Why so few homosexuals?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

Maybe I should change the words "for the majority of humans on the planet" to something like "for many people on the planet" or even "large numbers of people in the modern western world". The point--in the context of the discussion I am having with Vort relative to perceptions about sexual activity vs. murder--is that the perception I described is only a single factor that could begin to account for why people might have an easier time not being as bothered. It wasn't meant to address your opinions in any way, if that means anything to you. :)  

I don't really care if it was addressing me or not.  The point remains, modern society has cheapened sex.  It has become throw-away and consequently people do not see sex-out of wedlock as a bid deal anymore.  It was certainly a much bigger deal 50-75 years ago. But today, b/c we are so inundated with it-no one really cares anymore-including members of the Church.

Today no-one cares about what Proverbs says:

Proverbs 31:10-31King James Version (KJV)

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Negativo.  You are obviously not up to date on the latest demographic changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate.

In order to reproduce, the fertility rate needs to be @ 2.1.  The US and most of the industrialized, modern, western world is below re-population rate.  While this won't manifest itself for a while, there is a big problem. The world's repopulation rate sits @ 2.36 and projections are within my lifetime total world re-population rate will fall below 2.1.

This is a huge problem for societies and cultures. Probably the first time in world history that humans will voluntarily ensure the next generation is smaller than the current generation. Statistics also point out that once a society falls below re-population rate, it is very hard for it to recover. This is b/c it is a very long cycle problem (i.e. about 70+ years). It takes about 40 years before a country that has lower than 2.1 rate to actually notice a population decline barring immigration. That's another 40 years that people will voluntarily have less children.  Then in order to reverse the decline, societal attitudes towards children, families, child-rearing etc. have to change.  That also takes time; so by the time those attitudes actually change and then people start actually more having babies (which again is a limited time window up until ~35 for women as pregnancies become high-risk after that age) put on another 10-15 years. So for a society to voluntarily reverse a below repopulation rate and then to subsequently see the population rise again requires probably somewhere 70-100 years. Russia dropped below re-population rate in 1966. Since then they have only bounced about it for about 2-3 years in the last 50 years. They didn't start to see their population decline until 1993-they sit at about 1.8. They have major structural demographic problems, just like the US does.  This does not bode well for the industrialized world at all.

And I think you aren't paying enough attention to get the point. You could nuke most of the planet and it wouldn't matter. We're not talking demographics here. We're talking how Nature works to perpetuate *any* species. And if the human species dies out, it still doesn't matter to the way Nature works. 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Creatures don't survive as a species. It isn't about individual creatures.

This unvarnished truism about evolution is not well-understood by many, perhaps most, people. God cares about individuals. Nature does not.

Homosexuality has been institutionalized in many societies, ancient and modern (though, significantly, homosexual "marriage" has not). The ancient Greeks are famous (or infamous) today for their openly homosexual attitudes. Clearly, in a society with institutionalized and well-structured pederasty, homosexual conduct is more nurture than nature; nevertheless, the point is that homosexuality per se may not be as much of a reproductive negative as we sometimes think.

As I wrote before, the primary and most convincing arguments against acceptance of homosexual "marriage" are all morally based, though not necessarily religiously based. Note that nature also does not care about "society" or "civilization" or "happiness" or any such construct; all that counts with nature is reproducing and allowing the offspring to reach maturity and reproduce, continuing the cycle.

Moral: We don't want a lifestyle based primarily on what is natural. We want all sorts of artifices that help construct a state we call "happiness". Arguing against homosexuality based on what's "natural" is a losing proposition.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

This unvarnished truism about evolution is not well-understood by many, perhaps most, people. God cares about individuals. Nature does not. Homosexuality has been institutionalized in many societies, ancient and modern (though, significantly, homosexual "marriage" has not). The ancient Greeks are famous (or infamous) today for their openly homosexual attitudes. Clearly, in a society with institutionalized and well-structured pederasty, the homosexual conduct is more nature than nurture; nevertheless, the point is that homosexuality per se may not be as much of a reproductive negative as we sometimes think.

As I wrote before, the primary and most convincing arguments against acceptance of homosexual "marriage" are all morally based, though not necessarily religiously based. Note that nature also does not care about "society" or "civilization" or "happiness" or any such construct; all that counts with nature is reproducing and allowing the offspring to reach maturity and reproduce, continuing the cycle.

Moral: We don't want a lifestyle based primarily on what is natural. We want all sorts of artifices that help construct a state we call "happiness". Arguing against homosexuality based on what's "natural" is a losing proposition.

