Homosexuality and Evolution (critique please)

[Curious_Hobbit]

I would like to share my thoughts on a problem I see with being secular and being in favor of gay marriage (without getting into any state constitutions). It isn’t my intention to start a big debate, just to share my thoughts with everyone and get good criticism. I haven’t read Origin of Species and I have an average understanding of evolution so that may be the source of any error I have here. This argument is directed at secular atheists who believe we are nothing more than evolved primates.

The 2 things I always here from people in favor of gay marriage are:
(A) homosexuals just want the same happiness that heterosexuals have
(B) homosexuals just want equality, no special priveleges, just equal citizens in this respect.

The problem I see is that if you believe we are merely evolved animals, then shouldn’t you stick to the precepts of evolution? (A) To my knowledge, natural selection doesn’t have anything to say about humans seeking happiness. If happiness isn’t a part of the theory, then how is that a justified position? (B) Instead of equality, natural selecion works in part by “survival of the fittest” and a natural hierarchy of dominant over less dominant animals creatures. Where is equality given voice?
Also, homosexuals naturally don’t produce offspring and don’t pass on their genes so this seems contrary to natural selection as well.

Please point out where you think I’ve gone wrong. Perhaps I’m taking these things out of context? I recognize that our individual rights are expressed by the constitutions of where you live, but I was focusing on how we define humans. I’m a Christian so I believe humans have souls, made in image and likeness of God, equal in the eyes of God etc. and that’s what makes them more than just animals.

 

[AntiTheist]

Evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive. It tells us how we got here, not how we should act.

Indeed, the natural process of evolution has nothing to do with “equality” – there are some animals that are better fit to survive, and so they do and pass on their genes. Those that are not fit to survive die. The selective pressures of environment acting on mutations produces the diversity of life.

But that doesn’t mean that we have to organize our society according to evolutionary principles (sometimes called “Social Darwinism”). You see, part of our evolutionary heritage is higher brain functions, the trait that distinguishes our species (as opposed to having a long neck, or incredibly quick speed, etc.). We’re capable of using those brain functions to come up with ideas, like an idea of the kind of society we want to live in. We’ve decided that we want to live in societies where people of all kinds are given equal access to certain social goods.

 

[tonyrey]

We’ve decided that we want to live in societies where people of all kinds are given equal access to certain social goods.

“**We’ve **” gives the game away! Just because some people, or even the majority, have decided equality is preferable to inequality that is not a compelling reason why everyone should concur or conform. On your view human rights are just a matter of opinion which may be disregarded when it suits you…

 

[JohnDamian]

“survival of the fittest”

Natural selection is not "“survival of the fittest” nor does any decent philosopher or scientist believe this ludicrous and absurd principle. It is one thing to accept evolution; another to accept a nonsensicle function. The idea’s origininating with Herbert Spencer demonstrate a confusion of genetic heritability with individual development and social change; this lack of understanding of the heirarchical & emergent nature of systems within evolution and the contingent interaction of causal agents operating at organic and sociological levels leads to an equivocal fallacy at the heart of Spencerian thought.

Whilst one may believe in evolution per se; no sensible person regards Spencer or his ludicrous ideas on the “survival of the fittest” to be correct.

That said; there is clearly a distinction between operating functions in the seperate genra of biological and social agencies; the individual operators function in a way that does not share a univocal unicity; but instead an analagorical unicity; the mistake of people equivocating biological functions with those of social functions is a fallacy that is has been soundly refuted for over two thousand years (Aristotle).

 

[AntiTheist]

“**We’ve **” gives the game away! Just because some people, or even the majority, have decided equality is preferable to inequality that is not a compelling reason why everyone should concur or conform. On your view human rights are just a matter of opinion which may be disregarded when it suits you…

I prefer to call them “values,” not opinions, because they’ve become deeply rooted in our society and psyches, enshrined in our laws, and supported by the power-structure that we’ve developed (at least in the Western world).

But at any rate, the OP seems to think that the fact that we’ve evolved means that we have to run society along Social Darwinist lines. We don’t. Thread over.

 

[SonCatcher]

Thread over.

You’ve appointed yourself moderator? It seems you are attempting to squelch opposing ideas by declaring yourself to be the final authority. Not quite appropriate.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

But at any rate, the OP seems to think that the fact that we’ve evolved means that we have to run society along Social Darwinist lines. We don’t. Thread over.

