Homosexuality: The Voice of Nature

[MikeNovack]

The vast majority of reproducing organisms are either male or female. That's just the way it is. If you want to compare humans to fungi then feel free. Fungi still have male/female even if they are in the same organism

Oh dear. When I am responding in terms of science, please treat that seriously, assume I might know what I am talking about, and don't counter with "popular" nonsense. Look it up first.

We don't talk about "sexes" with fungi because USUALLY MORE THAN TWO, complicated rules which can mate with which. In other words, just pointing pout that sexes not just two. And no, while there organisms where both male and female in the same organism, not fungi.

When an argument is being made "not natural because not in Nature" then you are required to look at Nature. That YOU see no purpose for something in Nature is irrelevant. Homosexuality IS found in Nature. You can't say "not in Nature".

Understand? I am NOT suggesting that there aren't perfectly good arguments for the statement "homosexuality is wrong". I'm just saying "not in Nature" isn't one of them.

[accelafine]

The vast majority of reproducing organisms are either male or female. That's just the way it is. If you want to compare humans to fungi then feel free. Fungi still have male/female even if they are in the same organism

Oh dear. When I am responding in terms of science, please treat that seriously, assume I might know what I am talking about, and don't counter with "popular" nonsense. Look it up first.

We don't talk about "sexes" with fungi because USUALLY MORE THAN TWO, complicated rules which can mate with which. In other words, just pointing pout that sexes not just two. And no, while there organisms where both male and female in the same organism, not fungi.

When an argument is being made "not natural because not in Nature" then you are required to look at Nature. That YOU see no purpose for something in Nature is irrelevant. Homosexuality IS found in Nature. You can't say "not in Nature".

Understand? I am NOT suggesting that there aren't perfectly good arguments for the statement "homosexuality is wrong". I'm just saying "not in Nature" isn't one of them.

You don't make any sense and none of of that has any relation to anything I wrote. It's not even possible to argue with it because I don't know what exactly you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that fungi are 'homosexual'? Now that's taking anthropomorphism to a whole new level Perhaps try glancing over your comments before you post them.
I was watching a documentary about a passenger jet crash where the pilot killed everyone on board because of poor English skills which caused word meanings to become ambiguous. Just saying.

[MikeNovack]

I'm going to make it clearer.

The argument I was rebutting was "homosexuality wrong because not NATURAL" (not part of the natural world)

I was simply giving examples supporting "sex in Nature is one heck of a lot more complicated than the naive picture". But yes, IF instead of talking about "purpose" (your imagining of purpose, Nature just has "what is") you actually LOOK you will find a rate of homosexuality in other mammals and birds at not terribly different percentages than observed for our species.

Do NOT expect to be seeing more than reports on the amount of homosexual behavior in this or that species. In the present political climate, nobody is going to apply for a grant to fund research on say "what PURPOSE does homosexuality serve" especially when the answer might be none, just an accidental consequence of extremely strong drive to pair bond (say the entire Genus Anser) << I picked geese as an example precisely because their rate of homosexuality is much higher than ours >>

PLEASE --- I am NOT saying homosexuality isn't wrong, just that the proposed reason for wrongness "not natural" won't fly because contrary to fact.

[accelafine]

I'm going to make it clearer.

The argument I was rebutting was "homosexuality wrong because not NATURAL" (not part of the natural world)

I was simply giving examples supporting "sex in Nature is one heck of a lot more complicated than the naive picture". But yes, IF instead of talking about "purpose" (your imagining of purpose, Nature just has "what is") you actually LOOK you will find a rate of homosexuality in other mammals and birds at not terribly different percentages than observed for our species.

Do NOT expect to be seeing more than reports on the amount of homosexual behavior in this or that species. In the present political climate, nobody is going to apply for a grant to fund research on say "what PURPOSE does homosexuality serve" especially when the answer might be none, just an accidental consequence of extremely strong drive to pair bond (say the entire Genus Anser) << I picked geese as an example precisely because their rate of homosexuality is much higher than ours >>

PLEASE --- I am NOT saying homosexuality isn't wrong, just that the proposed reason for wrongness "not natural" won't fly because contrary to fact.

I'm not saying it's 'wrong' either. That would be absurd. I was just stating some facts. And I don't think the word 'homosexual' can be applied to anything but humans. It's a human concept.

[abdullah masud]

I'm going to make it clearer.

The argument I was rebutting was "homosexuality wrong because not NATURAL" (not part of the natural world)

I was simply giving examples supporting "sex in Nature is one heck of a lot more complicated than the naive picture". But yes, IF instead of talking about "purpose" (your imagining of purpose, Nature just has "what is") you actually LOOK you will find a rate of homosexuality in other mammals and birds at not terribly different percentages than observed for our species.

Do NOT expect to be seeing more than reports on the amount of homosexual behavior in this or that species. In the present political climate, nobody is going to apply for a grant to fund research on say "what PURPOSE does homosexuality serve" especially when the answer might be none, just an accidental consequence of extremely strong drive to pair bond (say the entire Genus Anser) << I picked geese as an example precisely because their rate of homosexuality is much higher than ours >>

PLEASE --- I am NOT saying homosexuality isn't wrong, just that the proposed reason for wrongness "not natural" won't fly because contrary to fact.

