WOW and homo-/bisexuality

[sparhawk]

THey can't make informed decisions like humans, so for any other animal species homosexuality is a terrible genetic flaw, liable to wipe out a species if it was widespread enough.

 

If you consider ants or bees you can easily see that this is wrong. They have a queen which is responsible for putting the eggs to ensure the continuation of their branch. An ant society exists of a pretty large number of individuals but only a small part is acutally participating in the recreation process. So this means, that if homosexuallity were part of ant's social live, it would have basically ZERO consequence for the overall continutiation of a particular tribe, while it still may have a very positive impact on the social interaction. So even if the biggest part of an anthill would be homosexual (strange word for an ant to apply ) there would be no impact at all.

 

The fact still remains that it's a potentially fatal gentic disorder, and before humans came along, it was capable of killing all complex life on the planet.

 

Apes were along much longer than humans but they also exhibit homosexual behaviour. In fact you can see this in parctically ANY species, so saying that this only the humans saved earth from destruction because they could choose is quite ridicoulous.

 

You can't blame someone for having a genetic disorder, and I don't, but that doesn't mean I have to like the disease they're afflicted with, and I don't.

 

Disliking it is quite a different thing then saying they are diseased or dangeours, which you imply here. I also don't like homosexuality, and I certainly wouldn't like to be touched by a man. The very thought apalls me, but that doesn't mean that they are dangerous or wrong, because from their point of view, they may think the same about my view (and some even do) and I certainly wouldn't qualify them as disordered.

[oDDity]

If you consider ants or bees you can easily see that this is wrong. They have a queen which is responsible for putting the eggs to ensure the continuation of their branch. An ant society exists of a pretty large number of individuals but only a small part is acutally participating in the recreation process. So this means, that if homosexuallity were part of ant's social live, it would have basically ZERO consequence for the overall continutiation of a particular tribe, while it still may have a very positive impact on the social interaction. So even if the biggest part of an anthill would be homosexual (strange word for an ant to apply ) there would be no impact at all.

If none of them had any sexual interest in the opposite gender, then it would be as fatal for them as any other species.

If only a small number of any species are affected, then of course it is not a probelm, that is the same for any disease.

Apes were along much longer than humans but they also exhibit homosexual behaviour. In fact you can see this in parctically ANY species, so saying that this only the humans saved earth from destruction because they could choose is quite ridicoulous.

I didn't say that, I said if homosexuality affected an entire species of animal it would be fatal, except in humans, becasue we can break our programing and choose to have kids anyway.

Animals do not show homosexual behaviour, some show bisexual behaviour, which is a completely different thing, I wish you would stop confusing the two.

[sparhawk]

If none of them had any sexual interest in the opposite gender, then it would be as fatal for them as any other species.

If only a small number of any species are affected, then of course it is not a probelm.

 

I was saying just the opposite, which directly contradicts what you said before. Even if the bigegst part of the populoation would be homosexual it wouldn't even matter for the continuation of the tribe. It doesn't matter if this would be only one particular tribe or affecting all similar ant populations, because it would still be the same.

 

I didn't say that, I said if homosexuality affected an entire species of animal it would be fatal, except in humans, becasue we can break our programing and choose to have kids anyway.

 

Which is IMO quite wrong. We are not as free as you think we are, but at least we can entertain that notion.

 

Animals do not show homosexual behaviour, some show bisexual behaviour, which is a completely different thing, I wish you would stop confusing the two.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._gayanimal.html

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

 

This particular one you will like because it is along your line of reasoning. Even though it is full of logical fallacies and wrong assumptions I still list it because it is actually quite funny to read.

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

 

I can continue with listing of links which proove you wrong. just because we have some control and can choose certain things, unfortunately doesn't free us completely from it.

[oDDity]

You're not arguing againt what I've been saying, you're just emphasising my point.

Those links above about males bonding and ignoring the females prove that if homosexuailty was more widespread, animal populatons would suffer drastically. IT shows that homosexuality is aother one in the list of diseases which are meant to cull species and prevent overpopulation.

