Day 104 (Peanut Allergy Analogy)

• 

  JuggernautRF said,

  As for reproduction part, we are still able to reproduce if we are willing to. Using the same logic you can say that the fact that straight couple performs oral sex makes them imperfect humans and you wouldn’t wish anyone to do that.

• 

  JuggernautRF said,

  As for population control, since when did human population become a problem? It was at least in 20th century and homosexuality exsists as long as humans do. Also why does population in developed countries decreases while in overpopulated 3rd world (China for example) it continues to grow? I think it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

• 

  JuggernautRF said,

  I think sexuality is pretty much like a nationality (both things you don’t choose and both groups of people you somehow relate to). And when you talk about baby, whould you wish him to be of ethnic minority in an underdeveloped society? According to your logic that would be unfortunate for him too: he or she will also be an outcast and will also suffer from prejudice.

• 

  big93scott said,

  Evolution selected for and allows peanut allergies to persist. So, under the rationality you are presenting, it is completely natural.

  The same arguement can be presented against homosexuality. In nature, a male and a female go together to reproduce as evolution intended. Two gay men go against this evolutionary process, failing to pass on their genes.

  You’re presenting two viewpoints that are hypocritical to eachother. They either are both natural, or both unnatural.

• 

  FTLNewsFeed said,

  As for it being a complete farce, in nature we can and do eat peanuts, they provide sustenance and our bodies abide by their chemicals as evolutionarily intended. When you have an allergy, the body is not deriving sustenance from them and is not abiding by the chemicals within them and is actively harming the person with a histamine reaction that can and does lead to death. I would say that that was not an evolutionary characteristic, and is the body acting unnaturally.

• 

  FTLNewsFeed said,

  How can you argue that being gay is not an intended function of our body? Is our brain wired wrong, is it a psychological disease? Is DNA miss-transcribing, are neurons miss-firing? If it’s none of these then the body is working correctly and being gay is completely natural.

  You seem to think that being gay is an abnormality but that that abnormality is fine. But evolution selected for and allows homosexuality to persist so I don’t see any abnormality at all.

• 

  philipem01 said,

  I think my response serves under your definition as well…because the only reason to include one or exclude the other sexuality is again a value judgment not anything objective.

• 

  big93scott said,

  You interperated the term “undesirable” literally, which is not how I explained it was being used. It was used more to describe things in which the “ideal” human wouldn’t have.

• 

  big93scott said,

  Your first point is a complete farce. A peanut allergy comes about by way of nature. To deem something unnatural because it is “the body doing something it’s not supposed to be doing” is to automatically deem being gay to also be unnatural. Are we “supposed” to be gay? No, I would strongly argue that it is “the body doing something it’s not supposed to be doing,” yet it is 100% natural, and 100% fine.

  Therefore, the “ideal” human could never be gay; although, you may have a point in asexual.

• 

  philipem01 said,

  sorry “man made”

• 

  philipem01 said,

  No, the only reason being gay is undesirable is because society has so defined it, and made it undesirable. I would hope that some newborn babies are gay and some are not and celebrate both of them.

  Again all and only negative aspects of being gay are man-mand.

• 

  FTLNewsFeed said,

  1) A peanut allergy is unnatural, it is caused by the immune system overreacting and is the body doing something it’s not supposed to be doing. So no, peanut allergies are not a good analogy to being gay.

  2) While I agree that it is a burden, that is the fault of an intolerant and bigoted society making it so, in an ideal society an ideal person could be gay, straight, bi, or asexual and still be a fully adjusted human being. So yes, an ideal person can be gay.

• 

  cynterslave said,

  And you’re only 15? Wow! Impressive thought process.

• 

  pushshapes said,

  I totally agree with you that homosexuality is a means of slowing reproduction. I also believe that it is genetic. Just as much so as your eye, skin, and hair colour. Your height, your body type……it is all an integral part of the human pattern…. I just wish everybody got that.

• 

  polemius01 said,

  Good point. And, for an atheist, very religious/Christian: “You are neither male nor female” according to Paul.
  Or, could the perfect human being be the perfect blend of both genders?

• 

  big93scott said,

  This is very true, I do not hold the “evolutionary bump” idea very highly, I included it more so that I drove home the point that I don’t believe homosexuality to be cancerous.

• 

  big93scott said,

  Ah, but the perfect human being would have to be genderless, wouldn’t it?

• 

  polemius01 said,

  Thankfully, there is no perfect human being. We probably wouldn’t like him/her (could a woman be a perfect human being, or only a man )
  And, it’s not being gay that is the problem; it’s society’s negative response to it that’s the problem.
  I’m not sure that homosexuality is an evolutionary method of population control. It’s a species variant, one that has existed even when the human population was lower.
  I love it: A video on being gay that includes hockey score predicitions!

• 

  rabbitfish63 said,

  Comment #2

  Everyone has burdens. I, like you, have felt the burden of being gay, but I also see how it shook me out of my complacency and made me the human being I am.

  I see the conservative thinking of my relatively liberal siblings, and I realize how far I was pushed to think because I knew discrimination and fear that they didn’t.

  I honestly wouldn’t wish that away from anyone.

• 

  rabbitfish63 said,

  The perfect human being does not exist. The very term implies that it would be preferable if there were only one type of human and all humans shared all traits.

  We are and have always been social animals, and as we evolved that way, it is reasonable to conjecture that the species need a diversity of traits to be healthy. I have various theories about the evolutionary advantages of same-sex desire which I’ve written to you before.

• 

  maitriparamita said,

  I think the best analogy is Lefthandedness. It is natural and healthy but the left hand is an analogy for evil in the Bible. Left handed children were called ‘sinister’ and used to be put through hell and corrective therapy simply because they were a minority.

• 

  Pandazing said,

  Another possibility is that gay individuals engage in evolutionary altruism. While they do not themselves reproduce, they increase the evolutionary fitness of related individuals. In this case the ‘gay gene’ could be passed on if related individuals carry some of the alleles but not enough to be gay themselves.

  Regardless, I just don’t buy the idea that the gene exists to limit population – just about everything in evolutionary biology would say that’s impossible.

• 

  Pandazing said,

  This argument is not human specific…

  From a biology standpoint, a gene that exists solely to reduce the rate of reproduction will die out over time, there are no two ways about it .

  If I had to take a guess, perhaps having some ‘gay alleles’ (assuming more than one gene is involved) make a man more evolutionarily fit (perhaps he’s a little less violent, perhaps he can relate better with women, perhaps he takes more of a role in raising a child) and thus is able to propagate the gene.

• 

  Gamec0ckGrad said,

  Well said, Scott. This was one of your most thought provoking and eloquent videos.

  As for your Stanley Cup predictions, you really think the Rangers will take the Capitals to 7 games? Not to be overly confident but the Caps potent offensive attack combined with NY’s mediocre scoring all season long will make for a quick series. I’ll be at Verizon Center tomorrow night cheering on the Caps and Rockin’ The Red — WSH in 5.

• 

  garysdeskcom said,

  Your analogies are interesting. The reason why I have no used an allergy comparison is because an allergy is usually considered problematic, potentially life-threatening, and due to some form of a defect – something not quite right. I don’t see homosexuality or bisexuality quite like that.

  I think the reason why many gay people would not wish being gay on anybody is due to prejudice and discrimination. Being gay itself can be, as you say, enjoyable.

  Enjoy your videos.

Add A Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code