Why so few homosexuals?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/23/2017 at 11:12 AM, Vort said:

I do not know what President Kimball meant by "natural", but I have yet to see a definition of "natural" under which his teaching makes sense. It's possible that "natural" had a different, widely understood meaning then. If so, then (at least to my knowledge) that meaning no longer holds today.

Either I don't understand his definition of  "natural", or, after reading his '82 letter, I am not sure I would agree with Pres. Kimball's definition of "natural" and "unnatural"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Either I don't understand his definition of  "natural", or, after reading his '82 letter, I am not sure I would agree with Pres. Kimball's definition of "natural" and "unnatural"

I was hoping my "don't put gas in the radiator" crack would clear it up...but I'll expound:

I think when considering what Pres. Kimball meant we're considering the definition of the wrong word. The word "natural" isn't the word in question. The word "it" is. If "it" is unnatural, don't do it.

The meaning of natural is easy if you consider what he was actually referring to -- which I believe was the body, not human nature. It is, obviously, natural for human nature to be wicked, twisted, profane, unchaste, etc. It is, however, not the natural state of the body to do things that the body was never meant to do. A la the gas in the radiator joke. The "nature", if you will, of a car is to put gasoline where gasoline goes and radiator fluid where radiator fluid goes. If I said that when you work on a car that you shouldn't do anything "unnatural" (which is a bit of a weird word to use in that case, but bear with me), would it make sense to stand back and say, "Well, my nature is to do stupid things", or would you consider the statement to be talking about what is and isn't natural "standard, proper, the norm, etc" for the car itself. People certainly have the nature to do stupid things with cars. But a comment about not doing abnormal things to a car wouldn't refer to the normalcy of the person doing said things.

That seems obvious. Pres Kimball meant that the body works a certain way and we should do with it according to how it is meant to work related to procreation, and not use that procreative functionality of the body in a way that has nothing to do with procreation whatsoever. That leaves it open to some interpretation still, of course, which I think was the intent or he would have been more direct. (Kissing is allowed. Strangling is not. Etc.) But the concept doesn't seem that complicated unless we start presuming that he must have been talking about the nature of the fellow working on the car rather than the car itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The word "natural" isn't the word in question. The word "it" is. If "it" is unnatural, don't do it.

I think that is what makes the '82 letter so interesting -- he gives an example of an "it" that he believes is not natural. I'm not sure I agree with him, so I figure my view of "natural" must be quite different from his view of "natural".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third argument from nature against homosexuality: dysfunctional sex  

·         Scientists believe that a half billion years after life began on earth (4.2 billion years ago) single-celled organism appeared and sometime later they started reproducing (see HERE)  The first know form of reproduction was asexual—i.e. where offspring arise from a single organism (see HERE).

·         As indicated in my second argument, reproduction made evolution possible, and subsequently organisms became more divers and complex. And, while asexual reproduction was the sole means of reproduction for about 3 billion years, eventually things progressed to where 1.2 billion years ago, reproduction through sex (“a mode of reproduction involving the fussion of female gamete/ovum and male gamete/spermatozoon”-see HERE) evolved in and from single-celled eukaryotic organisms. (see HERE)

·         Sex has since evolved to where it is now the mode of reproduction for 99.9% of eukaryotes (see HERE), or in other words, it is the reproductive mode for all humans, most all animals, and most plants, fungi, protists, etc. (see HERE).

·         The perseverance and predominance of sex over asexual reproduction has long baffled scientists because they figured that, in terms of evolution, sex is “inferior” in at least two ways: 1) typically, only half of the population (female) is capable of bearing offspring, whereas asexually 100% are capable; and 2) only half the genes of each parent may be passed on, whereas 100% of the genes are passed on asexually. (see HERE)  In other words, asexual reproduction can reproduce much more quickly. (see HERE)

·         Several arguments have been posited over the years as solutions to this supposed mystery, such as pleasure and genetically variable offspring—though there are serious challenges to both. (see HERE) Other explanations include deleterious mutation (see HERE)  and the Red Queen—i.e. sex is needed to fight disease (see HERE) However, in recent years, the theory of “sexual selection” has gained favor (see HERE and HERE), where “members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have better reproductive success than others within a population, either from being more attractive or preferring more attractive partners to produce offspring.” (ibid.) Bible-based religions have their own explanations (Gen. 2:18, Gen. 1:27, Mt 19:4, Moses 2:27-28), a portion of which may seem plausible even to secularists—i.e. “help meet,” or in other words (borrowing from economics), specialization and comparative and absolute advantages (see HERE and HERE). Whatever the reason, in terms of evolution, sex is the "fittest" form of reproduction, the norm for nature, and the only natural mode for humans.

