Is homosexuality illogical?

[GwJ]

Excuse me if I don't propose a very good argument, I haven't posted here much.

Basically from my understanding, the purpose of sexuality is for the purpose of finding a suitable mate to reproduce. With that understanding, doesn't that make homosexuality illogical?

Note: I'm not arguing anything related to morals here; I don't care if it's right or wrong, only if it makes sense.

 

[AltF4]

Any kind of love is illogical. That's not why we do it.

 

[Dre89]

I think the question is too vague.

You could say any sex outside of procreative sex is illogical, but then you could say it's logical to do it for teh pleasurez.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Basically from my understanding, the purpose of sexuality is for the purpose of finding a suitable mate to reproduce.

Where the hell did you get that idea? Or better yet, that that's the sole purpose?

 

[GwJ]

What else is the purpose? I'm just trying to get a better understanding on the matter.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What else is the purpose? I'm just trying to get a better understanding on the matter.

Why does it need an innate purpose? Even assuming that that's necessary, what about for fun, for pleasure, for love?

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Why does it need an innate purpose? What about for fun, for pleasure, for love?

It's purpose would be for entertainment, pleasure, or for love then...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sorry, posted that poorly. ^_^ Edited.

 

[Dre89]

If the purpose of sex was pleasure, the pleasure wouldn't stop once the ejaculation occurs. In fact, prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation is actually harmful. Also, we wouldn't hit a stage where the ejaculation becomes automatic and uncontrollable, and we would be able to chose to fire blanks.

The biology of the act suggests the pleasure is there merely to entice you into the act. Suggesting that pleasure is in fact an alternate end, rather than a means to an end is to what religious people do and claim X when nothing in nature suggests X.

The existence of homosexuality is illogical because it's not necessary. People achieve everything homosexuals achieve with opposite gender partners, plus more in the form of procreation and not receive a negative social stigma. If every homosexual in the world was heterosexual, the society wouldn't be losing some necessary component, whereas as if every hetero turned gay, we'd be losing to ability to procreate.

So the fact that homosexual desires exist is illogical, but seeing as they do exist, whether acting on them is logical or not is a different story.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Also, if everyone in the world was homosexual then humanity would die out in a few generations. At least we can say that it's not something that everybody should do. And if it's not something everybody should do, why should anybody do it if they don't need to?

 

[Sucumbio]

Why did you do it, Jumpman. This is a clear case of reading through previous topics to ensure you're not blowing up the universe. Nice going. Now I have to find somewhere else to keep all my stuff.

:<

 

[Dre89]

Why did you do it, Jumpman. This is a clear case of reading through previous topics to ensure you're not blowing up the universe. Nice going. Now I have to find somewhere else to keep all my stuff.

:<

What place could you keep your stuff if the entire universe is going to get destroyed, another universe?

Didn't know you subscribed to multiverse theory....

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[_Keno_]

The existence of homosexuality is illogical because it's not necessary.

So anything which is not necessary is illogical? I'll be sure to store that away for future debates.

The existence of homosexuality does serve as a population limiter, does it not? I for one think that the world population is increasing too fast already.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If the purpose of sex was pleasure, the pleasure wouldn't stop once the ejaculation occurs. In fact, prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation is actually harmful. Also, we wouldn't hit a stage where the ejaculation becomes automatic and uncontrollable, and we would be able to chose to fire blanks.

Question: is it truly possible to determine the innate purpose, or rather the telos of an object/act/etc. simply by looking at its functions/qualities? Somehow I'm dubious that this is the case.

 

[Dre89]

Peach- Overpopulation is a misconception. America has enough food to feed the world, and the entire world population can fit inside Texas.

BPC- It's the most objective way of doing it. If you're going to say that natural function doesn't count for anything, then you lose the ability to say things such as that a good God and evil are compatible, because the reason we say that is that the notion of a good God contradicts our experiences in the world.

 

[Sieguest]

Peach- Overpopulation is a misconception. America has enough food to feed the world, and the entire world population can fit inside Texas.

This had better be trolling... that ignores efficiency, health, and safety standards entirely.

 

[Dre89]

It's alright, I addressed that argument on the last page.

