Homosexuality is logical even in the context of procreation -- it's in nobody's best interest for the population to explode, and it is good to have adults who don't have their own offspring to look after available to help out with other people's kids. (The aunt/ uncle effect.)
Other than that, it's all equally illogical [heterosexuality or homosexuality].
hormones make us male or female.
hormones are not always correct or inline with the physical body.
this is not anyones control
this can happen in any species. I dont think it is illogical at all.
Soz has a good point. I never thought of it that way.
sozobe wrote:Homosexuality is logical even in the context of procreation -- it's in nobody's best interest for the population to explode, and it is good to have adults who don't have their own offspring to look after available to help out with other people's kids. (The aunt/ uncle effect.)
Other than that, it's all equally illogical [heterosexuality or homosexuality].
Nobody forceds heterosexual couples to have children and add to this the matter of artificial insemination which means any homosexual man can be part of procreation. A homosexual woman can also procreate even without the benefit of modern science since all it comes down to is sex with a man, no enjoyment is needed on her part (sorry to be so crass but it's a simple fact). Even a homosexual man can create a new life with sexual contact with a woman..it does happen. And when it comes to having people to look after the children which heterosexual couples have created, why aren't birth parents doing this? The idea that you have of reducing homosexuals to merely care givers is shameful.
Who cares ? As long as it is fun !!
the prince wrote:Who cares ? As long as it is fun !!
Good point. Is it fun and not hurting anyone or anything then what more matters?
Wha? Reducing them to merely carers?
I'm going by the evolutionary perspective -- what is the evolutionary benefit of gay and lesbian people?
I'm saying that, species-wise, there are a lot of evolutionary benefits to having gay and lesbian people in the mix.
It doesn't mean that every single gay or lesbian person needs to care for his/ her nieces, nephews, and neighborhood kids. Just an answer to, does the species as a whole benefit if say 10% of the population is homosexual? And I think the answer is yes.
On an evolutionary scale, artificial insemination much too recent. On an evolutionary scale, a group of hominids living together had a certain number of offspring who were cared for by available adults -- and the ones who had their own offspring were less available. So there was a benefit to the group if not all of them had offspring. Does that mean that every single one of them actually did do the caretaking? Of course not.
Just pointing out how it makes sense even within the "natural law" framework.
Not sure what's shameful there.
Ultimately, I completely agree with your last sentence.
I think we've strayed into the either/or trap. As I understand it human sexuality is on a spectrum and not opposite sides of a coin. We can range from being exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, but it's a sliding scale. That being so then I think from an evolutionary perspective it complicates things.
Human sexual behaviour is diverse. I'll settle for that.
<<nodding at goodfielder. Definetly a sliding scale.
Sorry to be the jerk here; but what does it matter if it is logical or not?!
Thankfully, life isn't all logical. And often; seemingly illogical 'things' work.
I suppose nothing in life is really logical when you look at it.....
