Homosexuality is:

[synexo]

Thus: homosexuality is a reproductive dysfunctionality, not a moral one. It's a valid way of being. It doesn't mean the person (biological-machine) is broken. Just doesn't help procreation.

 

Let me make sure I underscore the difference between a disorder and a dysfuntionality. A disorder presuposes a correct way to be, a goal. Dysfunctionality just indicates a hinderance to achieve a result, not that it has any value.

 

razorlock, you're a genius. That's the best way I've ever heard it said. Just drives me crazy everyone saying there is 'nothing wrong' with homosexuality. I'm very literal, and not very moral, although my vocabulary suffers. The 'thing wrong' with homosexuality is not a moral 'wrongness', but a functional disability.

 

I do think however, that disorder may still be a correct term, because there is a value to functional reproduction in terms of the survival of the species. If the species cannot reproduce, than it cannot survive. Therefore reproduction is valuable to the species' survival, even though it is not inherently valuable to the individuals of the species. An individual who is homosexual is not broken, but homosexuality is a hinderance to optimal reproductive efficiency. It follows that In terms of individual humans being simply parts of a larger species-whole, i.e. the human race, homosexuality is an undesirable trait if the species as a whole is seeking optimal reproductive efficiency.

 

We are then left to determine whether or not a species naturally seeks optimal reproductive efficiency, and I believe that evolutionary theory would suggest that it does. This is because evolutionary theory is based on the premise that traits are acquired by each new generation by it's previous generation, and that a process of natural selection will determine which traits are most successfully passed from generation to generation over time. The process of natural selection necessarily involves energy, that energy being that which is utilized in the metabolic processes of the life forms competing for survival. Metabolic processes are NOT chaotic systems, but homeostatic ones. Being that metabolic processes govern the energy involved in the process of natural selection, and that metabolic processes are homeostatic systems, it stands to reason that natural selection is a homeostatic process, NOT a chaotic one.

 

The end of this line of reasoning is simply that a homeostatic system will seek a state of equilibrium at the lowest possible energy state, and the lowest possible energy state for the reproductive processes of a species which is to continue to survive is that which is optimal. It is for that reason that being optimally reproductively functional is valuable, not because it is somehow valued by the individual, but because it is naturally sought out by the systems which create the individual.

 

The way in which evolution is ordered values optimal reproductive functionality, and in terms of that value homosexuality is a disorder.

 

Amen.

[Oma]

To Razorlock: I think you have one of the more sane views on life that I have seen (reminds me of my own ;)) - but I tend to agree with cOg. Homosexuality may not be unnatural.

 

As I posted in the original "gay/straight" a slight homosexual tendency might act as a safety valve for when we don't have access to the opposite sex. Full blown homosexuality then might be those individuals that fall outside the norm (we are not normal in ALL aspects - some have larger noses than 95% of the population etc.).

 

However, I do not like the reference to bees....they're incestual! ;)

And the part about animals in a group helping rearing offspring not their own.... well, they often get to reproduce later on - they just have to fight for it (plus they're not neccesarily gay just because they don't breed).

[synexo]

This is gotta be the most flambouyant display of biggotry I've ever seen in this forum. I thik you forgot to include the option

 

This poll does not display any bigotry whatsoever. Bigotry is a hatred, or intolerance for a people or way of life. None of the options imply hatred or intolerance. The simpler question would have been 'Do you believe homosexuality is a disorder?', and the only answers 'Yes', 'No', or 'Undecided'. Somehow I think people would be calling it distasteful and bigoted for not having more specific options had it been phrased that way. It is a very closed-minded position to take to say that a poll is bigoted when that poll clearly allows for a vote of 'none of the above'.

[synexo]

As I posted in the original "gay/straight" a slight homosexual tendency might act as a safety valve for when we don't have access to the opposite sex. Full blown homosexuality then might be those individuals that fall outside the norm (we are not normal in ALL aspects - some have larger noses than 95% of the population etc.).

 

You are a genius too Oma.

[c0g]

The way in which evolution is ordered values optimal reproductive functionality' date=' and in terms of that value homosexuality is a disorder. [/quote']

 

I agree with your reasoning, just not your conclusion. The most efficient systems, utilized by some of the most efficient species, involve the smallest percentage of the overall population as breeders. Limiting the desire to breed to select individuals consumes significantly less energy than a shotgun approach of full tilt breeding by all members of the species. This is aptly demonstrated in nature.

[synexo]

I agree with your reasoning' date=' just not your conclusion. The most efficient systems, utilized by some of the most efficient species, involve the smallest percentage of the overall population as breeders. Limiting the desire to breed to select individuals consumes significantly less energy than a shotgun approach of full tilt breeding by all members of the species. This is aptly demonstrated in nature. [/quote']

 

Thanks c0g for actually taking the time to follow my reasoning. I've read your posts concerning the value of non-breeders, and it is certainly an interesting idea to apply the concept to humans. Can you point out any biological adaptations of mammals in general or humans specifically which might be unique to homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals which might be indicitive of their supporting role in reproduction?

[Oma]

SNIP

The most efficient systems, utilized by some of the most efficient species, involve the smallest percentage of the overall population as breeders. Limiting the desire to breed to select individuals consumes significantly less energy than a shotgun approach of full tilt breeding by all members of the species. This is aptly demonstrated in nature.

 

You can't deem a breeding system efficient based only on numbers - after all the genetic variance(simplified: adaptability) is bigger when all members in a population are allowed to breed (= efficiency when it comes to adapting).

