Lop-Sided Philosophy: Homosexuality

PositronWildhawk Life is a chemical and physical phenomenon. It began from primordial single-celled bacteria billions of years ago, and all the plants and animals of today share that evolutionary ancestor. In order to continue to produce these multicellular organisms, however, there must be an alternative method to the inefficient mass mitosis. And so, along the evolutionary ladder, we developed a new system of reproduction: sex. This involves dividing a species into two “sexes”,each with the necessary organs which combine to produce offspring, and a subconscious drive to commit oneself to another for this purpose. Thus, we, as a highly evolved species, have a responsibility to use these features rationally.

However, it is clear that numerous cases of intimacy are incompatible with reproduction. Humans have been known to exhibit attachment to others of the same sex, and this sparks turmoil in how they fit. The leading religions in modern society disagree with this notion, saying that sex is meant solely for giving new life, and feelings of love should be between the two sexes only. But homosexuality is not unnatural; animals such as ducks have also exhibited similar behaviour, which experimental analysis has proven to be a result of cognitive orientation, and we have seen this long after the manifestation of religious beliefs.
Theories of God are based on the assumption that we were created to function as the creator intended, and at the time, this was the assumption that many would make to account for how the world works, without the modern technology to prove that the Earth is not flat. So one way to look at it would be to say that God created homosexuality, and the other would be to say that homosexuality is a property of the human mind which a human may or may not exhibit. This brings us on to how us, and the rest of the animal kingdom, should be accepting of this trait of nature, as scientific observation has shown since the writing of the most prominent of holy books that nature is different from what they have presumed.
To believe not in these historical teachings is to not belong to a cult of prejudice towards a sexual drive. If we were to follow God by prejudice towards something which we imagine God created, that would be hypocrisy.

But still, faith is a strong thing, and its influence on its society is stronger. Thus, this imbalance continues to affect it in spite of mankind’s expansion of wisdom. And the trouble is really that not everyone can be satisfied due to the fundamentalism that homosexuality challenges. Maybe a solution lies from inspiration by other physical life forms.
Slugs are the first example. They are hermaphrodites, so one slug can literally reproduce with any other slug. Imagine if slugs were intelligent, and followed a culture similar to ours; would they even have imagined, from the day they came to be, that it was possible for there to be a separate class of their species which would decide how mating could be conducted, let alone any concept of differing sexual preferences? If the dominant species of the planet’s ecosystem was built like the slug, there would be no sexual discrimination of any form.
Alternatively, we may look towards the plants. Most plants,like hermaphrodite animals, have both male and female sexual organs individually, however, they do not have libido. Plants “mate” by dispersal of pollen, which they do by allowing pollen to be carried by wind, animals, or in the form of a projectile fired from their own cannon. Other plants reproduce with themselves, a typical individual directing its pollen through its own stigma. Its seeds are then dispersed by similar methods to its pollen. Again, since the sexes are the same, but this time with no sexual desire, there is no prejudice due to sexual preferences in a world dominated by hypothetically sentient plants, or plants at all.
The next example is the numerous bacteria which have accumulated exponentially for much longer than animals and plants have been around. Not only are they not divided between two sexes, they never rely on gamete division. Thus, their DNA is not divided in reproduction, and their offspring are identical. Plus, this does not require a power source for sexual organs, allowing a bacterium to devote its energy towards more important matters. If we are all identical, and reproduce by ourselves without any cognitive diversion, how would we discriminate at all?
Now picture a solution which makes use of these. With some genetic engineering, we can replicate these evolutionary features upon ourselves. The benefits of all humans being fitted with male and female organs simultaneously include the lifestyle equality of all individuals, 100% bisexuality, and thus no sexual prejudice; costs involve only getting used to the higher bodily maintenances. The benefits of adopting a plant-derived sexual dispersal system are that reproduction can be achieved without a sex drive, eliminating both homophobia and sex crimes as there is no forced way to pick a sexual partner; costs involve hysterical pregnancy if there is no way for uptake of rogue gametes to be avoided. The ability to divide every cell in our body by mitosis, just as a bacterial cell divides, would mean that reproduction could occur for any individual at any time, again not depending on a sexual partner to eliminate social sexual issues; and as our DNA is replicated exactly, no discrimination at all. Adopting these methods would increase biological inefficiency, and would have to be unanimous to fully eliminate the social problems which it combats, but could hypothetically run smoothly. Think it’s playing God? No. If there is a God, being in absolute power, the universal timeline would be controlled by God. Would a God allow artificial design to spark if it was sinful? With genetic engineering already existing, I think not.

That is my lop-sided philosophy on this case, and I move on in the imperfect world we have, I can at least congratulate the USA on being next to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide. Maybe with all the stereotypical Republicans fleeing the country, America may be called less racist in time.

Comments

We did it first, Murica. - Puga (6/28/2015)

And my country was before you! - PositronWildhawk (6/28/2015)

And mine was before yours. - PetSounds (7/2/2015)

My state was before all of you!

Of course, that's bland compared to a country. - keycha1n (7/7/2015)

Yeah Canada! We kick ass. - BeatlesFan1964 (5/8/2016)

Well, I believe man made up the thing that God doesn't like homosexuality. Anyway, good post even though I believe in God. - visitor (6/28/2015)

Though genetic engineering can make humans hermaphrodites, having all people with the same sexual orientation and personality traits would make life kinda dull. And about homosexuality, every thing which exists over a long period of time and prevalent over a large geographial area is something not be considered as unnatural, only something to be considered as uncommon because it's only few in percentage. - Kiteretsunu (6/29/2015)

Jesus never said anything about not liking it. The ancient priests did, though - visitor (7/2/2015)

Very nice and informative post! - Alpha101 (7/8/2015)

I would comment on this and give my opinion, but the last thing I need is a ton of people hating on me. - letdot52 (7/10/2015)

I won't. I do believe that homosexuality is some kind of a sexual preference, but it's not a sex. Sex is male and female. There's no gay gene or what. I do believe that it's against God to do be such, but I also do believe that you don't have the right to kill them. God never told us to kill anybody who commits sin against Him. He decides for Himself. But anyways, I don't approve of gay marriage. But they still have equal rights. - visitor (8/29/2015)

My mom has repeatedly told me that God is going to end the world now that gays have rights. What a steaming pile of bull. - bobbythebrony (11/6/2015)

All a matter of preference, like what I currently have. - NuMetalManiak (11/7/2015)