You said that sex in nature is more complicated than the naive picture. I agree that the animal world shows a wide variety of behaviors. But the key point is that every creature has its own nature suitable for its own existence. The nature of a human being and that of an animal are not the same.
For example, animals do not wear clothes, they eat without cleanliness, and some even eat their own feces. In sexual behavior too, many animals mate with their parents or siblings. For animals, none of this is considered wrong because they follow their nature, not human nature.
So the simple question is: since there is a clear and numerous difference between animal nature and human nature, should we really bring animal behavior as a reference when talking about what is right or wrong for human beings? if yes, then...

[Jori]

I think homosexual identity, orientation, and desires are beyond ones control and not one's choice, but homosexual activity is at least sometimes controllable and one's choice.

[Gary Childress]

I think homosexual identity, orientation, and desires are beyond ones control and not one's choice, but homosexual activity is at least sometimes controllable and one's choice.

Who knows? There are cases to be made for desires being beyond one's control, that we cannot but desire what we desire and there are cases to be made that through practice we can control our desires by interrupting them before they sweep us into action. Either way, life is a disappointment.

[promethean75]

Yeah gay stuff shows the nonteleological malleability of the brain. A behavior that is perfectly contrary to the reproductive instinct of the species. Gay stuff shows that not only is there no god (for what god would have designed a physics that makes homos?), but also that sexuality is only purposed for reward and pleasure. Consider a bizarre fetish. Somehow, this guy's brain has become wired to produce exhilarating sensation and sexual pleasure at the sight of a woman's high-heel shoe. That's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard... but the brain is a ridiculous thing that has no other purpose but to produce and experience pleasure.

[MikeNovack]

........, but also that sexuality is only purposed for reward and pleasure.............. That's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard... but the brain is a ridiculous thing that has no other purpose but to produce and experience pleasure.

MANY instincts get encoded that way. a SIMPLE SOLUTION.

Which to you seems simpler to evolve. For each and every "do" instinct have a separate imperative process coded. Or simply put a trigger into the pleasure side of pleasure-pain. So the instinctive "do" action gets performed because it is pleasurable. Keep do/keep doing whatever is pleasurable already exists, no need to evolve/re-evolve that part of it.

THAT is why very hard for us to identify our instincts. Silly to ask "why do you do X" if "X" is pleasurable.

[Phil8659]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

Can you show me any person who gets to decide before or after they are born, what the biologically defined function is of a life support system?
Is there any rational argument which can demonstrate that any thing is different from itself?
If I gave a tree, a doctrine, would its growth change and conform to that doctrine?
Relation to self is inadmissible, i.e., a thing is not, nor ever can be, different from itself.
So, fuck opinions, we either conform to a standard of grammar, a standard of information processing, or we are a poor deluded piece of human waste.
If we cannot even do the job of a mind, then we cannot control the behavior of any other body part. Men will use their whole body to kill,
that which produces human behavior has a well defined biologically determined job to perform. if it cannot do its job, it is just fucking broke.

[MikeNovack]

Someone said, “We usually understand the right use of something by its structure. The eyes are made for seeing, not for hearing. The ears are made for listening, not for tasting. The mouth is made for speaking and eating, not for breathing underwater. In the same way, when we look at the human body, it shows a clear design — male and female are naturally complementary, fitting together in purpose and function.
Aristotle said, Nature does nothing in vain. Thomas Aquinas built on this, teaching that what goes against the natural purpose of our body is against reason itself. So when people say they don’t understand how homosexuality could be right, it’s not hate — it’s a question of nature and purpose. The structure itself speaks.”

What do you think about this speaker’s reasoning? And if someone were to disagree, what would their counterargument likely be?

The counter argument is the Nature (evolution) makes use of what is already present. Much more likely to adapt something before coming up with something new. The legs of a giraffe evolved for locomotion, but without harming that function very much, evolved into the animal's defense system.

The PRIMARY function of sex is reproduction. But in some species, also used for other purposes (examples howler monkeys, bonobos, and us). In other critters, while pair bonding plays a major role in successful reproduction, its workings are not necessarily DIRECTLY tied to reproduction << for example in many/most birds, the pair bonding has to take place long before the sex part >>

Aristotle somewhat wrong, forgivable since long before thinking about probabilistic processes like evolution. More precisely, Nature does nothing wrong in the probabilistic sense. Thus, newborn gosling needs to be able to recognize "mommy" (imprint". Easier to program "whatever largish critter is nearby when I leave the shell". If it is not mother goose but a fox, no harm done by the mistake as newborn gosling is eaten.

[LuckyR]

The OP suffers from the error that the "natural" intended purpose of something is magically the "best" possible use. Books are designed to be read, but if you're stuck in an abandoned cabin in a blizzard it's unintended use as kindling is actually the best use.

[MikeNovack]

The OP suffers from the error that the "natural" intended purpose of something is magically the "best" possible use. Books are designed to be read, but if you're stuck in an abandoned cabin in a blizzard it's unintended use as kindling is actually the best use.

Maybe better put, assuming that it is the ONLY use. Particularly because of how evolution works, starting from what is already present. And ignoring that functionality needs only to be statistically correct. A mechanism of "pair bonding" that results in very strong pair bonding but "right" only 90% of the time might be better (for a species) than a mechanism that resulted in weaker pair bonding that was right 100% of the time.That would be true if the weaker pair bonding resulted in reproductive failure more than 10% of the time.

Evolution produces a result that works better than alternatives. The statistical rate of homosexuality in humans does not seem to be out of line with what is seen in other critters (that have this phenomenon).