·         To my knowledge, no homosexual forms of reproduction (not to be confused with mating) have evolved. If they existed, they haven’t survived—and for good reason: homosexual forms of reproduction would have the same relative evolutionary disadvantage to asexuality as natural or hetero sex, while lacking some of the evolutionary advantages of hetero-sex mentioned above. Homosexual forms of reproduction, then, were they to have existed, would have been less fit and not survive, and thus contra-evolution and the laws of nature.

·         More likely, though, homosexual reproduction is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. Biologically, sex consists of the fussion of male and female gametes.(see above). Natural sex for most animals and all humans, then, is between a male and a female.  Furthermore, throughout the animal kingdom, and particularly with humans, there are no such things as homosexual organs (body parts), only heterosexual.  Sexual activity among homosexuals, then, involves heterosexual body parts, and body parts that respond heterosexually—i.e. upon arousal, they transform to fit together with the opposite sex and function climatically to effectively deliver the male sperm in proximity to the female egg—though the parts and responses for homosexuals are employed in ways that only somewhat mimic heterosexuality.

·         This means that, biologically as well as evolutionarily, particularly in terms of reproduction, homosexuality is a dysfunctional form of heterosexuality, a poor imitation, and an unnatural and abnormal use of natural sex. And, because homosexuality is a counterfeit and non-reproductive use  of reproductive parts, homosexuals tend not to reproduce—certainly not with each other, which helps explain why there are so few homosexuals

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 4:30 PM, Mike said:

Consider the following. There are only two types of reproduction, i.e. sexual and asexual. In this sense the word homosexual is something of a misnomer because it doesn't address reproduction--it addresses a behavior. There is no such thing (it goes without saying) as homosexual reproduction even though a gay man can reproduce and a lesbian can reproduce. So can a rapist, a zoophile, or any other person with a behavior. But we don't think of any of those behaviors as a form of reproduction from an evolutionary or biological paradigm even though they are known or hypothesized to have genetic basis. There are many more genetic behaviors, and many of those involve sex organs, but none of them have to do with reproduction. And we don't typically look to Evolution nor to its mechanisms to explain the relative percent of the population that practices them, nor why the behaviors haven't died out. This is another reason I think your pursuit is destined not to yield the results you seek.

I address this in my last argument (3rd argument). I agree with you that the word "homosexual" is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, I consider it an oxymoron. Rather, I describe it as a dysfunctional form of heterosexuality--which fits well my pursuit. The same can be said of zoophila.. 

However, unlike with rape, "homosexuality" goes beyond behavior to also include sexual attraction and "life-style." .I will address the attraction in my next argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2017 at 4:33 PM, Mike said:

Again, I think you are drawing an unwarranted conclusion about a lifestyle being non-reproductive. The same could be said about urinating with an organ that is "meant" (?) for ejaculating sperm. But all Nature cares about is that the reproductive organs work well enough, and enough creatures survive to perpetuate the species. A homosexual male creature can still get horny enough to rape a female and thereby get with the "program"--Nature doesn't care. 

I don't think comparing urine to the homosexual use of hetero-sex organs makes much sense. In the case of urine, the organ has evidently evolved to perform multiple natural bodily functions (urine and reproduction). I think the species in question would definitely care, if not evolution and nature, were they to have no natural means of removing liquid waste.

However, with homosexuals, as I explain in my 3rd argument, they use hetero sex organs in ways that respond heterosexually, though merely mimicking, or perhaps even parodying, hetero-sex. There use of the sex organ is unnatural. And, while "Nature doesn't care," it may explain why homosexuals aren't reproducing, and are thus few in numbers, and given the dysfunction, why homosexuality may rightly be considered unnatural and abnormal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2017 at 3:59 PM, MrShorty said:

I won't speak for others, but I don't think it is the terminology, so it must be somewhere in the rationale. If I may summarize (over simplify??), (Even if I get this wrong, it might help you see where I am coming from at this point.) I see you trying to define two basic laws to form the basis for the argument:

Every individual in a population ought to be making his/her own babies.

