Homosexuality

[gcol]

Reverse had the right word, it is "abnormal". It is a genetic abnormality that, without positive discrimination should breed itself out. It is an evolutionary deadend because it is counter-reproductive.

 

Those who contribute usefully to species propagation should be sympathetic to the afflicted. To those who feel very strongly it is an argument in favour of eugenics.

 

Give me one strong argument as to why homosexuality serves any genetic purpose.

 

Stop *****-footing around and being apologists for this aberation.

[mattbimbo]

i thought sex was all about pleasure, giving and recieving, does it really have a genetic purpose too?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

i thought sex was all about pleasure, giving and recieving, does it really have a genetic purpose too?

Reproduction? That's the original purpose, anyways.

[Dak]

^^^ lol

 

Reverse had the right word, it is "abnormal".

 

Indeed. abnormal = not normal, heterosexual is pretty easy to observe as the norm, for whatever reason, hence homosexuality = abnormal.

 

It is a genetic abnormality that, without positive discrimination should breed itself out.

 

Whilst there is evidence to suggest that genetics can play a role in causing homosexuality, it is by no means the only possible cause of homosexuality. so, saying '[homosexuality] is a genetic abnormality' is a tad off-the-mark.

 

plus the statement would not neccesarily be true even if 100% of instances of homosexuality were completely genetic in nature. if the allele were recessive -- and especially if it involves more than one gene -- the 'gay allele(s)' could quite easily hide themselves amongst the population and survive the 'negative' selective doo-hickies of homosexuality simply by not being expressed in most cases. many genetic deseases, with unarguably negative reproductive concequences, survive like this.

 

not to mention that, if the genetic cause were a 'breaking' of a functional 'heterosexual allele', then even if the 'homosexual allele' were naturally selected out of existance, it would likely spontaniously reappear due to base mutation rates.

 

also, bisexuals could be a vector for propogating the 'gay allele'.

 

empirically, homosexuality has been around for ages, more-than-likely since we were all hanging around in the jungle going 'ook', and has not been bread-out yet.

 

and besides...

 

It is an evolutionary deadend because it is counter-reproductive.

 

not so. there are many theories put forward as to why homosexuality would be benificial, ranging from playing a role in social bonding (see bonoboe's, and their pecking-order establishment which involves some hot monkey-on-monkey lesbian bonoboe action), to the 'gay uncle' theory, whereby a persons genes are passed on by caring for their siblings off-spring, to a simple form of population control (as mentioned above, the more older brothers you have = the more chance you have of being gay, thus possibly being a mechanism of limiting reproduction rates), etc etc.

 

also, many gay people do still get the urge to have heterosexual sex atleast the bare minimum amount of times nessesary to have kids.

[pink_trike]

Some years ago I read some reseach data about the mating habits of a particular type of wolf observed over approx. 20 years in Northern Minnesota/Canada. This particular wolf group fed nearly exclusively on a particular type of rabbit that shared their habitat. It was observed repeatedly that when disease or overhunting thinned this wolf herd, the rabbit group would drastically reduce breeding, preventing overpopulation which would have caused stress, aggression, food shortages and disease. When the wolf population recovered population, the rabbit would increase breeding levels to match the feeding needs of the wolf herd and yet sustain their own numbers. This interdependent cycle was observed many times during the years of observation.

 

It can be argued that there are unknown factors in this interdependency that for some reason were not observed during the extended course of observation. But it seems reasonable to at least consider that the heterosexual impulse, in ways currently not understood, can regulate itself in relationship to conditions that exist outside of the reproductive drive. This is easier to comprehend if the het/homo impulses are understood to exist on either end of a dynamic spectrum, rather than looked at as static dualistic opposites. Its conceivable that at least one way that the homosexual impulse in the human animal may manifest is in relationship to population management of the species. If this is true, and if the homosexual impulse is prohibited by institutionalizing heterosexuality and enforcing it culturally/politically/religiously, then we would see an explosive growth of the species in ways that endangers its continued existence through stress, aggression, food shortages, and disease, which are observed in very high levels in human society today.

