Why so few homosexuals?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been in conversation with a lesbian on a facebook thread, and I thought the discussion there was worth expanding here (particularly in light of such related threads as Thoughts on the Gay Scene in Beauty and the Beast ).

At issue is whether homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral.

To set the stage for the discussion, I posed the same question in the title of this thread: If homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral, then why are there so relative few homosexuals in the general population?

The basis for this question was a report, which we both accepted as credible and correct, from the Williams Institute (a LGBT Think Tank) indicating that Homosexuals make up less than 2% of the U.S. population.

Given this statistic, it was obvious that, by definition, homosexuality couldn't rightly be considered as normal (usual, typical), particularly in comparison to heterosexuality, which represents 96.5% of the population.

It was further agreed that lack of normalcy and small percentages isn't necessarily indicative of abnormality (undesirable, worrisome, unhealthy, etc.). After all, geniuses represent only about 1% of the population, and while it isn't normal, it is far from undesirable. Whereas, people with IQs less than 70 represent about 2% of the population, and is rightly considered abnormal. Other abnormalities include sickle cell anemia (less than 1% of the population), Aneuploidym, Down Syndrome, Developmental delay, and various behaviors (see HERE)

At issue, then, is whether homosexuality is desirably not normal or abnormal. I believe the answer rest in the answer to the question of this thread. I contend that there are relatively few homosexuals because homosexual behavior is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. In other words, there are so few homosexuals because homosexuality is abnormal. I plan to provide evidence and reason for each of these contention.

What do you think? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do practicing homosexuals reproduce? Not very much. So if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it would be quite strongly selected against in normal situations. This is a rational, convincing argument for the comparative rarity of homosexuality that has nothing to do with it being otherwise socially undesirable.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Do practicing homosexuals reproduce? Not very much. So if homosexuality is an inherited trait, it would be quite strongly selected against in normal situations. This is a rational, convincing argument for the comparative rarity of homosexuality that has nothing to do with it being otherwise socially undesirable.

Agreed, though I would submit that "inherited" may be an indeterminate combination of nature and nurture, and factor into biological as well as social evolution. 

And, while the "strongly selection against" may have little to do with social undesirability (except in terms of social evolution, health, and welfare--I will address this issue later), it does speak to evolutionary undesirability. Evolution, as well as survival and perpetuation of the species, is dependent upon procreation. Homosexuals tend not to procreate, and cannot procreate after their own kind. Thus, homosexuality is contra-evolution and against nature--i.e. unnatural. Homosezuality is abnormal in this sense.

However, as a supposed counter to this convincing argument, my lesbian interlocutor proposed the theory that evolution somehow produces homosexuals to assist in the survival of the species threatened by over-population. I pointed out that even were that the case (which is questionable), it classifies homosexuality along with other undesirables that serve the same function--impotence, disease, famine, and war.  And, so, even on that basis it may be considered abnormal.

Furthermore, preventing over-population doesn't necessarily equate with survival of the species (species can survive when they are not threatened by over-populated), nor does it factor positively into the evolving of the species--except as a means of selecting out (or in the case of homosexuals, self-selecting out) the less fit (of which homosexuals are, reproductive-wise, numbered). In this sense also homosexuality may be consider abnormal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Thus, homosexuality is contra-evolution and against nature--i.e. unnatural.

Then acne is unnatural. Bad teeth are unnatural. Back hair, hemorrhoids, and baldness are all unnatural. Who knew!

I think you are going down a blind alley when you try to argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" based on its causing people to be less fit to reproduce. By that definition, every one of us is similarly "unnatural". It's a losing argument. The most convincing argument against homosexuality is fundamentally a moral one (not necessarily religious, but moral). Any "natural" argument is likely to be very weak and easily torn apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this time and season it's unlikely will influence secular culture much. Sadly, there is enough to do convincing God's people that homosexual practice is wrong.  The reason is that God said no. That's it.  Those believers who suffer from attraction to the same gender bear a tremendous cross. Should they choose to obey God by remaining celibate, we do well to applaud their faithfulness, and support them through prayer, fellowship and encouragement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I agree with Prisonchaplain...God said no.  That's it period. End. Stop.  

