Jan 5 2002, 6:28 am
In response to Gojira
|
|
Nadrew
  |
Still, I find nothing wrong with it, my philosophy is; If they want it, let them have it. It's wrong to discriminate against someone that's different, it's exactly like beating up a black person because he/she's black.
|
Being Black was an adaptation/variation of the species to a hotter climate. what makes a homosexual varation?
I rest my case. What i have decided is i will not say anything about this topic anymore as i may go overboard. | |
Ok. Nadrew you were talking about discrimination?
Heres an classic example but not so bad as you dont kill the people. Do you help people if they openly say they are making a DBZ game? Just beacause homosexuality is of a different cirteria still does not mean that what you do is not discriminstion. People are discrimared over all kinds of things. Hair,Shoes,Clothes,Family,Home. Not just Homosexuality. | |
Gojira wrote:
Being Black was an adaptation/variation of the species to a hotter climate. what makes a homosexual varation? Generally speaking, talking about genetic fitness like this is walking a narrow line between the unmentionable and the unthinkable. What makes fat people a viable genetic variation? Stupid people? Unattractive people? Obviously, we'd be better off without the lot of 'em, right? So let's get rid of 'em! | |
Homosexuality doesn't "occur" in most species because for centuries, whenver zoologists and biologists observed homosexual behavior in other species, they would write it up in another fashion, because homosexuality was unthinkable to them in their own species, much less any other.
If they come across two male animals rutting, it would be written up as "dominance behavior"... although there's a huuuuge difference between butting heads and... well, nevermind. Two females engaged in coupling was usually written off as a "greeting" or "socialization". Among young, of course, any sexual behavior is written off as play. Now that educated people are allowed to consider the remote possibility of the existence of homosexuality, you find much more mention of it in scholarly publications... it's been identified in many species of mammals (like us), several species of lizards, and even several varieties of bird. This is both in the wild and captivity. What's more, in a given population sample, the rate of homosexuality appears to be generally fixed. The exact rate varies from species to species, but that's to be expected with any trait. Now, if this behavior occurs among species living successfully in the wild, clearly it is not inimicable to the survival of the species as a whole. In fact, if it occurs so regularly, it's most likely beneficial. From a point of view natural selection, yes, it is desirable that a species be able to replace its old and dying members. Hence we have heterosexuality. Long term, though, it is not always desirable that each and every member of the species spawn as many replacements as humanly (or animally or vegetably) possible. When a species is new, of course, "be fruitful and multiply" needs to be the order of the day, or it'll never become established. Once established, though, something needs to be done to slow things down a bit, or the species will become overpopulated. | |
Good point, and after a look into my biology books Rabbits are actaul in % terms one the most homosexual species.
| |
And not to belabor a point, but rabbits are hardly in danger of extinction due to a lack of reproduction, are they?
| |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
From a point of view natural selection, yes, it is desirable that a species be able to replace its old and dying members. Hence we have heterosexuality. Long term, though, it is not always desirable that each and every member of the species spawn as many replacements as humanly (or animally or vegetably) possible. As Stephen Pinker warns in "How the Mind Works", it can be dangerous to assume everything we are or do is because evolution made us that way. Evolution and biology give us the tools...they give us love because love helps our genes survive. What we do with love once we have it is up to us, and may also be subject to ways that our brains can develop that didn't as a species cause us to get killed off, so they didn't get evolved out even though they don't have any particular survival value. They give us strength/arms/legs because without it we couldn't manipulate the world around us. What we do with our strength/arms/legs is up to us. People who decry the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality (even though, as you say, it's easily observable in "nature") do all sorts of unnatural things with themselves before breakfast each morning, but somehow that's okay. They sleep in beds with artificially generated heat all around them, they eat food that is not "natural" (not even what the nature wackos think is natural is natural in most cases), they drive cars, they smoke, etc. So being "natural" isn't much of an argument, unless the arguer lives in Papua New Guinea, scrounges for a living, and doesn't wear artificially created clothing (though even most people there do by now). But even if it is an argument, they are stuck with the fact that homosexuality is very observable in nature. Anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom is encouraged to look through this book, which contains lots of graphic pictures of monkeys giving each other oral sex and the like: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity | |
