Tweet
Re: Check out this opinion (subject edited)
Where to begin...I wrote this before reading the entire thread, but much of this hasn't been said:
Population control? The only way nature "controls" populations is merely by the existence or non-existence of resources. If the earth held infinite resources, it could (theoretically) hold an infinite population. Unless have an idea of nature as a human-like God (which is wholly problematic to say the least, but another time), nature is not a conscious force that decides to make creatures act a certain way. Nature is simply the physical world. So, homosexuality is not something that nature just somehow "decides" to create because it has determined that a certain species has become too multiple, that it has exceeded some limit. The way populations are controlled is by the level of resources available. Hence, the only way the earth "controls" any populations (the earth should not be personified, but anyway), be they animal or other, is its having or not having the ability to sustain them. Disease, homosexuality, natural disasters, wars, asteroids, ice ages, etc. are not things that nature has decided to happen to limit our growth; they just happen, and that's it. Stuff hits other stuff, and stuff happens. End of story.
A common misconception of evolution is the idea that somehow, if species need something (like hands, wings, more intelligence, different coloring, etc.), it begins to manifest itself in that species. Nonsense. Evolution is the process of living and dying, the survivors simply being there to procreate whereas the nonsurvivors are not. Hence, the survivors, having traits that allowed them to survive, outlast the non-survivors, and define the species. This takes millions of years!!! Because of the type of environment in which life exists, life forms are exposed to infinte stresses on their forms, which sometimes cause mutations; some may be minor, or some may be major. Out of all this, life forms are rarely only suited to their environment. Most life forms, especially more complicated ones, like animals, have several characteristics that are completely useless, because those characteristics' survival value is neutral, or at least inconsequential. In humans, for example, one characteristic is our ability to make and appreciate music. Does our ability to make and appreciate art impact our suvival on the species level? Not at all. And don't give me some "it enriches the soul" bullshit, I'm not talking about the remote positive effects that might keep someone alive for a few extra days because of their will to live is enhanced. Music has no survival value. Music is something we happen to be able to do, a colatteral effect of our intelligence and our ability to hear. So are many of the things we do. They aren't there because we need them for survival, they're just there because at some point things lined up right for other reasons and they never went away. And I am not referring to vestigal traits, which, at an earlier point in time, were necessary for survival.
So it is with homosexuality. It may be an indirect artifact of the fertilization process, it might have something to do with the cells' process of sex determinancy, but whatever it is, It's impossible that it is merely a choice. Purely from a survival standpoint, it may be a "mistake" (or, at least, a useless variation), because if the entire species were built in this fashion, the species would fail (this is only true after assuming that a successful species has an infinte run, which hasn't happened yet!). However, there are so many differences between what our DNA lines up for us and what we actually wind up with that to make a judgement like "homosexuality is wrong" because it does not satisfy the astronomical threshold of survival value is to indirectly make the judgement that any and all features of human existence that are not absolutely necessary to survival (Iike art, cooking, sports, language, buildings, science, civilization, etc.) are also wrong.
Sexual orientation is not something that is determined soley by biology, either. The firm lines we have in place in America (and, really, the west) classifying hetero- and homosexuality are dervied from the dominance of Judeo/Christian worldview and the importance and normalcy of the family structure in society. Such strong divisions between orientation is not mirrored in biology; rather, there is a wide range of orientation and it becomes combined with social experiences after birth. The formation of orientation is thus a process that is slightly different for everyone.
Biological urges, especially those supported by social custom, will become satisfied, one way or another. Resisting such an urge is doomed to fail.
Arguing against the propriety homosexuality on the basis that it is "unnatural" because it can involve anal sex is absolutely absurd. Absolutley. We certainly don't think kissing is wrong, yet this involves the "misuse" of our mouths, a deviation from eating, speaking, and breathing. So why should uncommon use of any part of our bodies be wrong? And don't forget that some of the same guys decrying homosexuality are doing anal with their girlfriends, or at least watching others do it in porn. Such bullshit. And declaring that homosexuality is wrong because it is "disgusting" is simply a matter of taste, of which there is no argument for or against. But such opinions are narrow-minded.
Finally, the challenge that men who are homosexual or condone homosexuality are not "manly" is an classic indicator of male insecurity. There is nothing in being a homosexual that makes muscles or wills less strong. Maleness, psychologically speaking, is not defined in terms of a certain level of attraction to females. And not all homosexuals display the stereotypical behavior we've come to associate with them. The feminine gestures, flamboyancy and sensitivity attributed to male homosexuals and the plain masculinity attributed to female homosexuals is most likely, again, a combination of factors, both biological and sociological. There may be a mixture of male and female biological tendencies in each which act as motivators toward certain behaviors; socially, the behaviors become magnified by the existence of reference groups of similar people. Many homosexuals fall outside of these categories, for any number of reasons, and appear to be heterosexual. In other words, "gaydar" only works when applying to obvious homosexuals, and really amounts to nothing, because those people want to be seen as gay anyway.
az0000000, you should start using words like "degenerate", "hell", and "eternal damnation". They would frame your argument so much clearer.