That said, my heart goes out to people who have this challenge in life.  I think it is the most difficult challenge because it lasts one's entire life, and the shame is terrible.  For those who are striving to follow God's word, even a simple crush is shame producing.  I understand why some would desire to reject the shame and believe that it is normal.  I cannot agree with that, but my heart goes out to them.  When I have a chance to sit down with Father again, this will be one of the first questions on my mind.  

As Prisonchaplain said we should extend to them our prayer, fellowship and encouragement.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it really comes down to how shall we define these terms and how shall we value them.

"Normal" can certainly mean "towards the middle of the distribution", but I don't think that really tells us anything about those on the edges of the distribution. To add to my username, according to Wikipedia, I am below the 3rd percentile in men's height, so I am about as rare -- as "abnormal" -- as a homosexual. But does that really mean anything. Does that mean that my parents and I made a significant error when we opted against growth hormone treatments in my adolescence?

Deafness is certainly rare (especially if we exclude those cases caused simply by old age). One of the most interesting parts of deafness is how those who live with deafness do not always feel "disabled" because of it. How many of them argue that, not only is it not a disability, but that it is "wrong" to change a person from deaf to hearing through the use of modern medical technologies available to us. Is it "wrong" to be deaf if it can easily be "fixed"?

I don't think I know what we mean by "natural" in these discussions. The consensus seems to be that there is some kind of "inheritable" part of being homosexual -- some kind of interplay between genes and development and environment -- something beyond conscious human choice and influence -- that "cause" a few to be homosexual. Just like some combination of genes and environment that put caused me to be short and an interplay of genes and disease and accident cause people to lose their hearing. Just because a condition is on the fringe of the distribution does not make it "unnatural" -- meaning that it occurs without conscious influence.

The main problem with the evolution arguments is that there are too many examples of genetic conditions that prevent reproduction -- from those genetic conditions that frequently lead to death before reaching maturity or those genetic conditions that render one sterile -- that are not extinct in the genetic population. It seems that evolutionary pressures do not always lead to complete extinction of deleterious alleles. This can get muddied when we encounter cases of "heterozygote advantage" like sickle cell anemia. From there the nuances of how natural selection can effect the prevalence of genes in a population only gets muddier. The point is that it should not be hard to see that it is possible for a deleterious gene (or gene combination) to remain at low levels within a population, even if we do not understand what is blocking that trait from disappearing from the gene pool.

To prisonchaplin's point that "God said no" -- this can get muddied with how we discern that truth. What is considered authoritative scripture. How shall we read that scripture. How much of scripture is from God, and how much of it should be read as part of the authors' cultural milieu. Some of this gets difficult because most of scripture is "ancient", so that we are separate from the authors of scripture by time, distance, and culture, sometimes making it difficult to translate ancient scripture into modern contexts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To prisonchaplin's point that "God said no" -- this can get muddied with how we discern that truth. What is considered authoritative scripture. How shall we read that scripture. How much of scripture is from God, and how much of it should be read as part of the authors' cultural milieu. Some of this gets difficult because most of scripture is "ancient", so that we are separate from the authors of scripture by time, distance, and culture, sometimes making it difficult to translate ancient scripture into modern contexts.

Assuming we believe the bible then we have the following:

(Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(Genesis 19:5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Following the biblical meaning of the word know (one of them, anyway) they can be safely assumed to reference the same thing. The first clearly states that it is an abomination. In the second, we're discussing the population of an entire city which was destroyed.

Maybe I'm just speaking in youthful ignorance (or whatever the term is, IDK) but it seems to me that we can safely say that it's quite clear here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vort said:

Then acne is unnatural. Bad teeth are unnatural. Back hair, hemorrhoids, and baldness are all unnatural. Who knew!

