Zyphlin

To start, cause I'm sure people will read the title and just respond emotionally tramping on me without actually using actual thought here...I do not actually agree with this mind view. However it is something that came up discussing matters with some friends and I thought I'd place the question up here to get your alls views on the matter.

Natural law dictates that the most base, core, function of every living thing is to reproduce and thus pass on its genes. The vast majority of actions by living creatures can be tied back to this core function....be it mating dances, developing colorful feathers, or trying to get a good job with a great car.

Because of this, and due to evolution, traits and characteristics that are helpful in the acquiring of a mate, or more important, the passing on of genetic material becomes dominant and prevalent while traits that hinder this process begin to be weeded out.

With this theory in mind, would homosexuality be an "unnatural" thing. IE...if present in another species it would be weeded out, only showing up as an anomaly, but because of the higher thought processes of humans don't experience this as much.

The desire to be with a member of ones own sex, and not to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex, seems converse to the natural theory of nature. As if it is an anomaly, a malfunction, that would be a hindering trait for a species.

If its all genetic, then that would mean its faulty genes. If its all environmental, then it would be thought of as a chemical problem perhaps or illogical upbringing. If its a mix of both, it would stand to reason that allowing homosexuals the chance to raise a child could perhaps instill these negative traits.



- - - - - -

For me personally, even if this was the case, I don't think it matters all to much. IF, and this is a big IF, it really was some kind of "unnatural" faulty genetic type condition...so what? Humans as a society don't slaughter those born with birth defects, we don't limit them in their ability to marry or have children, so why would this be different.

I do however find the thought process intriguing as it does raise a good question in regards to how and why such a genetic disposition came into play in the human race when it is uncondusive to the most base of instincts.

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

Summerwind

If it is "un-natural" then there are many unnatural species in the world. All I have to do is watch the neighbors' boy dogs and my boy dog to see that if procreation by opposite sex isn't available, sex with whatever is available still takes a priority in many species. So your friends have an interesting concept, but if it doesn't hold amongst most species, I'm not sure it is valid to attempt to apply it to ours.

I do realize that sex with what's available isn't the same as true homosexuality since those folks claim to be incapable of being interested in the opposite sex. But I would also imagine those same people would likely make due with the opposite sex if they had no other long term choices. Sort of the opposite of those that make due with homosexual sex while incarcerated, but whom prefer heterosexual sex when not incarcerated.

Even so, I think there are too many examples in other species of homosexual encounters to claim that the only "natural" purpose to sex is for procreation. Sex with whatever seems important for other reasons like . . . it feels good.

Zyphlin

Would sex for the sake of sex...not due to attraction...be "homosexual" though in a more scientific sense?

I would think that the attraction to the opposite sex on a sexual level is what would be the key here...not just the desire to have sex.

Being extremely horny wouldn't really be a detriment to passing on your genes...well, not a huge one...if you're quite fine with ones of the opposite sex as much as with your own.

Being only sexually aroused by your same sex though and not being sexually aroused by the opposite sex would be different all together.

Though with what you're saying it would seem those that are "bisexual", either by finding both sex's sexually appealing or simply liking sex however it comes, would be a completely separate category.

roguenuke

I believe it is natural, but instead of being an abnormality, homosexuality could be like a check in nature's system of balance. If a species is procreating too much for nature to be able to support, then homosexuality could be one of those things that help to slow the rapid increase of that species. It could be like being born infertile. (I hope no one takes me as heartless on this, because I'm just looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint. I do feel bad for anyone who wants to have children and can't.) I know that for many people being born unable to procreate is tragic, but it could be a safeguard in nature to help keep a species' population within nature's own limits for sustaining it.

Kelzie

There's actually a bit of evidence to support this theory. A study done with Italian mothers I believe found that the more children they had, the more likely it was that the younger boys would be homosexual.

As far as natural laws go, there are a lot of genetic traits that serve no purpose for reproduction. Male pattern baldness comes to mind. And yet it persists, because it's not threatening enough to the species. Just like homosexuality can fit just fine in the theory of evolution and natural selection because in humans and in animals, it's not widespread enough to affect the gene pool.

__________________
be humble for you are made of earth; be noble for you are made of stars

Serbian proverb

WI Crippler

Something I have never understood is how humans consider some of our actions "unnatural". Everything we do is natural. Thats not to excuse actions we find deplorable, but it doesn't make them unnatural. Our abilities we have developed over the course of evolution are natural. Therefor, our intellect and abilities are also natural, which means our inventions and creations are natural.
Too many people(particularly vegans and hippies ) believe that natural means "without human interference". So while I consider building skyscrapers and nuclear bombs to be completely within the natural order of things, others see these things as unnatural, because "nature" would not create such things without human interference. But I believe that we are the products of nature, and therefor the actions we take and the things we make are completely natural. So for me, homosexuals are natural, by natural law.

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

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.

mikhail

The original premise is wrong in that reproduction of genes doesent require oneself to reproduce in fact you can pass more DNA on through your siblings.Which brings us to the whole gay uncle theory that it would be useful to have someone you can trust with your women and female children.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Mach

It's a very weak argument.
#1 We are products of nature, therefore we are all a result of "natural law". #2 When the other sex is plentiful and reproduction is not a factor, consensual male sex in some species occurs frequently and serves to help bond them and apparently reduce stress. Likewise, when populations are forced into separate sex communities, i.e. prison, nuns, priests with altar boys, naturally they tend to become intimiate. Apparently it's quite natural by all accounts. Are all nuns lesbians? All priests gay? All prisoners homosexual? Really silly questions.

Also, I always wonder why people care about this sort of topic. Really, to spend precious life energy on worrying about who someone else is having...relations with, is absurd. I don't really care, except I DO care when a segment of the population attempts to make it their business, when it clearly is not. I usally find that people who believe in the supernatural, also incorrectly believe that it's their job to police sexuality, probably has to do with being ignorant in one area, often leads to, or is a symptom of, ignorance in others.

-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

I read something similar, but it involved the younger sibling having an older brother as being more likely statistically to participate in same sex relations.

-Mach