I am indeed bewildered by the shrill and loud cries demanding rights for homosexuals and perplexed to find sane and logical persons defending these cries equally vigorously! I always thought that homosexuality was the result of treating sex as a taboo and tightly controlling all access to members of the opposite sex. It is indeed perplexing to find it flourishing in today's world that is liberal to the extent of being licentious.
It is all too easy to see the beautifully designed (evolved for Darwinists) algorithm of procreational sex. Features of female anatomy that males find most attractive are precisely those that facilitate conception, delivery and nurturing of a baby. Though modern society severely discourages body odors and encourages supplanting them with manufactured ones, research shows that body scent too is a mechanism to help sniff out the person whose gene-set compliments yours. The whole algorithm underlying human sexuality is geared to help conception, delivery and survival of best possible offspring. Though, to be sure, these algorithms are impeded by societal controls and sometimes even the institution of marriage. Now that both the impediments are weakening, the sexual activity seems to be going wayward instead of correcting course.
It is difficult to fathom where has the nature's algorithm gone wrong. Could it be a deviant preoccupation with recreational sex to the exclusion of procreational? Is it a phenomenon similar to addiction to junk food to the exclusion of the healthy ones? I wouldn't know. What is obvious is that nature never meant it to be this way and homo in homo sapiens does not stand for homosexuality.
Asking for such relationships to be granted legal recognition is like an insistence that doctors classify junk food as healthy and narcotics as normal drugs. And the demand by same sex couples for adoption of children must positively be denied. You just cannot condemn a child to such upbringing.
The only concession that can probably be granted is to not to persecute consenting adults for homosexuality. Though it will help if they could be persuaded to undergo the course that is sure to cure them according to Baba Ramdev. Of course this means that we insist on treating it as an abnormality. This also means that politicians stop pandering to this new found vote bank and journalists stop propagating it as elitist and fashionable.
It is all too easy to see the beautifully designed (evolved for Darwinists) algorithm of procreational sex. Features of female anatomy that males find most attractive are precisely those that facilitate conception, delivery and nurturing of a baby. Though modern society severely discourages body odors and encourages supplanting them with manufactured ones, research shows that body scent too is a mechanism to help sniff out the person whose gene-set compliments yours. The whole algorithm underlying human sexuality is geared to help conception, delivery and survival of best possible offspring. Though, to be sure, these algorithms are impeded by societal controls and sometimes even the institution of marriage. Now that both the impediments are weakening, the sexual activity seems to be going wayward instead of correcting course.
It is difficult to fathom where has the nature's algorithm gone wrong. Could it be a deviant preoccupation with recreational sex to the exclusion of procreational? Is it a phenomenon similar to addiction to junk food to the exclusion of the healthy ones? I wouldn't know. What is obvious is that nature never meant it to be this way and homo in homo sapiens does not stand for homosexuality.
Asking for such relationships to be granted legal recognition is like an insistence that doctors classify junk food as healthy and narcotics as normal drugs. And the demand by same sex couples for adoption of children must positively be denied. You just cannot condemn a child to such upbringing.
The only concession that can probably be granted is to not to persecute consenting adults for homosexuality. Though it will help if they could be persuaded to undergo the course that is sure to cure them according to Baba Ramdev. Of course this means that we insist on treating it as an abnormality. This also means that politicians stop pandering to this new found vote bank and journalists stop propagating it as elitist and fashionable.
Respectfully disagree with you Sir!
ReplyDeleteFirstly, sexual orientation is not a choice. There is no clear understanding on why an individual is homosexual but what is clear is that an individual cannot chose his or her sexual orientation.
Secondly, you are right to suggest that homosexuality is an abnormal. It surely is. But not like man's fondness for junk food or narcotics. A more appropriate comparison would be to left-handedness.
Thirdly, nature doesn't work on an algorithm. There is no grand scheme of things towards which nature has evolved each species. All that should be expected is that newer generations of species will have variations. This variation could manifest in something or nothing. But, without exceptions, variations occur. And it means nothing to nature what those variations are. Because, as I said before, nature doesn't have any plans for any species.
Lastly, I don't think we should make any generalisations about how good homosexual couples will be in the upbringing of a child. We get bad parents and good parents with heterosexual couples as well, but that doesn't stop us from letting them have/adopt kids, does it?!
Hope you understand!
Well the debate over evolution versus intelligent design and that over homosexuality being genetic or otherwise are still on. The only fact that needs no debate is that homosexuality, by definition, cannot be transmitted genetically. Could the shrill demand for same sex marriage and adoption be an experiment in passing on traits through training rather than genetically? Is nature conducting this experiment?
ReplyDeleteCurrent literature on the subject and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice. Human sexual preference is formed by a combination of genetic and hormonal influences.
ReplyDeleteIt is not true that homosexuality cannot be inherited. Clustering of homosexuality in families is evidence to that. And the fact that monozygotic twins tend to be of the same sexual orientation (gay or otherwise) is also an argument in favor of the biological theory for human sexual orientation.
Also, the reason why it is important to understand that this is not a choice is because then it eliminates all fear that one could have of this influencing people to change their orientation. The bottom line - one cannot change his or her sexual orientation. No amount of training will convert a person from one sexual preference to another!
Homosexuality is not unique to homo sapiens. Plenty of fauna exhibit homosexual behaviour too. This is not a new phenomena either. Homosexuality has existed in every society in every period of history in all parts of the world. Many even accept it as absolutely normal. Yet we haven't heard of any society that vanished from the pages of history because they accepted homosexuals!
Lastly, I don't think this is an experiment (by nature or whatever). All i know is human sexual preferences are not unitary and there isn't anything that can be done about it.
Once again, the comparison to left handedness is apt here. Left-handedness need not be inherited, nor can a left-handed person make everyone else left-handed. Nor can one do anything to make that person prefer the right hand.