27 Nov 06
1 edit
Reading this forum post made me think of something, since the number of overall "gayness" in the population is considered a sign of how stressed a population is see Gunter Dorne's research in the 1970s that levels of gayness tend to fluctuate over time, might society's distaste for homosexuality be biological in nature? It would make sense that for a population to survive it would need to recognize it's population was under stress. A oh, this is not good, we're experiencing food shortages/population density problems.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettBy that definition major depression and even paranoid schizophrenia are also completely natural. But both are undesirable (especially for the afflicted) and both are normally treated.
Stick to whatever preconceived notions you want, but clearly you're wrong. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature over and over again means that it is a natural occurance. That it occurs less frequently does not diminish its status as a being completely natural.
Should homosexuality be treated?
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by spruce112358Now that's a whole different arguement.
By that definition major depression and even paranoid schizophrenia are also completely natural. But both are undesirable (especially for the afflicted) and both are normally treated.
Should homosexuality be treated?
Ask yourself why someone would want major depression and paranoid schizophrenia to be treated.
I'd say that this was because of the unpleasant or unwanted effects of these natural occurences.
Do you think homosexuality has unwanted effects which would warrant some kind of treatment?
27 Nov 06
5 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, they are perfectly natural. And in some cases you can't treat them
By that definition major depression and even paranoid schizophrenia are also completely natural. But both are undesirable (especially for the afflicted) and both are normally treated.
Should homosexuality be treated?
successfully. What is being said here is that whether a certain behaviour
is natural or not says nothing about it being right or wrong. We make
that judgement based on other things. For example, whether or not it's
harmful to the individual and/or others.
Murderers, rapists, paedophiles, capitalists, politicians and so on are also
driven by perfectly natural instincts, but we can't allow such behaviour in
a society where we're supposed to work together to achieve a stable and
somewhat secure life for all citizens. Thus if they act on their instincts
they are dealt with such that they cannot harm themselves or others
(and if possible treated so that they can be a valuable part of society
and still feel good about themselves - after all they didn't choose to be
what nature made of them).
Since homosexuality is not in the least harmful to anyone, I personally
can't see any reason to treat it as a disorder.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorDaraBut even if a greater proporiton were born gay under conditions of population stress, how would that help the reproductive competitiveness of their parents? Isn't it a sacrifice without a payoff?
Reading this forum post made me think of something, since the number of overall "gayness" in the population is considered a sign of how stressed a population is see Gunter Dorne's research in the 1970s that levels of gayness tend to fluctuate over time, might society's distaste for homosexuality be biological in nature? It would make sense that for a popu ...[text shortened]... ss. A oh, this is not good, we're experiencing food shortages/population density problems.
Why not just fight if the density gets too high, and may the fittest survive? Or better yet, force superfluous males to go out and conquer the neighbors and steal their women and cattle?
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by RedmikeWell, I was really just replying to the notion that homosexuality is natural. About 1% of the population is schizophrenic -- pretty constant across different societies. One can think of schizophrenia as natural, therefore, but undesirable.
Now that's a whole different arguement.
Ask yourself why someone would want major depression and paranoid schizophrenia to be treated.
I'd say that this was because of the unpleasant or unwanted effects of these natural occurences.
Do you think homosexuality has unwanted effects which would warrant some kind of treatment?
If homosexuality (let's say the extreme form) means one never reproduces but there are no other consequences, then it should probably only be treated if the indivudal wants to be treated.
But if there is a more general negative impact on others -- I'm not sure, frankly -- then in principle society should be more forthright about the nature of the condition.
This is all pretty speculative.
I guess my point is that certain forms of homosexuality could be "wrong" in the sense of being in the category of a generally undesirable mutation.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by spruce112358I really don't see why anyone would want it 'treated'.
Well, I was really just replying to the notion that homosexuality is natural. About 1% of the population is schizophrenic -- pretty constant across different societies. One can think of schizophrenia as natural, therefore, but undesirable.