I think you are going down a blind alley when you try to argue that homosexuality is "unnatural" based on its causing people to be less fit to reproduce. By that definition, every one of us is similarly "unnatural". It's a losing argument. The most convincing argument against homosexuality is fundamentally a moral one (not necessarily religious, but moral). Any "natural" argument is likely to be very weak and easily torn apart.

I think it depends upon what is meant by "unnatural." I am using it in relation to evolution to mean, "contrary to the natural design and order of things, contra-evolution"  as opposed to "occurring in nature" or "occurring naturally. " By my definition, the things you listed are "un-natural" though they do fit under the later definitions.

While I believe a very strong case can be made  that homosexuality is contra-evolutionary, I don't wish to get hung up on semantics, and so I may have to reconsider using the term "unnatural."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

For this time and season it's unlikely will influence secular culture much. Sadly, there is enough to do convincing God's people that homosexual practice is wrong.  The reason is that God said no. That's it.  Those believers who suffer from attraction to the same gender bear a tremendous cross. Should they choose to obey God by remaining celibate, we do well to applaud their faithfulness, and support them through prayer, fellowship and encouragement.

I am not so pessimistic. I understand I am heading into a stiff leftist headwind. But, it is mostly hot air. Hopefully, evidence and reason will suffice in tacking forward. But, if not, it was worth a try. At least the seeds of critical thought can be planted for future growth.

But, I like your point about looking to God. However, for those who don't believe in God, or who feel that God is okay with homosexuality, my secular approach may provide a bridge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Note: those are 4 totally different things you list there.

"Normal" =/= "Natural" =/= "Healthy" =/= "Moral"

Agreed. I will be addressing them each separately. I have already dealt with the "normal," and will soon begin examining the "natural' (or evolutinary) aspect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To me it really comes down to how shall we define these terms and how shall we value them.

"Normal" can certainly mean "towards the middle of the distribution", but I don't think that really tells us anything about those on the edges of the distribution. To add to my username, according to Wikipedia, I am below the 3rd percentile in men's height, so I am about as rare -- as "abnormal" -- as a homosexual. But does that really mean anything. Does that mean that my parents and I made a significant error when we opted against growth hormone treatments in my adolescence?

Deafness is certainly rare (especially if we exclude those cases caused simply by old age). One of the most interesting parts of deafness is how those who live with deafness do not always feel "disabled" because of it. How many of them argue that, not only is it not a disability, but that it is "wrong" to change a person from deaf to hearing through the use of modern medical technologies available to us. Is it "wrong" to be deaf if it can easily be "fixed"?

I clarified earlier that "not normal" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong" or "abnormal." I left open the question of homosexuality as an abnormality until it is addressed in the other sections (unnatural, unhealthy, immoral). Please stay tuned. 

Quote

I don't think I know what we mean by "natural" in these discussions. The consensus seems to be that there is some kind of "inheritable" part of being homosexual -- some kind of interplay between genes and development and environment -- something beyond conscious human choice and influence -- that "cause" a few to be homosexual. Just like some combination of genes and environment that put caused me to be short and an interplay of genes and disease and accident cause people to lose their hearing. Just because a condition is on the fringe of the distribution does not make it "unnatural" -- meaning that it occurs without conscious influence.

Please see my response to Volt above. I agree that the words "natural" and "unnatural" may be problematic, but as long as people understand my meaning,I hope that will suffice. If not, then I will find a different term.  

Quote

The main problem with the evolution arguments is that there are too many examples of genetic conditions that prevent reproduction -- from those genetic conditions that frequently lead to death before reaching maturity or those genetic conditions that render one sterile -- that are not extinct in the genetic population. It seems that evolutionary pressures do not always lead to complete extinction of deleterious alleles. This can get muddied when we encounter cases of "heterozygote advantage" like sickle cell anemia. From there the nuances of how natural selection can effect the prevalence of genes in a population only gets muddier. The point is that it should not be hard to see that it is possible for a deleterious gene (or gene combination) to remain at low levels within a population, even if we do not understand what is blocking that trait from disappearing from the gene pool.

