But when we’re talking about evolution, we’re talking about population groups as a whole. We can look at individual members, but at the end, we have to look at the population as a whole to determine whether a particular trait is adaptive or not. So, I’m not sure what you mean by “cannon fodder.” If you could separate out these non-scientific terms, it would make it clearer to me what you are saying.
Have you tried buying him a nice bottle of wine?
Note that I do not simply say “homosexuality is unnatural”. In this and countless other threads I share my belief that it is naturally occurring. So, address the above in it’s totality or don’t address it at all.
[/quote]
Sorry. I don’t buy your dodge. The very fact that you insist on getting into a discussion where you want to play with the term “natural” indicates that you are not making some esoteric semantic point. The words “natural” and “unnatural” have very strong connotations along with their denotations. Claiming that you are simply making in some esoteric semantic distinction while pretending that you have no intention of invoking the connotative value is not credible.
Even your actual disclaimer fails.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Homosexuality is unnatural, when the word is used to describe a use for something other than it’s primary one.
[/quote]
You choose to arbitrarily identify what the “primary” “use” might be without any actual support for your position. Humans use sexual relations for pair-bonding. Homosexuals pair-bond. There is nothing “unnatural” about that unless you want to pretend that there is some “primary” “use” that is limited to procreation.
(emphasis added, because you seem to need the assistance)
[/quote]
I read it correctly the first time. You appear to take some odd view that procreation is the only possible way to look at sexuality or that it is in some odd way so much more primary than pair-bonding that you can simply dismiss any references to pair-bonding. When you go into your “Bizarro World” dance, it simply reinforces the accuracy of my comments.
I find your attempt to dismiss that point to be an indication that its reality bothers you on some basic level.
You insist on harping on the idea that homosexuality is not “natural,” (with a fair amount of dancing around to pretend that your words have some meaning rather than the obvious one), and then you want to move the goalposts when it is pointed out that the phenomenon occurs in nature. The point was never that homosexuality occurs among an occasional species, thereby justifying it. If homosexuality only occurred among various selected species in the way that driving out dethroned alpha males occurs in some herd species or eating one’s young occurs in some species, you might be justified in dismissing that fact. The fact that it occurs in every primate species along with a number of other species across multiple classes indicates that it is not just some odd feature of random species that we should choose to not emulate. (Again, you are, regardless of your twisting, insisting on an argument over “natural” phenomena.)
Nope. I addressed the exact comparison you used in the context of this discussion. So back off on the claims of “fabrications” in Great Debates. I did not make any claim or insinuation that you were equating homosexuality or pedophilia. I noted that in the context of this discussion, revolving about what is “natural,” there is a clear distinction to be made between a phenomenon that occurs across multiple species and classes and a phenomenon that appears to occurring in exactly one species. Any inference you drew beyond that is your problem and is not what I posted.
There is no “shortcoming” unless you wish to pretend that pair-bonding has not already been well-established as a phenomenon of humanity. Continuing to treat an action that is not procreative as a “shortcoming” and continuing to defend the word “normal” as you have used it, is sending a clear message, despite your denials. As to your introduction of the word “normal” to the discussion and your later attempt to pretend that you are simply referring to statistical analysis: piffle. There is no “normal” in statistics. There is a “normal distribution,” but even if that was how you meant it, it is not how you expressed it and the connotation the word carries, especially when you use it without couching it in statistical terminology, is very different from what you now claim you mean.
Evolution doesn’t have a purpose, and evolution doesn’t define primary/secondary/etc. purposes for organs and structures.
Of course they are – and one of their purposes is definitely reproduction. But there are many other purposes, many of which are defined by individual people and not evolution.
Humans, in our present form, are obviously the result of evolution. This includes the penis, the vagina, and teh homosexuality.
There’s no argument to be found there to construe homosexuality as unnatural.
Other people have mentioned it, but I’ll add to the chorus – it’s really weird how much many anti-SSM and anti-gay folks focus on anal sex. Not only do many gay male couples practice other forms of sex, but lesbian couples obviously don’t do it at all.
I expect some lesbian couples practice anal sex. Some women do actually enjoy it.
