Post No.: 0828
Furrywisepuppy says:
Time to broach another contentious topic together kitten.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Yes puppy. It’s about homosexuality. And we’re going to be grown-up about it.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Indeed!
Let’s commence by saying that sex isn’t just about reproduction – it’s also about social bonding, or sometimes dominance, or conversely maintaining the peace, depending on the species.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
And homosexuality hasn’t just been observed in humans. Homosexuality may have evolved in nature because it’s useful from the perspective of group selection – a lesbian/gay individual mightn’t pass any direct copies of their own genes onto the next generation but may help their relatives to pass on their genes by helping to raise and protect their children, at the same time as not contributing to over-population. ‘Selfish genes’ may ‘desire’ to replicate themselves, but at the whole organism level it’s clear that some individuals are content without wanting any offspring, and we wouldn’t call them ill or unhinged. (‘Selfish genes’ don’t necessarily make selfish organisms.) Therefore some individuals can fail to reproduce but the species as a whole can continue to exist and even thrive in number overall. This kind of thing is pretty normal when it comes to worker drone insects, or species with true alpha males and harems, where a lot of other males don’t ever get to reproduce.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Okay. But this hypothesis raises the question of why be homosexual rather than asexual or nonsexual? Many homosexual couples would love to be able to bear biological children completely of their own too if the technology existed to create life by combining the genetic material from just two egg, or just two sperm, cells. Absent of this technology presently, many homosexual individuals today use third-party surrogates or donors to help them have children who’ll at least carry the biological material from one of the couple, instead of adopt. Thus many homosexual couples do want furry children of their own.
It appears to be something to do with one’s testosterone levels whilst in the womb. But why is homosexuality as common as it is? Could it be an over-firing by-product effect of some other behaviour?
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Well not every naturally-evolved or genetically-influenced trait is in aid of a specie’s survival or reproductive success – at least directly or for the benefit of the individual rather than their group. What’s the benefit of genetically inherited diseases? Why do children intuitively like to pick their noses and orally sample the contents?! Not every natural trait offers an advantage to a species (although scientists will often try to find one). Something can even seemingly offer a disadvantage – just as long as it’s not enough to kill a species off as a whole. And we must also note that, in nature, species do go extinct constantly. No species is a perfect survivor or reproducer so why should we expect every single thing that humans naturally do to be in aid of their own survival and reproduction?
Furrywisepuppy says:
Regardless, homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are indeed natural – different sexualities and sexual strategies exist amongst other species too. Some wild animals sometimes exhibit (what can be interpreted as) homosexual behaviours.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
For example, different horses find that different sexual preferences suit them… although they still prefer horses. That’s why we have the well-known idiom ‘horses **** horses’.
Furrywisepuppy says:
I guess that’s, accurate… too!
But the question remains as to whether having some homosexual individuals within a group offers a benefit to that group, is neutral, or is an evolutionary glitch but one that isn’t significant enough to cause a species a noticeable problem, overall?
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Well the ancient Greek Spartan way of life died off – it was evidently not fit enough to survive to this day. Meanwhile, a percentage of homosexuality in the population is fit for survival right now (as are obese people or dwarves for instance I suppose) – otherwise, logically, they wouldn’t be around right now! Fitness, in natural selection terms, is context dependent.
Furrywisepuppy says:
No ‘gay gene’ has been identified thus far. It appears to be the small but cumulative effects of many different genes interacting in combination with the environment. This is how these genes can continue to pass intergenerationally within a population. This is also how we can have identical twins where one twin is homosexual but the other isn’t.
There could be a cultural factor as to why the proportion of people self-identifying as bisexual has risen recently? It could be that the definition of bisexuality has broadened lately? It could be the case that more people today are simply more safely able and willing to admit to having these feelings than people in the past?
Fluffystealthkitten says:
There might also be such a thing as sexual fluidity? Some people seem to genuinely change their sexual identities from heterosexual to homosexual or bisexual when older without it having been due to them suppressing their natural sexual feelings when younger. Such changes aren’t described as choices – just like puberty is a change but not a choice.
Whatever the case, it’s not persuasive to state that being homosexual is immoral because it doesn’t in itself cause any harm to the individual or others. That’s why it’s no longer considered to be a disorder by the World Health Organisation. The mystery of homosexuality currently persists but it’s not really ‘a problem that needs correcting’. ‘Gay conversion therapy’ should never be forced upon anyone.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Yes, historically, homosexuality was seen as something that must be ‘cured’, but now in many (although hardly all) countries, homosexuals live happily and free from the fear of ostracism i.e. these people are the same as before, but it’s the culture that has changed to be more accepting and accommodating of them. This, and for other people like the disabled, needs to continue to progress.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
When homophobes assume that all male homosexuals just go around groping men – do they assume that all male heterosexuals just go around groping women?(!) Meow.
