Well we aren't really talking about any population are we (i don't know i haven't read many of the responses here, just this first post on the page and not even that closely)?
No, I created the hypothetical population to amplify the point that homsexuality is against a critical part of the definition of life.
If we're talking about the present human population in our reality then it seems your argument isn't all that applicable. I mean, in a world burgeoning with human overpopulation, i could forward that homosexuality is a very healthy adaptation to help reduce the current numbers.
Form the biological point I'm not sure I would call it healthy, unless by healthy you mean painless. There are many more mechanism to reduce human populations, and those mechanisms are well know from history and in the present time. Infectious diseases are just one example.
But there is a huge difference between reducing human population through infectious diseases vs. homosexuality. There is no possibility of males getting naturally pregnant and there is no benefit to the species from a homosexual intercourse. In homosexuality there is no survival drive. In a bacterial or a viral diseases there is a benefit to a species since bacteria and viri benefit from attacking other organisms on the scale of their entire species.
Again, I see no such benefit in human homosexuality.
i don't know about that, doesn't your argument presume the purpose of one's existence is to procreate?
Trying to put words in my mouth, eh? ;)
No, it doesn't and I am a firm believer that one's existence has no purpose whatsoever. I believe I remarked on that on a couple of occasions on this forum Once in motion though, life self perpetuates itself and this is it's most important trait, but not the purpose.
First, homosexuality exists since the beginning (it also happens in the nature between animals), so I doubt it's heading towards extinction.
Of course. What's more, homosexual behaviors were not only known but also encouraged. Read into the Greek educational/personal ideals, pederasty (today known as pedophilia). Modern society and the pro gay movements are nothing that hadn't been done before. In fact they yet have to succeed with legalizing under age homosexuality to catch up with the ancient Greeks.
I would also be very careful using Plato as a support trooper. The man would likely be in jail if he presented his views today. Some say Plato's philosophy might be responsible for justifying a huge amount of human suffering throughout the ages, including euthanasia of the handicapped, mentally slow etc. Nope, let's not use Plato's morals. Many of them would be simply unacceptable today. And actually, let's keep morals to ourselves. Biology is more democratic and fair.
So much for "very definition of life"...
Not really. Cancer is a disease and it deadly. I know no person who would argue otherwise. Cancer is nothing new in humans and yet the species survived. See my comment to Foreigner4 above.
Old enough to recognise a minimalist argument based upon reductionist thought.
You cannot self-define the parameters of an argument.
You are confusing parameters with planes. I am not writing about social, religious or moral aspects of homosexuality. I may later on, but right now I am concentration on what is by far more basic and fundamental than moral - biology.
The issue is whether Homosexuality is a disease or not.
Misty asked what are the symptoms this is a relevant question. Because if there are not scientifically measurable symptoms everything else is conjecture/opinion. Based upon social norms.
I answered Misty and the answer is simple. Homosexuals suffer form the same symptoms as low sperm count patients, i.e. they cannot have children.
I don't know how many more times I should repeat that - I do not give one bit of squat about social norms at this point. Social norms are of secondary or even tertiary importance. First a species must do what a species needs to do survive as such. The social norms may change, and they have a few times, back and forth. Human biology in recorded history hasn't.
In so far as homosexuality causing suffering to homosexuals, I don't think it is a disease as I see no rush by gay to obtain pain killers. As an aspect for the survival of the species it certainly is an abnormal and undesirable behavior
Are you applying social norms to define dysfunctional/aberrant/ill behaviour?
Please, please, do not be stubborn and stop it. Apart from a brief remark on the bible, I am not interested in social norms. I am not judging anybody, I am writing about fundamentals of biological norms.
