This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Tartonga
That's the end of the argument then, if you're going to concede that!
But only in the sense that they can't breed. Remember that excutorvqk said:
Biologically speaking
homosexuality defeats the entire purpose of having a relationship or feeling love. Thus it is an imperfection, I'm not talking about society or peoples views on it I'm talking about it from a basic biological standpoint
Which is completely wrong, in my opinion, since the entire of purpose of having a relationship is not just to breed and it doesn't impede homosexuals of feeling love.
Did you not read what the Oedipus Complex is before you brought it up?
I had to study it. And your base example has nothing to do with it, lol.
Post by
Squishalot
Which is completely wrong, in my opinion, since the entire of purpose of having a relationship is not just to breed
Arguable.
I had to study it. And your base example has nothing to do with it, lol.
I know Wiki is a bad place to quote from, but I don't have any other resources close to hand, and I'm a bit busy at work:
Freud argued that children then passed through a stage
in which they fixated on the mother as a sexual object
(known as the Oedipus Complex) but that the child eventually overcame and repressed this desire because of its taboo nature.
Does that make it clearer for you?
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Keep sexual attraction and relationships separate. Sexual attraction (i.e. the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality) exists to encourage animals to propogate. Relationships may exist to fill social desires, but are not necessarily gender specific.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
vgk was arguing that homosexuality = imperfect, because they're not conducive for baby making, which defeats the purpose of a relationship.
Tartonga was arguing that relationships aren't just for babymaking.
I was saying that Tartonga's argument is subjective.
In response to you, I was saying that homosexuality is being sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. I, as a heterosexual male, can still want to
raise
kids with other male friends of mine. However, I will still have a biological desire to
make
kids with females. That's where I'm distinguishing between the desire for a relationship and the desire to have sexual interactions.
Post by
Jubilee
In response to you, I was saying that homosexuality is being sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. I, as a heterosexual male, can still want to
raise
kids with other male friends of mine. However, I will still have a biological desire to
make
kids with females. That's where I'm distinguishing between the desire for a relationship and the desire to have sexual interactions.
But I don't have a biological desire to "
make
kids" with females. That doesn't even make sense. Shouldn't you further distinguish the desire to have sexual interactions with the one you love and the desire to
have
children?
Post by
Skreeran
What I don't understand is why anyone would use evolutionary principles to guide morality in the first place. Lots of unfair and immoral things are evolutionarily successful. Yes, we arrived at our morality through evolution (specifically the fact that humans evolved in smallish family groups), but that doesn't mean we should use evolution to determine what is moral. I don't think anyone would argue that eugenics is moral, even though it's designed to prune out imperfections in the human race.
On top of that, the evolutionary argument against homosexuality is totally self-defeating. As an individual, you are responsible for your genes, and your genes alone. Why would you argue that homosexuality is wrong because
other people
aren't propagating their genes (which are competing against yours, by the way) to the fullest extent.
Post by
Squishalot
In response to you, I was saying that homosexuality is being sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. I, as a heterosexual male, can still want to
raise
kids with other male friends of mine. However, I will still have a biological desire to
make
kids with females. That's where I'm distinguishing between the desire for a relationship and the desire to have sexual interactions.
But I don't have a biological desire to "
make
kids" with females. That doesn't even make sense. Shouldn't you further distinguish the desire to have sexual interactions with the one you love and the desire to
have
children?
The biological desire is to engage in sexual interactions. In a heterosexual individual, the biological imperative is to make children. The fact that it doesn't make sense in homosexuals is the argument that vgk was trying to make - that's precisely why it's 'imperfect'.
The desire to
have
children is also biologically driven, but I'm not linking it at all to the biological imperative to make children. In biology, there are different hormones regulating the desires of making and having children. I'm only arguing on behalf of the former.
On top of that, the evolutionary argument against homosexuality is totally self-defeating. As an individual, you are responsible for your genes, and your genes alone. Why would you argue that homosexuality is wrong because other people aren't propagating their genes (which are competing against yours, by the way) to the fullest extent.
Why do animals abandon / kill off weaker members of the pack?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
Why do animals abandon / kill off weaker members of the pack?Well, for one thing, I'm going to need to know which instance you're talking about to give you an explanation.
A mother pig might kill and eat the runt of her litter because it does not have a very high chance of surviving to reproduce, while its sacrifice will help its siblings chance of survival by providing their mother with richer milk.
A male lion who wants to court a lioness might kill her cubs so that she'll be driven to want to reproduce again.