Thank you. As usual your way of putting it is probably more effective than my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mike said:

And I think you aren't paying enough attention to get the point. You could nuke most of the planet and it wouldn't matter. We're not talking demographics here. We're talking how Nature works to perpetuate *any* species. And if the human species dies out, it still doesn't matter to the way Nature works. 

Considering that the Earth was made for man not the other way around, I think it is very important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Considering that the Earth was made for man not the other way around, I think it is very important.

I don't argue against (and at no point have intended to argue against) that statement. However that statement illustrates why your contributions to this thread and my contributions to this thread have nothing at all to do with one another, and why both of us are wasting our time and energy responding to one another's posts. I wish you all the best. 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

This unvarnished truism about evolution is not well-understood by many, perhaps most, people. God cares about individuals. Nature does not. Homosexuality has been institutionalized in many societies, ancient and modern (though, significantly, homosexual "marriage" has not). The ancient Greeks are famous (or infamous) today for their openly homosexual attitudes. Clearly, in a society with institutionalized and well-structured pederasty, the homosexual conduct is more nature than nurture; nevertheless, the point is that homosexuality per se may not be as much of a reproductive negative as we sometimes think.

As I wrote before, the primary and most convincing arguments against acceptance of homosexual "marriage" are all morally based, though not necessarily religiously based. Note that nature also does not care about "society" or "civilization" or "happiness" or any such construct; all that counts with nature is reproducing and allowing the offspring to reach maturity and reproduce, continuing the cycle.

Moral: We don't want a lifestyle based primarily on what is natural. We want all sorts of artifices that help construct a state we call "happiness". Arguing against homosexuality based on what's "natural" is a losing proposition.

I don't know that I fully agree with this. It is a hard argument to make, though I think there is one if one really tried, but the embrace of homosexuality is harmful. Arguments that there is nothing harmful about it can only be made if one is willing to disregard statistics. The natural state of the embrace of homosexuality will be just exactly what happened to the Greek empire. Society will fall. It may not be an obvious, direct causality. But that doesn't make it any less 'naturally' harmful in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't know that I fully agree with this. It is a hard argument to make, though I think there is one if one really tried, but the embrace of homosexuality is harmful. Arguments that there is nothing harmful about it can only be made if one is willing to disregard statistics. The natural state of the embrace of homosexuality will be just exactly what happened to the Greek empire. Society will fall. It may not be an obvious, direct causality. But that doesn't make it any less 'naturally' harmful in the end.

Not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing against homosexuality being portrayed as harmful. Clearly, I think it is harmful. I simply do not believe it is "unnatural", and I don't think you will win any discussions or convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you by taking that position. There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, any more than there is something unnatural about forcible rape or beating up people you don't like. In fact, I would say that homosexual behavior is a blatant manifestation of the natural man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vort said:

Not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing against homosexuality being portrayed as harmful. 

I wasn't trying to say that. I think my perception was more related to "how" it is harmful.

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I simply do not believe it is "unnatural", and I don't think you will win any discussions or convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you by taking that position. There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, any more than there is something unnatural about forcible rape or beating up people you don't like. In fact, I would say that homosexual behavior is a blatant manifestation of the natural man.

Well that just comes down to what one means by "unnatural". I think it slightly disingenuous to take what someone means when they say something, change the meaning, and then argue that their point holds no water.

For example, President Kimball taught concerning sexual relationships within marriage:

“If it is unnatural, you just don’t do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 312).

Are we to reply, "Well, sin and corruption are natural, therefore he must have meant that anything goes in marriage!"

Obviously not. That is not what he meant when he said unnatural. Neither, do I believe, when people talk about homosexuality being unnatural do I think they are meaning the same thing as your reply infers upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had a chance to look at possible responses to my last argument, though I will do so in due course--hopefully sooner than later. In the interim, here is the next installment to mull over:

The second argument from nature against homosexuality: evolution and reproduction

·         Science has estimated that: “More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species,[4] that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct.[5][6] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million,[7][8 .” Billions of species have become extinct because of a variety of reasons: destruction of habitat, toxicity, disease, etc. Millions of species have survived for at least one key reason, if not the only reason: evolution.  Evolution facilitates adaption and fitness of an organism/species, “which enables or enhances the probability of that organism [/species] surviving and reproducing.[17] Thus one of the laws of nature is, evolve or perish, evolve and survive.

