metreon

Actually, I did discuss Zyphlin's argument on the basis of both rational and moral grounds. But his present argument makes even less sense coming from a purportedly non-moral perspective since if a trait truly is "negative" it would have been selected out and would not have persisted for millions of years, - not to mention being present in pretty much all animal species alive today. Based on a purely evolutionary argument, homosexuality at worst would be considered a benign trait, and not of great import to the survival of the species.

The pervasive existence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, however, would actually argue the opposite. Whenever you find minority genetic profiles (assuming for the moment it is a purely genetic trait), there often is a reason for it, - in other words it is not just a benign trait but one for which evolution has actually selected for earlier in evolutionary history. Too little is known about the genomic history of most species (including our own) to fully understand its purpose, but it is absurdly presumptive on Zyphlin's part to assume that it is a "negative" trait since the overwhelming evidence of its persistence points to the opposite.

Using a cultural argument (attractiveness of baldness) presumes that cultural value will persist over evolutionary time or much less across most of the population, a position I find rather naïve. Again Zyphlin is using a false premise. However to humor his example, it has been my observation that there are plenty of bald people who not only find mates, but also, further confound his juvenile theories by actually pairing up with those deemed most attractive. Take, for example, Marilyn Monroe and Arthur Miller (old and bald) or Anna Nicole and Howard Marshall (also old and bald). What Zyphlin is failing to grasp is that culture is neither as monolithic nor as shallow as he would like it to be.

So, as alluring as the banner of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology may be to you, Zyphlin, it has very little observable impact on evolution in a diverse culture in which the basis of its selective rationale is in continual flux.

Mach

Homosexuality has nothing to do with fertility.
If that's required for your argument, the argument is not a good one.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Mach

Justify? Who needs to justify anything to you, or the government, concerning who they want to have sex with? Are you against a free democracy or something?

Secondly, why do you enjoy food? Is it because you CHOOSE to enjoy the food, or perhaps because your brain is wired to prompt you to both eat, and enjoy it? Do you see the implications of your argument in that light?

-Mach

DarkSpy87

Actually, there's an interesting thing that happens when your body lacks a certain nutrient, it begins to crave something high in that nutrient.

__________________
-DarkSpy87

"One man's right to swing his fist ends at the tip of another man's nose." -John Locke

1069

Well, it's not quite that simple, as our primal instincts have become quite confused and perverted by this modern world we live in.
When we lack vitamin C, we get sweet cravings and eat candy, because we have lost touch with our body's signal that we need fruit.
When we are iron deficient, we chew on ice cubes, or run around furtively eating things that aren't even supposed to be edible, such as dirt.
We crave chocolate when we have a magnesium deficiency.
When we're dehydrated, half the time we figure a cold soda would hit the spot, so we drink that and make ourselves even more dehydrated.

The body and its signals are no longer trustworthy, because we no longer live in the primal world that our bodies were designed for.
Only our brains can be trusted; our physical instincts and impulses are best disregarded.
Our bodies do not know what is best for us anymore.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

1069

I've seen these studies; I think children born to younger women tend to be physically, biologically superior to children born to older women, all other factors being equal.
I think humans have always understood this on some level, which is the reason that nearly all societies have had some system in place where the eldest male offspring inherits everything- land, titles- and subsequent male children are merely back-ups. Insurance.

Again, though, we've come so far now from what is "natural" that this has become perverted as well; it's become basically reversed.
Now younger siblings (born to older parents) tend to have so many material and psycho-social advantages over their older siblings that whatever biological advantages an elder sibling might have are neutralized, rendered moot.
A child born when his parents are twenty-three and in the prime of their reproductive health might well have physical and health advantages over his younger sibling, born twelve years later when his parents are in their mid-thirties.
But the younger sibling will likely have other advantages- a superior upbringing that involves greater monetary stability, which leads to social and educational advantages, more experienced and psychologically savvy parents, who have evolved more consistency and patience for childrearing than they were able to summon in their early twenties, an altogether more beneficial environment.

When it comes to who will be more likely to succeed in life these days, I'll place my money on the younger sibling, although nature would have it otherwise.
Medical technology, too, has advanced to the point that infant and child mortality are extremely low, and so even babies that are born premature, low birth weight, or with other health problems usually survive and catch up to their peers before long.
Medical problems which in the past commonly threatened the health of younger siblings- ie, children born to older women no longer in their reproductive prime- no longer represent the threat or the disadvantage that they did in previous centuries.

In centuries past, all of a family's hopes and expectations were pinned upon the eldest son, and subsequent sons were encouraged (or forced) into the priesthood, or sent off to make their fortunes elsewhere. In a way, younger sons had more freedom to digress from the status quo, or from what was normative and expected, since there were fewer hopes, expectations, and responsibilities placed on them.
I suspect (although I have no proof) that America is a nation largely founded and settled by younger sons, who had no reason to remain in Europe and made their way here instead.

new coup for you

I like the sound of that, it appeals to my immigration sentimentality.

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

Zyphlin

Apparently you haven't read my post well, as you make a lot of assumptions. First and foremost that I actually believe this and am not simply putting it out here on a debate sight to further a debate and topic I had in real life and wished to discuss it with intelligent individuals who could possibly shed light on both sides without trying to make this some kind of giant emotional issue and throwing out barbs.