Every maladaptive, heritable trait ought to be trending towards extinction.

I guess we also need a basic assumption that homosexuality is heritable (even if we don't yet begin to understand the mechanism).

Way back when I was learning how to take tests, one of the test taking strategies they talked about was, if you have a T/F question with "every, all, never, etc" in it, you only need to be able to think of one exception to the statement in order to render the entire statement false. If forced to give a binary T/F answer, I have to choose false for both statements. If allowed to give a more complete answer, I would want to answer "mostly true with exceptions". In discussions like this, the cases that follow the general rule are not that interesting. The really interesting parts of these discussions is trying to understand the exceptions.

If I understand your end goal here, then it seems to me that the argument needs to either have a better starting point (something that is universally true and not just generally true with exceptions) or it needs to be able to deal with those exceptions. If the exceptions stand, then homosexuality will likely end up as simply another exception to the general rules.

After that, maybe it still is in the terminology. Or maybe I have not well understood the starting foundations of your argument.

Do you not think that "reproduce or perish" is universal, particularly given the limited life expectancy of living things? Are you aware of a species that doesn't have a life expectancy and which also has no environmental or predatory threats to its life?

Do you not think that "evolve or perish" is universal? Are you aware of any species that has survived without evolution, particularly given that 99&, or 5 billion species are extinct even given evolution?

Do you not think that "reproduce or don't evolve" is universal, particularly given that evolution is contingent upon reproduction? CAn you think of any exceptions to that law?.

These are the only laws of nature I have posited at this point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

I agree with you that the word "homosexual" is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, I consider it an oxymoron. Rather, I describe it as a dysfunctional form of heterosexuality--which fits well my pursuit. The same can be said of zoophila.

Well, I would consider it to be unnecessary even for your purpose to call it an oxymoron.  But if you refer to it as a dysfunctional form of heterosexuality all you are really doing is using your original objective (to prove that it isn't normal) as a means of describing it in terms of what you are trying to prove.  And the same can be said of zoophilia. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"reproduce or don't evolve" is pretty close to axiomatic, I think.

Evolve or perish, as you are using it, is probably also universal, though I am not sure if it is. As an example of my thought, it has been noted that a frequent condition of many "endangered" species is that they have evolved very specific requirements. In some, they can only feed on certain plants/animals, and as those decline they decline because their adaptation is so specific that they cannot take advantage of other food sources. Or perhaps it is a very narrow habitat requirement. In some cases, evolution has pushed a species/population into very narrow niches, and these species are at higher risk of extinction if something about that niche changes. Evolve or perish might still apply, because the basic idea of failure to adapt to your changing niche is fatal, but evolution is part of how the population became so specialized. Evolve or perish is probably universal, but perhaps not all evolution is good for survival.

"Reproduce or perish" is also probably universal at the population level. There are probably too many examples of individuals foregoing reproduction (social animals) to apply this universally to every individual. Eusociality is not exactly rare, but it is not exactly common either, so it seems that "reproduce or perish" is a good general rule applied to individuals, but it is probably a stretch to apply it universally to all individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

I don't think comparing urine to the homosexual use of hetero-sex organs makes much sense. In the case of urine, the organ has evidently evolved to perform multiple natural bodily functions (urine and reproduction). I think the species in question would definitely care, if not evolution and nature, were they to have no natural means of removing liquid waste.

However, with homosexuals, as I explain in my 3rd argument, they use hetero sex organs in ways that respond heterosexually, though merely mimicking, or perhaps even parodying, hetero-sex. There use of the sex organ is unnatural. And, while "Nature doesn't care," it may explain why homosexuals aren't reproducing, and are thus few in numbers, and given the dysfunction, why homosexuality may rightly be considered unnatural and abnormal.

Nor do I think comparing urine to the homosexual use of sex organs makes much sense, but that isn't what I did. Urination (not urine, itself) is a utilization of an organ for something outside the purpose of reproduction, but that doesn't make it abnormal or unnatural. 

