Homosexuality "unnatural" by natural law? - Page 2

Summerwind · 12-12-07, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wise_Fool

Nature aleady has a means for population control. It's called "death."

If an environment cannot sustain the species, it kills the species. Take a look at deer overabundance, sometimes unnaturally perpetuated by humans. They will starve to death if there are too many of them, one of the better reasons to justify killing them.

I've seen this unofficial theory before and in my opinion it is far too removed from cause and effect. What external cause could trigger a permanent reduction in fertility? If there was a momentary lack of food then why produce offspring that permanently won't produce? It's nonsensical. Arguably, it would even be better for the parents to just die for they would then pose less of a stress on the environment instead of just spending their efforts rearing 'nonfertile' offspring. And as with deer population this is the case.

Except for humans, you mean. We "cheat" death all the time, so that natural control no longer exists for us in the natural sense.

A_Wise_Fool · 12-13-07, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

Except for humans, you mean. We "cheat" death all the time, so that natural control no longer exists for us in the natural sense.

Uh.. that has no application to what I said.

Death is a much more efficient means to control a population in an environment, which can scarcely support a species, than rearing homosexual offspring. If before our ability to "cheat" death, nature already provided a much better means to control a population then why would a need suddenly arise saying the environment needs homosexuals because it can't support the current population level only after we cheat death? If we can cheat death we can cheat the environment thus nothing is saying we need reduced population levels. Hence homosexuality would be random and useless.

Cheating death has no relationship to homosexuality-having-a-benefit according to what I said. Death has always existed, and is much better mechanism for populance control, and thus would come before and eliminates the need for homosexuals to help control a population. Thus you stating we can cheat death has no application.

rathi · 12-13-07, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Death is a much more efficient means to control a population in an environment, which can scarcely support a species, than rearing homosexual offspring.

Not true. The world population is not effected by death rates very much. The black plague is the only time in human history when the world population actually dropped. Even WW2 didn't kill enough people. By contrast, birth control and choices not have kids keep populations in Europe, china and America from rapidly expanding. How effective homosexuality is as a birth control measure is the real determining factor.

Human sexual relationships are not natural in slightest, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Animals will engage in sexual relations with animals of the same gender. However, how many animals go on a few dates before they engage in sex? Do they buy nice cars, cover themselves in artificial nonsense, and consumer alcohol as courtship rituals? Human social structures are so bizarre that its impossible to accurately compare them to animals or "nature."

Summerwind · 12-13-07, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Wise_Fool

Uh.. that has no application to what I said.

Death is a much more efficient means to control a population in an environment, which can scarcely support a species, than rearing homosexual offspring. If before our ability to "cheat" death, nature already provided a much better means to control a population then why would a need suddenly arise saying the environment needs homosexuals because it can't support the current population level only after we cheat death? If we can cheat death we can cheat the environment thus nothing is saying we need reduced population levels. Hence homosexuality would be random and useless.

Cheating death has no relationship to homosexuality-having-a-benefit according to what I said. Death has always existed, and is much better mechanism for populance control, and thus would come before and eliminates the need for homosexuals to help control a population. Thus you stating we can cheat death has no application.

I do not believe I misunderstood you. Even after reading your repetition here, I have to say that so long as death no longer controls/reduces population, nature may well attempt to control it in different ways.

Seriously do thing Social Security and baby boomers would be such an issue if the baby boomers were dying at rates and ages that would be in alignment with 50 or 100 years ago.

Plus, if premature and high risk pregnancies/births ended in death as often as they did back then. I cannot agree with you that deaths are an effective population control with today's medical "miracles".

When we allow/force extended lives on nature, perhaps nature creates other means to dampen population rise.

A_Wise_Fool · 12-13-07, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Not true. The world population is not effected by death rates very much. The black plague is the only time in human history when the world population actually dropped. Even WW2 didn't kill enough people. By contrast, birth control and choices not have kids keep populations in Europe, china and America from rapidly expanding. How effective homosexuality is as a birth control measure is the real determining factor.

No it is true. The world population example you gave does not fulfill the "can scarcely support a species" premise I supplemented that death rate statement with. When the planet can no longer support humans we will start dying and not start making-more-homosexuals.

Quote:

Human sexual relationships are not natural in slightest, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Animals will engage in sexual relations with animals of the same gender. However, how many animals go on a few dates before they engage in sex? Do they buy nice cars, cover themselves in artificial nonsense, and consumer alcohol as courtship rituals? Human social structures are so bizarre that its impossible to accurately compare them to animals or "nature."

I'm not sure if this is directed to me. I don't know why youy would start talking about relationships unless you try to make the point homosexuality is just a pyschological-relationship fetish and is thus unaturally prepetuated, meaning unatural that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

I do not believe I misunderstood you. Even after reading your repetition here, I have to say that so long as death no longer controls/reduces population, nature may well attempt to control it in different ways.

I think I see the problem. You are ignoring how the mechanics of this stuff works. Nature does nothing but selects the less beneficial traits to die off. It does not "inform" species what they "should" do, only what they can't do. Nature has no reason to "say" there are too many humans.