 

But I see you point - In mongolian gerbils (they give bith to 10 cubs(?)) the positioning of the males determine their status in life (breeder or helper). If a male is sorrounded by females he (less testosterone) becomes a helper - and if sorrounded by males -> breeder.

 

However, humans don't get litters :P - and I'm not sure if this helper/breeder idea can be transferred to humans. I'm just not sure it can be disregarded either.

 

In short: I think that (full blown) homosexuaity isn't normal - but it's possible that there is an advantage for the genes in a group to have a helper (though this would only be advantageous if the homosexuals were male).

[vyper]

Homosexuality is:

 

Fucking sickening to straight guys when confronted with it - but then again so are Soap Operas. It's a guy thing. ;)

 

In it's own right homosexuality is just a type of sex life, nothing worse, nothing better.

[joetaxpayer]

The choice that's missing is;

"How some people are".

I am straight, but have enough gay friends who I was able to discuss this topic with and came to that decision. One gay friend offered, "if it were a 'choice', who would choose to be gay? society rejects me, my parents reject me, but the thought of being with a woman nauseates me".

That was enough to help me understand the difference between 'choice/lifestyle' vs 'born this way'.

I'd wager the discovery of a 'gay' gene in the near term, just like the 'alcoholic' gene, and the gene for blue eyes, etc.

Ok, I've rambled enough, bring on the Orion Slave Girls......

JOE

[carcynsdad]

None of the above, and for the most part, probably none of your business.

 

 

your probaly right it seems the question was over his/her head to begin with

 

[carcynsdad]

This is gotta be the most flambouyant display of biggotry I've ever seen in this forum. I thik you forgot to include the option

 

() Irrelevent. Personal preference is no one's busniess but their own.

 

I cant wait to see the next poll ...

 

White Power

 

()Necessary

()Awesome

()Only way to go

()All of the above

()None of the above

 

// Not gay, and definatelly not into the whole biggotry thing

 

im with you, this guy/gal must be a homophobe

[coolcat13]

For crying out loud lock this thread we already have two threads dealing with this subject :mad:

 

This one is down right slanted at that

[dumbass]

Direct result of over-population. We have been over-populated for about 10,000 years. For 90% of your evolution as homo sapien sapien (or pan sapien sapien) you never saw or knew more than 120 people. For 90% of your evolution the mean population of the planet was 5 million.

 

The rates of homosexuality that is present in today's population finds direct correlation with the rates that we found when we overpopulated other closely related primate species when we (wrongly) did test in the '60s and '70s.

 

The normal population, namely that mean of before 10,000 years ago, in comparison to them we are crazy and increased levels of homosexuality, violence towards members of our own species, as well as rape and sucide are to be expected.

[str82u]

Can we move on now?

 

[bbbb]

gay.

[werecow]

this is a moot point....some ppl here are gay ....some are straight.....fine whatever...cant we all just enjoy startrek and sci-fi and get on with it????? can anyone else here say "beating a dead horse???"

[maverick]

this is a moot point....some ppl here are gay ....some are straight.....fine whatever...cant we all just enjoy startrek and sci-fi and get on with it????? can anyone else here say "beating a dead horse???"

 

 

man this thread is beating a dead horse.

 

theres an echo in here...? :D

[c0g]

You can't deem a breeding system efficient based only on numbers

 

I'm not basing it on numbers, but on the logic of competitive habitat pressure, and dilution of shared resources.

 

Arctic Wolves are a good example. In a hostile environment where large carnivores have limited resources, they have developed a strategy of cooperative reproduction where the entire pack works together to raise the offspring of a single breeding pair. Thus assuring the survival of the species. If every female bred, there would not be enough prey to go around, and it is likely that every littler would be lost to malnutrition. What’s even worse, is that the over predation of that niche would likely damage a delicate ecosystem that could take many years to recover before it could support even a single breeding pair of wolves again.

 

That's only if too many pairs have reproductive sex. If they have non-reproductive sex, no additional pressure is put on the habitat, while still providing the intimacy and bonding that serve to maintain pack coherency.

 

In short: I think that (full blown) homosexuaity isn't normal

 

Normal is a setting on a washing machine.

 

Personally I feel that Heterosexual and Homosexual are both rigid artificial morel constructs that leave little room for healthy personal expression.

 

[c0g]

Can you point out any biological adaptations of mammals in general or humans specifically which might be unique to homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals which might be indicitive of their supporting role in reproduction?

 

Homosexuals do not pass on biological adaptations, strait people do. Effectively, all homosexuals have strait progenitors, and do not pass on adaptations. (Yes there are exceptions galore, but they are just that, exceptions) So, from a Biological perspective, homosexuality is a breeder adaptation, not a homosexual adaptation.

 

The simple fact that they prefer to mate with the same sex is what provides the support in reproduction. This trait is unique to homosexuals, and supports reproduction by freeing up resources that would otherwise be competed over for their offspring.

 

My premise works equally well for most Treckies as it does for most gays. Both groups relive pressure on breeders.

 

Trekies by living at home in their parents basement/attic/garage without girlfriends, thus relieving competitive housing and mating pressures from breeding pairs.

 

Gays by not breeding themselves, while still being productive members of society, thus freeing up breeding resources while still contributing to the rearing of offspring.

 

 

 

[GeneralLee]

It s a very closed-minded position to take to say that a poll is bigoted when that poll clearly allows for a vote of 'none of the above'.

 

I would tend to have to agree with that.