And for you to make the claim that homosexuals use hetero sex organs in ways that respond heterosexually is simply repeating your original objective.  When a male or a female responds to a stimulation of an organ it it isn't a hetero response, it's a response. I think your reasoning there merely goes around and around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

"Reproduce or perish" is also probably universal at the population level. There are probably too many examples of individuals foregoing reproduction (social animals) to apply this universally to every individual. Eusociality is not exactly rare, but it is not exactly common either, so it seems that "reproduce or perish" is a good general rule applied to individuals, but it is probably a stretch to apply it universally to all individuals.

As explained, even given the Eusociality, I think it is universal at the individual level in terms of lineage. The lineage of the vast majority of worker bees is extinct (they have perished because they did not reproduce). That may not matter to bees, but it is meaningful to most humans. Nevertheless, the law .is universal at all levels, though not necessarily requiring reproductive participation of all parties at all levels. If the species doesn't reproduce, it will perish, though it may not perish if some of the species don't reproduce, as with worker bees.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mike said:

And for you to make the claim that homosexuals use hetero sex organs in ways that respond heterosexually is simply repeating your original objective.  When a male or a female responds to a stimulation of an organ it it isn't a hetero response, it's a response. I think your reasoning there merely goes around and around.

Of course they are heterosexual organs and heterosexual responses.  Biologically, by definition, sex is heterosexual. The sex organs and their self-evident function in relation to sex and sexual arousal, then,  cant be anything other than heterosexual. I don't wish to get graphic, but if you know anything about how the male and female sex organs respond in highly complementary ways to arousal, you should know what I mean. It is quite obvious that, biologically, the organs themselves and arousal functions aren't designed to deliver sperm into the rectum since it is designed to push things out rather than take things in, it is not well lubricated, and feces is toxic and not fertile, even though parties from both orientations may dysfunctionally swing that way.

The same rationally holds true for other bodily organs and systems. For example, the nose is obviously designed for breathing and smelling, and while it can accommodate a dry white bean--as mine did when I was five, putting a bean up one's nose is dysfunctional, particularly since it starts to rot and smell terrible after a few days. ;) The skull is hard, and meant to protect and house the brain. And, while it can be used to bang the wall (as I have done in discussions such as this :), and even pound in nails, that isn't its its natural function, and may rightly in some cases  be considered as dysfunctional. The natural function of the cardiovascular system permits blood to circulate and transport nutrients, oxygen, hormones, etc. throughout the body, It can also be used unnaturally to transport heroine and HIV to to the brain.

In other words, there are the natural functions of body parts and systems, and there are unnatural and dysfunctional ways they can be used. Homosexuals use heterosexual body parts unnaturally and dysfunctionally.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, wenglund said:

As explained, even given the Eusociality, I think it is universal at the individual level in terms of lineage. The lineage of the vast majority of worker bees is extinct (they have perished because they did not reproduce). That may not matter to bees, but it is meaningful to most humans. Nevertheless, the law .is universal at all levels, though not necessarily requiring reproductive participation of all parties at all levels. If the species doesn't reproduce, it will perish, though it may not perish if some of the species don't reproduce, as with worker bees.

I'm not sure I am fully understanding this part, but it probably doesn't matter as long as you understand what you are going for here. I still see the possibility that homosexuals are kind of like worker bees, which may not be a bad thing. I will be interested to see how you tie all of this into homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello folks :) New here.

I have to say Wade, I appreciate your wanting to approach this from a secular angle.  Approaching it from a religious standpoint is absolutely ineffective for anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs, so if your aim is to make a difference for others, you're on a good path.

As far as homosexual activity being weeded out of a population based on natural selection, there is some evidence to suggest that due to our particular breeding strategies, there could be an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.  The care that goes into raising young is directly proportional to how much resource is required to raise it, and how many offspring the animal has.  Mosquitos have thousands of babies in their brief lives, and do nothing to protect them after laying eggs.  Sea Turtles are the same.  They lay eggs and leave them, and if the eggs are threatened, the mother turtle won't protect them (the idea being that since she can lay hundreds more, she is more valuable in the quest to pass on her genes than a few eggs). We as humans spend enormous resources on each child we have, and we have very few in comparison to many other animals. Since we have a gestation of 9 months, since our babies take incredible resources for us not only till birth, but for years afterwards, it is vital that they are perfectly suited for procreation when they reach maturity.  One theory about the advantage of homosexuality is that it provides greater care for the other children, that having a gay uncle means more efficient and effective child care for others.  This may be why homosexuality is seen in a number of different species, but always species which have relatively few young, where child-rearing is extremely important.