·         Evolution entails four mechanisms: mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection. (see HERE) However, these mechanisms only work when they occur over multiple generations. They each require reproduction (ibid). Therefore, another law of nature is reproduce or don’t evolve.

·         Homosexuality is a non-reproductive lifestyle. As such, it defies the natural law of evolution. It is contra-evolutionary—i.e. it is maladaptive and unfit, and at risk of extinction. This helps explain why there are so few homosexuals in the human population, and gives justification for viewing homosexuality as undesirable, and thus abnormal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For example, President Kimball taught concerning sexual relationships within marriage:

“If it is unnatural, you just don’t do it. That is all, and all the family life should be kept clean and worthy and on a very high plane. There are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 312).

Are we to reply, "Well, sin and corruption are natural, therefore he must have meant that anything goes in marriage!"

Obviously not. That is not what he meant when he said unnatural. Neither, do I believe, when people talk about homosexuality being unnatural do I think they are meaning the same thing as your reply infers upon it.

That is my point. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" is wrong. The only way it's right is if YOU redefine "natural" to mean "godly" or something like that. I do not know what President Kimball meant by "natural", but I have yet to see a definition of "natural" under which his teaching makes sense. It's possible that "natural" had a different, widely understood meaning then. If so, then (at least to my knowledge) that meaning no longer holds today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mike said:

It seems to me, Wade, this sentence takes you down a dead end. Creatures don't survive as a species. It isn't about individual creatures. For no other reason than emphasis let me say it this way: Nature doesn't "care" about you, nor about me, nor about Bob and Ted, nor about Alice and Carol. Nature only cares about the human species in general; and the human species is doing just fine reproducing and perpetuating the species. So Nature has nothing to worry about. 

 

To me, with nature, it isn't so much about "caring" (since that is personification), but rather it is a matter of how things work. That is why I spoke in terms of laws. And,  as I went on to explain, the law of "reproduce or perish" operates at various levels, from nature as a whole, to species, to groups or families within species, to the individual creatures (I have since edit this clarification into the sentence). So, I am not seeing the "dead end" (I caught the pun, whether intended or not). 

Perhaps you could explain further.

Quote

Again, I think you are drawing an unwarranted conclusion about a lifestyle being non-reproductive. The same could be said about urinating with an organ that is "meant" (?) for ejaculating sperm. But all Nature cares about is that the reproductive organs work well enough, and enough creatures survive to perpetuate the species. A homosexual male creature can still get horny enough to rape a female and thereby get with the "program"--Nature doesn't care. 

I think you are reading way more into the argument than intended. The first argument from nature focuses solely on whether the creature/species/etc.reproduces or not, and not on how the creature uses reproductive organs. The later will be examined in an argument I will yet make..

Also, please keep in mind the intent of the argument, which is 2-fold: explain why there are so few homosexuals in the human population, and establish that homosexuality is abnormal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is my point. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" is wrong. The only way it's right is if YOU redefine "natural" to mean "godly" or something like that. I do not know what President Kimball meant by "natural", but I have yet to see a definition of "natural" under which his teaching makes sense. It's possible that "natural" had a different, widely understood meaning then. If so, then (at least to my knowledge) that meaning no longer holds today.

Not sure whether I agree or disagree.  Speaking from a strictly secular perspective, "natural" might be defined as any attribute possessed by organisms that have resulted from evolutionary processes.  Does homosexual activity have such attributes?

Well, given that organisms are driven by the need to survive and reproduce, an aversion to reproductive sex looks to me like something that runs counter to normal biological processes.  (I know others have made this point.)  While homosexuality apologists often point to homosexual behavior in animals as evidence that such behavior is natural, what they often leave out is that this behavior is generally observed in animals that are in captivity, which isn't "natural" by the above definition anyway.

Also, and I'll put this as delicately as I can, certain homosexual acts involve certain body parts that are not suited to the purpose (The word of the day is prolapse).  So clearly, if you believe that evolution brought us to the bodies we have, then we're not evolved to engage in certain acts, or those organs would work better.  So, by the definition above, it's an unnatural act to take.

My take on it is this:  There are few homosexuals in the population because the desire to mate with others of the same sex is a malfunction of some kind, because it leads the organism to take actions that undermine its ability to have its genetics continue into future generations.  In every other case I can think of when an organism is born with traits that inhibit its ability to reproduce, we would call that an abnormality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" is wrong. The only way it's right is if YOU redefine "natural" to mean "godly" or something like that.

