Homosexuality

[sunspot]

I realize this is a touchy subject but I would like to get other people's opinion whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural behavior. I personally believe it is unnatural. I have two logical arguments to support by opinion.

 

The first can be understood with a hypothetical scenario. Picture if the whole world decided to embrace homosexuality and become such. In maybe 100 years the human race would not longer exist because there would be no babies or not enough artificial babies to offset the rapid decline in the population. According to evolutionary thinking there are two prime directives in nature; survival of the species and survival of the individual. As such, this rapid decline in the humanity would violate survival of species and would create a backlash of sorts. The so-called homophobes, would be a natural response to the situation. Currently, culture calls the homophobes unnatural and homosexuality natural. But when these natural preditors were taken away by law in the 70's and 80's, the queer were like deer, overpopulating, creating a terrible disease that decimated their numbers. A lot of good people were lost.

 

My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation, which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.

[Kermit]

Then again, there are numerous occaisions in which there's homosexuality in nature. From personal experience i've had lesbian hamsters.

 

Besides, how would you define it as "unnatural"? From what i've read in the past, sexuality, sex identity, and a lot of other things are hardwired into their brains in the womb.

 

Don't take my word for it, though, there might be something on Wikipedia.

[Ophiolite]

It is wholly natural, sunspot. Many mammalian and avian species have practicing homosexuals. Hardly a cultural effect, then. In humans, at least, it appears to be related to events occuring in utero. For example:

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66.

The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation.

Rahman Q.

One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates. However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported by available data. These current theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology.

[Sayonara]

The first can be understood with a hypothetical scenario.

The scenario you suggest is not hypothetical, it is fictional. You might as well replace homosexuality in there with chastity or hepatitis infection.

 

Picture if the whole world decided to embrace homosexuality and become such. In maybe 100 years the human race would not longer exist because there would be no babies or not enough artificial babies to offset the rapid decline in the population.

Even if the whole world did "embrace" homosexuality, it would not mean we magically lost the ability to reproduce.

 

According to evolutionary thinking there are two prime directives in nature; survival of the species and survival of the individual. As such, this rapid decline in the humanity would violate survival of species and would create a backlash of sorts.

That's a massive over-simplification. Evolutionary mechanisms are not so forthcoming.

At that level of detail, all you can be sure of is that "selective pressures would shift".

 

The so-called homophobes, would be a natural response to the situation.

How so? By your own terms, their views would culturally be in the minority and not sufficient to seriously affect anyone. Biologically, they are not predators, pathogens, parasites, or direct competitors, so they would exert little if any ecological pressure.

 

Currently, culture calls the homophobes unnatural and homosexuality natural.

Which culture is this? I ask because the one I live in has myriad mixed views, which are still very much open to debate from all quarters.

 

But when these natural preditors were taken away by law in the 70's and 80's, the queer were like deer, overpopulating, creating a terrible disease that decimated their numbers. A lot of good people were lost.

a) They didn't go way so you can't really say they were "lost",

b) They are not in any way predators, no matter your understanding of the term,

c) Homosexuality did not spread or multiply, it was simply a matter of it being more visible due to reduced fear. Likewise you do not have sufficient information to say they were "overpopulated".

 

My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation, which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.

I suspect there is not much involved here in the way of genetics, so I wouldn't worry about the withdrawal of characteristics.

 

It is far more likely that the bigotry, lack of understanding, isolation and spite that homosexual people feel during their developmental years gives them a better understanding of and grasp over essential social skills such as empathy, listening, humour, altruism, and appreciation of irony.

[DV8 2XL]

It is far more likely that the bigotry, lack of understanding, isolation and spite that homosexual people feel during their developmental years gives them a better understanding of and grasp over essential social skills such as empathy, listening, humour, altruism, and appreciation of irony.

 

Then do you think that the new broad acceptance will change the nature of being gay? I ask because my wife's gay uncle (now in his late 70's) has said that he thinks the whole gay culture will perish, now that the community no longer has to huddle together for mutual protection.

