ShortTimer
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 917
- Reaction score
- 1
I actually submitted this paper for my philosophy class.
Anyhow, I see you 'tards are getting way off track and some of you really have your heads up your asses when it comes to reality. Thought I'd educate some of the dumb****s on this site. You're not gonna see results until you GET REAL about ****. The homophobes are dragging **** down and need to be curbed now before their assanine theories get out of control.
Anyhow, on with my paper:
Contrary to certain popular claims, homosexuality is not an unnatural behavior. First we should examine what exactly is meant when opponents claim homosexuality is “unnatural.” From this we can examine the argument that nature does not intend for this use of our sexual organs. Finally we can ponder what, if any evolutionary advantage homosexuality offers.
Opponents have argued that homosexuality is “unnatural,” but what exactly do they mean when they say this? This argument would seem on the surface to be ridiculous. Nothing unnatural can exist, that is true by the very definition of the world “natural.” So perhaps that is not what the unnaturalness argument is saying. Instead perhaps what is meant is “when we say something is not natural, we mean that it is a product of human artifice (Gruen, Sex, 45).” This would seem more reasonable but yet it would also be untrue of homosexuality. Biologists have observed in the field homosexual acts in various other species and have observed such acts in our closest animal cousins such as the chimpanzee. While certainly it does happen in the animal kingdom and also in humans it would seem this behavior is not the norm. Could then we point to it and say it is perverse? While “the concept of perversion can hardly fail to be evaluative in some sense” we should remember that a statistical deviance in and of itself is no reason to condemn anything morally. Perhaps then the unnaturalness argument is trying to tell us that we are somehow using our organs wrong. Some point out that the purpose of the sexual organs is obviously reproduction. Well, those who have had any interaction with their own sexual organs certainly realize that those same organs also obviously bring pleasure in various forms. It would seem a disservice to finding the truth if we should ignore either of these things. While sexual organs can be used for reproduction, it is also true that is not their only function. So if a sexual organs purpose is both reproduction and pleasure, among other possible uses, then this context also makes homosexual acts within the natural use of the organs. So it would seem the unnaturalness argument is saying that nature did not intend for these organs to be used in such a manner (Trevas, Sex 239).
From this it could then be counter-argued that while homosexuality might be natural in the fact that it occurs in reality it is actually a misuse of nature. Perhaps then we should view homosexuality as a square peg in a round hole problem. Our sexual organs can certainly bring pleasure but other body parts do that as well. The only thing our sexual organs do that no other organs do is serve the function of reproduction. From this would seem that should homosexuality be embraced then if enough members of our species practiced it we would “promulgate the termination of the human race.” This would seem reasonable but the error arises because of how nature is commonly understood. We can say sex organs, or any organs for that matter, are intended for a certain use but we would be wrong. Evolution, or Nature in general, does not “intend” anything. This can be a very deceptive trap. For nature, or evolution to “intend” anything there must be some conscious force behind it. As yet we have found no consciousness to either of these phenomenon. Perhaps this would seem to be the splitting of hairs but this is actually illuminating to our subject. If nature does not “intend” for anything then nothing has a “natural” use. Of course one could say “but if nature did intend for something...” but that’s the point: nature does not intend for anything. Continuing to think about the subject in such a way as intend or not-intend is simply incorrect. Or perhaps we could take another route to this. If one can still not accept that nature does not intend anything as people intend things then homosexuality should be viewed as what nature intended. If our organs have function because of what nature intended then so too homosexuality must have some function because nature gave rise to it (Trevas, Sex, 155).