 

Enforced heterosexuality is a relatively new phenomena in the development of the human species. It has been speculated that this enforcement (which turned into an unexplainable and unsupportable bias) developed in the aftermath of a natural catastrophe (or series of catastrophes) that greatly reduced certain areas of human population resulting in a mandate to procreate, which morphed into a religious/political "law", which then morphed into an irrational taboo against the homosexual impulse as the memory of the catatrophe disappeared into the mists of time.

 

Because the human animal has become distanced from natural interdependent breeding rythmes, we need to learn to once again manage the heterosexual breeding impulse as many premodern cultures, (who presumably were not effected by the natural catastrophe that shaped the judea-christian world) felt was necessary.

 

THIN OUR HERDS!

[Steph]

Reverse had the right word' date=' it is "abnormal". It is a genetic abnormality that, without positive discrimination should breed itself out. It is an evolutionary deadend because it is counter-reproductive.

 

Those who contribute usefully to species propagation should be sympathetic to the afflicted. To those who feel very strongly it is an argument in favour of eugenics.

 

Give me one strong argument as to why homosexuality serves any genetic purpose.

 

Stop *****-footing around and being apologists for this aberation.[/quote']

 

not sure if I said this in this thread before but. There is a correlation between homsexual kids and the amount of brothers and sisters then have. basically, a fertile family will have more homosexual children (its more than just probability since its been looked at from the homosexual's point of view). So, it won't "weed itself out".

 

Second, serving a genetic purpose is a stupid reason to say something is wrong. Actually, love and mating are two different things, and, as far as I know homosexuals are not sterile. many of them do have kids, just not with their lovers.

[gcol]

Quote, Pink Trike:

 

Its conceivable that at least one way that the homosexual impulse in the human animal may manifest is in relationship to population management of the species. If this is true, and if the homosexual impulse is prohibited by institutionalizing heterosexuality and enforcing it culturally/politically/religiously, then we would see an explosive growth of the species

 

If that is true, it is the only logically defensible argument in favour of homosexuality that I am aware of, so well done to you. Natural population control by letting the current fashion for homosexuality burn itself out.

 

I wonder how long we must wait for the Chinese to be predominantly homosexual?. I hope it is not too long, or they will be the dominant type.

[gcol]

Quote, Steph:

 

not sure if I said this in this thread before but. There is a correlation between homsexual kids and the amount of brothers and sisters then have. basically, a fertile family will have more homosexual children (its more than just probability since its been looked at from the homosexual's point of view). So, it won't "weed itself out".

 

There may well be a correlation. But it is the interpretation of it that is important.

 

One interpretation is evolution saying "Because you can not control your loins, I have to apply the corrective mechanism to your offspring."

 

The children pay the price of their parents selfishness.

[pink_trike]

Quote' date=' Steph:[/u']

 

There may well be a correlation. But it is the interpretation of it that is important.

 

One interpretation is evolution saying "Because you can not control your loins, I have to apply the corrective mechanism to your offspring."

 

I have a friend who has 13 siblings, all born of the the same two parents. The first 7 turned out gay. Your interpretation wouldn't apply in this case since the "corrective mechanism" applied itself to the first birth. And second...and third...

[bluesmudge]

personally as a scientist, i wouldn't use the word 'Unatural'..... im sure theres many things you do that are unnantural, i.e. using a computer, that isn't exactly a natural object, but its part of our evolution, we have evloved so we may invent and use these tools. ..... i feel attitudes towards sexuality are also part of our evelution, as we now are able to understand ourselves alot better, and homosexuals are allowed to be happy. A large proportion of homosexuals know they are gay early in their life, surely that indicates that its a natural feeling on their half?

