There are desires, there are drives, there are instincts. Our anatomy, including neural architecture, evolves through natural selection. Our psychology and social behavior evolves through natural selection. Our physiology, including gating, activation pathways, specialty regions, hormones and neurotransmitters; evolves through natural selection.
Physical and behavioral diversity is selective. It enables adaptation to changing conditions. Specialization is hazardous, and leads to extinction with changing environmental conditions.
Homosexuality has been shown to increase reproductive success in the human population, by anthropologists. Homosexuality is a common variation in both mammals, birds and fish. It is not unnatural, it's functional.
There are too many factors to just put a thumbs up on this one.
Yes, there are desires, drives and instincts. Desires and drives are malleable. Instincts are not. Our anatomy, including neural architecture evolve into "what"! To say it evolves into homosexuality is not called "increase reproductive success" is incorrect no matter which PhD says it does. Logic shouts out against it. It isn't "functional" other than satisfying desires and drives. I hate zeroing into "homosexuality". Heterosexuality and its desires and drive to have sex with younger and younger children is disgusting to say the least. But, like unto NAMBLA, they claim it is good. I suggest people see Sounds of Freedom. We could say "instincts says no" - but the conscience can be seared to where it is calloused to any other voice of reason.
Physical and behavioral diversity... too broad a subject. Just one area - height of humans, it is not adaptive to conditions that I am aware of. It is more due to our diet after DNA
Certain anthropologist that have an opinion on functionality is just that, their personal opinion.
Homosexuality is a common variation... so is cannibalism... so what's for dinner? I don't think that is a standard. We have the free will of control.
But there is; a greatdeal of hard evidence, both in clinical and in neural imaging studies. It is not a rebellion, and rarely a social choice. It is a natural, functional, variation.
You did not choose to be heterosexual. It came upon you, at puberty or even before. The focus of attraction, the degree of attraction -- not your choice.
Social attitudes toward it in Abrahamic religions do not reflect reality; they reflect Abrahamic theology. They are not fact based.
Anthropology, psychology and medicine are fact based, and they disagree with religious teaching, which is designed to maintain an ideal, social, status quo. The religious narrative, again, is not fact based.
Actually, it wasn't a "choice"... it was a decision. But you NAILED it when you said "the focus of attraction" that leads to "degree of attraction". Add to that violation through rape, lack of a father figure, and a host of other external experiences all factor in.
Forget "religion". That comes back to my position that it is "cultural acceptance" that is the rule of law which may be a religion and not necessarily what is right or wrong. Cannibals have socially accepted that it is right to eat your enemy. In the Amazons there are tribes that declare it is correct to bury a live child because the male father decided he had too big of a family - even if it was 1 year old.
Exactly!
As I've said, sex drive is complex and multi-factoral. Unlike eye color or handedness, it involves several brain areas and neural pathways. It is complex and deeply embedded, which is why it's so difficult to alter, therapeutically.
Drives are controllable. A serial killer was driven. A kleptomaniac is driven. It is complex, yes, but malleable.
Social and behavioral norms exist, but they can't change biology. They may repress behaviors, and produce an image of homogeneity and normal behavior, but they can't rewire complex neurological wiring.
Gender and sexual orientation aren't either-or, nor are they choices. Fact-based, biological studies support this. Religion does not -- but religion is not fact based, nor is it a research modality.
So if you can't change biology, no amount of hormones and physical realignments will still not make a man a woman and a woman a man. That's biology. But to suggest that we are predestined to be who we are, then we are back to accepting kleptomaniacs and not trying to change those people
So, whether religion or culturally accepted norms, it is that which defines what is accepted. Forget that my faith is the truth
- in its application it is as true as what you say is true. But that is a whole 'nuther animal.