Probably so. I don’t think this is the type of anal sex they’re talking about, though, when they bring up things like the “purpose” of the penis.
Meaning other theories somehow select for gayness, while the super-fecundity theory implies it’s a negative that simply isn’t critical enough to be selected against.
Yes that’s my meaning. And I do know that evolution can select for group benefit, BrightNShiny. The nature of homosexuality basically forces the pro-adaptation argument into that line. I just don’t find them very convincing in this case.
Again - what is the primary purpose of the mouth due to evolution?
One of your problems is that there aren’t a whole lot of psychologists out there who would describe homosexuality as either abnormal or unnatural.
I do agree with you on one point, which is that wether or not homosexuality is unnatural has no beating at all on wether it’s bad or not. Which is, of course, the whole point if this discussion: all sorts of shit is “natural” that we find abhorrent. It’s natural for some insects to eat their mates after procreating. It’s natural for lions to kill the cubs of other males. It’s natural for hamsters to eat their own young. If someone is assigning a moral value to the term “natural,” they need to explain why these sorts of common, natural behaviors are not also morally positive.
You, of course, are assigning no moral value to the term, as you regularly reassure us. Which is great, but you still seem to be using “unnatural” in a way that makes no sense. You’ve admitted that homosexuality is naturally occurring - but how can something that occurs naturally be unnatural? I’ve noticed in later posts that you’ve started using the word “normal” instead of “natural.” Is that the term you’ve meant to be defending all along? Because it has a very different meaning than “natural.”
But the use of the word “negative” implies a value judgment that’s being laid on top of evolutionary science. If we take the example of worker bees given earlier in the thread, is it a negative that worker bees don’t reproduce? Or, if we look at pack species, is it a negative that non-alphas are much less likely to reproduce? That some individuals are less likely to reproduce seems to be an adaptive strategy in a lot of species, so it’s possible that it’s an adaptive strategy in humans.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
And I do know that evolution can select for group benefit, BrightNShiny. The nature of homosexuality basically forces the pro-adaptation argument into that line. I just don’t find them very convincing in this case.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not “can.” At the end of the day, you must look at the population group as a whole, or you aren’t discussing evolution. You can start by looking at individual members, but if you don’t then go look at the population group as a whole, you are going to end up with meaningless results.
I don’t get why it’s so important to some gays to assert that it’s natural. Why not just admit it’s not the norm of nature but, hey, it’s fun. Who gives a shit?
Because, generally speaking, the people asserting that it’s unnatural care very intensely about gay sex, who’s having it, and how to make them stop.
I have not seen you use any word in its clinical sense, with the possible exception of deviant, but given your odd interpretations of natural and normal, it is understandable that some readers might conclude that your use of deviant is also not a clinical usages.
Because it is?
One extremely frequent argument against homosexuality is that it is “unnatural.” Noting that such an argument is without a basis in fact undercuts that attack, removing one argument from those who would legislate laws against homosexuality.
Let’s assume that by some definition of “natural”, homosexuality is unnatural.
So what? We already have whole legal structures based on things that are far less natural, like motor vehicles, so unnaturality in and of itself means nothing.
To be boring and flip it around; Why is it so important for some people to ask the question? I personally think it’s no less natural than many things, including heterosexuality/heterosexual sex. The reason I tend to argue the point rather than just leave it, though, is that oftentimes (as people have already said) the point behind the word is a “…and therefore it is bad.” one. Or a separation one. It’s unnatural, therefore it is bad. It’s not normal, therefore we needn’t cover it with the same protections. It isn’t worth arguing about so much for what the argument itself is, but what the argument often ends up being used to support.
That’s not true of all people, of course. I confess for my part, though, I don’t understand the non-homophobe reasons for bringing the question up, which seems to be a question of grammar and definitions. It really seems to get people’s goats that, to them, words like “natural” and “normal” are being used wrongly.
And just as an aside, using “admit” there is somewhat unpleasant. It seems to suggest that those who disagree with the point don’t actually disagree, but are trying to dodge or not answer the question. I disagree with the idea. Please don’t suggest, even inadvertently, that people like me are lying.