Both cases are common in nature, both cases are evolutionarily reasonable, and both cases would be immoral if applied to humans.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm thinking of it in the mother pig instance.
I'm not trying to say that it's moral, I'm just suggesting (as devil's advocate) that it's a plausible evolutionary argument for it.
Question: Why is it immoral to kill a weak human, but not immoral to kill a weak pig?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
The biological desire is to engage in sexual interactions. In a heterosexual individual, the biological imperative is to make children. The fact that it doesn't make sense in homosexuals is the argument that vgk was trying to make - that's precisely why it's 'imperfect'.
The desire to
have
children is also biologically driven, but I'm not linking it at all to the biological imperative to make children. In biology, there are different hormones regulating the desires of making and having children. I'm only arguing on behalf of the former.
What it all comes down to though is that humans don't engage in sexual interaction indiscriminately. If the biological imperative as you call it was all that mattered then no one would be using contraceptives nor performing abortions and would be having non-stop sex. As advanced intellectual animals we have been able to separate the act of sex from the act of baby making, inventing casual sex in the process. Heterosexual couples have casual sex, and most of the time they specifically don't want to have children. Gay couples also have casual sex, but as a plus we don't need to use protection or contraceptives to not make a baby. When a heterosexual couple wants to have a baby they will try to have a baby. For them that involves sex, just unprotected this time. If a gay couple wants to have a baby, it involves more complicated things, but it's still an active choice apart from what would be casual sex.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm thinking of it in the mother pig instance.
I'm not trying to say that it's moral, I'm just suggesting (as devil's advocate) that it's a plausible evolutionary argument for it.
Question: Why is it immoral to kill a weak human, but not immoral to kill a weak pig?Because my principle of what is moral and what is not come from a desire to prevent harm, not what is evolutionarily best for my genes.
A mother pig does not have the intelligence we do, and when she eats her child, she is doing so out of instinct, programmed entirely by evolution. Why the foundation of our morality came from evolution, our higher intelligence allows us to make decisions and be held responsible for those decisions, rather than robotically obeying instinct.
Post by
Squishalot
Because my principle of what is moral and what is not come from a desire to prevent harm, not what is evolutionarily best for my genes.
Taking a piglet's life doesn't count as 'harm'?
What it all comes down to though is that humans don't engage in sexual interaction indiscriminately. If the biological imperative as you call it was all that mattered then no one would be using contraceptives nor performing abortions and would be having non-stop sex. As advanced intellectual animals we have been able to separate the act of sex from the act of baby making, inventing casual sex in the process. Heterosexual couples have casual sex, and most of the time they specifically don't want to have children. Gay couples also have casual sex, but as a plus we don't need to use protection or contraceptives to not make a baby. When a heterosexual couple wants to have a baby they will try to have a baby. For them that involves sex, just unprotected this time. If a gay couple wants to have a baby, it involves more complicated things, but it's still an active choice apart from what would be casual sex.
I agree that it's not all that matters. The fact that we consciously make decisions, however, doesn't change the fact that a particular biological trait may be imperfect. If sterility is an imperfection, how is that different from a person who chooses to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation? Just because we're making conscious decisions doesn't mean all decisions we make are biologically 'perfect'.
Post by
Jubilee
Just because we're making conscious decisions doesn't mean all decisions we make are biologically 'perfect'.
Not at all, but when you break it down gays are making the exact same decisions as heterosexuals: the choice to have casual sex and the choice to have children.
Post by
Squishalot
Just because we're making conscious decisions doesn't mean all decisions we make are biologically 'perfect'.
Not at all, but when you break it down gays are making the exact same decision as
some
heterosexuals.
Fixed, noting that there are plenty who don't go down the casual / contraceptive sex path.
And arguably, given the proliferance of STDs, the ones who do go down the casual sex path are themselves following an imperfect path.
Post by
Jubilee
Fixed, noting that there are plenty who don't go down the casual / contraceptive sex path.
The ones who choose not to have casual sex made a decision too =P It's still a decision both can make
Post by
Squishalot
Fixed, noting that there are plenty who don't go down the casual / contraceptive sex path.
The ones who choose not to have casual sex made a decision too =P It's still a decision both can make
And you will inevitably find people who will argue that one decision is more right than the other. Biologically, heterosexuality is more in line with what evolution designed us to be, noting that homosexuals naturally achieve a state that heterosexuals have to adjust to get to (contraceptives).
Post by
Jubilee
That same evolution though gave us the very intelligence that allows us to make the decision. Isn't it blind to only focus on one aspect of a species evolution?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