[SorceressPol]

I realize this is a touchy subject but I would like to get other people's opinion whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural behavior. I personally believe it is unnatural. I have two logical arguments to support by opinion.

 

The first can be understood with a hypothetical scenario. Picture if the whole world decided to embrace homosexuality and become such. In maybe 100 years the human race would not longer exist because there would be no babies or not enough artificial babies to offset the rapid decline in the population. According to evolutionary thinking there are two prime directives in nature; survival of the species and survival of the individual. As such' date=' this rapid decline in the humanity would violate survival of species and would create a backlash of sorts. The so-called homophobes, would be a natural response to the situation. Currently, culture calls the homophobes unnatural and homosexuality natural. But when these natural preditors were taken away by law in the 70's and 80's, the queer were like deer, overpopulating, creating a terrible disease that decimated their numbers. A lot of good people were lost. .[/quote']

 

I guess your first argument would be plausible if homosexuality were a disease that a person could catch. Accepting homosexuality does not make people gay. Homosexuality has been around since probably the beginning of mankind. The Illiad has gay characters and that was written in 700 B.C. If homosexuality was such an unnatural occurence, wouldn't natural selection have removed it from humans by now? Homosexuality has flurished in ancient Greece, ancient Japan, and a couple Chinese Dynasties. China is doing pretty well in the childbirths department.

 

My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation, which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.

 

They can still be parents. Artificial insemination, adoption, surrogate mothers, they have a lot more options today then they would have in the past. Homosexuals aren't going to bring this world's population to a halt. What about heterosexuals that don't want children? Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals so wouldn't that be a bigger problem than homosexuals who need help reproducing?

[Sayonara]

Then do you think that the new broad acceptance will change the nature of being gay? I ask because my wife's gay uncle (now in his late 70's) has said that he thinks the whole gay culture will perish, now that the community no longer has to huddle together for mutual protection.

All areas of society are constantly being modified by internal and external processes, so it's not very surprising to hear someone point that out about the gay community during or after massive changes.

[JustStuit]

People should be entitled to their beliefs and opinions as they see fit within moral and legal reason. People should accept that and not torment people with a different view.

[JustStuit]

I'm not saying people are often tormented or tormenting but coming from a high school, I can say there is some. I don't know about just average life but people should not be ignorant or one-sided.

[DV8 2XL]

All areas of society are constantly being modified by internal and external processes, so it's not very surprising to hear someone point that out about the gay community during or after massive changes.

 

I think he is talking about a loss of identity. Identity as in membership in a community.

[Sayonara]

I think he is talking about a loss of identity. Identity as in membership in a community.

I understand that, I just don't see how it's unusual. It happens all the time as communities develop and change.

[FreeThinker]

The first can be understood with a hypothetical scenario. Picture if the whole world decided to embrace homosexuality and become such. In maybe 100 years the human race would not longer exist because there would be no babies or not enough artificial babies to offset the rapid decline in the population. According to evolutionary thinking there are two prime directives in nature; survival of the species and survival of the individual. As such, this rapid decline in the humanity would violate survival of species and would create a backlash of sorts. The so-called homophobes, would be a natural response to the situation. Currently, culture calls the homophobes unnatural and homosexuality natural. But when these natural preditors were taken away by law in the 70's and 80's, the queer were like deer, overpopulating, creating a terrible disease that decimated their numbers. A lot of good people were lost.

 

Violate survival of the fittest and survival of the individual? Nature can not see into the future and can not predict whether a current mutation will benefit the species/individual into future. I believe that homosexuality is at least partially genetic, maybe certain environmental factors can “set” that gene on. With our current technology it is possible for gay couples to have children and therefore pass their genes forward. However, anyone could be carrying the gay gene. A homosexual child can come from non homosexual parents by inheriting two homosexual alleles from both parents. In the same way the child can inherit one allele, and not become homosexual, but pass that gene down to the next generation, where it would remain recessive until it meets another homosexual allele. Homosexuality has been around longer than homo-sapiens as it is present in animals as well. Homophobes are not predators, they do not kill homosexuals. Even if they wanted to in your hypothetical example, wouldn’t the gay outnumber them and therefore survive the “war”?