You are presuming that nature "decides" there are too many humans and it "tries" to limit them by making them steril in some sort of way. You are missing the key factor that nature PASSIVELY selects traits. Only beneficial traits are selected. There is no relationship between nature passively seleting homosexual traits which are beneficial to the species only AFTER death is removed. If death is removed, the species is already progressing and thus selecting traits to slow that progression is back tracking to the species.

If nature thinks there are too many humans what is saying that is bad? Its like saying some future plant we discover on mars is being reduced by human nuclear radiation and nature does not like that, so back on earth nature says we need to start being steril to help those plants. It does not work that way. That would be nature ACTIVELY selecting a trait. Nature does not have an agenda or list of things to accomplish.

. It only says what we cannot do, and reproducing more in light of killing that plant on mars is not one of those things we cannot do.

Quote:

Seriously do thing Social Security and baby boomers would be such an issue if the baby boomers were dying at rates and ages that would be in alignment with 50 or 100 years ago.

Plus, if premature and high risk pregnancies/births ended in death as often as they did back then. I cannot agree with you that deaths are an effective population control with today's medical "miracles".

Nature does not care about social security. Population control only happens passively: not enough resources to go around then things die. It cannot happen actively.

Quote:

When we allow/force extended lives on nature, perhaps nature creates other means to dampen population rise.

WHY does it need to damped the population? It's against the proposed

mechanics of evolution.

THis is the exact same thing. You are saying nature NEEDS to ACTIVELY accomplish something. It does not have an agenda. It only says what things cannot do. If a species can do something, maybe it will do it or maybe it won't, but nature does not care either way.

The silenced majority · 12-13-07, 10:33 PM

Please stop pointing to animal behavior to justify some human behaviors.

Should we eat our young too?

Sexual preference is 100% up to each individual, as opposed to .....

If somebody is a homosexual and uses a logical approach like the one in the OP to question his/her sexuality, I see nothing wrong with that either...

metreon · 12-14-07, 02:14 AM

I have yet to read one post here that explains to me what is wrong with homosexuality. The original post simply asserts the premise that homosexuality is wrong, assuming at every turn it is a "negative trait". Even if one were to debate upon this faulty premise, from what I have read, few children adopted by homosexual couples become homosexual themselves, at least no more than would be expected by the natural incidence of that preference in the general population. The closest science, beyond the genetic issue, suggests the developmental issues are biochemical brain changes that occur in utero or very early infancy, and not originating from some later childhood behavioral exposure. So whether parental familiars are homosexual is irrelevant to a child's innate sexual preference. But of course, those reasons are unimportant because no evidence exists that harm is caused by homosexuality itself.

The only thing that would suggest that homosexuality is "wrong" as far as I can see, is the degree of discrimination, hatred, and intolerance that homosexuals have been subjected to by the larger population for many decades. However, unless a rational argument can be presented to justify such belief, the premise is irrational. If you blithely accept majority intolerance as "proof" of a problem, then you must also conclude that racism can be justified if supported by a majority. I don't think any rational person would permit that conclusion. Would you?

If one uses a religious text to justify intolerance, then one is again arguing from belief, not rationality, and you are back to the original flaw in your argument: an unproven premise. That would make the original post a debate of faith, not science.

Kelzie · 12-14-07, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

Please stop pointing to animal behavior to justify some human behaviors.

Should we eat our young too?

Sexual preference is 100% up to each individual, as opposed to .....

If somebody is a homosexual and uses a logical approach like the one in the OP to question his/her sexuality, I see nothing wrong with that either...

Maybe we shouldn't eat our young. But it's in animal's nature to procreate. Should we not procreate because animals do it? Saying we shoudln't do something because animals do it is just as silly as saying homosexuality is unnatural.

independent_thinker2002 · 12-14-07, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelzie

Maybe we shouldn't eat our young. But it's in animal's nature to procreate. Should we not procreate because animals do it? Saying we shoudln't do something because animals do it is just as silly as saying homosexuality is unnatural.

Wait, now I don't know if I should eat my young now?

Zyphlin · 12-14-07, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metreon

The original post simply asserts the premise that homosexuality is wrong, assuming at every turn it is a "negative trait".

You're speaking of "wrong" in a moral sense. The original post does not assert wrong in this sense. The negative traits assossiated with Homsexuality in the original post is concerning an evolutionary/genetic aspect...that homosexuality is advsere to the most base need of living creatures, the propagation of their genetic code into future generations. That not being attracted to the opposite sex in a sexual way and thus having no desire or need to have sexual relations with them and thus pass on your genetic material is some kind of potential defect. In essence an "undesirable" trait from an evolutionary stand point.

Someone mentioned Baldness, which is a great thing to use in an example here. Male Pattern Baldness is generally a trait that is not condusive to the ability to gain a mate and pass on genetic material. However, there are a few issues with it:

1) It tends to happen later in life, often times after you've already copulated.
2) it is, on a whole, a minor negative trait that may limit your chances but not make them slim to none.

The other thing that does make this kind of issue different for humans IS higher thought. We do not react simply on base instinct, and other factors can over ride for us in a greater fashion. As well, the trait present in most humans for the desire for companionship, closeness, and love on an emotional and not just physical level help to cause certain joinings that would possibly not occur on a base instinctual level.

But, in regards to the post above, the OP was not meant to be viewing homosexuality as a morally wrong thing but more as an evolutionary wrong.