Actually, the OP was presenting an argument against homosexuality based in evolutionary theory, and asking if he was off the mark. He was not asserting Social Darwinism at all. He was off the mark in creating by extension the argument that granting marriage rights to homosexuals goes against evolutionary mechanics was borderline social darwinism. He was not arguing for it, but he was unaware that Social Darwinism was the underlying basis of his argument. When someone else explained why Social Darwinism doesn’t work, and therefore, the OP’s argument was flawed if not invalid, that is when talk of Social Darwinism began.

The forum is also for the free exchange of ideas. Not so someone who disagrees can unilaterally declare the discussion to be over.

That’s what mods are supposed to do. (the unilateral declaration, not disagree and shut down a thread. )

 

[tonyrey]

"We’ve " gives the game away! Just because some people, or even the majority, have decided equality is preferable to inequality that is not a compelling reason why everyone should concur or conform. On your view human rights are just a matter of opinion which may be disregarded when it suits you…

They can be - and are - rejected by many individuals no matter how deeply rooted, enshrined and enforced they may be. They remain options not categorical imperatives, i.e. obligations. Do you accept all the values of society or do you use your power of reason to determine whether they are acceptable?

But at any rate, the OP seems to think that the fact that we’ve evolved means that we have to run society along Social Darwinist lines. We don’t. Thread over.

Not so fast! The question is why we don’t - and that has not been answered…

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Yes I appreciate everyone’s response! That is the kind of criticism I was after. It just seemed like it was too easy or unlikely that everyone passed that argument up when thinking about the subject. Keep going, don’t let me stop you. I’ll keep reading the comments in here until the thread dies. Thanks!

 

[AntiTheist]

Not so fast! The question is why we don’t - and that has not been answered…

Because we have values – values come from a diverse set of sources, including our instruction as children, tradition, our own exercise of reason, our instinct, and probably other sources.

Certainly not every individual agrees with all values of his society, but when it comes to the broadest values: valuing a society where theft and murder are rare; valuing a society where all citizens have equal access to things; valuing a system where citizens contribute to the government…nearly everyone in a given society is on board.

They’re not “categorical imperatives,” nor do they need to be such for the vast majority of citizens to favor them.

I can’t even fathom what it is that you think you’re demonstrating.

 

[awatkins69]

I suppose it’s possible to use a natural law argument. You might be able to argue that evolution is teleological (purposeful) and that evolved body parts serve purposes. So using human body parts not according to their purpose would be against human nature, and thus contrary to the human good. And since the object of the will is the good, you *ought *not to use them so.

Happiness is not just a feeling of physical or even psychological pleasure. It is what is fulfilling of humans, which is the good. We must distinguish between an apparent good (what seems fulfilling) and an actual good (what is actually fulfilling). One could be suffering, and yet it may bring us closer to God which is our actual good. Or even a natural example is that we could be suffering, as in weight lifting, and yet it would bring us to an actual good of having strong and functioning muscles.

The good is when a formal principle fulfills its final cause. For a biological example, a cow’s udder is the formal principle, and producing milk is the final cause. So an udder that produces milk is good, and likewise the act of producing milk is a good act because it fulfills the final cause. But an udder that does not produce milk is bad. This is called a disease, and it actually shows how medicine is inherently teleological. In the case of homosexual acts, the formal principle is the reproductive organ, and the final cause is reproduction.

 

[tonyrey]

They can be - and are - rejected by many individuals no matter how deeply rooted, enshrined and enforced they may be. They remain options not categorical imperatives, i.e. obligations. Do you accept all the values of society or do you use your power of reason to determine whether they are acceptable?

But at any rate, the OP seems to think that the fact that we’ve evolved means that we have to run society along Social Darwinist lines. We don’t. Thread over.

Not so fast! The question is why we don’t - and that has not been answered…
Because we have values – values come from a diverse set of sources, including our instruction as children, tradition, our own exercise of reason, our instinct, and probably other sources.

It is significant you don’t put reason at the top of the list and regard it as just another item. The mere fact that we have values does not mean they are sacrosanct or indispensable.

Certainly not every individual agrees with all values of his society, but when it comes to the broadest values: valuing a society where theft and murder are rare; valuing a society where all citizens have equal access to things; valuing a system where citizens contribute to the government…nearly everyone in a given society is on board.

It could be argued that people are only on board as long as it suits them. You are reducing morality to expediency. If you can commit a crime and remain undetected what is to stop you?

They’re not “categorical imperatives,” nor do they need to be such for the vast majority of citizens to favor them.

So what the vast majority of citizens favour is necessarily good, proper and just? In other words might=right?

