Homosexuality

[Sayonara]

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

So do many gay people.

 

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

Gay people experience the same urges as everyone else: the need to socially interact with peers, be with someone who understands them, etc.

 

It's possible that flamboyance and extroversion are a means of increasing the chances of attracting the attention of potential friends/mates in an environment where such people do not occur in high frequency. I doubt it is linked directly to homosexuality; plenty of straight people display the same behaviours.

[aguy2]

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.

 

My post was meant to be generally supportive of 'sunspots' secondary observation. I contend that it was well within bounds of the questions raised by the initiator of the thread.

 

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, I still don't seem to understand what you mean here.

 

 

Your definition falls apart the moment one considers any species with a vaguely organised social structure.

 

Are you saying that human cultural communities seem to be acting as if they are 'mini-species'. If you are I would tend to agree with you on this point. I was using the definition of 'species' in its strictest 'biological' sense.

 

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).

 

I didn't mean to seem to ignore this fact. I personally know a lesbian couple who are exemplary parents to their 2 adopted children.

 

 

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

[b']"what has deterioration got to do with homosexuality?"[/b]

 

My point was that 'deterioration' generally has to do with "the achievement of an 'ideal state of perfection', which I contend can only lead to stasis or deterioration, both of which can 'dead end' the macro-process we are involved in." Sunspot and I contend that some homosexuals seem to closely approximate this state. The 'deterioration' I was alluding to had nothing to do with 'homosexuality' per se, but had everything to do with my contention that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'illegitimate and counter-productive goals'.

 

aguy2

[Sayonara]

My post was meant to be generally supportive of 'sunspots' secondary observation. I contend that it was well within bounds of the questions raised by the initiator of the thread.

Fair enough.

 

I'm sorry, I still don't seem to understand what you mean here.

I am highlighting the distinction between natural selection "in the wrong direction", and natural selection that does not occur quickly enough to be of use to a species' survival. Deteriorative evolution (which has never been observed, currently or archaeologically) would be the former, and extinction is the latter.

 

Are you saying that human cultural communities seem to be acting as if they are 'mini-species'. If you are I would tend to agree with you on this point.

Not as such. Although they could certainly be viewed that way, I don't think it has much bearing on my point.

 

I was using the definition of 'species' in its strictest 'biological' sense.

No, you were not. There is no strict sense - the definition of what constitutes a species is still up for debate.

 

If there is any standard definition accepted for ecological and evolutionary purposes, it is Ernst Mayr's isolation species concept: species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

 

There are two things to note in this definition:

1) Homosexual behaviour is not excluded, because mating behaviour cannot be universally excluded on any kind of cross-population and/or cross-lifespan basis,

2) Because this is a negative test, members of a species may be either actually or potentially interbreeding.

 

This is not the ideal definition in all cases, since it assumes sexual reproduction. However for humans it works very well indeed.

 

 

I didn't mean to seem to ignore this fact. I personally know a lesbian couple who are exemplary parents to their 2 adopted children.

I am not simply pointing out that gay people can be parents; I am pointing out that they can and do pass on their genetic material.

 

 

My point was that 'deterioration' generally has to do with "the achievement of an 'ideal state of perfection', which I contend can only lead to stasis or deterioration, both of which can 'dead end' the macro-process we are involved in."

There is no ideal state of perfection. There are only retrospectively useful intermediary steps that are constantly challenged by changing environmental conditions and intra/inter-species pressures.

 

Sunspot and I contend that some homosexuals seem to closely approximate this state. The 'deterioration' I was alluding to had nothing to do with 'homosexuality' per se, but had everything to do with my contention that 'ideal states of perfection' are 'illegitimate and counter-productive goals'.

Sunspot has created a fictional scenario that (a) makes no sense, and (b) is not based on any biological models. If your allusion to this nebulous and as-yet unexplained term "deterioration" has nothing to do with homosexuality per se, then I question your motives.