 

Personnally i find the comments made in the original post offensive, and unscientific, you have some qualified ideas, but your manner of wording leaves something to be desired.

 

..... oh and you're forgetting about all the straight couples who choose not to have children. . . . are they unnatural?

 

 

***appologies if these points have been covered, but i was infuriated by the post had havn't had time to read it all****

[gcol]

I have a friend who has 13 siblings, all born of the the same two parents. The first 7 turned out gay. Your interpretation wouldn't apply in this case since the "corrective mechanism" applied itself to the first birth. And second...and third...

 

Agreed.

 

If the correlation is capable of different interpretations, then it is merely an amusing observation. I suggested one possible way of interpretting it.

 

How would you like to reinterpret the original correlation using you opposite example?

 

Your example shows the original correlation has flaws and should not be relied on to support an argument.

[sunspot]

This may shed some light with respect to natural and unnatural. Almost all our instincts are geared around survival of the individual. For example, breathing, drinking, eating, shelter, clothing, etc., are all needed for individual human survival. One can go maybe 7mins without breathing, maybe a week without drinking, a month or so without eating, maybe 1/2 hour to a few days in cold exposure, seconds to days in heat, etc.,

 

Sexuality is different in that it is connected to the survival of the species. It is not centered around the survival of the individual. One can go a whole lifetime without sex and they would not die. They would miss out on one of the exteme pleasures of life, but it would not kill them. Because it is not inidivudal life treatening or life sustaining it is not part of our individual survival instincts, but is a species survival instinct.

 

Let us run an experiment. We take a million people, all with a clean bill of health, and place them on an island. We allow them to do whatever comes naturally or unnaturally in terms of sexuality. Without providing medical assistance or technology to create an artificial situation, the odds are STD would result in a relatively short time, especially among the permiscuous bum blasters. Sexuality would eventually become associated with survival of the individual, not due to individual pleasure but due to fear of death. If we let the experiment run the course, without artifical medical help, only the monoganous or limited relationships will continue to thrive. All the rest that are infected might produce mutant offspring, or would go the way of dinosaurs. Mother Nature would weed out natural human sexuality from unnatural. I am not saying we should run such an experiment, but how confident is everyone that their cphilosophy of human sexuality would survive under this natural and nonartifically supplimented experiment.

 

Medicine is creating a means for unnatural/artifical to survive alongside natural instinct. If one wanted to constantly jump into ice water to the point of unconsciousness, but had doctors to constantly revive them, this might become socially acceptable behavior, that has nothing to do with our natural instinct. It would be a new artifical instinct made possible by modern technology.

[Steph]

This may shed some light with respect to natural and unnatural. Almost all our instincts are geared around survival of the individual. For example' date=' breathing, drinking, eating, shelter, clothing, etc., are all needed for individual human survival. One can go maybe 7mins without breathing, maybe a week without drinking, a month or so without eating, maybe 1/2 hour to a few days in cold exposure, seconds to days in heat, etc.,

 

Sexuality is different in that it is connected to the survival of the species. It is not centered around the survival of the individual. One can go a whole lifetime without sex and they would not die. They would miss out on one of the exteme pleasures of life, but it would not kill them. Because it is not inidivudal life treatening or life sustaining it is not part of our individual survival instincts, but is a species survival instinct.

 

Let us run an experiment. We take a million people, all with a clean bill of health, and place them on an island. We allow them to do whatever comes naturally or unnaturally in terms of sexuality. Without providing medical assistance or technology to create an artificial situation, the odds are STD would result in a relatively short time, especially among the permiscuous bum blasters. Sexuality would eventually become associated with survival of the individual, not due to individual pleasure but due to fear of death. If we let the experiment run the course, without artifical medical help, only the monoganous or limited relationships will continue to thrive. All the rest that are infected might produce mutant offspring, or would go the way of dinosaurs. Mother Nature would weed out natural human sexuality from unnatural. I am not saying we should run such an experiment, but how confident is everyone that their cphilosophy of human sexuality would survive under this natural and nonartifically supplimented experiment.

