Suppose homosexuality could be reversed.

[Angrychris]

born to bare

[Phier]

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.

Step one is having babies.
Step two is having babies that survive well into the next generation to breed themselves.

This tends to be why rich people have fewer kids and poor people have more. It would seem counter intuitive but with wealth its better to keep it concentrated and with poverty, a shotgun approach.

Much of the worlds overpopulation issue comes from people in poverty having access to modern medicine. Health without the wealth = population boom.

[Mr. Scott]

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.

No, that's basically what you're saying. According to you, Fitness apparently corellates with good. And according to you, pumping lots of kids out equates to fitness.

Seriously, your logic baffles me. Society doesn't determine "good" of who is evolutionarily going to last. In man, standard evolution is dead so it doesn't even matter much. Culture and science are now where human evolution lies, not the physical ability to have lots of kids.

So in the economic sense, what is "good" is simply what propels society the furthest.

In the moral sense, "good" is merely being righteous, tolerant, and compassionate to your fellow man.

Also, who cares if homosexuals have "low fitness", that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

[Fluttershy]

hmm... I am in favor of gay marriage/rights etc... but honestly, I probably would use the test and treatment. Seems like things would likely be easier for my child if they grew up straight.

Now im just unsure if I am a horrible person or not for being ok with "Curing" gayness

[Menelik_I]

Homosexuality is not genetic, so reversion is always possible.

[Stario]

According to you, Fitness apparently corellates with good

From an evolutionary perspective, "good" is whatever helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to subsequent generations. From Darwinian evolutionary perspective to be naturally selected is a "good" thing for an organism.

And according to you, pumping lots of kids out equates to fitness.

.
False, as I already explained in previous post- fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring.

Also, who cares if homosexuals have "low fitness", that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

Processes that hinder an organisms ability to pass on its genes to suceeding generations is "bad" for an organism. The homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

[Mr. Scott]

From an evolutionary perspective, "good" is whatever helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to subsequent generations. From Darwinian evolutionary perspective to be naturally selected is a "good" thing for an organism.

.
False, as I already explained in previous post- fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring.


Processes that hinder an organisms ability to pass on its genes to suceeding generations is "bad" for an organism. The homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

My god. This is like talking to a brick wall.

I'm not talking from an evolutionary perspective... No one here is...

We're talking about the ethics of said scenario. Ethics aren't formulated off "evolutionary right and wrong".

Homosexuality is not genetic, so reversion is always possible.

Yes, its most likely based on environmental factors pre-birth with some possible influence from genetics.

[frozenprince]

Homosexuality is not genetic, so reversion is always possible.

Its not entirely genetic no, but genetic make-up plays a role in formatting a childs orientation, the rest occurs environmentaly.

And no, you can't just decide one day to no longer be gay. People can scream that forever but it doesn't make it true.

[Menelik_I]

Yes, its most likely based on environmental factors pre-birth with some possible influence from genetics.

Its not entirely genetic no, but genetic make-up plays a role in formatting a childs orientation, the rest occurs environmentaly.

And no, you can't just decide one day to no longer be gay. People can scream that forever but it doesn't make it true.

You are both wrong, it is a choice and like any personality traits in depends on personal choices, life experience and cultural influences people are subjected to.

Kind of difficult to decide to not be gay anymore if you enjoy it, it is in human nature to face difficulties in taking decisions, or divorces wouldn't exists.

[Phier]

You are both wrong, it is a choice and like any personality traits in depends on personal choices, life experience and cultural influences people are subjected to.

Kind of difficult to decide to not be gay anymore if you enjoy it, it is in human nature to face difficulties in taking decisions, or divorces wouldn't exists.

Its cute how you tell a gay man how he is wrong about his homosexuality. Perhaps next you can tell a woman how her pms is cultural and a choice, or perhaps how heterosexual sex drive is cultural too?

[Arbitrary Crusader]

I would use it, If somehow, I only have one child.

If, I had more then the rest can be whatever they I want(I prefer them to be Dinonaut)

Just as long someone bare me a grandchild.

[Menelik_I]

Perhaps next you can tell a woman how her pms is cultural and a choice, or perhaps how heterosexual sex drive is cultural too?

The similarity you are trying to imply between Homosexuality and Heterosexuality doesn't exist, besides the mere semantics.

Heterosexuality is the natural sexuality, all the biological ''equipment'' symbiosis between man and women from the sexual act all the way to child conception is too strong to be mere coincidence.

Homosexuality is more an invention of human culture and individuality ingenuity.

