Bugmaster wrote:Population control is very important to the survival of the species. For example: in the absence of predators, rabbits can breed like... well... rabbits, and consume their food supply very quickly, at which point the entire rabbit population will die. In this situation, any
mechanism that controls population growth -- such as homosexuality -- would be a very good thing for the survival of the species. By AlAyeti's own argument, this would make homosexuality acceptable from the natural point of view.
In fact, there's a lot of
research indicating that homosexuality is genetic. This would make homosexuality perfectly natural, and therefore, by AlAyeti's own argument, moral.
///
Of course then abnormality is also a fact. Congenital birth defects garner a cure or at least a search for a cure.
Aberrations of nature are not acceptable.
///
"By AlAyeti's own argument, this would make homosexuality acceptable from the natural point of view."
///
On the rational note: Therefore using the logic of
population control, then human homosexuals should be barred from having children and barred from marriage as the "natural" thing to do. Rather it is bugmasters logic that would dictate tight controls of homosexual behavior in humans.
///
If we use nature as the guide then marginalizing homosexuals is perfectly natural. There is no such thing as "morality" in nature. You can try to deny that rape and murder, infanticide and molestation is acceptable in nature but that is denying facts.
Homosexuality has been declassified as a mental disorder by humans but the cause is not even close to being found in humans or (other) animals.
Relegating or indeed promoting homosexuality as OK is going against nature. Aberration is a fact of nature no matter the emotionalism embraced by humans to see pity in the condition.
Humans are capable of making cattle and many other animals better, stronger and bigger, there should at least be an all out search for a cure of homosexual mental illness. Which by using the congenital excuse, puts homosexuality squarely into the category of disease.
Logic and science dictate that we marginalize homosexuals or any other mutation that does not improve speciation to a place where science can monitor and limit its spread. If again, homosexuality is a birth defect, the cause itself should be identified and eliminated to insure a healthy species.
In the human species homosexuality is therefore identified as either a mental disorder or a physical deformity.
In either case, since "morality" doesn't exist in nature the way it has evolved in human society, we are left with either philosophical or metaphysical interpretation for the condition.
met·a·phys·i·cal (mt-fz-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to metaphysics.
2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4.
a. Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial.
b. Supernatural.
5. often Metaphysical Of or relating to the poetry of a group of 17th-century English poets whose verse is characterized by an intellectually challenging style and extended metaphors comparing very dissimilar things.
///
Certainly, allowing homosexuals to choose their own course in life is not logical as nature teaches that the healthy and strong breeding pairs demand the place of leadership in the "natural order of things." Those relegated to a class of "the aberrated" have a definition they cannot escape if nature and the natural order are to be the guide.
Morality has somehow found its way into only the human species. We do not observe even in dolphins and killer whales negotiating peace conditions.
We are left with a emotional quandary because if science is the guide to the condition of "homosexual," then there is no other definition than "wrong" being applied to those individuals that must carry within them the aberration that clearly is evident in the condition.
The question posed in this thread has to deal with "science" which is or should be unemotional and impassionate.
Therefore if there is a comparable definition of "aberration" which indeed is a perfect definition in a natural view. When applied to the human way of understanding "right and wrong" - which indeed does not exist in nature - then it is comparable in the phrase "immoral behavior." As aberration carries with it a response to actions or stimuli in nature and what has come to be known as "human decency" in the human species.
The actions of homosexuals can be observed, classified and judged in the human sense in only one definition in the scientific view as incorrect actions.
Anatomy, physiology and biology are once again the scientific arbiters of what is right and what is not in terms of the normaility of sexuality.