 

Medicine is creating a means for unnatural/artifical to survive alongside natural instinct. If one wanted to constantly jump into ice water to the point of unconsciousness, but had doctors to constantly revive them, this might become socially acceptable behavior, that has nothing to do with our natural instinct. It would be a new artifical instinct made possible by modern technology.[/quote']

 

 

I guess you are implying with this that homosexuality would weed itself out? because of STDs? that's a nice urban legend that homosexuals have more STDs. Also, this argument is not very good, since the exact opposite of what you are saying would happen. The promiscuous would actually have more children, and more children that are healthy(simply because of numbers). it might become morally inacceptable, but it would stay the norm. If you look at society, monogamy has not been a viable option for that long (due to medecine producing healthy babies nearly everytime). Its enforcement by the religions only led to people keeping their other partners secret.

 

There may well be a correlation. But it is the interpretation of it that is important.

 

One interpretation is evolution saying "Because you can not control your loins, I have to apply the corrective mechanism to your offspring."

 

The children pay the price of their parents selfishness.

 

Evolution does not say anything. it won't suddenly decide to apply a mechanism to a species. what pink_trike said is that this would be a natural use for homosexuality in keeping the species in check.

 

here is the article i was thinking about

 

...genetic factors, transmitted in the maternal line, both increase the probability of being homosexual in males and increase fecundity in females.

 

The example pink_trike gave actually goes against this, but i think it may be more of an exception.

[jeskill]

I am in complete agreement with Sayonara about the whole "natural" issue. There are a whole myriad of behaviours found in the natural world that we wouldn't consider moral (for example, rape, biting the heads off of males) so we can't really use the laws of the natural world to define morality.

 

My personal opinion is that if the behaviour is not hurting anybody else then it's acceptable. Homosexuality does not hurt heterosexuals or other homosexuals (provided it's consensual, which is the yardstick for all sexual activity in my books). So, it's a perfectly acceptable behaviour in my books.

 

On a slightly related topic, does anyone here know of gay men who also seem to be infatuated with breasts? I think I know one person like this. I wanted to know if the infatuation with breasts occurs often gay men because it might mean that it's less of a sexual behaviour and more of a "I want my mommy" type behaviour. Of course, I could just be completely off my rockers.

[sunspot]

In the scenario, one does not have access to anything not found in nature like condoms, STP medication unless one can find a condom tree. The gays are very wise today. It was not like that in the 1980's when the closet was open and 90+ percent of the first 100,000 cases of AIDS created personal losses for almost all the gay population. Anyone would get smarter with all that tragedy. If everyone started the experiment with a global clean bill of heath, maybe the percieved risk assessment would change. In the first few months, everything would be without risk.

 

You are correct that the permiscuous would have the most children. These are the children that would have no fathers and maybe part time mothers who have little time for them due to the large number of children and the number of hound dogs.

 

The discussion was which group or groups would be using the sexual instinct in a way that would help the survival and even the progression of the human species. Picture the experiments future is say ten years.

 

Cultural has changed sexuality from being a collective instinct for survival and progression into a social instinct for personal gratification. It can be personally gratifying and natural at the same time. But it role is attempting to change from a collective to individual instinct. That is sort of what makes much of fringe sex behavior unnatural. Eating until you puke is unnatural but some people get their jollys that way. Personally, I believe in live and let live. I am more concerned about social labels being use to alter perception of reality. If smoking is unnatural and one decides to do it, let them do it but give them the knowledge to keep at least one eye open to the potential results of this unnatural behavior. Respect for both worlds.

[Steph]

90+ percent of the first 100,000 cases of AIDS created personal losses for almost all the gay population.

 

really? I'd like to see your sources for such an affirmation.