 

[_Keno_]

Oh, I mean, I'm not factoring in rates of food production, the growing rate of the human population, or even living conditions or anything. I mean, that might just be a legitimate problem with your argument or something. (The US could give everyone a meal right now! But could it feed the world for even a week? nope).

And can you show us where you addressed Ghosti's response?

 

[Dre89]

Oh wait, I misread his post, I thought he quoted no you not me.

That was stupid of me.

Well I'm assuming that if the entire population can fit in one state, they could be dispersed across the planet.

And if one country can feed the entire world, the food of like the other 250+ countries in the world would be enough.

It seems like it's the distribution of resources that's the problem.

 

[AltF4]

I think this debate is lacking teeth. Draw a real conclusion, a course of action. It can even be a weak one, doesn't matter.

IE: Make a claim such as "Homosexuality is illogical, therefore it should be illegal" or "... is immoral" or "... shouldn't be practiced". Something.

Right now I'm reading this and not getting the purpose of this discussion. Unless you're a Vulcan, I don't see why merely declaring something illogical matters all by itself.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

I think this debate is lacking teeth. Draw a real conclusion, a course of action. It can even be a weak one, doesn't matter.

IE: Make a claim such as "Homosexuality is illogical, therefore it should be illegal" or "... is immoral" or "... shouldn't be practiced". Something.

Right now I'm reading this and not getting the purpose of this discussion. Unless you're a Vulcan, I don't see why merely declaring something illogical matters all by itself.

I guess it makes sense to declare something illogical because a majority people think it is logical. I'll make a claim for the hell of it:

Homosexuality should not be practiced because it is illogical.

 

[Vinylic.]

Homosexuality cannot be illegal in the US. Even if it's Illogical or not, most rebels wouldn't dare to make that happen.
It's bad enough that I've heard rumours that the UN will not prevent them to get executed in some foreign country.

 

[_Keno_]

Well I'm assuming that if the entire population can fit in one state, they could be dispersed across the planet.

And if one country can feed the entire world, the food of like the other 250+ countries in the world would be enough.

It seems like it's the distribution of resources that's the problem.

The "texas" population problem was done in 1982, when the world population was 4.4 billion. Less than thirty years later, we are at 7 billion. What do you think we might be at in 100, 1000, or 10000 years?

Do you think overpopulation will never be a problem?

And yes, distribution of resources is the problem, but its one that isn't likely to be solved anytime soon.

On the flip side, homosexual couples are a great source for raising unwanted kids (which there are plenty of!) since they cannot make kids on their own.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Homosexuality cannot be illegal in the US. Even if it's Illogical or not, most rebels wouldn't dare to make that happen.
It's bad enough that I've heard rumours that the UN will not prevent them to get executed in some foreign country.

I wasn't questioning the legality of homosexuality. I was just saying it shouldn't be done because it is illogical.

 

[The Real Gamer]

This is how I look at it. From a logical standpoint, the ultimate purpose of sex, while being pleasurable, is to reproduce. Homosexuals are unable to reproduce with one another, therefore homosexuality is indeed illogical.

I wasn't questioning the legality of homosexuality. I was just saying it shouldn't be done because it is illogical.

Who ever told you illogical acts are always bad? Perhaps you could come to that conclusion based on your own idea of logic, however just because something might be illogical to you it could be perfectly logical to others based on their own person beliefs.

But even then the perception that you shouldn't pursue any illogical act or thought is flawed. Love is a good example of this. Lets say you get approached by a beautiful female one day (assuming you are a male) and out of nowhere you instantly become infatuated after engaging in some small talk with her for the very first time. Yeah she was attractive as well as many other girls you've seen throughout the day but there was just SOMETHING about her that really garnered your attention and you can't put your finger on it. You can't logically conceptualize why exactly you can't stop thinking about her for the rest of the day. It just doesn't make sense to you. Your thinking process about the whole situation becomes illogical. However just because the situation becomes illogical to you does that mean you shouldn't pursue her?

 

[Strife]

In any highly intelligent species the purpose of sexuality isn't limited to reprodution. Sexual gratification and emotional intimacy are also important. So no, it's not illogical.

 

[The Real Gamer]

In any highly intelligent species the purpose of sexuality isn't limited to reprodution. Sexual gratification and emotional intimacy are also important. So no, it's not illogical.