You're also not arguing against my point that humans are the only species where homosexuals can still choose to have children.

[OrbWeaver]

IT shows that homosexuality is aother one in the list of diseases which are meant to cull species and prevent overpopulation.

 

If it has evolved to prevent overpopulation and thus has a specific, positive impact upon the health of the species then is does not qualify as a "disease" by anyone's definition.

[sparhawk]

You're also not arguing against my point that humans are the only species where homosexuals can still choose to have children.

 

So you are saying that insects also can choose which way they prefer and 'lift' them on the same level as humans? Before you said that humans can do this as an excersise of an act of free will. Since this is observed down to the level even of insects, it would follow that insects can excersie the same free will and consciously choose to have or not have children.

 

http://news.ufl.edu/1999/10/20/beetle2/

[sparhawk]

If it has evolved to prevent overpopulation and thus has a specific, positive impact upon the health of the species then is does not qualify as a "disease" by anyone's definition.

 

This could be but I doubt it. There is no need for a mechanism to prevent overpopulation, because the availablillity of resources will limit this quite easily (among other things). Also this would need to explain how genes keep track of when overpopulation occurs. Unless you are saying that the brains somehow gets a program that kicks in if overpopulation is perceived.

This would mean that in highly packed areas like Hongkong, we should see a much higher rate of homosexuality, then in urban areas where the density is much lower. I'm not talking about absolute numbers though, as it would be quite obvious that the absolute number would be higher for sure.

[OrbWeaver]

This could be but I doubt it. There is no need for a mechanism to prevent overpopulation, because the availablillity of resources will limit this quite easily (among other things). Also this would need to explain how genes keep track of when overpopulation occurs. Unless you are saying that the brains somehow gets a program that kicks in if overpopulation is perceived.

 

I don't believe it myself - as I said previously I think that homosexuality is just an "acceptable margin of error" in the evolutionary mating "code".

 

I was merely pointing out that oDDity's suggestion that homosexuality had a role to play in preventing overpopulation was inconsistent with his previous suggestion that it is a "disease". If something doesn't harm the individual AND benefits the species in some way then it cannot be considered a disease at all.

[oDDity]

I said at the start that homosexualioty probably has no purpose at all, just like other genetic defects like colourblindlness.

IT's true populaiton control doesn't work as a reason, becaseu you'd have to have an overpopulated area continuously for a very long time for evolution to take it's course.

THe point is, that nature is not forward thinking, its not thinking at all, so defects like homosexuality coud obviosuly be very dangerous if it were more widespread. The fact that only a small number of people seem to be affected in any givne population was not planned, it's just the way it turned out, and that's pure luck.

I suppose if homosexuality had ever become an emidemic in any species, the animal species it affected would all have died out long ago.

Hey - maybe that's what really killed the dinosaurs, they all turned queer...

[OnionBob]

Homosexuality in itself is detremental, in large does it's completely fatal to a species.

Imagine of every lion born from now on was homosexual. THat would mean the end of their species, sicne they would no longer have the insinct or urge to mate with the opposite gender.

THey can't make informed decisions like humans, so for any other animal species homosexuality is a terrible genetic flaw, liable to wipe out a species if it was widespread enough.

In humans, as I've said, it is not so bad, since we can make decisions independant of our instinct, but that's just sheer luck as I've said, it just so happens that in one species out of all species on the planet, homosexuality has a lesser effect, because that species has a way to overcome it.

The fact still remains that it's a potentially fatal gentic disorder, and before humans came along, it was capable of killing all complex life on the planet.

YOu're trying to imply I'm homophobic, but I can distinguish homosexuality from the homosexuals it affects. You can't blame someone for having a genetic disorder, and I don't, but that doesn't mean I have to like the disease they're afflicted with, and I don't.

