Last Update: 08 May 00
Return to "Homosexuality and Lifestyle Issues" essay
REPLY #4 TO
"HOMOSEXUALITY AND LIFESTYLE ISSUES"
(R) Again, we seem to violently bump heads. Instances of homosexuality is found in every species on earth, regardless of the laws of natural selection.
(MB) Quite true. However, only in Man is it a voluntary behavior. In other species, it can't be considered anything other than a behavioral abnormality.
(R) Natural selection doesn't "weed out" anything, it merely favors predominant genes over recessive genes.
(MB) Which really accomplishes the same thing. If any trait does not contribute to the survival of the species possessing it, it is likely to disappear or be severely reduced in frequency over time. If homosexuality is genetically-based, the trait would be self-defeating since two true homosexuals would not reproduce with each other.
(R) I personally don't care if homosexuality is biological or psychological, but it is not a choice.
(MB) If it's psychological, then it is a choice unless the individual is brain-damaged. If choice was not an issue, there would be no point in the Gay Lobby promoting the lifestyle since it would be physically impossible for somebody to become homosexual simply by being convinced to do so.
(R) I personally know several homosexuals, both male and female, and their sexual preference does not enter into my opinion of them one way or the other.
(MB) I can say the same. I totally support the right of any two consenting adults to do whatever they want in private. I only take issue with the spin-doctoring of the Gay Lobby in downplaying the risks and promoting the "normalcy" of homosexuality.
(R) I personally find flagrant behavior unappealing, and being monogamous by nature, am repelled by sexual promiscuity, but again, homosexuality is not the issue, the behavior is.
(MB) You're right. If homosexuals were standard-setters for admirable and thoughtful behavior, I think they would greatly increase their chances for acceptance. The same could be said for non-monogamous heterosexuals.
(R) I am equally repelled when hearing a group of men "hubba-hubbaing" as an attractive female walks by.
(MB) Absolutely. Men certainly don't do themselves proud with that sort of stupidity. The locker room "macho" mentality is a hard thing for many of them to overcome.
(R) The bumping of heads occurs in this instance, because you so reasonably argue using logical fallacies, much like my least favorite person alive, Rush Limbaugh. "Even a cursory understanding of biology and evolution should point out..." is an example of what I'm talking about. A "cursory" understanding of biology and evolution is, in and of itself, a discrediting factor in trying to understand deep social, biological, and psychological issues.
(MB) My argument was meant to discredit the Gay Lobby's claims that homosexuality is entirely genetic in nature when this seems clearly not to be the case. Also, since true genetic homosexuals can't reproduce with each other, an understanding of evolution would easily show that they couldn't increase their numbers in that way. Rush goes overboard when he argues from the religious standpoint. He's not one to use pure science. I am. Because of that, I wouldn't lump social and psychological issues in the same breath with issues of biology. Problems arise when the lines between them become blurred.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 08 May 00