Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The Purpose of Homosexuality

LGBT Purpose Homosexuality

  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#21 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 01:22 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 01:42 PM, said:

If homosexuality is a complex defect, then bigotry is even more so. 

And bigotry is just about all I can see in the description of homosexuality as a defect.

I don't think I can respond any further without personal attack or flame; so I will leave this thread now.
I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.

You can call me all the names you’d like: what is, is: Homosexuality is an untreatable genetic / hormonal disorder continuum. AND just because it is a disorder continuum, does not mean that those who are Homosexual should not be treated with dignity and respect.

Like I said if it helps you do deal with the situation to flame me, then by all means get your flamethrower out.

Respectfully:
Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 17 June 2004 - 01:32 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#22 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 01:27 PM

Or *maybe* assuming you really *need* to ascribe a purpose to it, it's a natural check on over population.
Posted Image

#23 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 01:30 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2004, 02:25 PM, said:

Or *maybe* assuming you really *need* to ascribe a purpose to it, it's a natural check on over population.
The natural check on population, which we are experiencing world wide according to the UN, is decreased sperm count…

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#24 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 01:35 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2004, 02:19 PM, said:

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 10:42 AM, said:

If homosexuality is a complex defect, then bigotry is even more so. 

And bigotry is just about all I can see in the description of homosexuality as a defect.

I don't think I can respond any further without personal attack or flame; so I will leave this thread now.
Thank you.   Calling homosexuality a defect is no better than calling brown skin or female genitals a defect.  It's bigotry.  Ugly word but it's still true.

In my opinion, of course.

Lil
Except that there is a genetic reason for the evolution of brown skin (and white skin) and the species is evolved to reproduce heterosexually, and therefore needs both male and female genitalia.

It might help if those who are overreacting to the word "defect" at least attempt to think the loads of other things that are defects - that is failure to function completely in accord with the design of the species. In the other forum, I brought up my own nearsightedness.  Humans are supposed to be able to see better than I can, but I have a genetic trait for nearsightedness.  That doesn't make ME a defect, but it does make my eyes defective.

I say all of this without actually committing to the view that homosexuality is a defect.  I believe that that is a valid possibility, and the quotes I cited offered some others that I think are plausible.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#25 Airhead

Airhead
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:28 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 02:28 PM, said:

The natural check on population, which we are experiencing world wide according to the UN, is decreased sperm count…

Sparky::
Which lead to an interesting theory by a leading genetic scientist in his book, Adam's Curse:

Quote

Written in anecdotal style, his recent book, "Adams Curse: A Future Without Men," is inciting controversy with its startling theory that the male of the species will only last for another 5000 generations before irreparable damage done to the Y-chromosome consigns him to the history books. Sykes uses his own research to show that the all-important male Y-chromosome is degenerating as it advances through evolution, rendering men infertile with increasing frequency, and the female X-chromosome (mDNA), which has a "twin" and can repair itself to minimize bad mutations, is slowly taking over. In other words, women are winning the evolutionary battle of the sexes.

By rendering men infertile, isn't the female chromosome also architecting its own destruction? Sykes addresses this issue as well, saying that men could be rescued with "massive intervention," but it would be quite possible to survive without them.

http://genealogy.abo...adams_curse.htm

Unfortunately, the article in the Toronto Star recently does not appear to be online.   :upside:

#26 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,132 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:49 PM

Using the logic that a homosexual is not a defect, it's just his/her defective sexuality is like saying "that writer's not a hack, they just have a defective writing style."  or "He isn't lousy at math, he just has defective calculating skills".

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

And there's no such thing as a "default" or "normal" human.  We don't come off an assembly line, based on any sort of "original" blueprint or schematic.  There are a broad range of traits and infinite combinations of those traits coupled with an infinite diversity of upbringing that determine everything about who we are.

It all boils down to labelling something "defective" simply because it's different.  Poor eyesight is a disability, not a defect.  It can be caused purely by genetics, or a variety of things that happen after birth, and it can be corrected with lenses or surgery.  It renders a person incapable of focusing properly in a clearly-defined measureable way.

Homosexuality doesn't render a person incapable of anything, as evidenced by the many homosexual parents out there. (Be it from a prior heterosexual relationship, artificial insemination, or 'good friend' surrogates).  The equipment all works, and there's nothing inherently disabling about homosexuality.