 

 

That stuff about the lions betrays another widely held myth, that somehow a social acceptance of homosexuality in some way endangers heterosexual boundaries and relationships, and that if we are "too accepting" of homosexuality it will just take over. If you truly believe that homosexuality is entirely genetic, how could it possibly become as "widespread" as you describe? No new lions would be being produced with what you describe as the "flaw". It's complete lunacy.

 

My accusation of your homophobia is based entirely on your constant insistence on making a value judgement on homosexuality which is not based on anything but complete nonsense (and also your constant employment of horrifically offensive terms and phrases, hurriedly qualified with "WELL THAT'S NOT ME SAYING THAT UHH THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT IN THE PAST"). So far you have not convincingly persuaded me that homosexuality is anything but just another feature of human embodiment. If the basis of its being a "genetic flaw" is simply that "if everyone was homosexual life would stop" it's time for you to completely reassess your position. That simply isn't the case, it's not "luck" that only a small percentage of people are homosexual; if you believe that it is a genetic condition then it's built into the very structure of evolution as you are supposed to understand and espouse it (but I am increasingly convinced that you do not). If homosexuality were entirely genetic, it would be impossible for it ever to become a prevalent mode of embodiment because it could not propagate. You say that homosexuality has no "purpose" in evolution, but evolution is not a purpose-driven system. Nothing has a "purpose" in evolution, but evolution is often remapped onto narratives of western progress, which have a teleological end point to which there is a conscious control and acceleration. If it is cultural, then your entire appeal to evolution is completely and fundamentally irrelevant. Either way, as far as I can see your entire argument falls apart.

[sparhawk]

The fact that only a small number of people seem to be affected in any givne population was not planned, it's just the way it turned out, and that's pure luck.

 

Actually it's most likely NOT luck. It certainly is more the reason that you mentioned. If the populations becomes homosexual in majority, it probably woudl die out, so there is a tendency to not let it go wild because individuals that have not that trait would be favoured in such a case.

 

I suppose if homosexuality had ever become an emidemic in any species, the animal species it affected would all have died out long ago.

 

Yes. That's what I mean.

 

Hey - maybe that's what really killed the dinosaurs, they all turned queer...

 

LOL!

 

BTW: Is 'queer' another word for gay? I heard that in "The Wall", but I always though it means kind of "strange". Guess I should look it up in a dictionary.

[oDDity]

It used to mean strange, like gay used to mean happy and carefree, but they've both since been hijacked to mean homosexual.

I'm sure there a a great many words for it in German like there are in English.

My favourite is sausage-jockey.

[OrbWeaver]

BTW: Is 'queer' another word for gay? I heard that in "The Wall", but I always though it means kind of "strange". Guess I should look it up in a dictionary.

 

It means both, although these days you would get some funny looks if you used "queer" to mean "strange".

 

Actually "gay" itself used not to have anything to do with homosexuality, it used to mean "happy".

[OnionBob]

It used to mean strange, like gay used to mean happy and carefree, but they've both since been hijacked to mean homosexual.

I'm sure there a a great many words for it in German like there are in English.

My favourite is sausage-jockey.

 

 

Do you know anything about how language works? It is impossible to "hijack" a word. A word means simply whatever most people believe it to mean. There is no point in the life of any language where it was at a stage at which it was "perfect". Language changes daily, and despite stabilisations necessary for formal writing, these changes are not imposed from above, below, or anywhere else, but develop as the need for new words or semantic shifts arises. The dictionary, for instance, does not prescribe the meanings of words, it is a descriptive document of a general concensus. The word "gay" used to mean one thing, and now it means something else. It was not hijacked, life has just changed. A hundred years ago a "computer" was generally understood to mean any person involved in the analysis or interpretation of data. That doesn't mean that our understanding of the term "computer" is wrong today, just that its meaning has changed. In fact if anything, the old terms are "less correct" due to their almost total irrelevance in contemporary society.

 

By the way, did you know that Alan Turing was gay? I wonder if he had been straight, and spent his time procreating and raising kids, whether he would have still theorised the universal turing machine which became the basis for almost all microprocessors, including of course the computer you are using right now.

