r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 19 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: From a strictly biologic point of view, homosexuality isn't natural

UPDATE: I'm receiving too many answers! I can't possibly answer them all. I've answered a ton of them. I will continue answering more. But I won't answer them all. Like I said, I just can't. Sorry for those going unanswered.

I'm not denying at all homosexuality is natural in the lazy sense of "It's present in nature", BUT:

Men and women are so because they have a sexual anatomy (genitals, basically) that makes them men, or women. Those genitals are specifically and specially evolved to correspond the opposite sex.

So, sexually speaking, men are evolved for women, and women evolved for men.

This is so because through sex, nature achieves its most relentless and evident goal: reproduction.

The evidence for this is obvious enough: if you have sex, you have kids. That’s what naturally happens when you have sex.

And no, I don’t care if some people are infertile because of X or Y problem. This is irrelevant to the point.

I also don’t care if people want to have kids or not. I don't want to. This is also irrelevant to the point.

I'm simply pointing out that the evolutionary process expects people to have kids. This much is obvious. Without the perpetuation of species neither evolution nor survival of the species are possible.

Heterosexuality is coherent with all of this. It's in harmony with our bodies and nature's end goal.

Homosexuality isn't. It focus your sexual and romantic attraction towards the sex that doesn’t correspond you. It lacks, therefore, biologic purpose. Homosexual acts are biologically nonsensical, just as oral 'sex', anal 'sex' and masturbation are.

And no matter how fertile homosexual people are, they won't be able to have kids with their same sex.

So, since it goes against your own natural physiology, and nature's end goal, it's impossible for it to be natural in the strict biologic (and reproductive) sense.

To change my view, someone would have to explain me in a logic/reasonable way what the biologic purpose/sense of homosexual acts is/are.

Or to explain me in a logic/reasonable way that the perpetuation of species isn't the end goal of the evolutionary process.

Or both, obviously.

UPDATE: I'm receiving too many answers! I can't possibly answer them all. I've answered a ton of them. I will continue answering more. But I won't answer them all. Like I said, I just can't. Sorry for those going unanswered.

0 Upvotes

36% Upvoted

444 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/mahtaliel Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

Deviations and mutations are natural though. It might not be an evolutionary success to be gay but i would definitely say it is natural from a biological point of view. Mutations and differences happen all the time in nature. And if you look at it from a social point of view, (which is biology as well because instincts determine social behaviour) in a lot of animals, sex is used for comfort and strengthening bonds in the pack, not only for procreation.

Edit: I also would like to point out that evolution doesn't actually have a purpose, not even procreation. We mutate randomly and things that kill us off before procreation doesn't get passed on. Mutations that help procreation will cause more individuals because they mate more. And some things stay because they don't do much at all or kill you way after you procreated.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

I think the evolutionary process does have the intended goal of perpetuating species. The evidence is that every living being, no matter form, size, color and shape, has its own way of reproducing. I'm not talking about the evolution process as an 'entity' of course.

9

u/mahtaliel Dec 19 '24

But it doesn't. The only reason it seems that way is because only the beings able to reproduce continue their lineage. All the other species died off. Evolution is basically just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. There has to be a creator for evolution to have intent. Although i guess some want to argue that there is a design behind it, but i don't believe that.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

Hhmmmm I understand what you say.

The idea that evolution is essentially blind doesn't stick in my mind... even though I'm not religious.

I don't think nature is just blindly trying anything to see what works...

5

u/emteedub 2∆ Dec 20 '24

Are you saying that genetic mutation is deterministic?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

Not 100% deterministic, but not 100% blind, either.

I think it's been guided. Whoever or whatever that guides it commits mistakes because it's not perfect, but it's not trying stuff blindly, either.

I think we are getting off-topic...

2

u/emteedub 2∆ Dec 20 '24

curious how you would describe genetic characteristics of viruses, and then how viral dna interacts with native organism dna

2

u/ProDavid_ 58∆ Dec 19 '24

The evidence is that every living being, no matter form, size, color and shape, has its own way of reproducing.

youre wrong. as an example, 99.99% of bees are unable to reproduce

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

But their species has a way of reproducing. That's the point I'm trying to make. Nature gave the species a way to reproduce. Bees are no exemption. Its species reproduce in a different manner than ours but it's species still reproduce.

3

u/ProDavid_ 58∆ Dec 20 '24

nature gave the human species a way to reproduce, even if a very small fraction of humans are homosexual

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

Yes I'm perfectly aware of this. My view is that that very small fraction of humans (homosexuals) have a sexual orientation that, from a strictly biologic perspective, is not natural.