Without defining your terms and illustrating a functional link between the two things, it looks like you are just trying to attach a negative word to a specially selected group.

[Nezumi]

Homosexuality is not natural, but I'd be a fool to continue the argument.

 

Simply stated, you've got the pscyho-social-bio influences. In all truth, everyone has the possibility of being everything. In such an uncontrolled world where your choice can be overpowered by brute force, such a person can be raped by woman/man and then turned into bisexual.

 

Other than that, social influence would create a feminine type man into a more accepting type where their idea of gender rules is thrown away and they decide to be who they are. Simply saying, their radical ideas and attitude allows for them to be free as they want without restriction.

[Sayonara]

Homosexuality is not natural, but I'd be a fool to continue the argument.

If you aren't going to make an argument or present evidence to support them, then please refrain from making such broad incendiary statements on this forum. In some countries what you just said is considered to be hate speech.

 

Simply stated, you've got the pscyho-social-bio influences.

Short- and long-term studies of human sexual behaviour are ongoing and will continue for many years, but if they have told us one thing so far it is that - homosexual or not - "simply stated" does not apply.

 

In all truth, everyone has the possibility of being everything.

Biological constraints work against this even before birth. During development, children continue to be restrained by biological factors and shaped by environmental conditions. I'm not saying that without a lot of work some aspects of an individual's makeup cannot be modified, but that deeply rooted attributes are so difficult to change that for all practical purposes the difficulties overwhelm the possibilities.

 

In such an uncontrolled world where your choice can be overpowered by brute force, such a person can be raped by woman/man and then turned into bisexual.

This is another broad statement that lacks any credible rationale.

 

Other than that, social influence would create a feminine type man into a more accepting type where their idea of gender rules is thrown away and they decide to be who they are. Simply saying, their radical ideas and attitude allows for them to be free as they want without restriction.

In my experience, human sexuality is rarely "chosen". What you seem to be talking about are the decisions regarding how and when to act on sexual impulses and identifiers.

[reverse]

I heard that Alexander the great was homosexual…

 

Bet he didn’t mince around in flailing his sword in a limp wrist shouting yooo hooo.

 

So why is a bloke like Carlson the stereotypical gay dude?

 

Sounds like it’s all a false put on.

[Sayonara]

I have no idea who Carlson is, but if you are referring to the shrieking extremities such as Jack from "Will and Grace", these charicatures exist because they're funnier. They can say things a straight-laced (pun not intended) character cannot.

 

The fact that some viewers are incapable of distinguishing charicature from reality is the unfortunate problem. Perhaps if the networks were more bothered about responsible broadcasting rather than viewing figures, such depictions would go away.

 

Having said that, I'm sure there are plenty of gay people whose personality is largely a "put on", just as the same is true of many heterosexuals.

[Jarryd]

I'm surprise noone has mentioned bisexuality as means in which the genes for homosexuality could be past into the next generation, possibly because bisexuality isn't seen as 'legitimate' by many people especially in western culture. As someone who identifies as bisexual and has an understand of the gay community maybe i can add my two cents here. First of all using terms like 'natural' and 'unnatural' is akin to saying 'right' and 'wrong', they are very subjective terms. However if i really needed to justify homosexuality in the evolutionary sense one of the arguements i have heard is that a group of individuals of the same sex would function more productively as a group because it avoids the conflicts of finding a mate of the opposite sex. Since there is no drive to reproduce with someone of an opposite sex, there are pregnant woman or small children to look after, groups of gay males would be able to hunt for themselves as a group and groups of gay females would be able to hunt for themselves and not be made vulnerable or weakened by pregnancy.

 

As for the common view of 'most' homosexual men, first of all that is a fairly small area of the community, i myself and most of the gay male friends like men who actually act like men. I believe the gender-ambiguity with many gay males stems from growing up relating more to females then males. As many guys on this forum should know the teenage years for most male groups is spent 'chasing tail', a gay male isn't exactly interested in this so of course they are going to surround themselves with female friends and therefor going to develop a feminine personality. Saying that though again that is a fairly stereotypical view of a homosexual male.