Its cute how you tell a gay man how he is wrong about his homosexuality.

Only rapists ought to be able to understand rapists according to your logic.

[Himster]

Homosexuality is more an invention of human culture and individuality ingenuity.

You can't choose your sexuality, in the same way you can't choose your sense of humour.
It also is not limited to humans, it is not cultural, it is a biological urge just like heterosexuality. You might not like it, but you can't change facts with bigotry, I know that won't stop you from trying, but it would be indecent of me to stand idly by when such misguided words are in front of me. Do carry on.

[Savoyard]

You can't choose your sexuality, in the same way you can't choose your sense of humour.
It also is not limited to humans, it is not cultural, it is a biological urge just like heterosexuality. You might not like it, but you can't change facts with bigotry, I know that won't stop you from trying, but it would be indecent of me to stand idly by when such misguided words are in front of me. Do carry on.

He's just saying it's more how you grow up than you were born with it. Genetics and behavior of any sort is a two-way street.

[Mr. Scott]

He's just saying it's more how you grow up than you were born with it. Genetics and behavior of any sort is a two-way street.

But its not "how you grow up with it", at least not at a level beyond the age of six. I remember having homosexual inclinations even at that age (although I didn't recognize them as such at the time).

It's quite obviously not a choice. I mean, who on Earth would choose to make their life more complicated than it need be.

[frozenprince]

The similarity you are trying to imply between Homosexuality and Heterosexuality doesn't exist, besides the mere semantics.

Heterosexuality is the natural sexuality, all the biological ''equipment'' symbiosis between man and women from the sexual act all the way to child conception is too strong to be mere coincidence.

Homosexuality is more an invention of human culture and individuality ingenuity.

You cannot imply that homosexuality is a choice without being in-depth at just why heterosexuality is not a choice, or why bisexuality is or pansexuality or asexuality. They are all the inherant sexual urges that drive people on a deep deep level, brought about by a combination of light genetic pre-disposition and environmental factors. Saying that one is not a choice and the others are doesn't make any logical sense.

And I do oh so love it when a heterosexual trys to tell me that I choose to make my life 100x harder just so I could make out with dudes. Because I have never heard any argument that made any logical sense when people try to argue that to me.

[Prodigal]

I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't do the same for a medical condition they would likely procure. It is a cross to bear, we should have more faith.

[Phier]

I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't do the same for a medical condition they would likely procure. It is a cross to bear, we should have more faith.

So do you go to the doctor, do you get immunized, have you have treatment for an injury?

[Drustan]

From an evolutionary perspective, "good" is whatever helps the organism to thrive & pass on its genes to subsequent generations. From Darwinian evolutionary perspective to be naturally selected is a "good" thing for an organism.


False, as I already explained in previous post- fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring.

You've made this argument already, and it's already been reputed multiple times. Instead of repeating the argument that anything that hinders the growth of the human race is immoral, explain why it is.

Processes that hinder an organisms ability to pass on its genes to suceeding generations is "bad" for an organism. The homosexual lifestyle is an evolutionary dead end. Therefore, it follows that homosexuality is "bad".

The fallacy in this statement is obvious. If homosexuality could be passed on through generations, then whatever causes it would have died out long before humans even existed.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

No, that's basically what you're saying. According to you, Fitness apparently corellates with good. And according to you, pumping lots of kids out equates to fitness.

Seriously, your logic baffles me. Society doesn't determine "good" of who is evolutionarily going to last. In man, standard evolution is dead so it doesn't even matter much. Culture and science are now where human evolution lies, not the physical ability to have lots of kids.

So in the economic sense, what is "good" is simply what propels society the furthest.

In the moral sense, "good" is merely being righteous, tolerant, and compassionate to your fellow man.

Also, who cares if homosexuals have "low fitness", that doesn't make them immoral or wrong.

And even though scientific observations have absolutely no link with our morality, ~9% of the male population being gay (higher for women) is obviously an evolutionary stable strategy. Otherwise, there would be no gay people. A trait will not survive many generations in a significant number of individuals unless it provides some evolutionary benefit.

There are lots of hypothesises for this. Maybe with the current distribution of homosexuality, gay people were just as likely as straight people to reproduce. Maybe whatever causes homosexuality usually causes higher evolutionary fitness but can also cause homosexuality some of the time (this would make it developmental). Or maybe some people who have an "activated" gay gene can make other people who have an "inactivate" version more likely to reproduce (which would imply the "inactive" version has been inherited by all of us and could activate in any child). I wonder if we will ever have an evolutionary explanation for it.