Sorry but that's a weak argument. You're appealing to emotion in a debate based on logic. Sexual gratification and emotional intimacy are indeed important, however the survival of the human race is far more important by a substantial margin. There is a fundamental reason why human beings as well as animals were engineered to be attracted to the opposite sex, and that is to reproduce.

I'll ask you this: If it's logical for people to be homosexual and strictly use sex for their sexual gratification and for emotional intimacy then what happens if everyone on Earth was suddenly homosexual and all human reproduction was ceased? All human life is eventually gone. Is this scenario logically okay to you? If you disagree then you will just contradict your own argument by acknowledging that reproduction is the most important aspect of sex. Otherwise you value sexual gratification and emotional intimacy over the survival of the human race... Hopefully that's not the case.

 

[Strife]

Sorry but that's a weak argument. You're appealing to emotion in a debate based on logic. Sexual gratification and emotional intimacy are indeed important, however the survival of the human race is far more important by a substantial margin. There is a fundamental reason why human beings as well as animals were engineered to be attracted to the opposite sex, and that is to reproduce.

I'll ask you this: If it's logical for people to be homosexual and strictly use sex for their sexual gratification and for emotional intimacy then what happens if everyone on Earth was suddenly homosexual and all human reproduction was ceased? All human life is eventually gone. Is this scenario logically okay to you? If you disagree then you will just contradict your own argument by acknowledging that reproduction is the most important aspect of sex. Otherwise you value sexual gratification and emotional intimacy over the survival of the human race... Hopefully that's not the case.

Far more substantial to who?

Correct me I am wrong but your argument seems to be that it is logical for people to surrender their sexual interests to the survival of the human population. What happens if I don't give a **** about the human population and but I instead want to be happy? In this case wouldn't it be far more logical for me to express my sexuality in the way that makes me happy instead of having a child(which I could do with a different mate even if I was homosexual) rather than having a child so something I don't care about can be strengthened?

In short your argument is a contradiction because reproducing is only logical if you hold that continuing the human race is an important value, if you don't hold continuing the human race as important then why would it be logical to contribute to it? You're doing exactly what you accuse me of by bringing moral values-based argument into a question about logic.

As for your question, it goes back to whether or not it is logical for people to hold the continuing of the human race with greater importance than themselves. You need to remember that the original question wasn't if homosexuality was ''right'', it's whether or not it was ''logical'', and I'd say the right thing to do is look out for the human race, while the logical thing to do is to look out for yourself. So is your everybody gay scenario logically ok to me? Yeah, everyone would be looking out for themselves. Would it suck? Abso****inglutely.

 

[Theftz22]

If the purpose of sex was pleasure, the pleasure wouldn't stop once the ejaculation occurs. In fact, prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation is actually harmful. Also, we wouldn't hit a stage where the ejaculation becomes automatic and uncontrollable, and we would be able to chose to fire blanks.

The biology of the act suggests the pleasure is there merely to entice you into the act. Suggesting that pleasure is in fact an alternate end, rather than a means to an end is to what religious people do and claim X when nothing in nature suggests X.

Of course Dre I'm sure you realize that this is to presuppose an overarching teleology of the sexual act. On the naturalistic view, sex has no intrinsic overarching purpose since the reason we have sexual tendencies is due to evolution, and evolution has no purposes on the naturalistic view. Only agents can have purpose. Of course, things without agency can have purposes with respect to agents (i.e. the purpose of a fork is to make eating easier for human beings), but things without agency have no intrinsic purpose in and of themselves.

However sex does have purpose with respect to agents, it's just that its purpose is individual and desire-based. My personal purpose for sex may simply be pleasure, and whatever inhibitions evolution has put on the process with regards to my own purposes are simply irrelevant.

The existence of homosexuality is illogical because it's not necessary. People achieve everything homosexuals achieve with opposite gender partners, plus more in the form of procreation and not receive a negative social stigma. If every homosexual in the world was heterosexual, the society wouldn't be losing some necessary component, whereas as if every hetero turned gay, we'd be losing to ability to procreate.