If they’re not categorical imperatives they must be hypothetical imperatives and therefore a matter of personal choice rather than necessity…

 

[inocente]

The 2 things I always here from people in favor of gay marriage are:
(A) homosexuals just want the same happiness that heterosexuals have
(B) homosexuals just want equality, no special priveleges, just equal citizens in this respect.

A better argument from evolution might be that people who are shorter or thinner, with brown skin, green eyes, red hair or whatever, are still people. For some reason not yet known, we evolved with a capacity for varying sexual orientations as well as varying eye color. Hence homosexuality is just as natural as green eyes, unless you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about green eyes.

That simple argument is strengthened, not weakened, if we are also the children of God.

 

[tjm190]

Evolution proceeds by purely natural means- if you attempt it (e.g. by discriminating against those you see as ‘unfit’) then the result is not one of evolution, but rather of your policies.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

A better argument from evolution might be that people who are shorter or thinner, with brown skin, green eyes, red hair or whatever, are still people. For some reason not yet known, we evolved with a capacity for varying sexual orientations as well as varying eye color. Hence homosexuality is just as natural as green eyes, unless you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about green eyes.

That simple argument is strengthened, not weakened, if we are also the children of God.

Inocente, can we really equate eye color, hair color, height, etc. with sexual orientation? To me it seems all of these things are variations of certain characteristics/body parts that still fulfill their teleological end. A brown skin and white skin protect our organs from the outer environment. Red hair and Brown hair still provide warmth for the head. Green eyes and blue eyes still have the ability to see. The final cause of sexual orientation seems to be procreation and if homosexuality is contrary to that teleolgical end, then is this really a case of blue eyes versus green eyes?

 

[inocente]

Inocente, can we really equate eye color, hair color, height, etc. with sexual orientation? To me it seems all of these things are variations of certain characteristics/body parts that still fulfill their teleological end.

Yes.

It took me a while to wrap my brain round evolution. It doesn’t try to explain the origin of life or our souls, which are bigger issues. For me it was counter-intuitive until one day it just clicked, and now I think it was rather neat of God to make me that way. Of course, if you don’t agree with evolution then the whole argument will maketh little sense.

So: we are the result of a really long chain of little accidents. If that’s the case then the teleological belief that everything is designed or has a special purpose is left wanting. While we might loosely say that our eyes have the purpose of sight, the word “purpose” is being used after the fact, and the fact is a lot of purposeless little accidents (if species are competing then one with sight probably has an advantage over one that doesn’t, and so is less likely to die out, but that still doesn’t imply any purposefulness).

Scientifically, we should then conservatively put homosexuality in the same box as eye color unless there is evidence that either is the result of some unknown disease that has persisted over hundreds of generations. A big problem with showing homosexuals to have a disease is that they have not been treated as equal in most societies, and so the evidence is automatically stacked against them. For example, they probably will have a higher suicide rate if constantly picked on, and will be more promiscuous if not allowed to marry.

The law in Spain now allows homosexuals to marry, adopt children, and to be openly recruited into public jobs, including the military and police. There is still prejudice (I’m not gay and so don’t know the level) but it is dying out. In twenty or thirty years’ time, after a new generation has grown up, it will be possible to do some good science. Send me a PM around 2040 and I’ll let you know the results.

 

[antroji]

(A) Meatbots and humans (meatbots with souls, since we are talking evolution,) have a biological imperative to maintain homeostasis. We are just built that way as bodies. And as humans, we demonstrably seek happiness, even in many cases if it is at the expense of others. That’s why there is competition and why we have wars, as well as "the pursuit of… and unto religious ecstasy. And no one can, by definition, have the same happiness that someone else has. We can all seek happiness as free agents as we wish, given circumstances and consequences. In this regard, vast numbers of homosexuals have added to our happiness as generals, artists, politicians, clergy, composers, cooks, writers, fathers. mothers, brothers and sister. You name it. Evolution doesn’t account for Music, as such, either, but most of us enjoy it.

(B) Don’t you “want equality, no special privileges, just equal citizens in this respect?” Why wouldn’t someone else? YOU are making someone different by your definition. Try saying “child of God” instead of “homosexual.” Also see post # 1035 here Survival value may have as well to do with behavior and skills as with passing on genes. Homosexuals have helped our survival with everything from inventions to waging war to farming to whatever. And since we have had and will have homosexuals, whatever genetic allowance that includes is being passed on, so it works somehow. Go figure. I’m not about to second guess God; its His invention.