I disagree. I believe the word "unnatural" can reasonably be defined to mean: "against nature--e.g. discordant with the laws and order of nature."  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is my point. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" is wrong. The only way it's right is if YOU redefine "natural" to mean "godly" or something like that. I do not know what President Kimball meant by "natural", but I have yet to see a definition of "natural" under which his teaching makes sense. It's possible that "natural" had a different, widely understood meaning then. If so, then (at least to my knowledge) that meaning no longer holds today.

I guess it does hold with some. :) But your point is understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how well this is going.

Your first post basically comes across as -- "homosexuality -- because it takes an individual out of the breeding pool -- is clearly maladaptive." I'm not sure that anyone will disagree with you on this point.

Your second seems to be an extension of the same idea.

My main reaction to your essay so far -- (at the risk of being rude) well,, duh! Assuming homosexuality is heritable (even if we don't yet have any real grasp on the mechanism of inheritance), it is fairly clear that it is maladaptive, so naturally it will exist at low levels in the population.

We often say that the more we learn, the more we see that we have to learn. You've fairly clearly established that homosexuality is maladaptive, and I don't think there is much argument to be had there. This raises some interesting questions. Why is the trait still present at all in the population? Is this trait trending towards extinction or not? If it is not extinct and not trending toward extinction, what are the mechanisms that keep the trait present at low levels in the population?

Some possible parallel examples: Sickle cell anemia and the discussion of heterozygote advantage. Cystic fibrosis could be interesting, because there does not seem to be any consensus on any kind of advantage that this allele could bring, but it still persists. Another interesting case study could be the evolution of "social" animals (like bees and ants) where there are relatively few members of a group that breed and several that are asexual. What are the mechanisms that keep these "maladaptations" present in a population?

I am not sure what direction you are planning to take this. It seems to me that, without some discussion of the mechanisms that keep maladaptive traits present (even at low levels) in a population, and being able to definitively show that there is no mechanism that keeps homosexuality present in the population, your argument is going to end up being the "meh" argument that homosexuality is maladaptive, which, I don't think, anyone is going to really argue against. We can barely explain why CF is still present in the population, even though we have a solid understandings of the genetics and inheritance mechanisms of CF. Trying to formulate an argument that there is not nor can be a mechanism that keeps homosexuality in the population when we can barely agree that homosexuality is heritable let alone understand the mechanisms of that inheritance is going to be difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

That is my point. Saying that homosexuality is "unnatural" is wrong. The only way it's right is if YOU redefine "natural" to mean "godly" or something like that. I do not know what President Kimball meant by "natural", but I have yet to see a definition of "natural" under which his teaching makes sense. It's possible that "natural" had a different, widely understood meaning then. If so, then (at least to my knowledge) that meaning no longer holds today.

The definition of Kimball's time is centuries old.  

Quote

1) Not in accordance with our (humanity's) common nature.

2) Not representative of nature as a whole.

Under these definitions, it is correct to call homosexual behavior "unnatural".  

But you are correct, the "all natural" definition creeping in since the 80s has overshadowed this meaning.  Today's meaning is

Quote

Does not typically occur in nature without force or sentient intervention.

By that definition, it is not reasonable to consider homosexual behavior as "unnatural".

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure how well this is going.

Your first post basically comes across as -- "homosexuality -- because it takes an individual out of the breeding pool -- is clearly maladaptive." I'm not sure that anyone will disagree with you on this point.

Your second seems to be an extension of the same idea.My main reaction to your essay so far -- (at the risk of being rude) well,, duh! Assuming homosexuality is heritable (even if we don't yet have any real grasp on the mechanism of inheritance), it is fairly clear that it is maladaptive, so naturally it will exist at low levels in the population.

While the first and second arguments both relate to survival, the first argument focuses in a basis sense on reproduction, itself, as a law of nature and means for survival, whereas the second focuses in a basic sense on evolution as law in nature and a means for survival--of which reproduction is but a part. I may be making too fine a distinction on such basic points, but there is a method to my madness. I am not just attempting to explain why there are so few homosexuals. I am also explicating various reason homosexuality may rightly be considered as undesirable or abnormal.

As for "duh!", I am of the same mind. However, as you can tell from some of the negative reactions to my posts, not everyone may be in agreement with us. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand correctly, the fundamental question here (being based on natural selection and inheritance) would be:

Quote

How can SSA can be an inherited trait if the very nature of such a trait would be to take one out of the gene pool?

Simple.  The "trait" of SSA is not a single trait.  It is an amalgam of multiple traits.  Each of these individual traits has some way of being positively selected for on their own or in partial combinations.  But when they all combine into one person, they still gain the positive selection traits, but also result in homosexuality which prevents that complete combination from being propagated.