No one knows the specifics of what causes homosexuality, it's neither nature nor nuture--but a complex combination of many factors of both.

-Nick

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:55 PM

Quote

It all boils down to labelling something "defective" simply because it's different. Poor eyesight is a disability, not a defect. It can be caused purely by genetics, or a variety of things that happen after birth, and it can be corrected with lenses or surgery. It renders a person incapable of focusing properly in a clearly-defined measureable way.

Homosexuality doesn't render a person incapable of anything, as evidenced by the many homosexual parents out there. (Be it from a prior heterosexual relationship, artificial insemination, or 'good friend' surrogates). The equipment all works, and there's nothing inherently disabling about homosexuality.

Thank you.
Posted Image

#28 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:58 PM

Nick, on Jun 17 2004, 03:47 PM, said:

Using the logic that a homosexual is not a defect, it's just his/her defective sexuality is like saying "that writer's not a hack, they just have a defective writing style."  or "He isn't lousy at math, he just has defective calculating skills".

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

And there's no such thing as a "default" or "normal" human.  We don't come off an assembly line, based on any sort of "original" blueprint or schematic.  There are a broad range of traits and infinite combinations of those traits coupled with an infinite diversity of upbringing that determine everything about who we are.

It all boils down to labelling something "defective" simply because it's different.  Poor eyesight is a disability, not a defect.  It can be caused purely by genetics, or a variety of things that happen after birth, and it can be corrected with lenses or surgery.  It renders a person incapable of focusing properly in a clearly-defined measureable way.

Homosexuality doesn't render a person incapable of anything, as evidenced by the many homosexual parents out there. (Be it from a prior heterosexual relationship, artificial insemination, or 'good friend' surrogates).  The equipment all works, and there's nothing inherently disabling about homosexuality.

No one knows the specifics of what causes homosexuality, it's neither nature nor nuture--but a complex combination of many factors of both.

-Nick
Mankind has two purposes, the survival of the individual, and survival of the species; without either we would not be having this discussion, as mankind would not exist. That’s about as finite as it gets. Survival of the species requires procreation on a massive level, to account for genetic defects, or again the species does not survive. Anything that prevents that is a defect, even by your standards.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#29 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:59 PM

I really wonder sometimes, why does anyone bother to bring subjects related to this topic up anymore?

It seems to me that the subject of homosexuality (as far as this board is concerned) is like an old piece of gum someone is looking at and thining, "You know, if I chew it some more, there might be some flavor left."

Even in my relatively brief time here, I'm fairly confident of what everyone's opinion on this subject is, and what they will say on said topic.

But if ya'll like rehashing the same subject over and over again, more power to you! ;)

#30 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:01 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2004, 06:25 PM, said:

Or *maybe* assuming you really *need* to ascribe a purpose to it, it's a natural check on over population.
An adaptation that causes an individual not to reproduce isn't necessarily a defect.  Look at the number of species, from insects to pack mammals like wolves, where most individuals don't reproduce, yet they help ensure the survival of their genes by helping in the health and well-being of their blood relatives.  

Some evolutionary biologists have posited that homosexuality could actually serve an adaptive function, by making sure that a small hunter-gatherer group has a certain number of non-reproducing uncles and aunts who help with the childrearing and food gathering and other tasks essential to group survival without having children of their own to worry about.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#31 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:04 PM

HubcapDave, on Jun 17 2004, 03:57 PM, said:

I really wonder sometimes, why does anyone bother to bring subjects related to this topic up anymore?

It seems to me that the subject of homosexuality (as far as this board is concerned) is like an old piece of gum someone is looking at and thining, "You know, if I chew it some more, there might be some flavor left."

Even in my relatively brief time here, I'm fairly confident of what everyone's opinion on this subject is, and what they will say on said topic.

But if ya'll like rehashing the same subject over and over again, more power to you! ;)
To answer your question, it’s as hot as hell here, there is one mother of a thunder storm going down, AND there is no decent free video downloads, and the 102 channels and nothing on. If I didn’t have this conversation all I’d have is the sound of thunder. However you‘re right, it’s a circular argument….

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#32 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:09 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 01:02 PM, said:

If I didn’t have this conversation all I’d have is the sound of thunder. However you‘re right, it’s a circular argument….

Sparky::
Me, I kinda dig on the thunder! Don't get enough of it around here.