 

My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation, which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.

 

Even if the homosexual gene was “bad”, what is to say it can not reside in a body with “good” genes? Evolution is not a conscious process, it “doesn’t know” weather a gene is good or bad until it is effects the body. Your friend’s parents could have, both independently, been caring the homosexual gene for generations and only now did it meet its equivalent allele, hence becoming expressive in your friend.

[sunspot]

Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that anyone should be persecuted for what they believe or do, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. When the gays were let out of the closet, a wide range of perversion came from the back of the closet and followed them into culture seeking their own rights. Are these all due to genes? Just because a dog humps a human's leg, does that mean the bum blasting animals is a natural part of nature? Human's are capable of anything. Just because it exists does not make it natural behavior.

 

If one looks at the breeding behavior of animals, it is not uncommon with social animals for the males to fight. There is a saying among guys that a stiff di..k has no conscience and can make a man do what he will regret later. Maybe this competition evolved from a defensive need against being taken for a female because of confusion within the lower brain.

[Sayonara]

When the gays were let out of the closet

That really ought to read "let back out of the closet", seeing as homosexuality was taboo for a very short period in the West, and has otherwise enjoyed widespread acceptance across the world for all of recorded history.

 

a wide range of perversion came from the back of the closet and followed them into culture seeking their own rights.

That's not really true though, is it? What you call "perversion" is simply a different manifestation of the same sexual or behavioural oddities exhibited by all of humanity. Picking on one slice of society is special pleading, regardless of the argument.

 

Are these all due to genes? Just because a dog humps a human's leg, does that mean the bum blasting animals is a natural part of nature? Human's are capable of anything. Just because it exists does not make it natural behavior.

Behaviour according to one's nature is a default explanatory state. To successfully make a claim to the contrary (i.e. that a behavioural pattern is abnormal) you need to provide some compelling evidence.

 

If one looks at the breeding behavior of animals, it is not uncommon with social animals for the males to fight. There is a saying among guys that a stiff di..k has no conscience and can make a man do what he will regret later. Maybe this competition evolved from a defensive need against being taken for a female because of confusion within the lower brain.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but it looks to me like you might be in some dangerous territory.

[Dak]

If one looks at the breeding behavior of animals, it is not uncommon with social animals for the males to fight. There is a saying among guys that a stiff di..k has no conscience and can make a man do what he will regret later. Maybe this competition evolved from a defensive need against being taken for a female because of confusion within the lower brain.

 

Are you arguing that human's violent instincts evolved as a defence against getting analy violated?

 

If so, then that's certainly an interesting and unique theory, but its probably more to do with natural selection trying to pass on the stronger genes, from a time when phisical fitness was the most inportant charectoristic.

[sunspot]

I am just pointing out an alternate explanation of the observational data. I realize it is not consensus thinking and is controversial, but it would not only help define who are the fittest males, but also those who are not going to take any unnatural sh...t.

 

The female naturally protecting her young can become so ferocious as to stand down a larger preditor. The larger preditor, will put aside its blind hunger compulsion under the shock, lowering the potential of the instinct for more ability to weigh the contrary result that might happen.

 

If one continues the primal male battle scenario, the larger male either goes limp under the shock or satisifes the potential with a male. Either way, the male potential left behind will go after the females to pass the natural or appropriate natural resulting breeding behavior to the young. Eventually, selective evolution toward the natural use of the breeding instinct, shifted the behavior toward the modern theory of the stronger natural passing on their genes. The exceptions are left at the perimeter.