Or one could simply say that it is an anomaly or mutation that keeps popping up in 2% to 4% of the population.  This is a less plausible explanation since anomalies or mutations tend not to be so common.  And when they in and of themselves provide no way to propagate throughout the gene pool, they tend to disappear.  But when such a trait is suppressed in its presentation, the gene gets propagated anyway.  So, that propagation will produce additional offspring according to the other traits which would be selected for or against. IOW, if a gay man hides or suppresses his sexuality and tries to behave like heterosexuals...

This then opens the door to saying that homosexuals who are willing to engage in heterosexual behavior are actually superior to heterosexuals in general.  So, when you go down this road, it ends up defeating the argument you were going for.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still a little shaky on the distinction, but it probably doesn't matter as long as you are clear on the distinction.

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

 first argument focuses in a basis sense on reproduction, itself, as a law of nature and means for survival,

As suggested, I think an interesting counter example to this are the social insects, where you have multiple (a majority of) individuals who are asexual or otherwise not in the breeding pool. Often, the breeding individuals are maladapted in their own way (too large to move, to feed or defend themselves).

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I am also explicating various reason homosexuality may rightly be considered as undesirable or abnormal.

I will be interested to see how this develops. As I've noted, so far, it is pretty uncontroversial. There is little doubt that homosexuality is a genetic dead end and, therefore, undesirable as far as a surface view of evolution goes. These pressures make it abnormal (meaning uncommon or rare). If that's as far as this goes, then it will be pretty unremarkable, so it feels like there is something more that I am not yet seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

To me, with nature, it isn't so much about "caring" (since that is personification), but rather it is a matter of how things work. That is why I spoke in terms of laws. And,  as I went on to explain, the law of "reproduce or perish" operates at various levels, from nature as a whole, to species, to groups or families within species, to the individual creatures (I have since edit this clarification into the sentence). So, I am not seeing the "dead end" (I caught the pun, whether intended or not). 

Perhaps you could explain further.

I think you are reading way more into the argument than intended. The first argument from nature focuses solely on whether the creature/species/etc.reproduces or not, and not on how the creature uses reproductive organs. The later will be examined in an argument I will yet make..

Also, please keep in mind the intent of the argument, which is 2-fold: explain why there are so few homosexuals in the human population, and establish that homosexuality is abnormal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me seek to clarify some of what I've said. Keep in mind, too, that personification is merely a means of getting a point across from one person to another person. But if it muddies the conversation I'll avoid it.  Speaking of laws is also related to personification, however, because persons make laws, Nature doesn't. So I'll be happy to simply talk about how things work (oops, if not personification, then equivocation may easily creep in even with a word like "work").  

Yes, I totally get that you want to establish that homosexuality is abnormal and to explain the percentage of homosexuals in the population. The dead end I hope to cause you to perceive comes partly by you focusing on creatures and groups. You ought to focus solely upon species if you're going to look via reproduction and perpetuation. Have you considered from the Natural perspective that since homosexuality appears to have always existed among humans and also across many other species it is Natural and therefore not abnormal? If the reproduction and perpetuation angle held a path to answering your 2-fold purpose why hasn't homosexuality disappeared Naturally? I think the reason is that homosexuality is irrelevant to reproduction and perpetuation and vice versa, that's why. Isn't your goal of establishing the abnormality of homosexuality unscientific? I mean isn't that starting with a foregone conclusion and looking for observations to support it, rather than starting with an observation and hypothesizing an explanation for what we observe?

But in order to analyze the possibility, I wonder whether a sort of thought experiment could be helpful. Imagine you and I were to obtain all the power and authority we deemed necessary in order to attempt to eradicate homosexuality forever from Nature. Since it hasn't happened already in Nature, we would do it for Nature, artificially. How would we go about it? Want to talk about that, and to speculate about whether we could succeed? I'm of the opinion that we couldn't succeed, and that no matter how many "homosexuals" we destroyed it would continually Naturally reappear.  

Please keep in mind that throughout my interactions with you on this topic I am arguing strictly from a Nature-Evolution angle, and in no way from any other angle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If I understand correctly, the fundamental question here (being based on natural selection and inheritance) would be: " How can SSA can be an inherited trait if the very nature of such a trait would be to take one out of the gene pool?"

That isn't the question I am addressing. Rather, I am addressing the questions 1) why there are so few homosexuals in the population, and 2) Is homosexuality abnormal. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share