State Party Considers Firing Chairman for Embracing Gay Marriage

[Atomic Playboy]

The idea that certain numbers in a genetic line are sacrificed, for lack of a better word, for some undetermined benefit to the herd would seem to support a higher intelligence that guides it all. It is presumed that the ability of a species to evolve and thrive is more the collective product of each member's individual desire to survive and procreate. It is hard to fathom that part of an animals individual genetic makeup would compel it to not procreate for the benefit of the species, which is usually a matter of consequence as opposed to purpose.

Animals don't procreate because they're interested in the survival of their species; most animals don't possess the brain capacity or intelligence to realize what a species is. Animals reproduce because there are neurological pleasure responses associated with the act of reproduction. Human beings don't have sex only when they're attempting reproduction; more often than not, people are looking for an orgasm, a natural neurological response that brings a pleasurable sensation. So the contention that animals are acting in the best interest of the species is not correct from the get-go; animals act in the way that is best for them personally. If an animal species can attain the pleasure sensation from sexual contact with a same-sex member of their species, there's no driving biological force telling them, "you must not do this, for it will not aid in reproduction."

I don't know that the "it's natural" angle really matters in the debate on homosexuality. There are lots of things that happen in the natural world that we, as a society, have agreed not to do. I understand the point that homosexuality is indeed a naturally occurring phenomenon in a lot of species and not just a perversion that only afflicts humans, but once you get past that, it doesn't actually offer much argument to the debate given that our society is not based on "do other animals do this too?"

 

[Craig234]

Craig, maybe I misused the word natural. . ? I understand that it is natural in the fact that a person doesn't CHOOSE to be gay, they simply are. . . . but more of the somewhat Darwinian fact that it would be VERY difficult for a homosexual couple to reproduce to carry on the species. Men are born with certain hardware as are women. . . they serve a purpose.

Well, I think the word natural can have different meanings - one is that one about heterosexuality and homjosexuality being 'natural' human sexuality, not 'choice'.

That's not only a long-time controversy - people who were bigoted against gays didn't want to admit they were against them for some natural condition, so they decided that homosexuality had to be a bad and evil choice the people made that was perverted, for no good reason, and could be compared to stealing and murder as a wrong choice.

But it wasn't only the bigots - for a period some gays themselves found that they had more leverage arguing for rights by calling it a 'lifestyle choice', and did so - pretty wrongly.

Another issue is the proecration issue as 'natural'. Yes, on some level it's just common sense and there seems to be evidence, evolution supports species procreation.

But that's a very broad issue and there's plenty of room for 'natural variations' in a minority of the species for whatever reason. The question then is is discrimination justified?

If someone is born albino do we say 'that's unusual and your white skin makes you more visible to predators and so you lose civil rights'? Of course not.

We don't fully understand the 'whys' of around 4% of the population being homosexual, but we don't really have to to know the rights and wrongs on rights.

(By the way, as I said, sexuality is complicated and not everyone who does a homosexual act is 'born homosexual' the same way. But we aren't legislating on the exceptions).

You say 'men and women have hardware with a purpose'. There's some truth to that. And some societies have declared that the ONLY proper use for that hardware is procreation - you don't put it other places that feel good, and you only put it there when you are trying to procreate. You are for that, right? I mean, we have to limit its use to that purpose, no matter if nature has also made some people have different attractions and pretty much everyone enjoy some different uses.

And on the other extreme, as I said, if nature has led men to have some attraction to see a pretty girl and rape her, that should be ok right? I mean it's natural and procreation.

See how silly that gets when you try to use 'nature' too much and misuse it?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Anyone who thinks nature is "all that" when it comes to reproduction should read up on how the common bed bug mates. It's pretty astounding.

I'm not sure anyone has mentioned this yet, but there has been at least one study linking homosexual males with increased fertility in their female relatives. It could be that it is simply a side-effect, and it doesn't disappear because there are correlated genetic advantages to it.