It is wrong in the functional sense that follows from the original claim that the reason that human beings exist is in order to allow human DNA to replicate. It's a Dawkinsian view - the idea being that the primary organism is the DNA itself and the human form simply being a means for those genes to replicate themselves.
That is a Dawkinsian view but it says nothing about unhindered DNA replication. And I doubt Dawkins -anywhere- suggests Homosexuality is a process gone wrong?
If you look at it this way then homosexuality is an example of evolved behaviour that is not functioning correctly.
That does not follow.
Human sexuality is partly about bonding rather than procreation - but the bonding (falling in love) is itself evolutionarily-beneficial because it keeps sexual partners together long enough to raise an infant into childhood. It then generally wears off...
Hardly relevant since there are multiple forms of reproductive strategy that works just as well. And do you have any information to suggest Homosexual partners bond any less than Heteros?
No, but in this case you aren't talking about instinctive, evolved behaviour but something quite different: the intentional, wilful overcoming of instinctive, evolved behaviour.
So how do you explain it amongst Skinnerian and Popperian animals said to work upon instinct alone? Are animals being wilful? I think not. Humans are no different.
This is a very special sort of behaviour, probably unique to our species, and any discussion of the reasons behind it is likely to be complicated.
As we have seen it is anything but 'special' behaviour.
It is wrong because, from the POV of the selfish gene, the genes are producing behaviour which is not the behaviour they are supposed to produce and does not have the correct end product.
The selfish gene gets itself replicated by many means -not all of them congruent with what 'should' be right about evolution. The only imperative is that DNA reproduces. if it successfully reproduces or is carried to thenext generation - it works. Homosexuality, is, as we have demonstrated, no hindrance to that direction.
Because he does not actually suceed in producing offspring.
I dont know what you mean by this. if a homosexual has offspring; it counts.
Evolutionary "fitness" is the ability to raise offspring which are themselves capable of succesfully raising offspring. That is the benchmark. No offspring or offspring with shared genes = evolutionary failure.
What has that to do with homosexuality?
Do I have to have a reason to be a Crystal Palace supporter?
It requires a certain, sinister rationale to be a CP supported living in Brighton. Come to think of it, being a Palace supporter is just 'wrong' and an evolutionary dead end.
Well, there's at least another reason and I keep telling you it: it's "wrong" in the sense of reproductive fitness.
And do I need to repeat that this is entirely wrong.
The genes are producing the "wrong" behaviour from their point of view.
This mioght have some credence if you could demonstrate that homosexuality breeds homosexuality, which we know it does not. Homosexuality would be an extinction event. But i know you arent claiming queens make queens. Are you? I cannot see how your statement about genes producing 'wrong' behaviour would make sense otherwise.
This is the exact opposite of a religiously-motivated view, which views it as "wrong" because it explicitly views humans in terms of their biology and completely ignores any spiritual or ethical aspect to the issue.
Then suppose, without any religious, ethical or moral value, homosexuality would not be an issue of any note. Biologists explain it amongst other strategies but I never heard any say it was something going 'wrong'. That is your explanation. I think few would agree with it.
You can't get much less religious than viewing humans as nothing more than hunks of flesh and bone whose sole purpose is to reproduce human DNA.
But you seem to view a certain sexual proclivity of a few bags of flesh and bones as worthy of being 'wrong' there fore the rest are 'right'. It is apparently, demonstratively and observationally natural to virtually all species. it has survived and flourished, it has not diluted nor has it gone extinct as most 'wrong' ideas do. It clearly demonstrates no debar to reproduction - for all you know active homosexuals may have more children than the average family - but they are not dead ends and therefore a good way to promote DNA and preserve and protect existing DNA. I just don't get (and I expect few others do) where you are coming from suggesting there is something, somewhere , going wrong.
That doesn't follow. You have said yourself that they have to get "creative" in order to actually succeed in reproducing. This is their way of trying to put right what has gone wrong.
Wow. I would suggest you take a look back over what you just wrote. This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I will say however that 'getting creative' is necessary for heteros too. Infertility clinics anyone? it has nothing to do with homosexuality but, at least, I think we see what you really mean about Homosexuality being 'wrong'.
