Like a lot of Science, it does not take into account the emotional, human aspect of being human. That which makes us human. That which scientists would say is all scientifically explicable, but others would say is not. We have souls. Your religious or scientific beliefs might define or disprove that, but most people believe in some kind of emotional spirituality that is other than pure biological science. Biology makes us machines. If we do not act like machines are scientifically "supposed" to, we can be branded "defective". That, to me, is not what we are.
And to me, it just sounds like wishful thinking, that we're somehow special. Humans being the ultimate creation, the sun revolving around Earth and so on, so forth. I can show you a brain, I can show you how it responds to stimulation, what it has in common with more primitive brains, and to some extent, what parts does what. Can you show me a soul? I don't subscribe to such things, because it statistically seems to have a fairly good chance of being wrong. Whenever something is considered spiritual or magical etc., it seems it is merely because we lack a closely enough approximated explanation. Winds are caused by the sun heating up air, not a giant eagle flapping its wings. People seem to be offended by the notion that we
are biological machines, and again, I don't quite get why. So what if we are?
When you say (a) is normal and (b) is defective, it quite clearly and very simply implies that there is something imperfect or undesirable and unnatural about (b).
Unnatural, possibly. Imperfect or undesirable, hardly, at least not by default. If I had functional wings, that'd be a defect. It's quite clearly not something I'm supposed to have as a human. Apart from the physical impossibility of supporting the weight of a human with a realistic wingspan (not to mention the difficulty of finding clothes that fit), I'd be quite happy to have functional wings. It's an extreme example, but it's only to illustrate a point. Take Einstein again. If I could get a defective brain that would help me come up with stuff like he did, I'd take it. I suppose I could call it "different" if you'd prefer, it's just semantics.
In a scientific evolutionary sense, if procreating is our given end, maybe it is undesirable to be homosexual and not have children, but then again, we are overpopulating the world, so maybe it in a scientific and evolutionary sense it IS actually desirable. And the defect in *humans* is to spread across the earth like a virus. So therefore homosexuality, in a certain percentage of the people, could even be nature's way of regulating our own defects - therefore it would be something to aspire to, not a "defect". WHO really knows.
Indeed, and I believe I mentioned something similar. The thing is though, I have no evidence to believe that this is the purpose of homosexuality. It has been observed in animals where this would not be a valid reason. It may very well be some sort of dormant failsafe, but how it would come to be before it is necessary is beyond me.
I'm more inclined to believe that we're a bit too successful for our own good. Nature will take care of it eventually, though it'll probably mean we get to see far more wars, the decline of our and quite likely other species, and possibly the destruction of the planet for a couple of thousand years, but nature is not going to bat an eyelash. She's patient, and starting over with the surviving cockroaches will not be a problem. Better luck next time.
What we do know for sure is that calling homosexuality "defective", however innocent you claim that claim is (meaning, you say it's not homophobic to call homosexuality a defect, but I don't see it in any science books, because (a) it's not proven science it's your theory and (b) it's damn well homophobic even if you're not ) is only going to fuel homophobia, and your scientific energy and brilliant mind would be *far* better spent pondering things like how to save our world, or how to bridge social differences, or cure diseases, than coming up with very well argued scientific theories on why homosexuals are defective as human beings.
If a human male brain responds in the same way to sexual stimulation as I would expect a human female brain to do, then yes, I would say that something is not as it should be there. Again, this doesn't mean much more to me than someone being left handed, but I'm not going to pretend there's not something odd going on. Quite frankly, left handed people bother me more because they actually affect my life in a slightly negative way from time to time. Like I said, homosexuality is at this point even a good thing as I see it. Less humans reproducing, increased chances for me to get a woman if it's a male homosexual or good porn if it's not, and so on.
As for homophobia, it is rooted in moral issues rather than a direct objection to the biological one. If they are against it, they will be against it whether homosexuality is a defect or hetrosexuality is.
As for what I spend my time on, I do believe that is my business, but if you must know, I don't spend a lot of time researching homosexuality. In case I haven't made it clear, I don't really care who or what you sleep with, as long as there is consent. Stop arguing with me if you don't like me arguing with you.
As far as saving our world goes, there's a good chance we're screwed already. Fusion technology, vastly improved utilization of renewable resources or population control are the things I can think of, and neither is realistic at the moment (although fusion might be possible if a method of containing it can be found, I'm pretty skeptical about cold fusion). Without either, resources will run out, wars will start, and things will go to hell in a handbasket. That is unless Black Death v2.0 sneaks up and takes care of us first. Or we could move to another planet, although that is even less realistic than the two previous suggestions.
This kind of "science" fuels discrimination. Darwin made that kind of scientific discrimination very popular. Why do you want to be a part of that? If we want to move beyond "alpha male" syndrome and try and create a world where all are respected as equals, then we cannot make a science of determining that the ideal human being is. In the extreme case, you get a world of Aryans or a world of pure Castilian Spaniards or a world of Sunni Muslims or "pure" Jews depending on what your image of human perfection is. In the modern American sense, you get a stable, middle-to-upper class heterosexual well-to-do couple, moderately liberal christians, with decent careers and no worrying medical history. Scary.
Again, you're talking about social issues. I'm not. Race, politics, career, religion have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting discriminating homosexuals any more than left handed people, unless it can be shown that there's something that either can't do well enough. I don't believe in discriminating women either, but it is a fact that women are on average weaker than men are, so I don't expect to see 50/50 in areas where physical strength is important. If a woman becomes a fire(wo)man despite not being qualified compared to the men, equality and fair chances are not going to mean a damn thing to me if I'm stuck in a burning building and she is not strong enough to get me out. I expect people to be capable regardless of race or sexuality etc. If they are not, I'll treat them the same, regardless of race/sexuality/..., which is to say, I'll be against them doing it.
Pheromones and hormones explain what makes us all frisky, physically, but nothing explains what makes us truly attracted to someone, male or female...
a) That's not entierly true, and b) see above about lack of explanations.
...but don't you realize that arguing against what I am advocating is arguing against equality?
No, actually, I don't. I'm not sure what you're arguing against or think I'm arguing for, but it has nothing to do with equality (unless your interpretation of it is along the lines of the women in the FD example I mentioned, in which case I'll have to politely ask you to stuff it).