As a reminder to some who have commented on this thread, the important part about natural selection is that the GENE is passed on, not necessarily the individual.  So for instance, some marmots will exhibit altruistic and self sacrificing behavior in order to save the whole family.  This would typically be disadvantageous if the individual surviving was the important part of natural selection.  Since its the gene that needs to be passed on, self sacrifice is seen in animals who's close family is threatened, but not if its other random marmots.  If you'd like a more thorough explanation about the theory, Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it called The Selfish Gene in 1970 something.  Its a good read!

This is just one theory of why homosexuality might be a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM, wenglund said:

Homosexuals use heterosexual body parts unnaturally and dysfunctionally.

I think this only applies if you're considering sexual organs to be simply used for reproduction, and not sexual gratification as well.  Sex serves a social function in addition to a reproductive one.  Its a way of showing love and affection.  Its certainly one of the strongest communications I know of, and thats not limited to heterosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the final (is that a cheer rising up?) and most compelling argument from nature.

The fourth argument from nature against homosexuality: dysfunctional attraction

·         Even though sex is the predominate form of reproduction on earth (see arguments 2 and 3), by its very nature sex can only occur if males and females engage each other in sex. The law of sexual nature, then, is “no sex, no reproduction,” which in turn ties into the laws of nature mentioned in my previous arguments—i.e. “reproduce or perish” and “no reproduction, no evolution.”  By rational extension, then, it may be said that “sex or perish” and “no sex, no evolution”—though there are some sexual species that are also capable of asexual reproduction.(see HERE)

·         Given that for many sexual species (humans in particular) the sex organs typically remain in a “dormant” state when not engaged sexually, then in order for sex to occur, the sex organs need to be brought out of “dormancy” and “transformed” so as to make sex viable. In humans, in order for sex to occur, the “transformation” is necessary for males, and while not absolutely necessary for females, it is highly preferred if not nearly necessary. So, for at least half of the sex equation, dormancy means no sex, and no sex means no reproduction, and no reproduction means extinction and no evolution.

·         In addition to dormancy, in order for sex to result in reproduction, the sex act or process needs to be brought to completion. The male gamete/sperm needs to be transferred from the male and brought into contact with the female gamete/ovum. In some sexual species this union occurs outside the body, while for others it occurs within the female body. In short, no sexual completion, no reproduction, and no reproduction then extinction and no evolution.

·         For much of the animal kingdom, and even more so with humans, reproduction can exacts some relatively high costs, not just in terms of birthing pains, but also in terms of time and resources need to raise offspring.  As such, in order for sex to occur, particularly for rational and responsible humans, there needs to be sufficient impetus to surmount the costs.

·         Clearly, sex involves some complexities and risk factors not applicable to asexual organisms—which may explain some of the puzzlement by scientist over why sex even occurs in nature, and why it has maintained and predominates over asexual reproduction. Nevertheless, to facilitate bringing males and females together for sex, and transform their sexual organs out of “dormancy,” and bringing the sex act to completion, and surmounting the costs of reproduction, three traits have evolved within most all sexual species: sexual attraction, sexual arousal, and sexual pleasure; and one trait that has evolved for some species, including humans: the desire for posterity or to pass on one’s genes. Somewhat individually, though certainly collectively, these traits are critical to sexual reproduction. Without them, sex is unlikely to occur, let alone come to fruition, which means no reproduction and so forth. More to the point, while these traits may factor into other related activities for certain species, they evolved to facilitate and better assure sexual reproduction. This then is their natural and normal function.

·         As indicated in the previous argument, homosexuals have male or female genitals, or in other words (hetero) sex organs that respond heterosexually. This means they also have some of the (hetero) sex traits listed above, like sexual pleasure and arousal.  Homosexuals, then, are capable of having normal and natural (hetero) sex and reproducing the same as heterosexuals.  And, some have—which, if one grants the hypothesis that there is a homosexual gene or set of genetic traits, may explain why there are some, though proportionately not many homosexuals. In fact, 22% partnered lesbians and 5% of partnered gay men have children in their households, of which the vast majority (62%) came from prior relationship, most likely heterosexual relationships. (see HERE)  

·         Where homosexuals differ from heterosexuals is in their sexual attraction. They are sexually attracted to the same sex.  In other words, their homosexual “hearts” are at odds with their heterosexual bodies. For homosexuals, the desire that evolved to help assure reproduction is somehow directed in a way that assures no reproduction. This is the very essence of dysfunction. That which is normal and natural and evolved has become abnormal and unnatural and contra-evolutionary. That which has been naturally selected as one of the “fittest” traits of sex, has “mutated” in homosexuals to encourage reproductive unfitness, thus self-selecting itself out of the population—which may explain why there are so few homosexuals. 