I doubt that you really mean to endorse the principle that everything that's not necessary is illogical. Firstly it's questionable what "illogical" even means in this context. It's not as though homosexuality is drawing some invalid conclusion based on a set of premises. In any event, countless things I do are not necessary but I still wouldn't maintain that I'm being unreasonable in doing them. For instance making this post right now. I enjoy doing it, so it's not unreasonable for me to do it, but nevertheless it's not necessary that I do it. Even staying alive is not necessary (necessary to what?) but I'm certainly not unreasonable in doing it. The existence of something rather than nothing seems not be necessary, but I don't even understand what it means to say that existence of something rather than nothing is illogical. Regardless, it's simply not true that people can achieve everything homosexuals achieve with opposite gender partners in the case of homosexuals, since they cannot get pleasure out of sex with the opposite gender.

 

[Dre89]

Of course Dre I'm sure you realize that this is to presuppose an overarching teleology of the sexual act. On the naturalistic view, sex has no intrinsic overarching purpose since the reason we have sexual tendencies is due to evolution, and evolution has no purposes on the naturalistic view. Only agents can have purpose. Of course, things without agency can have purposes with respect to agents (i.e. the purpose of a fork is to make eating easier for human beings), but things without agency have no intrinsic purpose in and of themselves.

However sex does have purpose with respect to agents, it's just that its purpose is individual and desire-based. My personal purpose for sex may simply be pleasure, and whatever inhibitions evolution has put on the process with regards to my own purposes are simply irrelevant.



I doubt that you really mean to endorse the principle that everything that's not necessary is illogical. Firstly it's questionable what "illogical" even means in this context. It's not as though homosexuality is drawing some invalid conclusion based on a set of premises. In any event, countless things I do are not necessary but I still wouldn't maintain that I'm being unreasonable in doing them. For instance making this post right now. I enjoy doing it, so it's not unreasonable for me to do it, but nevertheless it's not necessary that I do it. Even staying alive is not necessary (necessary to what?) but I'm certainly not unreasonable in doing it. The existence of something rather than nothing seems not be necessary, but I don't even understand what it means to say that existence of something rather than nothing is illogical. Regardless, it's simply not true that people can achieve everything homosexuals achieve with opposite gender partners in the case of homosexuals, since they cannot get pleasure out of sex with the opposite gender.

Humans are teleologically structured to move towads certain goods. You can't deny that. That means they have a 'purpose' in a loose sense, regardless of why we ended up having this nature, and what the consequences are whether we achieve those goals or not.

Suppose a tornado hits a factory that builds robots, and in the chaos and destruction, a new robot is somehow formed that makes coffee. Regardless of the fact that it was made by mindless randomness, it still has a purpose in that it has a teleological structure.

I think where you're going wrong is that you're assuming that teleogy implies morality. That only holds if the teleologist can show through meta ethics that natural= good/moral, but that's a different debate.

 

[rvkevin]

Humans are teleologically structured to move towards certain goods. You can't deny that. That means they have a 'purpose' in a loose sense, regardless of why we ended up having this nature, and what the consequences are whether we achieve those goals or not.

How are you evaluating teleological purposes? Would you say that a rock is teleologically structured to be a doorstop? It fits this function well, so one could say, in a loose sense, that its purpose is to prop open said door. What if I said that the purpose of that rock is as a paperweight or a bookend? It would fulfill either of those functions equally as well as holding open the door. It must then also, in a loose sense, have these purposes as well. Since this establishes that no single purpose is correct over the other and is merely a function of fitness to a particular goal, your mention of sexuality fulfilling the purpose of procreation holds no bearing as to whether pleasure is also the purpose of sex. Sex also fulfills the purpose of attaining pleasure and it is, as you say, irrelevant as to why we ended up having this nature.

 

[Dre89]

A rock doesn't have teleology because a rock doesn't have motion (unless acted upon).

The rock is part of a motion, because before it was a rock it was something else. This process is what has teleology.

Humans are different because humans can act, and have motion.

 

[Strife]

Humans are teleologically structured to move towads certain goods. You can't deny that. That means they have a 'purpose' in a loose sense, regardless of why we ended up having this nature, and what the consequences are whether we achieve those goals or not.

Suppose a tornado hits a factory that builds robots, and in the chaos and destruction, a new robot is somehow formed that makes coffee. Regardless of the fact that it was made by mindless randomness, it still has a purpose in that it has a teleological structure.