 

Agreed. However, the point isn't that homosexuality, as a deleterious gene or gene combination, remains at low levels within the population, but that it is deleterious, and remains no higher than the low levels within the population. That is why I ask why there were so few, rather than asking why there were any at all.

Quote

To prisonchaplin's point that "God said no" -- this can get muddied with how we discern that truth. What is considered authoritative scripture. How shall we read that scripture. How much of scripture is from God, and how much of it should be read as part of the authors' cultural milieu. Some of this gets difficult because most of scripture is "ancient", so that we are separate from the authors of scripture by time, distance, and culture, sometimes making it difficult to translate ancient scripture into modern contexts.

I am taking a purely secular approach in examining each aspect of this issue (including morality) so as to avoid this problem. We'll see if it works.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/03/2017 at 9:39 PM, wenglund said:

...To set the stage for the discussion, I posed the same question in the title of this thread: If homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral, then why are there so relative few homosexuals in the general population?

The basis for this question was a report, which we both accepted as credible and correct, from the Williams Institute (a LGBT Think Tank) indicating that Homosexuals make up less than 2% of the U.S. population.

Given this statistic, it was obvious that, by definition, homosexuality couldn't rightly be considered as normal (usual, typical), particularly in comparison to heterosexuality, which represents 96.5% of the population.

It was further agreed that lack of normalcy and small percentages isn't necessarily indicative of abnormality (undesirable, worrisome, unhealthy, etc.). After all, geniuses represent only about 1% of the population, and while it isn't normal, it is far from undesirable. Whereas, people with IQs less than 70 represent about 2% of the population, and is rightly considered abnormal. Other abnormalities include sickle cell anemia (less than 1% of the population), Aneuploidym, Down Syndrome, Developmental delay, and various behaviors (see HERE)

At issue, then, is whether homosexuality is desirably not normal or abnormal. I believe the answer rest in the answer to the question of this thread. I contend that there are relatively few homosexuals because homosexual behavior is unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral. In other words, there are so few homosexuals because homosexuality is abnormal....

1-2% of the human population have red hair. Would you also "contend that there are relatively few" red heads because red hair is "unnatural, unhealthy and immoral"?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Maureen said:

1-2% of the human population have red hair. Would you also "contend that there are relatively few" red heads because red hair is "unnatural, unhealthy and immoral"?

M.

No. There are also less that 2% geniuses in the world. I wouldn't contend that was the result of unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral.

However, there are relatively few necrophiliacs and people into bestiality and trans-species and Transabled, etc., that fit the bill. 

Again, not all small population groups are abnormal, though some are. I will demonstrate that homosexuality is abnormal, and that their numbers are few for different reasons than for other small groups, and those reasons include "unnatural, unhealthy and immoral."

Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

8% of the world is elderly, so I bet he's totally calling them unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral, too. 

These kind of thoughtless and uninformed responses are starting to wear thin. You would lose that bet. See various clarifications above. The size of the group isn't the issue. It is the reason for the small size that is in question. Different groups have different reasons for being small in population. 

Surely you and others aren't suggesting that homosexuals are rare for the same reason as elderly or red hair or geniuses, etc., are you?

If not, then I would be pleased to hear your explanation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Agreed. I will be addressing them each separately. I have already dealt with the "normal," and will soon begin examining the "natural' (or evolutinary) aspect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good.  From my personal opinion and study of biology, homosexuality is natural-- in that mating with the same sex does occur naturally in nature (rarely, but it does happen).  Again, that doesn't automatically mean that it's moral or good.  An obvious example of natural behavior we would consider very immoral is canabalism, which is VERY common in nature, including kids eating parents, parents eating kids, siblings killing each other, etc.    

(No I'm not saying homosexuality==canabalism or anything like that!  )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 hours ago, wenglund said:

These kind of thoughtless and uninformed responses are starting to wear thin.