·         By way of compounding the dysfunction, the “mutation” of same-sex attraction is in direct conflict with the evolved (hetero) sexual trait of wanting children/posterity and to pass on one’s genes. The homosexual “hearts” are at odds with their heterosexual “minds.” For homosexuals, fidelity to the former will preclude the latter, and obtaining the later requires surmounting or working around the former. A not uncommon lament among homosexuals is that they can’t biologically produce children with the people to which they are sexually attracted and romantically love.

·         This conflict within homosexuals, between their “mutated” homosexual attraction and all their evolved heterosexual reproductive traits (sexual organs, “transformations” thereof, pleasure, arousal, and desire for posterity) can’t be easy for some. The internal turmoil may be enough to cause mental and emotional and other medical issues—which leads me to my next segment of arguments against homosexuality: health.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Galaxies said:

Hello folks :) New here.

I have to say Wade, I appreciate your wanting to approach this from a secular angle.  Approaching it from a religious standpoint is absolutely ineffective for anyone who doesn't already share your beliefs, so if your aim is to make a difference for others, you're on a good path.

As far as homosexual activity being weeded out of a population based on natural selection, there is some evidence to suggest that due to our particular breeding strategies, there could be an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.  The care that goes into raising young is directly proportional to how much resource is required to raise it, and how many offspring the animal has.  Mosquitos have thousands of babies in their brief lives, and do nothing to protect them after laying eggs.  Sea Turtles are the same.  They lay eggs and leave them, and if the eggs are threatened, the mother turtle won't protect them (the idea being that since she can lay hundreds more, she is more valuable in the quest to pass on her genes than a few eggs). We as humans spend enormous resources on each child we have, and we have very few in comparison to many other animals. Since we have a gestation of 9 months, since our babies take incredible resources for us not only till birth, but for years afterwards, it is vital that they are perfectly suited for procreation when they reach maturity.  One theory about the advantage of homosexuality is that it provides greater care for the other children, that having a gay uncle means more efficient and effective child care for others.  This may be why homosexuality is seen in a number of different species, but always species which have relatively few young, where child-rearing is extremely important.

Welcome!

You have expressed very well one of the reasons I don't buy into the comparison between homosexuals and worker bees and other social/hive insects--i.e. the volume of reproduction during the parents lifespan.

However, I believe there are several other reasons to reject the "kin" or inclusive fitness explanations for homosexuality. I won't bore you with all of them, though most important among them is the matter of ratios. For example, honey bee hives have thousands of worker bees and one queen (see HERE), whereas for humans there are typically 50 females for every 1.7 homosexuals. Granted, the queen bee lays thousands of eggs per day, and so the need for resource gatherers (foragers) warrants the ratio of workers to queens and offspring--close to a one-to-one ratio per brood. Yet, while birthrates have declined in humans, for the last two decades mothers average around 2.4 children. If my calculations are correct, this brings the ration of homosexuals to children to 1 per 60. Hardly a sufficient impact. Were evolution involved by way of inclusive fitness, one would expect the ratio to be closer to one-to-one, even were homosexuals clustered in nurturing occupations.

Quote

As a reminder to some who have commented on this thread, the important part about natural selection is that the GENE is passed on, not necessarily the individual.  So for instance, some marmots will exhibit altruistic and self sacrificing behavior in order to save the whole family.  This would typically be disadvantageous if the individual surviving was the important part of natural selection.  Since its the gene that needs to be passed on, self sacrifice is seen in animals who's close family is threatened, but not if its other random marmots.  If you'd like a more thorough explanation about the theory, Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it called The Selfish Gene in 1970 something.  Its a good read!

This is just one theory of why homosexuality might be a perfectly natural phenomenon.

Again, I think the paltry number of homosexuals in the population negates the self-sacrificing and survival explanation, and this even were homosexuals know for their self sacrifice, and were they clustered in areas where resources are scarcer per population size.