So if nature did “intend” for homosexuality to exits then what purpose does it serve? A better way of asking this question is “what evolutionary advantage does homosexuality offer?” To many looking for an advantage to homosexuality would seem to be a contradictory notion. But on this issue we should attempt to wrap our brains around the subject before dismissing it out of hand. In prison we see homosexual behavior practiced by those who would not normally view themselves as homosexual. So in this case at least we can see one adaptive function of homosexuality. In the absence of access to the other gender homosexuality would offer an outlet for the human sex drive. With this as a starting point we could then imagine temporary homosexual behavior in young males and females who live in a society where female virginity is prized. While they do not live in a literal prison their culture would restrict the access to the other gender and thus their sex drives could be expressed temporarily in this fashion. While these two examples are not the only conceivable circumstances we can see from them the general principle that temporary homosexual behavior can be adaptive. Temporary homosexual behavior is obviously not the only kind and now we should turn to permanent homosexual behavior. Permanent homosexuals have removed themselves from the so-called mating game. While this would seem maladaptive for there own genes could this behavior somehow help others? We can see other examples of those who have removed themselves from the mating game in the form of various religion’s priests and other holy men and women. They are removed from regular reproduction but yet serve what many see as a beneficial social function. So perhaps homosexuals have evolved in humans to be a support mechanism for those who do reproduce. This and the next argument are both treading in dangerous waters. The last could be used by some to promote a kind of homosexual slavery and the next eugenics against homosexuals. Permanent homosexuals, if allowed to practice as they desire shall not reproduce. Perhaps this is another intent of nature. Perhaps those who would be permanent homosexuals are not “meant” to reproduce. I fear this last argument could be construed as a condemnation of homosexuals in the sense that “nature found them unfit to reproduce” or “your genes are broken.” This is not the intent of that line of exploration, it is simply a possible reason why things are they way they are. Whatever the case it would not seem reasonable to say “it is simply bad science to go on arguing that human homosexual activity is biologically unnatural (Trevas, Sex, 266).”
Once we understood what exactly was meant by “unnatural” we could then dissect this argument against homosexuality properly. Then we examined if homosexuality was an improper use of sexual organs and found no solid ground there. Finally we examined some possibilities as to what evolutionary advantage homosexuality offers. Thus we can now, rather safely I would say, come to the conclusion that the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is itself incorrect.
Anyhow, I see you 'tards are getting way off track and some of you really have your heads up your asses when it comes to reality. Thought I'd educate some of the dumb****s on this site. You're not gonna see results until you GET REAL about ****. The homophobes are dragging **** down and need to be curbed now before their assanine theories get out of control.
Anyhow, on with my paper:
Contrary to certain popular claims, homosexuality is not an unnatural behavior. First we should examine what exactly is meant when opponents claim homosexuality is “unnatural.” From this we can examine the argument that nature does not intend for this use of our sexual organs. Finally we can ponder what, if any evolutionary advantage homosexuality offers.
Opponents have argued that homosexuality is “unnatural,” but what exactly do they mean when they say this? This argument would seem on the surface to be ridiculous. Nothing unnatural can exist, that is true by the very definition of the world “natural.” So perhaps that is not what the unnaturalness argument is saying. Instead perhaps what is meant is “when we say something is not natural, we mean that it is a product of human artifice (Gruen, Sex, 45).” This would seem more reasonable but yet it would also be untrue of homosexuality. Biologists have observed in the field homosexual acts in various other species and have observed such acts in our closest animal cousins such as the chimpanzee. While certainly it does happen in the animal kingdom and also in humans it would seem this behavior is not the norm. Could then we point to it and say it is perverse? While “the concept of perversion can hardly fail to be evaluative in some sense” we should remember that a statistical deviance in and of itself is no reason to condemn anything morally. Perhaps then the unnaturalness argument is trying to tell us that we are somehow using our organs wrong. Some point out that the purpose of the sexual organs is obviously reproduction. Well, those who have had any interaction with their own sexual organs certainly realize that those same organs also obviously bring pleasure in various forms. It would seem a disservice to finding the truth if we should ignore either of these things. While sexual organs can be used for reproduction, it is also true that is not their only function. So if a sexual organs purpose is both reproduction and pleasure, among other possible uses, then this context also makes homosexual acts within the natural use of the organs. So it would seem the unnaturalness argument is saying that nature did not intend for these organs to be used in such a manner (Trevas, Sex 239).
