Suppose homosexuality could be reversed.

[Mr. Scott]

But don't you see, homosexuality is morally wrong. The result of an action aught to guide morality. The action is right (i.e. we aught to do it), if it maximises good results, while minimising bad results. If the action causes dread, anguish, & suffering it is wrong. An action causing well-being & happiness is right. Likewise, if an action has no bad results it is not wrong.

From an evolutionary perspective procreation is demanded to safeguard the survival of the species. The preservation of the species is a good result, & thus the action is right- in a sense we aught to do it (procreate). Homosexuality on the otherhand does not lead to procreation, this in turn can lead to only bad results evolutionary wise. Therefore, the latter is wrong- in a sense we aught not to do it.

Yeah, you didn't even explain why its morally wrong. What makes straight sex with protection more morally righteous than homosexual sex?

[Stario]

From an evolutionary perspective "good" is anything that assures natural selection (i.e. helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to the next generation). On the otherhand, processes that hinder/prevent natural selection are "bad" for the organism. The fact that humanity is thriving does not alter the notion that is, the homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

[The Despondent Mind]

Why is did thread turned into another unnecessary moral debate again ?

[Count of Montesano]

From an evolutionary perspective "good" is anything that assures natural selection (i.e. helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to the next generation). On the otherhand, processes that hinder/prevent natural selection are "bad" for the organism. The fact that humanity is thriving does not alter the notion that is, the homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

Personally, I think modern ethics needs to be based on something more than just what we assume is the "natural order." Case in point - it's perfectly natural for humans to embrace violence and warfare. In fact, warfare is the perfect method for "helping" natural selection as it helps weed out the strong and smart from the weak and dumb. But in an era of WMDs, unchecked warfare could lead to extinction of the species.

Homosexuality might be considered immoral in a hunter gatherer society where every adult should be trying to have as many children as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe. There are no such restraints in modern society - indeed, some scientists posit that homosexuality is a natural way of staving off overpopulation.

Finally, if you're going to bring up the "natural law" argument, you have to look at how other primates act. If you find a gay pride parade distasteful, check out the behavior of the bonobos.

[Phier]

Personally, I think modern ethics needs to be based on something more than just what we assume is the "natural order." Case in point - it's perfectly natural for humans to embrace violence and warfare. In fact, warfare is the perfect method for "helping" natural selection as it helps weed out the strong and smart from the weak and dumb. But in an era of WMDs, unchecked warfare could lead to extinction of the species.

You are making it up here though. Who is to say that embracing violence as a trait is always a superior one for helping natural selection? For all the war in the world, periods of non-war are greater for peoples. Evolution tempers warfare in humans to a degree.

Homosexuality might be considered immoral in a hunter gatherer society where every adult should be trying to have as many children as possible to ensure the survival of the tribe. There are no such restraints in modern society - indeed, some scientists posit that homosexuality is a natural way of staving off overpopulation.

This has nothing to do really with the morality of homosexuality though. Lets take the sky god out of this. Its simply whats best for the child in the long run.

Finally, if you're going to bring up the "natural law" argument, you have to look at how other primates act. If you find a gay pride parade distasteful, check out the behavior of the bonobos.

Why not check out the harems of the gorillas, or the social isolation of the orangutan? Oh because it doesn't help your point. My point would be that you can't really use the behavior of other great apes as a excuse for our own. If anything we are closest to Chimps (non-bonobos) and even that doesn't quite fit right.

[Da Skinna]

This seems really simple.

Medical procedures for something that is intrinsically harmless, and not at all immoral are superfluous. It is done based on the person's tastes.

The question of harm and morality in this context are both, separately and together, large discussions. If what is immoral is harmful, then gay sex is not eligible.

More to the point, the only reason we are having this discussion is because society has a problem with homosexuality, making homosexuality not only fringe, but dangerous for reasons of gay-bashing and homophobia.

[Mr. Scott]

From an evolutionary perspective "good" is anything that assures natural selection (i.e. helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to the next generation). On the otherhand, processes that hinder/prevent natural selection are "bad" for the organism. The fact that humanity is thriving does not alter the notion that is, the homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

By this same logic, the idiots having 4 illegitimate kids before reaching the age of 30 are more morally righteous than the medical doctor with one or two kids.

You can't use such circumstantial logic as the basis of your argument.

[Lazarus]

From an evolutionary perspective "good" is anything that assures natural selection (i.e. helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to the next generation). On the otherhand, processes that hinder/prevent natural selection are "bad" for the organism. The fact that humanity is thriving does not alter the notion that is, the homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

Incorrect. There are some things that make individuals fit, and some that make them "unfit". That said, homosexuality in no way makes anything unfit. Homosexual =/= infertile. Just because one is physically attracted or emotionally attached to a member of the same sex doesn't automatically exclude them from being able to procreate and indeed, as Phier put it, homosexuals can procreate provided that men can find a willing womb, and women can find a willing donor.

This is possible even without science, simply by doing it the old fashioned way. Think of all the closet homosexuals who have gotten married, had children, and decided felt the need to come out. They've procreated.

[Drustan]

Why is did thread turned into another unnecessary moral debate again ?