[gcol]

Must be true.... I mean, you cant get more personal than your own death:D

[sunspot]

I didn't mean 100,000 cases of AIDS but 100,000 deaths from AIDS. I was around when the first confirmed case was reported. It was postuated to come from monkeys. The media began keeping a running tally like bird flu. It sells soap. The gay population was the initial focus. As the number of Gay AIDS cases rose quickly the numbers then spread to the bi-sexual population, then the IV drugs users. This last spread was assumed spread because of contact between prostitutes and bisexuals. The numbers then began to spread to the straight population and then even to children. Then it was everywhere in all walks of life. The gays were hit so hard near the very beginning, that they organized and took precautions causing the number of new cases to quickly decrease. This tricked down to the rest of the population until the current steady state. There are few new cases in USA, mostly existing cases. It spread internationally to poor countries.

[pink_trike]

I didn't mean 100,000 cases of AIDS but 100,000 deaths from AIDS. I was around when the first confirmed case was reported. It was postuated to come from monkeys. The media began keeping a running tally like bird flu. It sells soap. The gay population was the initial focus. As the number of Gay AIDS cases rose quickly the numbers then spread to the bi-sexual population, then the IV drugs users. This last spread was assumed spread because of contact between prostitutes and bisexuals. The numbers then began to spread to the straight population and then even to children. Then it was everywhere in all walks of life. The gays were hit so hard near the very beginning, that they organized and took precautions causing the number of new cases to quickly decrease. This tricked down to the rest of the population until the current steady state. There are few new cases in USA, mostly existing cases. It spread internationally to poor countries.

 

It seems that you are suggesting that AIDS spread from the Gay community in the U.S. internationally to poor countries. If this is what you are suggesting, then your facts are all a'jumble. Its actually the other way around. The Patient Zero story compiled by Dr. W. Darrow, mythologized by Randy Shilts, has been completely discredited. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo is the earliest known instance of HIV infection. AIDS began in Africa, spread to Asia, where Gay American servicemen contracted it during the Vietnam war (R&R leaves to Thailand) and brought it home to the United States just in time for the sexual revolution.

 

AIDS was never a Gay disease...its a human disease.

[Steph]

It seems that you are suggesting that AIDS spread from the Gay community in the U.S. internationally to poor countries. If this is what you are suggesting' date=' then your facts are all a'jumble. Its actually the other way around. The Patient Zero story compiled by Dr. W. Darrow, mythologized by Randy Shilts, has been completely discredited. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo is the earliest known instance of HIV infection. AIDS began in Africa, spread to Asia, where Gay American servicemen contracted it during the Vietnam war (R&R leaves to Thailand) and brought it home to the United States just in time for the sexual revolution.

 

AIDS was never a Gay disease...its a human disease.[/quote']

 

That makes more sense. There is no reason why homosexuals would be more at risk of getting AIDS than heterosexuals.

[sunspot]

I was only talking about the how AIDS progressed in the USA. I stand corrected about how it was spawned. Do you have an idea when and where the first deaths from AIDS occurred? This was when AIDS really matured and became much more of a problem. But doesn't Gay servicemen bringing it to American suggest overseas gays being the first carriers?

[mimefan599]

The way you are thinking, sunspot, is a shortcut to thinking. Rather than analysing the complexities of society and societie's individualities, you are the type of person who thinks, what if everyone was this? This is the shortcut you are taking. Society is founded on the principal that everyone is different and should reflect that in the way they act and think. Society would not work if everyone is a scientis, we would never have manual labor. That does not criminalize science, it merely emphasizes the fact that we must all be different.

[pink_trike]

Do you have an idea when and where the first deaths from AIDS occurred?

 

This is impossible to know due in part to the long incubation period before primary symptoms emerge (on averge 7-10 years), and in part because before AIDS was identified, countless poor people likely died in Africa and Southeast Asia, (and even in the United States) without a diagnosis.

 

The earliest known cases of HIV infection are:

 

- A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.

 

- HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.

