Why Homosexuality is NOT Unnatural
I have long heard the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and hence inherently inferior to heterosexuality. And it is certainly true that, were all or even a great minority of humans homosexual, the ability of the human race to replace its numbers without extreme technological intervention would be at serious risk. The argument then goes ( Read more... )
1) It presumes that homosexuality is inborn. That is the only way that the evolutionary deselection argument holds any water. What if it isn't inborn, as much of scientific research seems to indicate (after all, all studies of identical twins show only 60% or less both being homosexual)? A developmental cause would bypass the genetics and be repeated generation to generation.
2) It is not as common as you indicate. Only 4% of the population identifies themselves as LGBTQ. I don't know where you get your stats from, but mine come from the LGBTQ community itself. One can claim that others don't reveal it because of societal pressure, but there are ways around that by asking related questions.
3) As we define it in humans, homosexuality is not something seasonal. It is immutable, as most gay activists claim. So, to compare seasonal homosexuality to immutable sexuality isn't exactly valid. It's kind of like claiming that most men in prison are gay, since they only have sex with other men.
4) Most gays don't become gay because they could not compete with heterosexuals in obtaining women. I'm pretty sure most gays would find this assertion rather insulting.
5) The idea that pre-pubescent homosexual attraction binds society together is fraught with other problems, particularly the implication that gays don't grow out of it, meaning that they are socially, physically, and/or psychologically stunted in their growth. Again, this would be rather insulting to gays.
6) Lastly, any attempt to compare human behavior with animal behavior to show that it is natural would mean that murder, infanticide, slavery, etc., are all just as natual, but I doubt anyone would want to celebrate them in humans.
Reply
I don't believe that the whole constellation of behaviors called "homosexuality" is inborn, but I do believe that the tendencies to be attracted by members of the same vs. opposite sexes, and to have a broad vs. narrow sexual target (the essence of bisexuality vs. hetero/homosexuality) are probably influenced by genetics.
It is not as common as you indicate. Only 4% of the population identifies themselves as LGBTQ.
4% is still 1 in 25. And my larger figure includes those who have some such tendencies and may have experimented. Obviously, someone who is only slightly homosexual is likely to produce offspring, but since he is that much less motivated to make the attempt his statistical success at doing so will be less. In evolutionary biology, a small difference in statistical success can over multiple generations result in selective pressure: hence, if homosexual tendencies were of no countervailing value to a species, we would expect them to be strongly selected against.
As we define it in humans, homosexuality is not something seasonal. It is immutable, as most gay activists claim. So, to compare seasonal homosexuality to immutable sexuality isn't exactly valid. It's kind of like claiming that most men in prison are gay, since they only have sex with other men.
Human sexuality is non-seasonal. What happens in the case of seasonally-sexual animals is that they have an overwhelming urge to have heterosexual sex in season, and then year round a diffuse, weak and vague sort of sexuality. Since they are infertile out of season, there is much less selective pressure against redirecting their sexual affections out of season to serve other survival purposes.
In contrast, human beings are moderately sexual all year round, with lunar monthly cycles which are quite weak in intensity compared to heat in most other creatures. This is precisely why there is likely a countervailing advantage to a minority of the population being homosexual or bisexual: it would do a human more harm in reproductive terms than it would a goat.
The references to pinniped and ungulate homosexuality are to illustrate the purposes that homosexuality serves in those species, by way of showing what purposes it might serve in ours.
Reply
If it did, why would humans society throughout history be so homophobic? It isn't just religions. Most societies frowned upon it. One would think that if it truly held society together, those societies which tolerated it would flourish while those which discouraged it would falter.
The opposite appears to be true.
Reply
Most people who self-identify as gay do not do so. The same is true of lesbians.
Now, do you remember your comment about prison inmates -- who show a high incidence of homosexuality even if they refuse to identify their behavior as such? Being in prison is generally a pretty severe obstacle to finding mates of the opposite sex, even in insanely liberal societies such as our own.
I'm pretty sure most gays would find this assertion rather insulting.
I'm sure they would. What's the relevance of this statement to its truth or falsity?
The idea that pre-pubescent homosexual attraction binds society together is fraught with other problems, particularly the implication that gays don't grow out of it, meaning that they are socially, physically, and/or psychologically stunted in their growth.
First of all, it need neither be pre-pubescent, nor need those who feel the attraction be feeling it as sexual attraction. Comradeship among fellow workers, soldiers or team mates may be driven by emotions in part originally of sexual origin without being sexual in their expression.
Secondly, the manner in which "gays don't grow out of it" is an example of neotony, namely the retention of child-like features into physical maturity. Humans are in many other ways highly-neotonous (as adults we bear a strong resemblance to juvenile members of other great ape species). Why should we not be highly-neotonous in this way as well?
Thirdly and again, whether or not gays feel insulted or praised by a theory does not determine its objective falsity or truth.
... any attempt to compare human behavior with animal behavior to show that it is natural would mean that murder, infanticide, slavery, etc., are all just as natual, but I doubt anyone would want to celebrate them in humans.
Murder, infanticide and slavery are "just as natural," but I never claimed that "natural" equated to "good" nor "unnatural" to "bad," merely that homosexuality is not unnatural. I consider murder, infanticide and slavery to be bad because they represent the unprovoked use of force or fraud against others -- homosexuality, in contrast, generally does not represent such violation.
Homosexual behaviors which do represent such violations -- for instant, taking slaves and then forcing them to engage in gay sex -- are evil, and are not to be celebrated.
Reply
So let us celebrate the existence of homosexuality, which helps bind our cultures together. May we always have it with us!
I'm not sure that your statement that homosexuality does not generally 'represent' bad actions rings true. There are plenty of groups and peoples whose rights are being violated in favor of gays' desires. Yet these are celebrated as a good thing. I hear the filip that gays don't want to force Christians to do anything a lot, but I'm seeing that sadly as more of a lie.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/06/judge-orders-colorado-cake-maker-to-serve-gay-couples/
And I find it rather odd that for a group that supposedly is so creative, they can't seem to make cakes... This is at least the second case I've heard of gay couples using the courts to force a bakery to bake them cake. They also can't seem to make flower arrangements and take pictures, but most force Christians to do that.
Come on, where's the equal opportunity forcing here? Why aren't they forcing MUSLIMS to do their bidding?
Reply
2)While it is true that many gay people probably don't identify themselves as such, I believe (from my own personal experience) that most people who identify publicly as gay, really aren't. A lot of gay activists are often not gay at all, they're bi. You'd be surprised just how many of them are married (to a member of the opposite sex) ten - twenty years later.
3) Homosexuality is not immutable in the majority of cases. Again, for a lot of 'gay' males they're not really gay - they're bi.
4) actually no. Most 'gays' when they're being honest will admit to this or something similar. Society these days devalues men and treats men like shit. Many women spend their lives now going on about how much better than men they are, and competing with you every step of the way. You will find that a lot of men gave up on women because they wanted an emotionally STABLE relationship where they weren't treated like shit and weren't viewed as a source of income. Why would most guys who make a good living want to end up having half of that taken away for the rest of their lives just because they were married a few years? Marriage is a losing proposition for men these days.
5) you pretty much know who and what you're attracted to when you hit puberty.
6) umm, we do celebrate it. Abortion? criminal gangs? war? professional sports (where you are locked into a contract system for your career that tells you where you will play - that is slavery). We celebrate it a lot.
Reply
Leave a comment