captainfluoxetine said:
DISCLAIMER: I do not attach any stigma to the term 'mental illness'. I do not use it in a derogatory way nor do I believe it is something an individual should ever be judged on.
It matters not if you place a stigma upon the term, the term has a stigma. It's like using the n-word and saying it is okay because you don't place a stigma upon it. A stigma upon the word still exists, and you will still be looked down upon for using it.
The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.
Your argument is incorrect due to the existence of human beings. It can be proven that humans do think in a collective sense and could be said to fight for the "survival of the species." (Godwins Law: Hell there was an entire political movement based around it). The only thing that limits us today is that we think of our collectives as split between things like "American" or "European" as opposed to "Human." It can be said that the reason for this is because we as humans naturally seek conflict and without another major force on the planet to conflict with, we conflict with one another.
If your argument was about, say, wolves, then you might have a point.
Further to the above paragraph I'm going to do something incredibly irritating and patronizing and guess the counter argument many people will put forward which is 'But we treat each other with kindness and respect people, surely if all we wanted to do was pass on our genes we'd just fuck every member of the opposite sex and kill every one of the same?'.. or an argument to that effect. Well no, we wouldn't, by not acting like savages we ensure mutual survival, I allow you to survive, you allow me to survive, therefore MY genes (the important ones in my view) get passed on.This is seen in nature as well, morality is just a more evolved version of this survival mechanism.
Yeah, I'd never argue the "kindness and respect" argument. Both of those were originally defense mechanisms(on an interpersonal scale) that developed into social norms even though they very rarely still hold the same defensive function.
Of course now we have to begin making certain assumptions, and I carry this on in the spirit of debate and to a certain extent playing devils advocate.
Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition. If there is a 'gay gene' or several of them they do not HAVE to have a point. They may simply have persisted because occasionally for whatever reason homosexuals reproduce, its a recessive gene, or any other number of factors. The existence of homosexuals does not mean they have a 'point'. It must be remembered that evolution hasn't finished, we didn't turn up as modern man and then nature went 'Fuck it, im done here!'
They may not HAVE to have a point. That is correct. However, this does not mean that we cannot create a point for them. One of the greatest abilities of the human race is to manipulate evolution. We've been doing it since the dawn of modern medicine. We could certainly create an institutional system to give them a point (say, they aren't allowed to have children and we give them some sort of incentive for not doing so). Of course, you could argue that they do have a natural point and that their point, overall, was to avoid overpopulation. If that were true, I would bet on it simply being a recessive gene. That meaning that when the recessive gene develops, it simply throws out that entire persons contribution to the species to avoid what I would call saturation.
Modern day homosexual couples find ways to reproduce? Well through totally unnatural means, that's hardly relevant.
Evolution in modern times does not have to be natural. Since we are on a video game website, think Deus Ex. If the couple has the ability to find the information on how to spread their genes and has the earning power to pay for the procedures to do it, then they have just earned the ability to pass on their genes. This is because the evolution we are creating within our society is one where traits such as the ability to fight predators, forage, etc. are being replaced with abilities such as potential for earning power(aka. traits conducive to being able to earn) or intelligence. One unfortunate sidenote: If we accepted the harsh reality of our societies new evolution, we would let the homeless die, as that is where bad genes go to remove themselves from the gene pool. That special homosexual couple is completely relevant to the discussion of evolution.
I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.
you make this statement but do nothing to prove it. You can't just make a claim against something without a warrant.
Okay. You can, it is just extremely ineffective
I realize I've almost totally lost the point of 'homosexuality is a mental illness' as in honesty its not like I have hard evidence one way or the other, and as I say I continue this more in the spirit of debate than fighting a corner. On that subject however I would argue that MANY mental illnesses depression, schizophrenia and so on are genetic in nature AND do not benefit the individual nor help them reproduce. They in fact hinder the individuals ability to function and therefore, though not physically, mentally hinder the individuals ability to reproduce. It doesn't seem totally incomprehensible that homosexuality could be classed alongside these.
Your bolded statement really settles the argument. We are both layman, we must defer to those who are experts on the topic. If you can not provide expert evidence(testimony, etc) that would contradict the status quo(that homosexuality is not a mental illness - otherwise we would have homosexuals in padded rooms), then you have no solid argument.
Next point:
Here is the thing. In our 'new' world, homosexuality doesn't hinder their ability to reproduce. If you want to argue there is no point to homosexuality, I'll accept that and rather argue that it is nothing more than a gene that alters a trait of the person that may have, at one time, hindered their ability to reproduce, but now it does not. As such, it is a trait (in humans) that is completely inconsequential to evolution. Therefore, as it does not hinder the ability to function in any way, it is not a mental illness.
Thanks for the argument.