I realize that scientists have made a valiant effort to bolster the increasingly favorable cultural and political sentiments towards homosexuality, and to make homosexuality appear natural and normal and as evolutionally valuable as, or effectively no different then heterosexuals. Evidently, they have been swept up in the wave of political correctness. 

Unfortunately, their seemingly admirable motives have compromised their limited objectivity, gotten in the way of producing good science, leaving them to produce junk and become the organs of propaganda, thereby misleading a broad, trusting audience.

Even more unfortunate, is that in their attempts to help homosexuals have, and will more so in the long run, harm homosexuals as well as society as a whole. (see HERE)

The only way to reverse this trend is through critically questioning what you have been taught by secular society.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Galaxies said:

I think this only applies if you're considering sexual organs to be simply used for reproduction, and not sexual gratification as well.  Sex serves a social function in addition to a reproductive one.  Its a way of showing love and affection.  Its certainly one of the strongest communications I know of, and thats not limited to heterosexuals.

Yes, as with many body parts and systems and functions, there are alternative uses for sex organs and other sexual traits (attraction, pleasure, arousal, and climax) than the primary evolved function: reproduction. Some of the uses can serve valuable function, while others may be detrimental. Just as the lungs can be employed healthily to breath necessary air and expel to vibrate the vocal cords in edifying song, as well as to intake mind-altering and toxic substances, the sex organs can act as a healthy bonding mechanism for parents, while also unhealthily inserted into toxic orifices designed to expel rather than insert.

But, this is besides the arguments I am making. I am speaking solely to the primary (reproductive) function, and this in a way that doesn't negate alternative uses, good or bad. I am simply addressing the "birds and bees." Biologically, as differentiated from socially or psychologically, sex and the organs and traits related thereto, are not only decidedly reproductive in nature, but by definition heterosexual. On this basis, as indicated in my last two arguments, homosexuality is problematic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I am fully understanding this part, but it probably doesn't matter as long as you understand what you are going for here. I still see the possibility that homosexuals are kind of like worker bees, which may not be a bad thing. I will be interested to see how you tie all of this into homosexuality.

Please see my responses to Galaxies above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Unfortunately, their seemingly admirable motives have compromised their limited objectivity, gotten in the way of producing good science, leaving them to produce junk and become the organs of propaganda, thereby misleading a broad, trusting audience.

It's clear from your reply that you're not coming from an objective standpoint yourself.  Not because your critiques of the hypothesis I put forward were unsound (they might be, or might not be), but because it's clear that you're coming from a place of assuming you know what's true, while searching for the science to back up your deeply held beliefs.  The statement you wrote is very much the way your own opinion is coming across, as very subjective.  I don't mean any of this to be unkind or disrespectful, but I think it's important for all of us to recognize our own biases, myself included.  You seem overly quick to judge the motives of researchers who are looking at any reason the phenomenon of homosexuality might be anything rather than unnatural and some sort of perversion of the way it's "supposed to work".  That's my perception from this thread anyway.

Just for clarity's sake, what do you find to be unnatural? The physical act of sex between two people of the same gender? The emotional connections that many crave and share? Both? Is masturbation unnatural? Is oral sex?  Bonobos engage in all of that behavior daily, do they also have unnatural desires?

Can I ask what you think the alternative is?  Why do people of every generation of every civilization feel this longing if there isn't some natural desire for it in some individuals.  I would have no interest in having sex with a man, it's just not something that I find appealing. But some of my best friends DO find it appealing, and have since childhood.  Do you have a more plausible theory than the fact that they naturally have that interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Natural" doesn't strike me as a particularly helpful term, regardless of which side uses it.  Extract of hemlock is "natural".  So are uranium and petroleum, Behaviorally, in certain animal communities, infanticide is "natural"; and so are killing, theft, torture, and rape. 

"Natural" ≠ "good" or "pure" or "wholesome" or "desirable" or "right".

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Natural" doesn't strike me as a particularly helpful term, regardless of which side uses it.  Extract of hemlock is "natural".  So are uranium and petroleum, Behaviorally, in certain animal communities, infanticide is "natural"; and so are killing, theft, torture, and rape. 

"Natural" ≠ "good" or "pure" or "wholesome" or "desirable" or "right".