 

- HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

 

Within a period of approximately 1.5 years (during 1981-1982), AIDS-related symptoms were being reported in the United States, United Kingdom, Haiti and Uganda, making it a global human disease, not a Gay disease as it was characterized by the media in the United States during those years. Its important to note also that globally, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are overwhelmingly seen in people who identify as heterosexual, both female and male.

 

But doesn't Gay servicemen bringing it to American suggest overseas gays being the first carriers?

 

This is an unknown (see above early transmission cases. Sexual histories are not available for these people). It is simply one highly likely theory that Gay servicemen brought the virus to the United States , but it is impossible to know.

 

Its not that simple. There are many theories about the global transmission route. None have been proven. The vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa and Southeast Asia are heterosexual (by our cultural definitions). Both of those cultures at that time had less rigidly define categories of sexual expression (hetero/homo) than the United States did, and it was (still is) common for men to go both ways (with homosex being practiced below the radar). Men having sex with men wasn't considered overly taboo in these cultures, and many men engaged in sex with men both before, and commonly, after marriage. Tracing the exact route of this disease into the United States is impossible, but servicemen serving in SouthEast Asia likely were exposed to it via sexual contact with local men that we, in our culture, call "bisexual" (which were mostly married men with children), and "gay" men (which were simply regarded there as men who had not married yet), labels that were not used in that part of the world at that time. These young servicemen then returned to the United States just in time to participate in the sexual revolution that defined the late sixties/seventies for both heteros and homos alike.

 

There is another theory that is quite common among African-Americans (who have also been hard hit by AIDS) and gay men in this country that hasn't been given much, or enough, serious consideration: that the virus was deliberately placed in these communities, via various mass vaccine trials (small pox, hep b) that took place in the Gay community, African American community, and on the African continent. Researchers who accept that this is conceivable are not at liberty to pursue this research...1. lack of funding for it, and 2. it would jeapordize their career. This is not because it isn't a possible transmission route theory, but rather, it is stigmatized as a "conspiracy" theory. However, anyone that believes that this theory is entirely "crazy" needs to read more history, and take the time to research biological warfare research over that last 50 years. I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I am saying that the research into the possiblity is long overdue. At the very least it needs to be disproven, given the history of certain ruling-class entities' experience with this very sort of thing.

 

Now so I don't get tarred with the conspiracy theory brush here, let me repeat...I am not saying that this theory is true. I have no opinion on it other than it should be soundly disproven.

 

There are many other origination/transmission route theories. Likely we'll never know. But attempting to point the finger at the Gay community is pointless and only reflects negative cultural biases.

[ashennell]

There is no reason why homosexuals would be more at risk of getting AIDS than heterosexuals.

 

That is not true. Differences in sexual behaviour can make a huge difference. Men who have sex with men are considered to be a high risk group for sexually transmitted diseases. There are plenty of studies that support this.

 

Its important to note also that globally, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are overwhelmingly seen in people who identify as heterosexual, both female and male.

 

This is not a useful statistic. What about normalised values? The percentages of each group that have HIV/AIDS.

 

There are many other origination/transmission route theories. Likely we'll never know. But attempting to point the finger at the Gay community is pointless and only reflects negative cultural biases.

 

The rapid transmission of HIV through the gay community is a plausible hypothesis with some evidence to support it. Do you believe that researching this possibility is pointless and grounded on negative cultural biases?

 

If people wish to use this to support their prejudices against the gay community then they are misusing the information in my opinion. Do gay people care less about getting HIV? Do they care less about spreading it to others? NO, of course not. However, information about transmission of HIV/AIDS and the risks associated with different behaviours is important for raising awareness about HIV and reducing it's prevelence.

[Dak]

indeed. theres plenty of evidence to support the claim that HIV initially spread through the gay population (in developed contries, that is).

 

Political correctness shouldn't get in the way of facts, espescially when peoples lives are at stake.

 

all of which is getting slightly off of the original topic