 

Lastly back to bisexuality, given that studies in sexuality tend to take the view that everyone is some point on a line between being exculsively hetereosexual and homosexual (i.e many fall somewhere in the bisexual range) would this lead most people to believe that there are several alleles for sexuality or do many just think this is because of different enviorments?

[padren]

Bisexuality aside, I think that from what I gather, the average gay individual is as turned off by the idea of sleeping with a woman as most men are turned off by the idea of sleeping with another man.

 

I think if more homophobic people thought about that from that perspective, they would be a lot more sympathetic to homosexuals, instead of assuming they are just "choosing" not to "get with the program" or some such.

 

From what I've lightly gathered there are genetic reasons that are associated with that.

 

I would say that homosexuality is unnatural for hetrosexuals, but that it is perfectly natural for homosexuals.

 

 

Still, I don't think the "natural" argument is a good way to evaluate any behavior. Nature is barbaric in at least as many cases as its elegant.

[reverse]

So what percentage of a population are same sex attracted?

 

And how far do the bulk of the population have to go to accommodate abnormal behavior?

 

“Abnormal” in the statistical sense.

[Jarryd]

The statistics are fairly varied, if you want to go by kinseys research its about 10% of the population but other researchers think it could be as low as4% although i personally find that unlikely.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by accomodate? All gay peoples want is the same rights as normal people. To be honest as someone who is bisexual it doesn't even bother me in the slightest if people have prejudices and don't 'like' my sexuality, all i would want is the kind of respect that you would give any other stranger and also not be restricted from the choices i am entitled too. I don't really see why you feel that you need to change to meet our needs, we wouldn't change to meet yours. Its kind of like the situation we have with races, as much as we want to believe everyone in society is tolerant and isn't racist that just isn't true, however the fact that someone has closed minded opinions is not important as long as they are not running around the streets yelling the 'n' word or commiting racial crime society runs as it should.

[reverse]

By Accommodate I mean for example say there were nine people who wanted to watch one channel on TV and a tenth person who wanted to watch another channel.

Do the Nine people even have to be bothered with the views of a minority?

The Nine people might say for example...”get away from the TV.. go read a book or something. We don’t care what you do just get out of our face..”

 

that sort of thing.

[silkworm]

Sunspot, you're being to general and you have to look at it on a person by person basis. Everyone is different. Genetically, biochemically, and in their environment and upbringing. Sure, it's unnatural for me to participate in male on male action, no matter how hot it is, because men don't get my toes a tappin'. But it's natural for say, Elton John, to, because it's just who he is. But, with that said, I can also have an unnatural relationship by having sex with a woman I'm not attracted to just because I'm bored. If she turns me on, natural. Your perception of what natural is is flawed because it appears to be based in cultural bullshit.

[reverse]

Also it’s historical don’t forget.

 

Once Christianity became the mode throughout the world …then that whole Sodom and Gomorrah story really put the boot in for homosexual relationships.

 

Practically. if you wanted to increase your Church going population you need to stop all activities that wastes sperm…

you know the plan…

get that sperm where it can make more followers…

and that’s not in the palm of your hand …in a contraceptive device or where the sun don’t shine.

 

Easy .

[sunspot]

I still comes down to natural and unnatural behavior. Pedophiles are not considered socially or morally correct, but such as these have a long history and was a part of ancient Greece. How did they separate the men from the boys in ancient greece; crowbars!. Humans are capable of anything but not everything is natural. Eating is natural but eating rocks might be something somebody likes to do. It becomes an unnatural yet possible human extrapolation of a natural instinct. If one believes the pleasure based phychology, than pleasure and not instinct becomes the primary motivation.