Because surely the ethics behind Homosexuality would be the basis of a decision to have surgery to reverse it?

[Phier]

Incorrect. There are some things that make individuals fit, and some that make them "unfit". That said, homosexuality in no way makes anything unfit. Homosexual =/= infertile.

Darwinian evolution theory penalty, half the distance to the goal, first down. Fitness does not mean the ability to reproduce at all. Its simply how WELL you reproduce and as such, statically speaking, gay men have lower fitness than straight men (by about half).

[chamaeleo]

Good thread!

I'd not test or administer 'cure', but I wouldn't hold it against my kid if at a later date he chose to do so for himself. As Phier stated:

The genes for homosexuality may have no evolutionary benefit for those that are homosexual, in fact I'd argue they do not. They might have evolutionary benefit to the females that have them or perhaps even to males that have them but do not become homosexuals, this might override the loss of fitness for gay men in terms of genetic balance. My guess is any "cure" for homosexuality is not going to be at the genetic level but the expression level.

Tweaking genes can have unintended consequences. I'd hate to artificially 'improve' my kid's reproductive success, only to mess up some other facet(s) of his health or personality. My sentiment extends to modifying ANY genetic predispositions, not just sexual tendency. I believe evolution works fine on its own. Besides, I've got great genes...why should I give up any advantage!

Now. What if...homosexual tendencies can be proven to be influenced by environmental variables?

Mercury in male ibises:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1012....2010.641.html

Atrazine causing hermaphroditic + homosexual frogs:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.ht...01&segmentID=7

An interesting overview:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Endoc...als_and_gender

It would be the most delicious of ironies, if America's religious right were to become the next generation of environmentalist crusaders...out of homophobia!

[Phier]

It would be the most delicious of ironies, if America's religious right were to become the next generation of environmentalist crusaders...out of homophobia!

But highly unlikely being the % of homosexual males seems relatively constant, with spikes in times of high maternal stress.

There being a genetic link has been established as well as a developmental one. I would not be surprised if there ever was an anti-gay treatment it would be treatment of the mother while pregnant instead of some sort of genetic engineering.

[Da Skinna]

Maybe this is just greed but I think it'd be better if more guys were gay...

[Stario]

By this same logic, the idiots having 4 illegitimate kids before reaching the age of 30 are more morally righteous than the medical doctor with one or two kids.

So if "X" is "more morally righteous" than "Y", then "Y" must be immoral? I don't follow.

@Da Skinna,
You can have the men, I'll take the sheilas. \(^o^)/

[Mr. Scott]

So if "X" is "more morally righteous" than "Y", then "Y" must be immoral? I don't follow.

@Da Skinna,
You can have the men, I'll take the sheilas. \(^o^)/

You're saying that "good" is determined by who is more genetically fit, which you later define as basically a contest to see who can pump the most babies out.

I think the comparison is in line with your odd logic...

[SLN445]

Does that make Octomum the most fittest of us all O.o;;

[Pontifex Maximus]

Darwinian evolution theory penalty, half the distance to the goal, first down. Fitness does not mean the ability to reproduce at all. Its simply how WELL you reproduce and as such, statically speaking, gay men have lower fitness than straight men (by about half).

Not to say that gay men want children. Some might, and in that case its a positive effect on society as we take over the cast-offs of the straight people. Happily, I don't want children, and there's very little chance of surprises happening in the future from a booze filled one night stand or somesuch.

[Phier]

Not to say that gay men want children. Some might, and in that case its a positive effect on society as we take over the cast-offs of the straight people. Happily, I don't want children, and there's very little chance of surprises happening in the future from a booze filled one night stand or somesuch.

Easy to say now. I never "wanted" children, my wife did, I was rather neutral on the subject. Now I'm wondering if we should have had more.

I am always saddened seeing couples who choose for various reasons to not have kids once they hit the age where they are too old for them. They start to treat their pets like children, and fill their lives with activities to fill the hole, but the issue is rather obvious.

Having children is as natural as sex, and like sex when you deny it, it can make you unhappy. I'm fully aware that its simply responding to my genes but they make me happy

Most on this forum are too young to quite see this yet, wait till 40.

[Col. Tartleton]

Does that make Octomum the most fittest of us all O.o;;

No, she was artificially inseminated. She's incredibly unfit.

Mrs. Vassilyev of Russia is believed to have birthed 69 infants during her life, 16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets, and 4 sets of quadruplets. Over the course of 40 years. Only two of which died as infants. Making her the most sexually fit woman in recorded history. It's not totally confirmed, but it's more than a legend.

[Stario]

You're saying that "good" is determined by who is more genetically fit, which you later define as basically a contest to see who can pump the most babies out.

I think the comparison is in line with your odd logic...

I never defined it as "a contest to see who can pump the most babies out", please don't put words in my mouth. The total number of offspring is not the same as fitness. Fitness is instead denoted by the relative amount of succeeding generations that carry an organisms genes. For example, an organism that is able to survive & reproduce expeditiously, but its offsprings were all too weak to survive, this organisms genetic contribution to future generations is minimal. Thus, it is said this organism has low fitness.