Edited February 28, 2006 by OnionBob

[oDDity]

If the basis of its being a "genetic flaw" is simply that "if everyone was homosexual life would stop" it's time for you to completely reassess your position. That simply isn't the case, it's not "luck" that only a small percentage of people are homosexual; if you believe that it is a genetic condition then it's built into the very structure of evolution as you are supposed to understand and espouse it (but I am increasingly convinced that you do not). If homosexuality were entirely genetic, it would be impossible for it ever to become a prevalent mode of embodiment because it could not propagate.

 

It's not necessary that every child of every parent would be affected by the gene, they could have it but not be affected and pass it on, this is how it could still be spread widely even though it prevents affected carriers from reproducing.

If 9 out of 10 of every parent's children had the gene and were affected by it, and 1 out of 10 got the gene, but weren't affected but passed it on to their children, then it would still do serious damage to the species.

It could still spread so widely that the remaining members of the species would not be wiped out entorely, but would be left tottering on the brink.

 

THe idea that someone brought up in a heavily homophobic society, where it's taught that it's a sin against god and they'll go to hell for it, it's evil, disgusting, they'll be ostracised from their community and family for doing it etc, can choose to be homosexual, or somehow become homosexual in childhood, or even contemplate homosexuality, is the only lunatic argument here.

THe only reasonable answer is that they are born homosexual, they have no input into their sexuality whatsoever, so no matter how homophobic the society they are raised in, they still know they are homosexual, and most of them say they knew they were homosexual from a very early age.

The only answer is genetics. Nature, not nurture.

I believe bisexuality can be either/or, but pure homsexuality can only be nature.

[oDDity]

Do you know anything about how language works? It is impossible to "hijack" a word. A word means simply whatever most people believe it to mean. There is no point in the life of any language where it was at a stage at which it was "perfect". Language changes daily, and despite stabilisations necessary for formal writing, these changes are not imposed from above, below, or anywhere else, but develop as the need for new words or semantic shifts arises. The dictionary, for instance, does not prescribe the meanings of words, it is a descriptive document of a general concensus. The word "gay" used to mean one thing, and now it means something else. It was not hijacked, life has just changed. A hundred years ago a "computer" was generally understood to mean any person involved in the analysis or interpretation of data. That doesn't mean that our understanding of the term "computer" is wrong today, just that its meaning has changed. In fact if anything, the old terms are "less correct" due to their almost total irrelevance in contemporary society.

I'd still prefer new words to be introduced for homosexuals, rather than hijacking existing ones. And they have been hijacked, becasue they are now used exclusively to mean homosexual, the old meanings have virtually vanished.

Now instead of two words that meant two different thngs, you now have two words which mean the same thing.

WHat happened was that homos stared using gay to refer to themselves, and of course, once normal people relaised it was being used in this context, they didn't want to use it in it's old meaning any more. THe word became dirty and sullied by homosexuals using it for their own nefarious purposes..

THat's why I say it was hjacked.

 

By the way, did you know that Alan Turing was gay? I wonder if he had been straight, and spent his time procreating and raising kids, whether he would have still theorised the universal turing machine which became the basis for almost all microprocessors, including of course the computer you are using right now.

Yeah, like no one else would have ever invented microprocessors if he hadn't existed.

It doesn't work like that.

Science is just about who thinks of something first, or completes their reseach first. THe other people who had the same ideas but came second or thrid, you never hear of them, only the guy who came first.

[OrbWeaver]

Science is just about who thinks of something first, or completes their reseach first. THe other people who had the same ideas but came second or thrid, you never hear of them, only the guy who came first.

 

Many people don't understand that. I was once discussing what a load of crap Freud's pseudoreligious psychology "theories" are, and my colleague responded "but Freud invented the field of psychology".

 

True, but it would still have been invented by somebody else if he hadn't got there first.

[oDDity]

Yes, and in fact, for all we know if Turing hadn't existed, someone might have had a different idea, which would have gained the most acceptance, and turned out to be even better, so we would have had even better computers today, instead of the weak ones we have, all becasue of that queer Turing and his stupid ideas

It works both ways.