 

As an unrelated example of natural and unnatural behavior, rape is morally and social wrong, and I do not condone it in any shape or form. During ancient warfare, it was appropriate for the conqueoring army to spread their genes to the females of the losing culture via rape. Warfare is unnatural caused by social stresses, leading to another layer of unnatural behavior. Eventually, the unnatural path of rape became the right of way, until culture rediscovered natural behavior.

[Sayonara]

Warfare is actually a perfect example of natural ecological interactions.

 

"Rape" is a human social concept and does not have any biological differentiation from intercourse other than reduced scope of mate selection.

 

Your analogies are not advancing your argument. Abandon them.

[Aardvark]

That really ought to read "let back out of the closet", seeing as homosexuality was taboo for a very short period in the West, and has otherwise enjoyed widespread acceptance across the world for all of recorded history.

 

 

Not wanting to nit pick, but the history of homosexuality is a bit more complicated than that. Many cultures and societies have accected homosexuality as normal, but also many have been feriously repressive. The ancient Sumerians and Israelities killed homosexual men (despite hints of homoerotic love in the Bible between Johnathan and David), whilst ancient Greece and ,to a slightly lesser extent, ancient Rome were tolerant. Many African cultures were (and remain) highly homophobic, while the Ottoman empire was known for its tolerant attitudes.

 

There seems to be a consistent inconsistency and ambiguity toward sociatal views of homosexuality throughout history.

 

However the fact that homosexuality has been clearly prevalent throughout history and through all cultures, however repressive, indicates a 'hardwired' component to homosexuality. My guess is that is related the the concept of kin selection. A homosexual may not directly pass on his or her genes, but can indirectly do so through being a valuable member of the extended family/tribal group. A gay uncle who is a fierce warrior and skillful hunter who also is good at caring for the nieces and nephews could be a major asset in evolutionarly terms.

[Sayonara]

Not wanting to nit pick, but the history of homosexuality is a bit more complicated than that.

This is certainly true, in fact it's come up before in various prior threads. However I'm not convinced Sunspot's posts merit or require such a thorough and efforty response.

 

A homosexual may not directly pass on his or her genes, but can indirectly do so through being a valuable member of the extended family/tribal group. A gay uncle who is a fierce warrior and skillful hunter who also is good at caring for the nieces and nephews could be a major asset in evolutionarly terms.

What many people forget is that while a homosexual may not pass on their genes, on the other hand... they may.

[aguy2]

My second argument is based on personal observation. Over my life I have had many gay and lesbian friends. Putting aside their sexual orientation' date=' which I always did, the one thing I noticed is that they were all special people; bright, witty, empathic, fun loving, kind, generous, etc.. It made no sense to me why someone with such good genetics would naturally want to withdraw these from the human genetic pool. Almost all would have made good parents, passing on positive personality traits to their children.[/quote']

 

I have made the same observations.

 

My philosophical pov makes the assumption that, "We are involved in an ongoing, staged process." If this assumption is a close approximation of the case, then it would stand to reason that the achievement of an ideal state of perfection within any given stage would, in effect, short circuit the the overall process.

 

Once an ideal state of perfection is achieved, development ceases. The only possibility of change left would be deterioration.

 

I am not saying that this phenomenon is the only cause of homosexuality or the unwillness to reproduce, but it could very well be a contributing factor.

 

aguy2

[Sayonara]

Firstly, your impression of the evolutionary process seems quite unorthodox. There is no ideal state of perfeciton, and while steady states do exist there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution.

 

Secondly, what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality? Show me an ecological or evolutionary causal route that demonstrates it's biologically undesirable.

 

p.s. FYI, homosexuality and "unwillness (Sic) to reproduce" are not synonymous.

[Royston]

Agreed, deviations of sexual desire have f' all to do with evolution. You don't hear of a species of dog with a sock fetish.

[aguy2]

Firstly, your impression of the evolutionary process seems quite unorthodox. There is no ideal state of perfeciton, and while steady states do exist there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution.