I think where you're going wrong is that you're assuming that teleogy implies morality. That only holds if the teleologist can show through meta ethics that natural= good/moral, but that's a different debate.

This is silly. And what purpose are you claiming that we have.

Human beings have no purpose other than the purpose we create for ourselves. That's the benefit of having our freewill be dominant over our instinct. Reproduction is not a part of our purpose, it's a part of our instinct, just having sex and eating is.

Robots have a purpose because they re designed to have a purpose and their entire existence revolves around their purpose. Human beings aren't designed for any purpose(unless you bring religion into this). And it's dumb for anyone to try to claim that we do. We're all too different for all human being to hold some kind of shared empirical purpose.

 

[Dre89]

You missed the entire point and completely straw-manned my argument.

Notice how Rvkevin and Underdoggs22 made entirely different arguments than you did? That's because they understood the argument better.

I honestly don't know how to explain teleology any clearer to someone who thinks that I'm saying we all have a grand purpose, or that being individual means our teleology is different.

 

[rvkevin]

A rock doesn't have teleology because a rock doesn't have motion (unless acted upon).

The rock is part of a motion, because before it was a rock it was something else. This process is what has teleology.

The example you gave was a machine, which doesn't have motion unless acted upon. Your additional qualifier here doesn't invalidate the example I gave without refuting your original point. Why does the machine that makes coffee have teleology whereas the rock does not? I don't see how the process makes any difference either. The random process of the tornado doesn't give the machine a purpose or have an end goal in mind, which is normally meant by using the term "teleologically." Explain exactly what you mean when you say teleology.

 

[Dre89]

Teleogy is the fact that something is meant to move towards something.

The machine is capable of motion on it's own accord, a rock isn't.

The rock phase is one stage of the teleogy, like how the coccoon phase is part of the teleology of a butterfly.

 

[Strife]

You missed the entire point and completely straw-manned my argument.

Notice how Rvkevin and Underdoggs22 made entirely different arguments than you did? That's because they understood the argument better.

I honestly don't know how to explain teleology any clearer to someone who thinks that I'm saying we all have a grand purpose, or that being individual means our teleology is different.

I wasn't responding to your entire argument. Just the claim you made that.

Humans are teleologically structured to move towads certain goods. You can't deny that.

My point was simply that the statement of yours is ridiculous.

 

[Dre89]

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If you think I'm saying that some intellect gave us a purpose, or that ww have some grand purpose that is intelligible to us, or that I'm saying all of existence revolves around us, then you're straw manning.

No one else finds the claim as ridiculous as you do because they actually realise what I'm saying.

 

[Strife]

I really don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If you think I'm saying that some intellect gave us a purpose, or that ww have some grand purpose that is intelligible to us, or that I'm saying all of existence revolves around us, then you're straw manning.

No one else finds the claim as ridiculous as you do because they actually realise what I'm saying.

Dude your words are kinda self-explanatory. You're saying human beings have telelogy

That is they are meant to move towards something, and I am saying you believing that is dumb. If that is in fact not what you meant then you chose the wrong choice of words. And I'm obviously not the only who thinks what you're saying is nonsensical as rvkevin asked you to explain yourself in greater detail as well.

 

[Sucumbio]

In the movie Demolition Man physical intercourse and other forms of physical pleasure had been eliminated. "Ew! Fluid transfer? Not even kissing is condoned!" We are to assume that procreation was achieved through in vitro fertilization or some other such lab technique.

Mathematically speaking, IVF is more successful at achieving pregnancy than does normal intercourse, and especially in woman 30-40 years of age. -source

Statistically speaking the age of first-time mothers has gotten much closer to the 30-40 years range in the last decade than when compared to 30 years ago, with trends continuing to move toward that range. -source

Therefore, based on these numbers and statistics, one can logically deduce that IVF is a better method of procreating than traditional intercourse.

Following from that, one can judge sex to be unnecessary.

But we still do it!

This leads to two conclusions:

A.) It is illogical to procreate through sex.
B.) Sex must have another purpose other than to entice one to procreate.

Therefore the statement "homosexuality is illogical" is false, as it fits under the description of "another purpose other than to entice one to procreate."

/thread