Concerning the same-sex/opposite sex extreme (and the auto-sexuality deal), I'm not ready to go against evolutionary biology that says humans (and any other life form) must reproduce. I don't have any data against the notion that the function of our body's reproductive system is to reproduce. And for whatever ridiculous reason, mammals have to copulate in order to reproduce.
Since studies show that about 80-90% want to reproduce without artificial measures (i.e. they're attracted to the same sex). Infertility is said to arise at about 10-15% among couples. This includes infertility due to lifestyle habits. Only 20% of women 40-44 have never had children. Homosexuality doesn't even eradicate the want to reproduce.
I think our perspective is a bit clouded by technology. Now people can have children without reproducing. But, back in the day, if you wanted a kid, you were going to have to find someone of the opposite sex to have it with.
Now, i don't think sexual attraction is synonymous with sexual activity. Even though it might sound like that. I know people often have sex with someone for other reasons besides sexual attraction. I think sex is a tool for social bonding and is used for other social "negotiations".
Let's look at the bonobos. Homosexuality is prevalent in the species; but, when they feel like mating, they find an opposite sex partner to do the deed; then bond with their same sex partner.
I will say that sexual arousal is necessary to reproductive function; because, if you're not aroused, it's damned hard to make a baby.
Therefore the person must be aroused by the person they are with in order to successfully reproduce.
Until I find some data that says the reproductive organ's primary function is not to reproduce, I will put same sex attraction at one extreme and opposite sex attraction at the other.
Or I can just come out and say that the human body/mind is equipped for opposite sex interaction; and strict same sex attraction is a biological variation ( I didn't use the word "defect" for a reason. It's not a defect. Defect is a moral based word. Biology is amoral).
The only other idea that I can come up with is based on the idea that same sex attraction is a biological variation. That this variation is mimicking something in our genetic past. Maybe taking us back to our asexual ancestors.
I've also wondered why women don't just lay eggs and men can come along and fertilize them outside the body. Maybe we have done that in our past. We are already creating embryos outside of the body. Maybe we can advance our science to be able to find an adequate external replacement for the uterus or placenta.
Researchers are looking into creating sperm from stem cells taken from female bone marrow.
OR, this could go along with the idea that the y chromosome is disappearing. Apparently, the Y chromosome lacks the mechanism to get rid of damaged DNA. So since the Y chromosome showed up, it has gradually lost genes due to mutations that render them useless. Another researcher (David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass) found that the chromosome has a mechanism that can repair half of it's genes. So, over about 300 million years, the Y chromosome is getting smaller. But what if the SRY gene was the next to go? Or any other sex determining genes? Some say that other chromosomes will just take over that function. Would we then be like crickets?
No comments:
Post a Comment