Where to begin...I wrote this before reading the entire thread, but much of this hasn't been said:
Population control? The only way nature "controls" populations is merely by the existence or non-existence of resources. If the earth held infinite resources, it could (theoretically) hold an infinite population. Unless have an idea of nature as a human-like God (which is wholly problematic to say the least, but another time), nature is not a conscious force that decides to make creatures act a certain way. Nature is simply the physical world. So, homosexuality is not something that nature just somehow "decides" to create because it has determined that a certain species has become too multiple, that it has exceeded some limit. The way populations are controlled is by the level of resources available. Hence, the only way the earth "controls" any populations (the earth should not be personified, but anyway), be they animal or other, is its having or not having the ability to sustain them. Disease, homosexuality, natural disasters, wars, asteroids, ice ages, etc. are not things that nature has decided to happen to limit our growth; they just happen, and that's it. Stuff hits other stuff, and stuff happens. End of story.
A common misconception of evolution is the idea that somehow, if species need something (like hands, wings, more intelligence, different coloring, etc.), it begins to manifest itself in that species. Nonsense. Evolution is the process of living and dying, the survivors simply being there to procreate whereas the nonsurvivors are not. Hence, the survivors, having traits that allowed them to survive, outlast the non-survivors, and define the species. This takes millions of years!!! Because of the type of environment in which life exists, life forms are exposed to infinte stresses on their forms, which sometimes cause mutations; some may be minor, or some may be major. Out of all this, life forms are rarely only suited to their environment. Most life forms, especially more complicated ones, like animals, have several characteristics that are completely useless, because those characteristics' survival value is neutral, or at least inconsequential. In humans, for example, one characteristic is our ability to make and appreciate music. Does our ability to make and appreciate art impact our suvival on the species level? Not at all. And don't give me some "it enriches the soul" bullshit, I'm not talking about the remote positive effects that might keep someone alive for a few extra days because of their will to live is enhanced. Music has no survival value. Music is something we happen to be able to do, a colatteral effect of our intelligence and our ability to hear. So are many of the things we do. They aren't there because we need them for survival, they're just there because at some point things lined up right for other reasons and they never went away. And I am not referring to vestigal traits, which, at an earlier point in time, were necessary for survival.
So it is with homosexuality. It may be an indirect artifact of the fertilization process, it might have something to do with the cells' process of sex determinancy, but whatever it is, It's impossible that it is merely a choice. Purely from a survival standpoint, it may be a "mistake" (or, at least, a useless variation), because if the entire species were built in this fashion, the species would fail (this is only true after assuming that a successful species has an infinte run, which hasn't happened yet!). However, there are so many differences between what our DNA lines up for us and what we actually wind up with that to make a judgement like "homosexuality is wrong" because it does not satisfy the astronomical threshold of survival value is to indirectly make the judgement that any and all features of human existence that are not absolutely necessary to survival (Iike art, cooking, sports, language, buildings, science, civilization, etc.) are also wrong.
Sexual orientation is not something that is determined soley by biology, either. The firm lines we have in place in America (and, really, the west) classifying hetero- and homosexuality are dervied from the dominance of Judeo/Christian worldview and the importance and normalcy of the family structure in society. Such strong divisions between orientation is not mirrored in biology; rather, there is a wide range of orientation and it becomes combined with social experiences after birth. The formation of orientation is thus a process that is slightly different for everyone.
Biological urges, especially those supported by social custom, will become satisfied, one way or another. Resisting such an urge is doomed to fail.
Arguing against the propriety homosexuality on the basis that it is "unnatural" because it can involve anal sex is absolutely absurd. Absolutley. We certainly don't think kissing is wrong, yet this involves the "misuse" of our mouths, a deviation from eating, speaking, and breathing. So why should uncommon use of any part of our bodies be wrong? And don't forget that some of the same guys decrying homosexuality are doing anal with their girlfriends, or at least watching others do it in porn. Such bullshit. And declaring that homosexuality is wrong because it is "disgusting" is simply a matter of taste, of which there is no argument for or against. But such opinions are narrow-minded.
Finally, the challenge that men who are homosexual or condone homosexuality are not "manly" is an classic indicator of male insecurity. There is nothing in being a homosexual that makes muscles or wills less strong. Maleness, psychologically speaking, is not defined in terms of a certain level of attraction to females. And not all homosexuals display the stereotypical behavior we've come to associate with them. The feminine gestures, flamboyancy and sensitivity attributed to male homosexuals and the plain masculinity attributed to female homosexuals is most likely, again, a combination of factors, both biological and sociological. There may be a mixture of male and female biological tendencies in each which act as motivators toward certain behaviors; socially, the behaviors become magnified by the existence of reference groups of similar people. Many homosexuals fall outside of these categories, for any number of reasons, and appear to be heterosexual. In other words, "gaydar" only works when applying to obvious homosexuals, and really amounts to nothing, because those people want to be seen as gay anyway.
az0000000, you should start using words like "degenerate", "hell", and "eternal damnation". They would frame your argument so much clearer.
Comment