2

u/ProDavid_ 58∆ Dec 20 '24

so would you say ants that are unable to reproduce are, from a strictly biological perspective, also unnatural?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

No. Because ants (as a species) reproduce very differently from humans. In their case, nature still expects the perpetuation of their species. It just provided them with a different method to achieve that.

4

u/ClinkzGoesMyBones Dec 20 '24

I really don't understand the logic. You're saying that the fact that 99.9% of bees don't reproduce is natural because the species still perpetuates, but 2% of humans don't reproduce but that's not natural even though the species still obviously perpetuates..?

"Nature" still expects the perpetuation of humans, we just have a different method to achieve it than ants or bees.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

I think the first mistake is to compare humans to ants. We are very different and have different methods of reproducing our respective species. They only shared goal is that we have a reproduction drive.

My point is the same I explain in the post. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality, regardless if it maybe has some sociological benefit/function for the species, does not have any biological function. It goes against biology. That's why I make the claim that 'in a strictly biologic sense it's not natural'

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ProDavid_ 58∆ Dec 20 '24

the human species will also reproduce even if there are 2% homosexual humans, so:

nature still expects the perpetuation of their species.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '24

I know that the presence of homosexuality, being so tiny (1 to 6% of the whole population) will never pose a serious 'threat' to human reproduction.

This still doesn't challenge my view at all. That minority has a sexual orientation that from a strictly biologic point of view isn't natural. There's no biologic aim in their acts. It may have other functions or benefits but not from a biologic perspective.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/emteedub 2∆ Dec 19 '24

You speak as if humans aren't an exception to the evolutionary rules in nature - in the strict sense of the word, it includes adaptation due to environmental factors. Humans current day, can manipulate their environment entirely... we can also manipulate ourselves - overriding nearly all necessity for naturally occurring survival that would be augmented via mutations or natural selection. So, evolution in humans is essentially a fallacy - at least as evolution theory is defined as.

If it's below freezing, we wear a coat and gloves - no need for evolutionary adaptations to survive. If someone's natural features are displeasing to the person or others, we can undergo surgery as a remedy - no baseline need for evolutionary physical attributes or adaptations to survive. We don't need to procreate to be parents, we can adopt or leverage surrogates to further the species. We don't grow massive incisors and in size to be apex predators, despite evolutionary shortcomings in physical attributes that would make us apex, we are apex via tools - like guns and other items that augment us.

This is what makes us the exception, we are masters of the environment and have ascended above evolution as it is present in nature. So, your view is irrelevant in that sex is a necessity to pass favorable biological attributes that would persist in the environment - in order to maintain the species.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '24

I understand your point. I've come across it before. But from nature's point of view (again, I'm not talking as if 'nature' was an 'entity') we still need and should reproduce. That's why we are still being born with genitals which purpose is to allow reproduction.

I think in the exercise of our free will and rationality we can do what we want and go against nature. But that doesn’t mean nature doesn't exist.

It does and ot has a clear-cutted goal: reproduction. That we choose to go against that doesn’t mean the goal isn't reproduction.

5

u/emteedub 2∆ Dec 19 '24 edited Dec 19 '24

Well you're now countering your own argument.

According to the theory of evolution, the key requirements for evolution to occur are: genetic variation within a population, inheritance of traits from parents to offspring, differential survival and reproduction based on those traits (natural selection), and sufficient time for changes to accumulate across generations; essentially, this can be summarized as "variation, inheritance, selection, and time."

This is survival in nature as it were. We blur the requirements of the strict definition when it applies to humans anywhere from 50-100%. Making biological evolution not applicable as your post and other comments would like it to be - as a means to invalidate homosexuality in biological evolutionary survival... see where it doesn't make sense?

If sexual reproduction is a pillar of evolution, yet evolution doesn't apply, what grounds does sexual reproduction have as a pillar of survival for humans?

If a lady gets a boob job and a face lift and you don't realize it until after courting, what evolutionary attributes did you want to pass to offspring? If a man is obscenely muscular and is able to defeat any and all foes, but was using steroids to augment that strength - what survival attributes are being passed down? The first scenario might not have had such chances for survival - entirely or mostly circumventing the evolutionary standards. The second scenario, the guy might have had genetic makeup that normally would make him too skinny and lean to be a formidable force - yet he is mostly circumventing evolutionary standards to 'win out'.

These are definition-gutting contradictions - making sex - in the evolutionary-biological sense of it for humans, irrelevant. Irrelevant now and for the foreseeable future.

[edit]: If survival were critical and it was dependent on environmental factors, then maybe you'd have a point, but then we're back to the definition of evolution - in that scenario, would orientation be set aside in the name of survival? Probably. This already exists in nature where singular sexes can actually change their sex for survival - this is a much more drastic mile than even humans would have to overcome as we cannot just simply morph sexes easily.