Ihmhi

I live in New Jersey. We get a newspaper called the Star Ledger. Today the entire Opinion column was dedicated to the issue of homosexuality. There were two basic issues discussed.

The first: President Bush is looking for a way to legally define marriage as a union between a man and woman. He had been very tactful about it; rather than say he was trying to stop gay marriage, he stated that he was trying to "protect the sanctity of marriage".

This is absolute bullshit. It's obvious that Bush is very religious; he openly expresses his beliefs at every opportune. He also stated that the bible clearly expresses that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Even if this were true, religion can't be applied to law. If two people want to marry, then they have every right to do so.

This situation is being described as similar to the Jim Crow laws of the 50s and 60s which oppressed black people. The same logic can be applied to this issue, although in one letter someone stated that the Jim Crow laws were "evil" but homosexuality is "unnatural". I don't see any difference between oppressing someone based on their color and oppressing someone based on their sexual preference.

On to my second issue: The origin of homosexuality itself and religion's take on it. First, people are born homosexual. Most people don't make a conscious choice to be gay. How many men can honestly say they're always attracted to other men?

I believe homosexuality comes from one of two sources. It is either a psychological disorder or a genetic disorder. I hate to admit it, but it is "unnatural". According to Darwin, there's a basic natural order to things. Everything animals do is either based on survival or procreation. Naturally, everything has basic behaviors related to procreation and survival. I walk through the projects at daytime to look at hot chicks and I don't walk through them at night so my white ass isn't shot full of caps.

Anyway, according to Darwin's theories, if something doesn't have the will to procreate, then it is unnatural.

Regardless of whether or not my theories are true, homosexuals are still people and therefore are entitled to every right heterosexual people are. That is how our government works, and that's why it's good (not great, but still good). There should be no debate as to whether or not they have any rights. They are assured by our most precious legal documents ("all men are created equal").

Unless you go to church. Then you're screwed.

Wounded King

Why should it be a disorder at all? Is my having blue eyes a disorder?

If you had any familiarity with modern evolutionary biology I am sure you would be aware of the concept of Kin selection one of the tenets of which is that non reproductive individuals can still work to increase the contributioon of their genes in future generations.

By your line of argument all the worker bees in a hive are unnatural because they themselves do not strive to reproduce.

Ihmhi

You are indeed right. I have very little knowledge of modern evolutionary biology. However, I would like to reply in regard to your argument.

First, having blue eyes is not a defect, it is a genetic wild card. (I have blue eyes, too.) You are more likely to get brown eyes than blue eyes, but it also depends on your parents.

Secondly, bees live in a societal structure. They serve the queen as necessary. Darwin's theories state all animals have a will to survive, and therefore their species evolved in many different ways. It is unlikely a bee could survive on its own; therefore it evolved to form a hive structure, much like ants work in colonies.

Humans, however, are obviously quite different from bees. There are different bees to serve different purposes (Workers work, queens pump out babies and control the hive, etc.). Humans are not a hive species. Though we are social, we do not mindlessly work for the greater majority (except for those of us who go to church ).

We were made to survive and procreate. I must admit that genetics isn't a perfect science (there are many genetic diseases and defects). No matter how moral and upstanding a homosexual person may be, from a scientific point of view, I fail to see how they can help the race progress. Are you suggesting that some humans were made to procreate and others were made to serve some sort of worker function (like bees and ants)?

In conclusion, please do not take my comments too heavily. When I am curious about something, I like to throw my hat into the ring and see what other people say. That why I joined II. Whether homosexuality proves a genetic/psychological disorder or not, I will always accept everyone for who they are and defend the fact that they are entitled to the same rights I am. Hell, masturbation was considered a psychological disorder in the early 1900s, and now it is not only common practice but it is accepted as a part of life and normal behavior (it even says it in health books).

All I seek is answers, and I offer no bigotry nor do I wish to impart bad will upon any sect of the population.

In conclusion, I am a 17 year old high school student. In my defense, how my 17 year old evolutionary biologists do you know? I don't even have my driver's license.

Whosoever responds to this thread, please do not cite my youth as a defense for your position. Treat me as a rational, mentally capable person and give a viable defense for your argument.

Thank you.

demoninho

Not unnatural, just a very bad tactic from an evolutionary point of view.

markfiend

Ihmhi, I have a very good friend who is gay. He also has a daughter (about your age as it happens).

Your assumption seems to be that gay people never have children. This is quite simply not the case. Gay people can (and often do) hide their homosexuality because of society's attitudes, and wind up in a heterosexual relationship, kids and all (how my friend had his daughter), and then "come out" years later.

Kruzkal

The spreading of homosexualality is in fact partially contributed by the church. The church is known to have convinced homosexuals to get married. Hence conserving the gay genes for another generation.

The polysexual nature of the creatures of this world does in fact help their survival. Clownfish is well know to be transexuals with the ability to change their own gender when nessisary. Many other creatures are known to perform the mating retual with the same sex in order to attract the attention of the opposite sex, etc.

__________________

If Adam & Eve were real
We are all inbreeds

demoninho

So, the relatively high incidence of homosexuality among humans could have been the result of society's taboo?

Ihmhi

I never imagined I would spark such interesting debate!

Anyways, um, I am fully aware homosexuals have children. See, the thing is, I am referring to base instincts, not societal instincts. By nature, people desire children. Homosexuals, however, cannot attain this goal due to their sexual orientation (I should'nt have used the term "sexual preference- it's not as if most homosexuals have a choice in the matter). At least, they cannot attain it by themselves. Although Bush's idea of marriage is man and woman (and therefore makes him seem more uneducated and ignorant than he already appears to be), no one here can go prove against the fact that to produce a child, a male and female component are necessary.

Though there are some hermaphroditic species or species that can change gender, humans are not innately born with this ability. This is were transgender species and homosexuals differ; homosexuals males and females are just as physically equipped as their heterosexual counterparts. My rationalization is that if homosexuals didn'y physically adapt, then their existance was either due to some sort of defect or anomaly in the sex drive, either genetic, biological, or psychological.

Again, I am not trying to present a negative image or degrade homosexuals. I just want other people's opinions and answers.

Thanks.

demoninho

Maybe homosexuals could propagate some of their genes indirectly by sharing the care for their younger siblings or nephews and nieces. A full brother or sister is on average 50% related to you same as your own children so taking af them would be as benificial in propagating your genes as having children of your own.

Wounded King

What Demoninho describe is the kin selection theory I was talking about earlier, Dawkin's deals with this in some depth in his book 'The Selfish Gene'.

Statements like 'by nature people desire children', are rather sweeping generalisations. I know a number of people who have absoloutely no intention of having children.

Apart from this your very attitiude towards homosexuality is very simplistic. Sexuality is not a hard and fast division between two extremes of straight and gay with some people being forced the wrong way because of 'society'. There is a whole spectrum of sexuality which provides a further mechanism for any genetic basis for homosexuality, whatever that basis might be, to be propagated.

Is there a similar genetic basis for both lesbianism and male homosecuality? A small measure of pragmatism could allow for heterosexual procreation and homosexual recreation, I am not convinced that there are so many homosexuals so exclusively gay that they couldn't physically perform at all with a member of the opposite sex although I'm sure there are some, in fact if the population doesn't level out soon maybe we should push for this sort of model.