• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homosexuality and 'Usefullness'

JAStewart

Graduate Poster
JAStewart
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
1,521
Disclaimer: I support gay and lesbian rights and all that jah.

Something I've had religious folks tell me is that Homosexuals are bad because they're useless : IE they can't make babies, thus they can't continue life.

Well, while I obviously think this is a load of crap, I retort:

Surely nuns and priests who take a vow of chastity are just as useless too in that respect?

Religion is weird.
 
What about the devout who are infertile? There are also people who have had a vasectomy or a hysterectomy. Are these people useless?
Do older people cease to be useful once they pass child bearing age?
 
One cannot argue someone out of a position that they did not argue themselves into to begin with. ;)
 
oh I wasn't trying to debate JAStewart; I was just giving more examples that question that statement.

JAStewart, have you actually had a conversation with someone about this? If so, what was his or her response when you made your point?
 
Since homosexuality is fairly ubiquitous (and not just in humans), the rational conclusion would be that it is useful. Lack of imagination shouldn't be used as an excuse (i.e. I can't imagine how it could be useful, therefore it must be useless).

Linda
 
JAStewart said:
Disclaimer: I support gay and lesbian rights and all that jah.

Something I've had religious folks tell me is that Homosexuals are bad because they're useless : IE they can't make babies, thus they can't continue life.

Well, while I obviously think this is a load of crap, I retort:

Surely nuns and priests who take a vow of chastity are just as useless too in that respect?

Religion is weird.
Click to expand...


That is because they don't understand the term reproductive success. Siblings share as much genetic material with each other as they do their parents, in some cases more. If a sibling helps rear another sibling they are helping their genes to get passed on. This is why so many birds have juvenile rearing of siblings. So if you have a sibling, you don't reproduce and you rear your neices and nephews, there is still benefit to your genes.
 
fls said:
Since homosexuality is fairly ubiquitous (and not just in humans), the rational conclusion would be that it is useful. Lack of imagination shouldn't be used as an excuse (i.e. I can't imagine how it could be useful, therefore it must be useless).

Linda
Click to expand...


I don't think that this is a logically necessary conclusion. It might be rational enough to attempt to test, but I don't think we can conclude this from the evidence we currently have.

I think all that we can say definitively is that homosexuality, whatever it is, has not been made to disappear through evolutionary processes. This may only mean that homosexuality is not genetic and inheritable but congenital and of dubious hereditability.

If it is due to factors during the mother's pregnancy that are wholly or partially based on the genetics of the mother, that has not been bred out through the evolutionary process either. This appears to mean that, if homosexuality is caused by a genetic condition of the mother, those mothers are still able to have non-homosexual children to pass on this trait. Actually, we know for a fact that parents of homosexuals are able to have non-homosexual children.
 
fls said:
Since homosexuality is fairly ubiquitous (and not just in humans), the rational conclusion would be that it is useful. Lack of imagination shouldn't be used as an excuse (i.e. I can't imagine how it could be useful, therefore it must be useless).

Linda
Click to expand...

Cancer is fairly ubiquitous that does not mean it is useful. Evolutionarily it does not need to serve a function to be present, just not sufficiently harmful to kill of the species.

This does not mean that homosexuality is useful or useless, just that not every trait must be useful.
 
Loss Leader said:
I don't think that this is a logically necessary conclusion. It might be rational enough to attempt to test, but I don't think we can conclude this from the evidence we currently have.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's logically necessary either. Just the more probable when weighing the two. Or, at least, as you pointed out, rational enough to test. I think its presence in other species argues against it (to some degree) as an accident that has not been sufficiently harmful to disappear. And I wasn't excluding the possibility that the usefulness came from other phenotypic expressions of the genes/factors involved.

Linda
 
ponderingturtle said:
Cancer is fairly ubiquitous that does not mean it is useful. Evolutionarily it does not need to serve a function to be present, just not sufficiently harmful to kill of the species.

This does not mean that homosexuality is useful or useless, just that not every trait must be useful.
Click to expand...

I would (even if I didn't know how) suspect that whatever it is that leads to cancer must have some benefit that outweighs the obvious disadvantage, though.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I should have said something like, just because it appears useless from one perspective does not mean that it is necessarily useless, given that then we need to explain why it's still around.

Linda
 
Homosexuals don't have kids, and can as such adopt unwanted children. Furthermore, two mothers have been proven to be better at raising children than parents who are not the same sex. This alone, in our world full of orphans, should be enough to convince anyone. Two references from another post of mine:

1. Study finds gay moms equally-good parents , Canada.com, May 7, 2007.
2. Interviews with Ten-Year-Old Children [of lesbian parents], American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 2005.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Homosexuals don't have kids, and can as such adopt unwanted children. Furthermore, two mothers have been proven to be better at raising children than parents who are not the same sex. This alone, in our world full of orphans, should be enough to convince anyone. Two references from another post of mine:

1. Study finds gay moms equally-good parents , Canada.com, May 7, 2007.
2. Interviews with Ten-Year-Old Children [of lesbian parents], American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 2005.
Click to expand...

Excellent point! The second link has some sad but sweet quotes from the kids about getting picked on for having two moms.
 
fls said:
I don't think it's logically necessary either. Just the more probable when weighing the two. Or, at least, as you pointed out, rational enough to test. I think its presence in other species argues against it (to some degree) as an accident that has not been sufficiently harmful to disappear. And I wasn't excluding the possibility that the usefulness came from other phenotypic expressions of the genes/factors involved.

Linda
Click to expand...

That depends on at what point you trace it as an accident. If it is a fundamental flaw in binary sexual reproduction, then the advantages of having two sexes outweigh the harm of homosexuality on the species.

What is the benefit of having the nerves attach in front of our retina or being unable to generate our own vitamin C? By the logic that things must present a benefit to last, then these must be beneficial.

This is very much like arguments for intelligent design in some ways, both are based around flawed views of perfection. Evolution is about the least bad not the perfect.
 
fls said:
I would (even if I didn't know how) suspect that whatever it is that leads to cancer must have some benefit that outweighs the obvious disadvantage, though.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I should have said something like, just because it appears useless from one perspective does not mean that it is necessarily useless, given that then we need to explain why it's still around.

Linda
Click to expand...

Because it is not sufficiently harmful to render the species unable to compete sufficiently well.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Homosexuals don't have kids, and can as such adopt unwanted children. Furthermore, two mothers have been proven to be better at raising children than parents who are not the same sex. This alone, in our world full of orphans, should be enough to convince anyone. Two references from another post of mine:

1. Study finds gay moms equally-good parents , Canada.com, May 7, 2007.
2. Interviews with Ten-Year-Old Children [of lesbian parents], American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 2005.
Click to expand...

I am not sure this is sufficient to explain homosexuality in other species
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom