If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

[Michael-5]

Mnementh said:

Michael-5 said:

Tom3k said:

 

However, why would anyone not look at homosexuality as a disorder similar to schizophrenea or autism? Just because the consequences aren't as extreme, doesnt mean that they are not disorders. They do affect an individuals normal life. Normal people have sex with the opposite gender because that's what were genetically programed to do. Evolution did not evolve homosexuality into our code, if you took any courses in bio, you would have learned that all evolutions only occur because of a corresponding increase in fitness. If there is a decrease in fitness, then those genes would have been weeded out long long ago.

If homosexuality were a gene, it would get weeded out because a higher % of homosexuals (or bisexuals) would not reproduce then a similar population of heterosexuals. This is the same logic as how pest resistance work (where eventually all pests become resistant because they are the only ones who have reproduced).

You are wrong. If you think about homosexuality as a gene you think homosexuals do have the gene and heterosexuals have not. But everyone could have the "homosexuality"-gene, but it is not expressed in every individual. Or there is a gene or combination of it for heterosexuality and if something is missing the individual is becoming homosexual.

Also you're wrong about the evolutionary aspect of it. Personal fitness is not the way to look at it. Yes, from the standpoint of personal fitness, the homosexual individual has a lower probability of reproduction. But personal fitness is near to no driving force in evolution. Individuals are killed by bad luck in nature. Based on personal fitness, altruism wouldn't be develop in evolution. The altruistic individual is at disadvantage. But the image changes if we look at a population. A population with altruistic individuals is in many situations stronger than one of egoists. That's why altruism is for many social animals something that develops in evolution. In the same way homosexuality of some individuals in a population could increase the fitness of this population. There are a lot of theories for this.

One thing is clear: as we discovered homosexual behaviour in many animals, a random mutation that is a disadvantage in evolution is highly unlikely. It would have removed from the population and it is highly unlikely that another random mutation has a similar effect. And in this case the mutation must have happened hundreds of times. So homosexuality is either an advantage in evolution or not inheritable. In the second case we need a good explanation, why it happens so often (relatively) in humans and animals.

I never said homosexuality was a gene, I actually made a point as to why it isn't a gene. I beleive what most scientists believe, and that homosexuality is a biological mutation (Many believe it to be an error occuring during pregnancy), a biological disorder, however a psychological disorder is also possible.

Autism is a genetic mutation which is random, but not uncommon. These people probably don't reproduce often, but the mutation is common enough to see it frequently. Only referencing it because it's a randomly occuring mutation.

Compare homosexuality to schizophrenea, that's more accurate. There is no schizophrenic gene, although children of schizophrenic people are less likely to carry the disorder, but that increase in frequency disappears after only 2 generations (grandchildren have normal odds ob developing the disorder).

Bold1: explain to me how that works. From what I learned in bio, fitness is the driving force behind evolution.

Bold2: 100% False, most random mutations are detremental, and usually get phased out with evolution (individuals with a lower fitness die off before they can reproduce). Very few are advantages. Mutations, are far more common then you realise.

Bold3: Exactly, the mutation is not inheritable. Do you need a reason for why it happens so regularly in humans? Here's one, it doesn't. Homosexuality rates are no higher then the non inheritable biological disorder of schizophrenea, which is about 1% the World Population, and significantly loweer then the non inheritable biological disorder of Depression, which is about 2.8%.

Now, you might want to argue that the homosexuality rate is over 3% (which it isn't, 3% is the homosexuality rate of Toronto, which has a significantly higher homosexuality rate then the rest of North America), but you should also realize that the schizophrenea and depression rates are actually significantly higher then the 1% and 2.8% I posted above. 1% is the occurance of being born with schizophrenea, but it's not impossible to develop the illness. In fact many homeless people become schizophrenic and depressed, so why can't the sexually oppressed people become homosexual?

 

There is absolutly no reason not to look at homosexuality as a disorder. Sure it's not as extreme as Schizophrenea (a Psychotic Disorder) or Bi Polar/Depression (Mood Disorders), or even an Eating Disorder, but it's a disorder non the less.

Are you against curing Disorders?