1) My post made no mention of 'evolution' and certainly did not imply that the phenonomon was evident in 'biological evolution'.

2) You say, "there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution." Isn't extinction a form of rapid deterioration?

 

Secondly, what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality? Show me an ecological or evolutionary causal route that demonstrates it's biologically undesirable.

 

A species is an interbreeding community. Non-breeders remain members of this community only in the sense of their potential. They have not in fact joined the community until they have demonstrated their ability to successfully breed, by doing so. I contend that it is 'biologically desirable to be a member of the community'.

 

 

 

p.s. FYI, homosexuality and "unwillness (Sic) to reproduce" are not synonymous.

 

No, of course not. My sub-sub-hypothesis contends that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'dead ends'. I think that the hypothesis is even more validated by 1st world, hetrosexual couples who forego breeding in order to 'get things the way why want them'.

 

aguy2

[Sayonara]

1) My post made no mention of 'evolution' and certainly did not imply that the phenonomon was evident in 'biological evolution'.

This thread is about the evolutionary role/purpose/value of homosexuality, whether social or biological. If your post is not intended to address that topic then you could make it more clear by putting it in a different thread, one where it will not be read in a context that you did not wish to use.

 

2) You say, "there is no such thing as deteriorative evolution." Isn't extinction a form of rapid deterioration?

No. The implication of "deteriorative evolution" is that genetic changes oppose the demands of selective pressures. It does not suggest that they fail to meet those demands.

 

A species is an interbreeding community. Non-breeders remain members of this community only in the sense of their potential.

Your definition falls apart the moment one considers any species with a vaguely organised social structure. Take the hymenopterans for example, or gorillas. Clearly there is a lot more to maintaining many species than mere reproduction, and - wouldn't you know it - the structure that does this is in fact the community itself.

Also you need to bear in mind that a species needs variation, which requires that different populations interact sexually. In many higher life forms this includes a requirement for social interaction that is not necessarily mediated by the breeding individuals. If anything, it seems that the more complex and sophisticated a species becomes, the greater the need for a society that incorporates different roles and patterns of behaviour with alternate goals and pay-offs.

 

Regardless, when you are talking about a population in the billions, the difference between "potential to breed" and "breeding" has an effect on the species that is entire orders of magnitude less significant than the effects on the individual.

 

They have not in fact joined the community until they have demonstrated their ability to successfully breed, by doing so.

Given the above, this has all the hallmarks of an arbitrary statement of the sort that is usually preceded by "You can't be in our club because..."

 

Like many before you, you continue to ignore the fact that massive numbers of "homosexuals" have - and will continue to have - reproductive sex, they donate sperm/eggs, and lesbian mothers abound (whether surrogate or not).

 

This is, of course, aside from the fact that human society is so vastly removed from animal society in its sophistication of requirements and outputs, that to suggest non-reproduction voids any hope of playing a valuable and fulfilling role in the community is just daft.

 

I contend that it is 'biologically desirable to be a member of the community'.

And I think there are few who would argue with you.

However:

1) You have not demonstrated that homosexuality is a barrier to "being a member of the community",

2) You have not defined the terms of such membership beyond a subjective and flawed assertion that it relies on reproduction.

 

Anyway, after all that, you totally didn't answer my question:

"what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality?"

 

You said earlier that your post was not to do with evolution, so now I don't even know what it is you mean to say is deteriorating.

 

 

No, of course not. My sub-sub-hypothesis contends that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'dead ends'. I think that the hypothesis is even more validated by 1st world, hetrosexual couples who forego breeding in order to 'get things the way why want them'.

Then I fail to see why your hypothesis requires any consideration of sexuality. Why not just state it as "people who don't breed..."?

[reverse]

I get a bit tired of fall the flamboyant extroversion of some gay people.

 

Especially if you are trying to concentrate on something important.

 

It's like the circus came to town.

 

What is it with that behavior...where does that come from?