If homosexuality (let's say the extreme form) means one never reproduces but there are no other consequences, th ...[text shortened]... could be "wrong" in the sense of being in the category of a generally undesirable mutation.
No more than left-handedness, for example (which was illegal in at least one country). This is marginally inconvenient for society, but really harmless.
Homosexuality isn't even inconvenient. There is no negative impact on others.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by bbarrHmm... I don't know about this...
In fact the natural world is shot through with unnatural acts. For instance, the natural funtion and purpose of teeth is to tear and chew food, yet we find some animals using their teeth to carry their young.
I would say the primary function of teeth is to tear and chew, but
I wouldn't say that it is the only natural function. I think that it's
perfectly natural for a mama cat to carry her young by the scruff in her
mouth.
But this complicates things; whereas it is natural for a cat to use her
teeth in this fashion, it would be unnatural for a human to do so. So,
simply because something is found in nature doesn't necessarily mean
that it is natural for all species (which perhaps was your point that I
obtusely missed).
The preponderance of a particular behavior seems to have to do with
its general 'naturalness.' The desire to eat and consequently to
pursue food is natural, as is the desire to procreate, avoid pain and so
forth.
The issue at hand stems from a larger issue: is the desire for sexual
gratification apart from procreative purposes natural? Although most
other animals this is not the case -- they copulate seasonally -- for
humans (and dolphins and a few primates, I think), this is natural.
So, the question ceases to be about the procreative function of genitalia
(no homosexual would ever claim that homosexual sex makes any
procreative sense) altogether, for both homosexual and heterosexual
mates engage in non-procreative sex acts (oral, anal, manual, &c)
without any regard for 'naturalness,' because sex for the sake of
pleasure is a natural end for humans, and not just a means for
facilitating procreation.
One cannot make the argument that sex naturally requires a
procreative element, for this would invalidate the sexual activities of
post-menopausal couples, infertile individuals, and anyone who engages
in non-coital sex listed above.
So, the idea that the genitalia must be used in the procreative
way is the only 'natural' sex (simply because that's what most animals
do) doesn't hold up. It's certainly the only natural way to procreate,
but not copulate.
Nemesio
27 Nov 06
1 edit
A lot of homosexuals do tend to go on about it, queening around the place and being 'proud.' Some of them (not all) get a bit tedious after a while. A lot of gay people I have known talk about it as if it is who they are, when in reality sexuality is just one aspect of a person.
So it is wrong in the sense that it can be really really boring to be around the people i have described.
I shag women (occasionally🙁 ), but i don't go on marches to say how proud I am of this fact.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by twiceaknightBut that's neglecting the history of the gay rights movement.
A lot of homosexuals do tend to go on about it, queening around the place and being 'proud.' Some of them (not all) get a bit tedious after a while. A lot of gay people I have known talk about it as if it is who they are, when in reality sexuality is just one aspect of a person.
So it is wrong in the sense that it can be really really boring to be ar ...[text shortened]... I shag women (occasionally🙁 ), but i don't go on marches to say how proud I am of this fact.
A lot of gays go on about being gay because they can now without fear of persecution.
Similar to the way a lot of women used to go on about being women.
That's a result of the overall changes to a more permissive society, and one with less discrimination.
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by amannionIt's also a typical step in the search for your identity for people belonging to a minority group. When people come to terms with belonging to a specific group and try to understand what that means for them, they will typically have a phase during which they will relate almost any experience to that new-found aspect of their identity and during which they may think and talk about little else. I went through something similar when I found out that I am on the autistic spectrum. For most people this will be a phase, but some may get stuck there.
But that's neglecting the history of the gay rights movement.
A lot of gays go on about being gay because they can now without fear of persecution.
Similar to the way a lot of women used to go on about being women.
That's a result of the overall changes to a more permissive society, and one with less discrimination.