I have played devil's advocate here for the most part as the thought process would likely be rejected more often than not, but I found it an interesting line of thought none the less. Indeed, in my original encounter speaking about it I stated my disbelief and qualms with the theory in general...however it is still an intriguing thought process.

Firstly, you state that because its a continuing trait that it can't be a "negative" trait. However we still have people with Down Syndrome, muscular sclerosis, and other genetic diseases along with even more genuine things such as mental retardation. This however, is not the case. With evolution generally you're looking at thousands of years for a trait to be weeded out entirely and even then there is the odd chance it can still appear. The fact that it is still present would not necessarily negate this theory. Unless you want to argue that something like Down Syndrome is a positive genetic trait?

On top of that, once again, you're misrepresenting what the word "negative" means in regards to this postulation. A "negative" trait is one that is counter-productive to the process of a creature passing on its genetic material to a future generation. In that sense, and by that definition, how you can say that homosexuality and being unattracted sexually or emotionally to the opposite sex would not in same way be counter-productive to that process.

Now, getting through that, you do make a good point hidden through your constant jabs at my moral fiber and intelligence by bringing up the fact that such traits are still found in numerous animals. From a bit of research (and granted, not a ton) much of it seems almost a "bisexual" type situation where there is interaction with both sexes, or, where despite the homosexual tendencies the animals tend to still breed. Genetically, one person's postulation earlier that it may be a form of genetic population control is an intriguing possibility. Another one would be that, if it is completely genetic, it is an abnormality naturally occurring and likely recessive, thus causing its continual passage through time.

Now, you are correct. Due to our limited knowledge of such things it is hard to make definite statements. You'll notice, not many in this thread are making 100% definite statements but are instead talking with civility about possibilities, theories, and other such things simply as a matter of good debate and interesting discourse.

Now let me thank you for your "Juvenile" comment, which you yourself have came off as, and refer you back to my entire premise. That this is looking at it mostly as a purely instinctual and evolutionary perspective. In my last post I even make not the fact that because of the higher thinking of man, many of these things become less severe or important as other factors play an equal if not larger roll (IE: intellect in your first, wealth in your second).

In general, throughout history, baldness has not been majority seen as an "attractive" quality. One can look at art throughout the ages to see that, once again, in general hair seemed to be a positive trait for an attractive man. I also noted that baldness would likely be a very, very minor "negative" evolutionary trait, hardly being something that would hinder things completely. If you could point me to a place in my post that stated that those that are bald would never be able to mate, I will secede to your point.

If humans were on the same base instinct level as most common animals, I believe hair would be a fair equation to feathers or fur on other animals, where one is able to determine which visual is generally more pleasurable to mates than others. Thus my using baldness as a basic example.

To continue I do not wish nor believe "that culture is [either] monolithic [or] shallow". Indeed, throughout my entire posts I have repeated a number of times the thought process that this is trying to strip away many layers to go down to an evolutionary and instinctual standpoint, as well as the fact that the higher brain function of humans is likely one of the largest issues with such a theory.

If you don't find the discussion alluring, or interesting, then please...leave and find another thread. The fact that you're trying to paint me as some kind of juvenile, shallow, bigot is rather insulting to me considering the fact that it ignores pretty much everything I've written and instead simply is your characterization of me because you don't agree with a theory I posted, which isn't even my own.

I have said before, and I will be clearer. This is not my own theory. Indeed, I was actually arguing on the opposite side of it when this came up. However, despite disagreeing with it, I found it immensely intriguing simply from a thought exercise and a possible discussion point of view. It is because of that I tried to best put across the person I was talking with's theory, and tried my best to stay in his thought process in regards to answering posts.

So please, anyone else that has issues with the theory...agrees with it...or both and want to take the chance to think a bit and talk about it, be my guess. If you feel like making "juvenile" rude assumptions about myself, go find another thread.

Zyphlin

1069, interesting thought concerning the eldest child and how that instinctually related. Had never really thought of that.

foundit66

As with most arguments on "natural law", you've assumed your own argument into being.
Like saying "It's natural to have a white picket fence, therefore the neighbor is *unnatural* in refusing to put one up..."

This line of argument has a variety of obvious rejoinders and flaws which have already been pointed out.

1) Not only "homosexuals", but Catholic priests, anybody who gets surgically sterilized at the doctor or religiously uses condoms, utilizes oral sex, etc, etc would also be "unnatural".

2) And on the flip side, rapists are natural. If a man molests a 12-year old girl who has had her first period, that's *natural*.

3) And what of *unnatural* homosexuality, observed in nature?
There is a long list of animals with homosexuality observed within the species.
Can an argument on "natural" actually forego and contradict natural phenomenon observed in nature?


There are a variety of potential answers to that question.
While homosexuals are not inherently urged to have sex with a gender that could result in procreation, that doesn't mean that gays can't procreate. In fact, there are a variety of gay couples in the world who have decided to procreate children. Choosing a timing that is conducive to planning.
Moreover, since homosexuals have no risk of "unplanned" pregnancy through their desired consummation, they can choose to adopt OTHER PEOPLE's kids as well. Helping to take care of the excess that the heterosexuals over-produce and cannot care for on their own.

To me, rationality should win out over "instinct".
Man is a thinking creature. We should plan our pregnancy instead of having 18-year olds (and younger) surprised and having to change their entire lives because of it.
I think homosexuals provide an advantage in that area.

__________________
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart