"What other measures could possibly overcome the objection of an insecure future for the species?"
As I pointed out, you offered nothing to support such a claim. You simply assert it. It can be inferred that the survival of the species would be more assured given that procreation would be (presumably ) planned to meet social needs rather than simply being the result of thoughtlessness and raging hormones. There is also the question of overpopulation which is a present scourge stemming from random and thoughtless intercourse. Scientists such as Isaac Asimov considered this a terrible and ultimate danger to humankind, and certainly it is currently responsible for innumerable deaths every day where there are no resources available for a particular population base in a particular area.
"Well, at most points along the evolutionary line, it has been an advantage to have population growth, or we would not have developed flourishing civilizations, but would have been stuck at a stage of isolated human enclaves"
This is quite specious. Generally speaking, humankind has ordinarily been overpopulated if one considers survival and quality of survival to be desirable values. Starving and dying babies contribute nothing to the survival of the species or to the "flourishing " of civilization. Disabuse yourself of that notion. Presumably, a socially planned reproduction would reproduce to the point of flourishing and would reproduce NEVER where resources necessary for survival were inadequate or in short supply. Thus would needless suffering and misery be eliminated. The survival of the human race does not depend on mindless procreation of numbers but rather on the application of intelligence to control environmental factors and to ensure resources essential for the flourishing of both the individual and the group. We are not mindless insects whose survival is based on the screw rate...in spite of the evidence which might suggest otherwise.
"the male influence on offspring is very important, and therefore that having two parents is desirable, if not necessary, especially when male offspring are involved"
It is gratuitous and unconvincing to assume that homosexuals would not raise families under the love and tutelage of both genders.
"those children who are most at risk generally come from homes where there are multiple boyfriends and insecure relationships."
You are talking about boyfriends to the HETEROSEXUAL female. We have no data on what influence (positive or negative) friendship would have to the homosexual parenting. One assumes that if same-sex friendships were considered a beneficial thing, then neither the mother, the father, nor the children would be distressed.
"Given the lack of special bond between mother and child"
That is certainly not a "given" at all. Indeed, it seems like a wild and reckless statement. Why should a loving mother carry a baby for nine months and after going through the pains of childbirth, be ill equipped to experience the love and the joys of her offspring? This would go against all we know of evolution, and all we know of the human heart and biology. I think we can dismiss such wild speculation out of hand. Certainly, it is anything but a "given".
"The is certainly the situation is prison, although, admittedly skewed by an anti-social population."
It seems to me that the prison example speaks to the heterosexual behaviour amongst unnaturally confined males whose sexuality makes it necessary to use some degree of force or dominance. It says nothing whatsoever about the socialization of males or females in a homosexual society.
The only thing essential to your "thought experiment" which is pertinent to the exclusion of heterosexuality is the survival or extinction paradigm. Otherwise, the values of one or the other do not require the imaginary exclusion of one or the other for their analysis or assessment. As to the survival argument, I have already shown that it is not equivalent to reproductive frenzy and you have shown no other compelling evidence that survival would be problematical solely on the basis that population growth might rely on thoughtful planing rather than raging hormones.
So although one cannot state with absolute assurance that all the negative consequences of heterosexual hedonism (rape, assault, broken homes based on loss of love, cheating, etc.) would be surmounted by a thoughtfully planned reproduction--one can at least see that the evidence would suggest this to some degree There being no sexual "love" between the mother and father, their same-sex friendships ought not to disrupt the climate of mutually mature love for one another and for their children. In any event, no case is being attempted that heterosexuality is inherently disadvantageous or counterproductive.
The most important part is that which you have overlooked: That heterosexuality and homosexuality have both survived since the beginning of time in a certain constant ratio and it is generally supposed that they do not compete in an either/or death struggle but that they both contribute to the survival of the human species, and that they both offer a synergistic balance to the advance of civilization. At least, we have no reason to suppose otherwise. And if we are going to engage a "thought experiment" it ought to be one such as looks thoughtfully at how better the world might be were humans to address their sexual differences without prejudice--but as to maximize the value of people to one another and to society. This, at least, is a "thought experiment" which may be realistically pursued as a hoped-for actuality...rather than the fault finding and fantastic nature of the other. |