[sparhawk]

Actually current computers are built upon a von Neumann architecture. I'm not aware that Turing was famous for building computers, because I always associate him with computer science in the theoretic field, not neccessarily abuot construction. The famous Turing test itself has no consequence on how computers are built.

[Fingernail]

Being potentially frightened of homosexuality polluting a species and wiping it out is incorrect for these simple reasons:

 

a ) if they're gay, how will they infect their "children"? - if we work to create a more specific society, they won't feel the need to marry or have children in the traditional way.

b ) if it's genetic, how will they infect you or me? We can carry on being as straight as we like, right, because we were born that way. So we can have kids and our kids (some of whom may be straight, after all - I mean, how will the gays stop that happening?) will have kids.

c ) if it's passed down a female line without affecting them, explain lesbianism. Oh wait, I imagine here you'll retreat to the typical heterosexual male fantasy that all women are bisexual anyway.

d ) if millions upon millions of sperm are fired off at one randomly selected female egg, what are the chances that it will be gay, even if all the straight people suddenly die one day? Believe it or not, it's very possible to have genes from your great-grandparents or beyond. Not every child from a so-called gay-carrying woman would be gay themselves, just the same as brothers have different coloured hair or eyes.

e ) even if all men did became gay (since we totally seem to be ignoring women in this discussion), there's enough sperm in sperm banks to guarantee the survival of the species, which means that straight and gay men would still be born, since after all, it's determined by nature, right?

 

Therefore in many ways working to create a more permissive society will in fact defend AGAINST your dreaded gay domination (olol), because fewer men will repress their feelings and have kids anyway, which you say is common. Of course, people who are gay will always be born, as will people who are straight.

 

And remember, as long as there are women who have kids, how can the race ever die out? It's evidently not a dominant gene or we'd see much more of it around - so for any number of babies born (and when will this stop happening?), the vast majority will be heterosexually inclined anyway.

 

It's just... I can't even begin to describe how moronic being concerned about the threat of this "disease" is. It's like worrying the sky will fall on your head.

 

And this is just using your own "genetic" argument which I don't even believe. Essentially I think your argument is unfounded and the tenets upon which it is based are discreditable.

[OrbWeaver]

Oh wait, I imagine here you'll retreat to the typical heterosexual male fantasy that all women are bisexual anyway.

 

Aren't they? I can't remember the last time I snogged another man or shared a bath with one.

[sparhawk]

e ) (since we totally seem to be ignoring women in this discussion)

 

I would say that most effects would be the same for lesbian womans as for gay man. It's just shorter to write gay then include lesbian explicitly, and probably women are also ignored in this dicsussion because many are man here.

[sparhawk]

I can't remember the last time I snogged another man or shared a bath with one.

 

Me either.

[oDDity]

It's just... I can't even begin to describe how moronic being concerned about the threat of this "disease" is. It's like worrying the sky will fall on your head.

Who's concerned aout it? I never even think about it, I'm just arguing it here because it happens to be the topic of the thread. I've never even met a gay as far as I know, there are no openly gay people where I live, not unless they wanted their face rearranged without anesthetic..

If you'd been reading the thread instead of wanking yourself, you'd have seen that I wasn't saying this might happen in humans, I was saying if it happened in an animal species it would be fatal.

And this is just using your own "genetic" argument which I don't even believe.

Right, so you beleive people choose their sexual preference do you?

[Fingernail]

No, I think it's most likely a combination of nature and nurture. Some people will be more prone to developing homosexual tendencies than others, to a greater or lesser extent.

 

I also believe that there is no absolute GAY or STRAIGHT label, and that everyone falls within a scale. It's only the society by which we're conditioned which encourages people to couple up for life (or at least extended periods) with men or women.

 

Not to say that this is wrong or unnatural, of course, since I also think that it would be fairly reprehensible to move from harem to harem of women and men in a totally bisexual and consequence-free manner. That's just selfish.