Wait. Do you mean to tell me that I've been wasting my time shopping at the all natural food store?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Galaxies said:

It's clear from your reply that you're not coming from an objective standpoint yourself.  Not because your critiques of the hypothesis I put forward were unsound (they might be, or might not be), but because it's clear that you're coming from a place of assuming you know what's true, while searching for the science to back up your deeply held beliefs.  The statement you wrote is very much the way your own opinion is coming across, as very subjective.  I don't mean any of this to be unkind or disrespectful, but I think it's important for all of us to recognize our own biases, myself included.  You seem overly quick to judge the motives of researchers who are looking at any reason the phenomenon of homosexuality might be anything rather than unnatural and some sort of perversion of the way it's "supposed to work".  That's my perception from this thread anyway.

Just for clarity's sake, what do you find to be unnatural? The physical act of sex between two people of the same gender? The emotional connections that many crave and share? Both? Is masturbation unnatural? Is oral sex?  Bonobos engage in all of that behavior daily, do they also have unnatural desires?

Can I ask what you think the alternative is?  Why do people of every generation of every civilization feel this longing if there isn't some natural desire for it in some individuals.  I would have no interest in having sex with a man, it's just not something that I find appealing. But some of my best friends DO find it appealing, and have since childhood.  Do you have a more plausible theory than the fact that they naturally have that interest?

And yet, we are supposed to put off the "natural man" because it is sinful. As a man, I am attracted to women, pretty much all women. So, does this mean I should just follow my natural man and chase after all of them? No.

I am of the strong opinion that sexuality is fluid and under the right conditions man would be attracted to almost any immoral act because the body itself just wants to be pleasured. This "natural man" is different though than what is deemed "natural" when speaking of godliness. Homosexuality and all other immoral acts are thus not a "natural" act according to the governing spirit. It is this precise reason why the natural man (our bodies) are at war with our spirits for control and why we must overcome the natural man because it is not the nature of our spirits to conform and give in to this natural man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Natural" doesn't strike me as a particularly helpful term, regardless of which side uses it.  Extract of hemlock is "natural".  So are uranium and petroleum, Behaviorally, in certain animal communities, infanticide is "natural"; and so are killing, theft, torture, and rape. 

"Natural" ≠ "good" or "pure" or "wholesome" or "desirable" or "right".

So is tobacco.

I had a roommate who was touting the benefits of health foods. He gave a testimonial of all the organic foods he was getting from whole foods. "They're so healthy and so good for you."

I responded,"Dude, you smoke two packs a day."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Galaxies said:

It's clear from your reply that you're not coming from an objective standpoint yourself.  Not because your critiques of the hypothesis I put forward were unsound (they might be, or might not be), but because it's clear that you're coming from a place of assuming you know what's true, while searching for the science to back up your deeply held beliefs.  The statement you wrote is very much the way your own opinion is coming across, as very subjective.  I don't mean any of this to be unkind or disrespectful, but I think it's important for all of us to recognize our own biases, myself included.  You seem overly quick to judge the motives of researchers who are looking at any reason the phenomenon of homosexuality might be anything rather than unnatural and some sort of perversion of the way it's "supposed to work".  That's my perception from this thread anyway.

Just for clarity's sake, what do you find to be unnatural? The physical act of sex between two people of the same gender? The emotional connections that many crave and share? Both? Is masturbation unnatural? Is oral sex?  Bonobos engage in all of that behavior daily, do they also have unnatural desires?

Can I ask what you think the alternative is?  Why do people of every generation of every civilization feel this longing if there isn't some natural desire for it in some individuals.  I would have no interest in having sex with a man, it's just not something that I find appealing. But some of my best friends DO find it appealing, and have since childhood.  Do you have a more plausible theory than the fact that they naturally have that interest?

Perhaps I am not objective and don't know the truth. I am open to both as distinct possibilities, and I will give careful consideration to reason and evidence contrary to what I have argued. 

As for what I believe is or isn't natural, my four arguments spell that out.  I am speaking not to what exists in nature, or what may naturally occur in nature, but whether it comports or conflicts with the laws and order of nature.

And, I am not attempting to explain why same-sex attraction exists, but rather that its existence is in conflict with several natural laws and orders and in conflict with the heterosexual traits of homosexuals own bodies. I am evincing that homosexuality is a dysfunction, not entirely unlike ED., which helps explain why there are so few homosexuals in the population.

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