered our world both in terms of social norms and technology to all but ensure that survival of the fittest has pretty much nothing to do with which genes get passed on and survive, since we've created a system that attempts to allow everyone to survive for as long as possible, even if "naturally" their genetic material is not conducive to survival. It is unclear how, if at all, homosexuality fits into that biological schema. I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm saying, biologically, it makes the same amount of sense as a pride of lions having a weak, sickly male mate with the females. Which is to say, it doesn't. Are different or aberration or anomoly or deviation better word choices than wrong? I don't know, since they all kind of mean the same thing in this case.

I don't mean it's wrong in some grand sense of "what should people do with their lives" I mean it's the wrong way for an organism to act in order to pass on its genetic material which, in my opinion, is the baseline purpose of an organism's existance.

06-20-2006, 01:31 PM	#33 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	I very specifically defined my terms in my post. As stevie and I have pointed out, we're talking strictly about the propagation of DNA and genetic material, not about any social or moral basis. I don't know what other word would appropriately describe it that is appropriate other than wrong. I don't mean it's bad, I don't mean I think it's morally reprehensible, I very honestly couldn't care less who people have sex with, love or with whom they want to spend their lives. I have gay friends, I have gay relatives. I don't think they are sick or wrong or messed up or anything else. It's not a single attribute by which I define people I know, it's just part of who they are. And that's not really even the point. Homosexual wiring, assuming it exists innately and isn't a learned biological phenomenon is neither the biological norm (as defined in your terms by the fact that it occurs in only 5-6% of males and 2-3% of females) nor is it a conducive condition to passing on genetic material. You are correct that not all animal social phenomena requires all members of a species to reproduce, but the examples you describe either have a completely alien reproductive fashion or are designed to ensure that the biggest, strongest genes are passed on to the next generation. Human society does not select for survival of the fittest. We've engineered our world both in terms of social norms and technology to all but ensure that survival of the fittest has pretty much nothing to do with which genes get passed on and survive, since we've created a system that attempts to allow everyone to survive for as long as possible, even if "naturally" their genetic material is not conducive to survival. It is unclear how, if at all, homosexuality fits into that biological schema. I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm saying, biologically, it makes the same amount of sense as a pride of lions having a weak, sickly male mate with the females. Which is to say, it doesn't. Are different or aberration or anomoly or deviation better word choices than wrong? I don't know, since they all kind of mean the same thing in this case. I don't mean it's wrong in some grand sense of "what should people do with their lives" I mean it's the wrong way for an organism to act in order to pass on its genetic material which, in my opinion, is the baseline purpose of an organism's existance.