[Dak]

I still comes down to natural and unnatural behavior. Pedophiles are not considered socially or morally correct, but such as these have a long history and was a part of ancient Greece. How did they separate the men from the boys in ancient greece; crowbars!. Humans are capable of anything but not everything is natural. Eating is natural but eating rocks might be something somebody likes to do. It becomes an unnatural yet possible human extrapolation of a natural instinct. If one believes the pleasure based phychology, than pleasure and not instinct becomes the primary motivation.

 

Pedophillia, the rape that you mentioned earlyer, and the homosexuality that this thread is about are all natural in-as-much as they are observed quite a bit in nature, and are, as far as can be discerned, the results of natural instincts -- certainly in the case of animals.

 

homosexuality, paedophillia, and rape are all observed being practiced by animals, who certainly can't have aquired these practices as a result of their 'unnatural' society.

 

out of interest, what is you're definition of 'natural'?

[aguy2]

out of interest' date=' what is you're definition of 'natural'?[/quote']

 

In the social sciences the term 'normal' is usually used in lieu of of the ill defined term 'natural'.

 

aguy2

[Jarryd]

Yes i think the term 'natural' is being used the same way as 'morally right', as for paedophilia i think that in the context that it is something that it is likely something with a genetic start and that it is not uncommon in nature.. it is natural although as far as the views of the majority of society it is 'morally wrong'. Just the way i say homosexuality as natural and in my view (an many others) 'morally right'. Now you may ask what would be unnatural? Something unnatural would be something with very little hard instinctual or genetic (i know thats shifty ground.. i mean a direct connection) basis and is most likely something that is 'learned' for example foot fetishes (to follow the sexuality theme) would likely be something mainly learned as i do not see many apes humping each others feet.

[dkv]

Homosexuality is not unnatural. It has been proved using psychological questionaire. Many species appreciate it.

However the number of such high end sexual behaviour is limited.

Majority doesnt believe in it.

Today reproduction is not an issue but still there are good reasons to believe that Homosexuality can not be adopted by majority.

First Nature itself shows very limited evidence.

Secondly by nature every human relationship suffers from its shortcomings.Once the concept looses oppostion it will die its natural death just like heterosexuality.

 

However it does not mean that those who practice it are not Godly.

[Sayonara]

I still comes down to natural and unnatural behavior.

So you start of by saying you think that homosexuality is "unnatural" behaviour (without defining the scope of the term), the majority of the answers explain why this is not so, and after ignoring most of the replies you then conclude "I still comes down to natural and unnatural behavior".

 

In biological terms, something unnatural in behaviour is that which has not been biologically directed by some form of intraspecies genetic or neurological development.

Since there is no evidence to support the claim that homosexual behaviour has no such root causes, and plenty of evidence from both humans and the animal kingdom that it does, the claim "homosexuality is [biologically] unnatural" is not supportable. All you can hope for is to speculate and tell us what you believe, which is not of any great concern.

 

In social terms, there is a raft of attitudes towards homosexual behaviour across different countries, and across the centuries, so absolute claims such as your notion of "morally and socially correct" cannot be unilaterally applied.

 

Pedophiles are not considered socially or morally correct, but such as these have a long history and was a part of ancient Greece.

The first thing I will say is that you have identified a cultural difference there, not a biological one. Social acceptance of any kind of behaviour within a culture is not an attribute of the biological basis of the behaviour; it is an attribute of the society itself.

 

The second thing I will say is that paedophilia and homosexuality are in no way comparable in the context of the discussion you are trying to have, no matter how you try to crowbar them together. Give up now. Looking at the other lengthy threads on exactly this topic (oh so many) will give you an idea why.

 

Humans are capable of anything but not everything is natural.

Humans are not capable of anything, but that's irrelevant.

 

You are now placing false requirements on the case for homosexuality being natural by suggesting that "everything" must be natural for homosexuality to be natural, which is patently not the case.

 

Eating is natural but eating rocks might be something somebody likes to do.

Bad example. Many species swallow stones to break up plant matter in the gut, and IIRC there are some documented cases of humans doing it (archeologically and otherwise).

 

It becomes an unnatural yet possible human extrapolation of a natural instinct.