Furrywisepuppy says:
We do have to understand the history of some worldviews though because everything has a reason. For example, many countries in Africa still treat homosexuality as a crime, and we in a country like Britain may condemn how backwards they are. But the main reasons for their attitudes on homosexuality stem from the slave-trading days, for which Britain played a major role – homosexual slaves were less desirable because they didn’t bear offspring and create free slaves (as in slaves the slave masters didn’t have to buy), hence were punished. Also, slaves were often punished via what’s called ‘buck breaking’, which involved humiliating them by publicly sodomising them with objects. Thus sodomy became associated with colonial slave-master power. Therefore to reject that colonial power, they also rejected that symbolic nature of sodomy, and in turn homosexuality. It was a thing that white people did to black people to subjugate them.
This is our complicated culture, and it requires listening to all sides instead of rushing to judgements with a sense of self-superiority and self-righteousness one way or another.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
I often hear people state conclusions I agree with but arguments that I don’t too. For instance, on a televised debate, there was a disagreement between two sides as to whether homosexuality should be allowed in the Islamic religion. The side arguing for the affirmative just repeatedly protested that the other side was homophobic. But the other side had a far more cogent argument, which was if you’re homosexual then that’s fine but just don’t practice Islam or say you’re a Muslim if so. This is similar to arguing that if you want to eat meat then that’s fine. One isn’t against that. But just don’t practice vegetarianism or call yourself a vegetarian if you do! (Similar points were made in Post No.: 0102.) In other words, instead of trying to change the (fundamental credos of the) Islamic faith – change your own faith and believe in something else if you’re homosexual or transsexual. People still have their choice but these choices are arguably mutually incompatible i.e. you can’t be both a Muslim and homosexual.
The first side could’ve contended that the Islamic faith should update with the times, or something along the lines of appealing to tolerance and inclusion in the religion, whereby heterosexuality isn’t an intrinsic or core necessity of the faith. Instead, they just called those who disagreed with them homophobic or transphobic.
Furrywisepuppy says:
I get you. The issue was poor argumentation, and how many emotional disagreements tend to descend into childish slanging matches! The strategy isn’t to really listen but to just bark over the other side as much as possible! Consequently, rather than changing anyone’s minds, they become further reinforced. In my experience, it’s far more pleasurable to watch, or even be involved in, court proceedings because decent judges and lawyers are usually more reasonable when accepting or rejecting arguments between the sides, and when avoiding or identifying logical fallacies.
Fluffystealthkitten says:
It’s like this – no one really chooses their sexual orientation. Well try forcing yourself into becoming homosexual if you’re heterosexual! It’s the same the other way around. It’s not really a choice. You have the requisite physical equipment for cisgender homosexual sex. But you’re attracted to whom you’re attracted to.
The main crucial thing is the well-informed, non-mis-sold and non-coerced consent of all the parties involved in a particular relationship or sexual act. (This is why active paedophilia and bestiality stand out as problematic – minors and other creatures cannot give such consent to a human.)
Otherwise there’s no harm caused; at least any more than with heterosexual sex if done safely (there’s even less chance of an unwanted pregnancy), either to oneself or to others; unlike something like passive smoking. Hence there’s nothing that any external party should interfere with. Some will assert that their deviant demeanours will potentially culturally influence young minds though.
Furrywisepuppy says:
So we’re all ostensibly entitled to our own sexual preferences. However – if we’re to explore this topic more broadly – when does an innocent preference fall into the category of discrimination? If it’s okay to prefer brunettes over blondes, or indeed men over women, for instance – then why is it not okay to prefer dark-skinned over light-skinned people, or muscular over portly people, for instance? To argue that one has nothing against, say, white people but one just prefers to exclusively date black people – is just the same logic as having nothing against hiring women but one just prefers to exclusively hire men for top senior roles!
Fluffystealthkitten says:
These are difficult discussions. Not least because our preferences are partly shaped by our cultures, like the stereotypes portrayed and messages promulgated by the media.
Anyway, we’re gradually, as a world, learning that there’s no need for a ‘cure’ or intervention for homosexual, bisexual or transgender thoughts. The story of Alan Turing – one of the chief heroes for the Allies in bringing about the end of WWII – was a tragic one because he was gay and that was deemed a pathology at the time, which required treatment. Although it may be an open verdict, many claim that he was essentially persecuted into committing suicide because the British government gave him the stark choice of ‘chemical castration’ or a prison sentence. Who knows what more he could’ve done for humanity if he had lived longer? How much further technologically would we be today? We’ll never know now.
Whatever the true cause of death, he shouldn’t have been treated that way. But that’s how we treated one of our brightest heroes, just because he was homosexual (which ironically reflected some parallels with the contemporaneous Nazi views of Jews and blacks!) Hopefully this story gets taught in British Secondary school history lessons nowadays.
Furrywisepuppy says:
Agreed.
We’re both personally supportive of everybody’s individual rights to their own sexualities. Woof!
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Homosexuals are queer and here to stay! Meow!
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
