Is homosexuality illogical?

[rvkevin]

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.

So the the feature that gives a machine its teleology is its programming? So, if we have two machines with the same hardware but one has the software that makes it build coffeemakers and the other one has the software that makes it build toasters, then they have different teleologies based on what they prefer to do? If this is the case, then the analog to humans is the neural-wiring of the individual which counts, not the biological structure of them. This would mean that the teleology of homosexuals is to have homosexual sex since that is what they are "programmed" to move towards.

 

[blazedaces]

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.

You're making the claim that a robot and a human have motion... and a rock doesn't (unless acted upon)... but really a robot wouldn't have motion without electricity and a human wouldn't have motion if it didn't have food or water for some period of time.

Nothing in the universe moves without some source of energy.

And I'm kind of with Alt on the rest of this thread... what exactly is the point? Let's say we conclude that a sexual preference is somehow "illogical" (which will never happen because people will just argue semantics forever)... then what? Someone earlier said it should not be practiced because it's illogical... what? Really? Do we even have to walk down this road?

-blazed

 

[StealthyGunnar]

And I'm kind of with Alt on the rest of this thread... what exactly is the point?

-blazed

I was just trying to stir up some discussion.

 

[blazedaces]

I was just trying to stir up some discussion.

I understand. You're also not the OP, so it's not your fault that it's a hard discussion to get moving. Right now people are just arguing off on tangents, like whether or not humans have teleology or logical = necessary...

 

[Dre89]

I'll address everyone later but right now I wanna address SG.

We clearly move towards certain things because we have desires for them. Hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, social contact etc.

Oh and guess what, it just so happens that the stuff our desires push us towards are actually good for us.

If we didn't have teleology, then either we'd have no desires, or our desires would be equally intense.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Far more substantial to who?

Pretty much any living organism that's breathing at this very moment. Everyone reading this very sentence is here as a result of the natural process of reproduction. The fact of the matter is that you would not be here right now if one of your parents were strictly homosexual and chose to use sex for nothing but their own sexual gratification. Unless if you state that you're intentionally playing the devil's advocate I have a hard time believing that you or anyone else for that matter truly values sexual gratification over the gift of life itself.

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?

I feel like I didn't emphasize the big picture well enough. First of all I never stated that people need to sacrifice their own sexual interests for the betterment of mankind. That's not my argument at all. I stated that homosexuality in an of itself is illogical as a result of it going against the fundamental aspects of life itself. It is a proven scientific fact: humans were biologically engineered to be attracted to the opposite sex for the main purpose of reproducing. Here's my original statement...

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.

In addition to that post I also stated in an earlier post that just because an act is illogical it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. I'm not in any way against homosexuals and their sexual preferences. It's just that my personal sentiments towards homosexuality are not in favor of my own idea of what is logical and what isn't.

This bring up another point. There is no definitive methodology used to logically analyze situations. People naturally have different ideas of what is logical or not based off of their own experiences, beliefs, and intelligence. Because of this I'm validating my own logical process through scientific inductive reasoning. I'll repeat, if all humans were strictly homosexuals then human life would eventually die out. That's just a concrete scientific fact that can't be debated against. Nature, God, whatever belief you intended for humans to live and thrive on this Earth and the process of reproduction is a testament to that.

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.

You're actually right because like I said earlier I've just now come to the realization that it's impossible to debate over a topic like this without somehow appealing to emotion, because everyone's moral values are indeed going to be different. My fault for assuming everyone here valued human life.

Though for people who truly don't value human life I would ask them this question: If you don't value life then how come you haven't killed yourself yet? The obvious answer would be because they either do indeed value their own lives or someone else's.

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.

Fair enough. In the grand scheme of things why is it even significant if something is illogical to us or not? We've already established that logical =/= right, so I guess this debate doesn't hold nearly as much importance as I had originally thought.

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

Although true this only applies to a society where IVF is readily available to the masses. If the technology wasn't available 100 years ago and sex was still the most efficient method of reproduction, is homosexuality still considered logical?

 

[rvkevin]

Unless if you state that you're intentionally playing the devil's advocate I have a hard time believing that you or anyone else for that matter truly values sexual gratification over the gift of life itself.