How can acting on a natural instinct be unnatural? You can't have it both ways.

 

If one believes the pleasure based phychology, than pleasure and not instinct becomes the primary motivation.

Changing your frame of reference in the last sentence and not going anywhere with it is pointless.

 

Regardless, if I understand what you mean by "the pleasure based psychology", surely an individual of a species subject to this psychology, that is acting in a fashion that uses pleasure as the primary motivation, is behaving in a manner that is consistent with itself and its species, and is therefore "natural".

[UNCLEBEN]

I think homosexuals are ok people but they cant have children. i know lots of people that cant or wont have children but none of them are homosexuals (or people of a alternative sexual and acceptable preferance.)who knows? the world is so diverse the creator was certain to make anal penetration for men pleasurable for those and all of us that dont relate to women in a sexual way.

i dont understand it and if i could i would be one too.

[ashennell]

a friend of mine has this blog which includes an article about this issue that might be interesting - http://wallsmirrors.blogspot.com/ . I pretty much agree with his point of view. 'Natural' dosnt have a consistant definition so argueing whether something is natural or unnatural is pointless.

[pink_trike]

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.

 

Gay people were not "let out of the closet". We let ourselves out. We systematically dismantled the closet as a societal norm, and each gay person does the same on an individual basis to one degree or another. For most, its a lifetime process unlearning the internalized closet.

 

If you want to have a discussion of the "perversions" that lurk in the shadows of the gay community, then it would be fair to have a discussion about the "perversions" that lurk in the shadows of the het community. Wanna go toe-to-toe in private?

 

Just because heterosexuality has been institutionalized in Western culture doesn't mean that institutionalized heterosexuality is natural either. In most premodern cultures, heterosexuality (breeding) was carefully managed and controlled. Unmanaged, uncontrolled heterosexuality might well be an aberration, especially if we look at the condition of the planet as a result of uncontrolled human breeding.

[pink_trike]

So what percentage of a population are same sex attracted?

 

“Abnormal” in the statistical sense.

 

There is absolutely no way to determine this because of the myriad of cultural/political/religious forces that still threaten the well-being of gay and lesbian people in Western culture, causing an undeterminable number to not disclose their affectional/sexual orientation publically. Heterosexuality is partly an enforced norm. If it were not enforced, and if homosexuality were a non-issue issue, we might very well be surprised by the number of gay people that emerge. We might even discover that sexual identity can be quite fluid and dynamic throughout the course of a lifetime.

[sunspot]

In another forum topic, I talked about the three levels of personality software that make up the human personality. In a male, the lowest level, connected to instinct, is masculine, the middle level, which is cultural, is feminine and the highest level, which is creative, is masculine. For women the ordering is opposite; female, male, female. The cross gender component of males and females comes from genes. We are composed of male and female genes. Higher brain potential activate the lowest levels and lower brain potentials active the highest levels.

 

Natural sexuality and all our natural instincts stems from the lowest level. If sexuality became somehow crossed wired within the middle level, instead of the lower level, it would in deed create homosexual tendancies, since the female side of a man or the masculine side of a woman would be attracted to males and females, respectively.

 

I heard somewhere about a study of the sibling ordering of brothers in a family. It turns out that the youngest brothers have a greater propensity toward homosexuality than the oldest. This does not imply all youngest brothers become gay, only that more gays are younger brothers among sibling than older brothers. This data is consistent with the above theory. The older brothers usually becomes the alpha males and the younger and brothers will tend to be more submissive, due to love, force and respect. This makes the younger brothers tone down masculine impulse becoming more submissive feminine and more likely confuse their middle level female side output for instinctive sexuality.

 

Other studies correlate male hormone levels within boys with adult sexual preference. The higher levels of testosterone increases the brain potential shifting sexuality toward the lowest level. Less male hormones, will lower the brain potential and will shift it toward the middle level. Homosexuality may be the result but it is a cultural layer impulse that has nothing to do with the lower level natural instinctive personality software.