From this it could then be counter-argued that while homosexuality might be natural in the fact that it occurs in reality it is actually a misuse of nature. Perhaps then we should view homosexuality as a square peg in a round hole problem. Our sexual organs can certainly bring pleasure but other body parts do that as well. The only thing our sexual organs do that no other organs do is serve the function of reproduction. From this would seem that should homosexuality be embraced then if enough members of our species practiced it we would “promulgate the termination of the human race.” This would seem reasonable but the error arises because of how nature is commonly understood. We can say sex organs, or any organs for that matter, are intended for a certain use but we would be wrong. Evolution, or Nature in general, does not “intend” anything. This can be a very deceptive trap. For nature, or evolution to “intend” anything there must be some conscious force behind it. As yet we have found no consciousness to either of these phenomenon. Perhaps this would seem to be the splitting of hairs but this is actually illuminating to our subject. If nature does not “intend” for anything then nothing has a “natural” use. Of course one could say “but if nature did intend for something...” but that’s the point: nature does not intend for anything. Continuing to think about the subject in such a way as intend or not-intend is simply incorrect. Or perhaps we could take another route to this. If one can still not accept that nature does not intend anything as people intend things then homosexuality should be viewed as what nature intended. If our organs have function because of what nature intended then so too homosexuality must have some function because nature gave rise to it (Trevas, Sex, 155).
So if nature did “intend” for homosexuality to exits then what purpose does it serve? A better way of asking this question is “what evolutionary advantage does homosexuality offer?” To many looking for an advantage to homosexuality would seem to be a contradictory notion. But on this issue we should attempt to wrap our brains around the subject before dismissing it out of hand. In prison we see homosexual behavior practiced by those who would not normally view themselves as homosexual. So in this case at least we can see one adaptive function of homosexuality. In the absence of access to the other gender homosexuality would offer an outlet for the human sex drive. With this as a starting point we could then imagine temporary homosexual behavior in young males and females who live in a society where female virginity is prized. While they do not live in a literal prison their culture would restrict the access to the other gender and thus their sex drives could be expressed temporarily in this fashion. While these two examples are not the only conceivable circumstances we can see from them the general principle that temporary homosexual behavior can be adaptive. Temporary homosexual behavior is obviously not the only kind and now we should turn to permanent homosexual behavior. Permanent homosexuals have removed themselves from the so-called mating game. While this would seem maladaptive for there own genes could this behavior somehow help others? We can see other examples of those who have removed themselves from the mating game in the form of various religion’s priests and other holy men and women. They are removed from regular reproduction but yet serve what many see as a beneficial social function. So perhaps homosexuals have evolved in humans to be a support mechanism for those who do reproduce. This and the next argument are both treading in dangerous waters. The last could be used by some to promote a kind of homosexual slavery and the next eugenics against homosexuals. Permanent homosexuals, if allowed to practice as they desire shall not reproduce. Perhaps this is another intent of nature. Perhaps those who would be permanent homosexuals are not “meant” to reproduce. I fear this last argument could be construed as a condemnation of homosexuals in the sense that “nature found them unfit to reproduce” or “your genes are broken.” This is not the intent of that line of exploration, it is simply a possible reason why things are they way they are. Whatever the case it would not seem reasonable to say “it is simply bad science to go on arguing that human homosexual activity is biologically unnatural (Trevas, Sex, 266).”
Once we understood what exactly was meant by “unnatural” we could then dissect this argument against homosexuality properly. Then we examined if homosexuality was an improper use of sexual organs and found no solid ground there. Finally we examined some possibilities as to what evolutionary advantage homosexuality offers. Thus we can now, rather safely I would say, come to the conclusion that the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is itself incorrect.