Since you posed this to the peanut gallery, I thought I would weigh in. If this were true, then the birth control industry would be in trouble. The fact of the matter is that there is no shortage of people who will take measures to reduce the chance of reproduction. In these instances, conceiving would actually be an unintended consequence and not the reason for the act. In these instances, they are valuing sexual gratification over reproduction. Given this, it is clear to see that your suggestion that nobody takes this position is absurd.

On a side note, I don't think that the important distinction is between life and non-life, I think the important distinction is between positive and negative experiences. If we take an action that only creates more misery in the world, but results in more living things, I think that this is a poor route to take. If you wish to describe this position as not valuing life, then so be it; however, I could just as easily paint your position as being indifferent to human suffering, which doesn't seem much nobler.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Since you posed this to the peanut gallery, I thought I would weigh in. If this were true, then the birth control industry would be in trouble. The fact of the matter is that there is no shortage of people who will take measures to reduce the chance of reproduction. In these instances, conceiving would actually be an unintended consequence and not the reason for the act. In these instances, they are valuing sexual gratification over reproduction. Given this, it is clear to see that your suggestion that nobody takes this position is absurd.

You're missing my point. All I meant by that statement was that if all of our parents used sex purely for gratification (homosexual gratification, specifically in this scenario) then we wouldn't be here right now. Is that not significant? I'll reiterate by stating "any person who values life values the process of reproduction."

Plus I said further down in my previous post that I realized not every person will have that same opinion. There are always some exceptions.

On a side note, I don't think that the important distinction is between life and non-life, I think the important distinction is between positive and negative experiences. If we take an action that only creates more misery in the world, but results in more living things, I think that this is a poor route to take. If you wish to describe this position as not valuing life, then so be it; however, I could just as easily paint your position as being indifferent to human suffering, which doesn't seem much nobler.

Why are you acting like I said that it is a necessity for all human beings to contribute to birthing children? I'll once again reiterate that if people want to use sex purely for gratification and never to reproduce then that is 100% fine, however whether their purpose is to reproduce or not it doesn't deny the fact that sexual pleasure is just a side effect of sexual intercourse. Reproducing is the purpose.

 

[Dre89]

TRG's last point is correct. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that saying 'sex is meant for procreation' isn't loaded with the hidden premise 'therefore sex outside of procreation is immoral'.

The second point only stands if one can show natural= moral, which is a meta ethical issue.

 

[rvkevin]

You're missing my point. All I meant by that statement was that if all of our parents used sex purely for gratification (homosexual gratification, specifically in this scenario) then we wouldn't be here right now. Is that not significant? I'll reiterate by stating "any person who values life values the process of reproduction."

It’s hard to miss a point that was not stated. You have changed the meaning of the previous statements. I have a hard time believing that “you or anyone else” is supposed to mean “any person who values life,” but that’s beside the point. As to the significance of being born, that is not relevant to the topic at hand.

I'll once again reiterate that if people want to use sex purely for gratification and never to reproduce then that is 100% fine, however whether their purpose is to reproduce or not it doesn't deny the fact that sexual pleasure is just a side effect of sexual intercourse.

Why is that you say that homosexuality is “irrational” because if everyone were homosexual, the human race would not continue, but always using birth control is not, yet it results in the same outcome?

Reproducing is the purpose.

You seem to think that evolution is a teleological process; it’s not.

Why are you acting like I said that it is a necessity for all human beings to contribute to birthing children?

When you put the focus on life, you are making the quality of life secondary. This means that an overpopulated earth would, by your statements, be preferable over one that is sustainable. When you place the emphasis on quality of life, there are a number of things that become relevant. As you note, the question of “what if everyone did this” hypothetical becomes a poor metric since if everyone tried to optimize reproduction, the quality of life would drop. This leaves room for a section of the population to not contribute to the next generation, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Also, in evaluating the quality of life, you need to consider the pleasures associated with homosexual sex (by those with that orientation) enter the equation and therefore become “rational” ventures to pursue. So, I suppose you would be against this position since by conceding this, you are fueling the opposing position and disregarding your own.