So is being overly serious and not being able to joke around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2017 at 3:16 AM, prisonchaplain said:

For this time and season it's unlikely will influence secular culture much. Sadly, there is enough to do convincing God's people that homosexual practice is wrong.  The reason is that God said no. That's it.  Those believers who suffer from attraction to the same gender bear a tremendous cross. Should they choose to obey God by remaining celibate, we do well to applaud their faithfulness, and support them through prayer, fellowship and encouragement.

PC, although I completely agree with you, this is useless in societal discussions because you simply end up with LGBT people fighting for the purging of religious influence in society.  "God said no", without at least a basic foundation of "Why not?", tends to make religious people easily dismissed as crockpots.

In LDS belief, we teach the Light of Christ in which all people, whether they have heard of God or the Bible or Jesus or not, can discern right from wrong through the Light of Christ.

So, if one has zero belief in God, then why should they remain celibate?  That's a hard road and, therefore, non-believers have to have a compelling reason to take that path other than to say because God said so, end stop.  Otherwise, it will be just like drinking coffee - it's only bad if you're LDS, if you're not, then it's fine - because there's no other reason to completely abstain from coffee other than our covenant.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be interested in how you develop these arguments. A few notes I would add at this point:

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am using it in relation to evolution to mean, "contrary to the natural design and order of things, contra-evolution"  as opposed to "occurring in nature" or "occurring naturally.

As this sounds like it is going to form part of the foundation of your arguments, it is going to be important to do this part well. I see the possibility here of making one of the most common "mistakes" we make when talking evolution -- personifying evolution, ascribing purpose or "design" to evolution. We frequently talk about evolution (especially when we want to introduce some kind of intelligent design and designer to it) as if it has a purpose or design, but it really does not have a purpose or goal or design (except for making more babies). As important as this point could be to your arguments, it could be important to analyze how you approach this part to make sure you are not inadvertently ascribing purpose or design to evolution.

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

However, the point isn't that homosexuality, as a deleterious gene or gene combination, remains at low levels within the population, but that it is deleterious, and remains no higher than the low levels within the population.

I recognize that we are not at your final thesis at this point, but this statement does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems to say, "The point is not that homosexuality remains at low levels, but that homosexuality remains at low levels." I expect your final treatise will more fully explain the difference here. I just point it out to say that, at this point, I don't see the distinction between what is before the "but" and what is after the "but".

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

The size of the group isn't the issue. It is the reason for the small size that is in question. Different groups have different reasons for being small in population. Surely you and others aren't suggesting that homosexuals are rare for the same reason as elderly or red hair or geniuses, etc., are you?

I won't speak for others, but the examples I selected were selected to try to draw parallels between the prevalence of those traits in the population and the prevalence of homosexuality. A lot of traits exist naturally along a continuum, usually exhibiting some kind of "normal" distribution. The majority of the population tends towards the middle of the distribution with a small percentage of the population at either end of the trait's distribution. Many believe that sexual orientation is similar (maybe more than a single variable involved as the distribution might need to account not only for homosexuality but also asexuality). It sounds like your goal is to show how sexual orientation should be different from other inheritable traits in this respect -- that the "ends" of the distribution should not exist at all. As you develop this part of your argument, you may need to spend some time with distributions and maybe the statistics as you try to show how this is fundamentally different from other traits.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wenglund I'm wondering what if everybody on this thread agreed with you--where would you go from there? What would be the point? In your mind is there something you would want us to go and do with this agreement on homosexuality being abnormal (or whatever word you might want us all to agree upon)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Good.  From my personal opinion and study of biology, homosexuality is natural-- in that mating with the same sex does occur naturally in nature (rarely, but it does happen).  Again, that doesn't automatically mean that it's moral or good.  An obvious example of natural behavior we would consider very immoral is canabalism, which is VERY common in nature, including kids eating parents, parents eating kids, siblings killing each other, etc.    

(No I'm not saying homosexuality==canabalism or anything like that!  )

Could you provide an example of homosexual reproduction? I am aware of asexual and heterosexual reproduction, but not homosexual. If it does occur, there must be a reason for its rarity. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share