#33 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,132 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:11 PM

HubcapDave, on Jun 17 2004, 03:57 PM, said:

Even in my relatively brief time here, I'm fairly confident of what everyone's opinion on this subject is, and what they will say on said topic.

But if ya'll like rehashing the same subject over and over again, more power to you! ;)
I agree with you a little bit.  Not only am I pretty confident in everyone on this board's views on homosexuality, I also can pretty accurately guess their opinions on Bush, Kerry, Iraq--in fact, *all* of the issues that generate discussion.  There's going to be some repetition, comes with the turf.

But it isn't all re-hashing, all the time.  There are usually a few good points and interesting ideas sprinkled throughout.  I mean, it *is* a discussion board.  Or we could just all sit in separate corners and glare at each other.  YMMV

-Nick

#34 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:13 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 06:20 PM, said:

I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.

You can call me all the names you’d like: what is, is: Homosexuality is an untreatable genetic / hormonal disorder continuum. AND just because it is a disorder continuum, does not mean that those who are Homosexual should not be treated with dignity and respect.

Like I said if it helps you do deal with the situation to flame me, then by all means get your flamethrower out.

Respectfully:
Sparky::
First, your reasoning is fallacious.  Or to use your terms, your argument is defective.  Homosexuality does not render individuals unable to produce progeny.  Ergo, the rest of your premises have no foundation.  Ergo, you fail to prove homosexuality is a defect.  Saying something is true is very different than proving it.  Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.  And no matter what your mother used to tell you, "because I said so" isn't compelling evidence.

Second, I didn't call you any names.  Moreover, you brought the word bigotry into this thread.  I simply applied the same logic to bigotry as you did to homosexuality.  To demonstrate I will use your argument:  I will tell you what makes bigotry a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings were bigots to the exclusion of anyone different then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race were bigots.

Third, since flaming is not allowed here.  I must construe your invitation to me to flame you here as baiting.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#35 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:13 PM

HubcapDave said:

Quote

Me, I kinda dig on the thunder! Don't get enough of it around here.

Here either. We had a wicked t-storm earlier today, so I took the dog out from under the bed and sat watching the lightning with her sitting under my chair instead. It was awesome. Nothing beats watching a storm. Or even a good fireplace. I'm rather fond of a fireplace and a book to read beside it.

:cool:

Edited by the 'Hawk, 17 June 2004 - 03:18 PM.

“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#36 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:17 PM

MuseZack, on Jun 17 2004, 03:59 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 17 2004, 06:25 PM, said:

Or *maybe* assuming you really *need* to ascribe a purpose to it, it's a natural check on over population.
An adaptation that causes an individual not to reproduce isn't necessarily a defect.  Look at the number of species, from insects to pack mammals like wolves, where most individuals don't reproduce, yet they help ensure the survival of their genes by helping in the health and well-being of their blood relatives.  

Some evolutionary biologists have posited that homosexuality could actually serve an adaptive function, by making sure that a small hunter-gatherer group has a certain number of non-reproducing uncles and aunts who help with the childrearing and food gathering and other tasks essential to group survival without having children of their own to worry about.
I’ve heard that postulate before. In wolf packs the betas do reproduce low be it with less frequency, or there would be genetic stagnation. Sometimes the Alpha male breeds the beta females. AND yes the beta females tend to the pups, while the Alpha pair, hunt to feed the pack.

As to hunter gathers: there are always young, and older males left behind to guard the camp.

There is no purpose to homosexuality as there is no purpose to most other states of being, only that it has a right to exist.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#37 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:24 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:11 PM, said:

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 06:20 PM, said:

I will tell you what makes homosexuality a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings where homosexual to the exclusion of the opposite sex then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race where homosexual.

You can call me all the names you’d like: what is, is: Homosexuality is an untreatable genetic / hormonal disorder continuum. AND just because it is a disorder continuum, does not mean that those who are Homosexual should not be treated with dignity and respect.

Like I said if it helps you do deal with the situation to flame me, then by all means get your flamethrower out.

Respectfully:
Sparky::
First, your reasoning is fallacious.  Or to use your terms, your argument is defective.  Homosexuality does not render individuals unable to produce progeny.  Ergo, the rest of your premises have no foundation.  Ergo, you fail to prove homosexuality is a defect.  Saying something is true is very different than proving it.  Saying it repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.  And no matter what your mother used to tell you, "because I said so" isn't compelling evidence.

Second, I didn't call you any names.  Moreover, you brought the word bigotry into this thread.  I simply applied the same logic to bigotry as you did to homosexuality.  To demonstrate I will use your argument:  I will tell you what makes bigotry a defect, a disorder, and that is simply. If all the human beings were bigots to the exclusion of anyone different then by the laws of survival of the genome, the race would not survive, there would be an ever decreasing pool of progeny. A race cannot survive by forced insemination, which is what you would need if all the members of a given race were bigots.

Third, since flaming is not allowed here.  I must construe your invitation to me to flame you here as baiting.
With respect your not being baited.

I see you are not up on human history, most people are bigots, preferring their own racial base, and the species has done quite well to date.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#38 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:26 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 07:56 PM, said:

Mankind has two purposes, the survival of the individual, and survival of the species; without either we would not be having this discussion, as mankind would not exist. That’s about as finite as it gets. Survival of the species requires procreation on a massive level, to account for genetic defects, or again the species does not survive. Anything that prevents that is a defect, even by your standards.

Sparky::
Mankind may have only two purposes; I can't say for sure since I'm not omniscient.  Still I would hesitate to try to limit males in that way.  I'd prefer to believe that men could have more purposes than that, to at least give them credit for the possibility.

Humankind, however, I'm certain has more than two purposes; because neither of the ones you mentioned are mine.  And, as I understand it, humankind includes women.

Many types of beings (mammals, fish, insects) have biological mechanisms that kick in under certain conditions which naturally limit their production of progeny.  These mechanisms are also tied to the survival of the species because without them the species could overpopulate and become extinct through the destruction of the environment it needs to survive.  

If humans don't have natural mechanisms to prevent excessive progeny, then human won't survive.  So, by your logic, homosexuality can't be a defect because it serves a needed role in human survival.  The role of helping to prevent overpopulation.
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke

#39 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:34 PM

Consubstantial, on Jun 17 2004, 04:24 PM, said:

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 07:56 PM, said:

Mankind has two purposes, the survival of the individual, and survival of the species; without either we would not be having this discussion, as mankind would not exist. That’s about as finite as it gets. Survival of the species requires procreation on a massive level, to account for genetic defects, or again the species does not survive. Anything that prevents that is a defect, even by your standards.

Sparky::
Mankind may have only two purposes; I can't say for sure since I'm not omniscient.  Still I would hesitate to try to limit males in that way.  I'd prefer to believe that men could have more purposes than that, to at least give them credit for the possibility.

Humankind, however, I'm certain has more than two purposes; because neither of the ones you mentioned are mine.  And, as I understand it, humankind includes women.

Many types of beings (mammals, fish, insects) have biological mechanisms that kick in under certain conditions which naturally limit their production of progeny.  These mechanisms are also tied to the survival of the species because without them the species could overpopulate and become extinct through the destruction of the environment it needs to survive.  

If humans don't have natural mechanisms to prevent excessive progeny, then human won't survive.  So, by your logic, homosexuality can't be a defect because it serves a needed role in human survival.  The role of helping to prevent overpopulation.
Homosexuality only accounts for about 10% of the population, in no way does that prevent over population, as it leave 90% of the population free to reproduce at will.

The over population preventer in the human animal are low sperm count, and in time of famine amenorrhea, which are more universal controls.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 17 June 2004 - 03:36 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#40 Consubstantial

Consubstantial

    Paradox by Incongruity

  • Islander
  • 851 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:35 PM

emsparks, on Jun 17 2004, 08:22 PM, said:

With respect your not being baited.

I see you are not up on human history, most people are bigots, preferring their own racial base, and the species has done quite well to date.

Sparky::
With the same respect, this post shows that you are baiting.

Your crack about my "not being up on human history" is a further example.

You used the words "all human beings" in your original argument.  I quoted those exact words back to you in my reconstruction of it with the word "bigotry."

Last time I checked, "most people" wasn't all people.  So, since not all people are bigots, I'm unsurprised at the continuation of the human race.  

I would even challenge your claim that most people are bigots.  Do you have evidence or is this statement just some unfounded personal belief?
From the start, our terms jump to conclusions--Kenneth Burke



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Purpose, Homosexuality

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users