Why are people gay?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

Another thing that makes me think homosexuality has more to do with the possible confusions of our complex brains is because: is there such thing as any animal besides humans being homosexual? Maybe this is non-applicable since humans are so different than other animals.

Yes, other animals do display that behaviour. I'm pretty sure that was mentioned already but it may have been in another thread.

[Glider]

Yes, other animals do display that behaviour. Also, humans aren't as different from other animals as most would like to think we are.

[fafalone]

Actually, we're alot more different than we previously thought. It turns out we actually share 95%, not 98.5% or 99.4%, with chimpanzees.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by NavajoEverclear

I agree that certain genes make it a susceptibility but the human brain is so extremely complex that I don't think natural selection will ever whipe out such problems as homosexuality. Cases will still occur when imbalances or whatever occur after birth, more related to enviroment and such than genetics.

 

And why is it a problem?

As far as natural selection goes, we ignore natural selection every time we force treatment on someone who ought to be dead. Most species compete against their own for survival, even in species that work together to obtain food, the dominant ones get the most.

Not only that, but it can be considered a population control mechanism which ultimately benefits the species by reducing the growth rate of the population as to slow down approaching the carrying capacity of our environment.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by fafalone

 

And why is it a problem?

 

The problem is he doesn't understand natural selection.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

Actually, we're alot more different than we previously thought. It turns out we actually share 95%, not 98.5% or 99.4%, with chimpanzees.

 

That's true, but I was talking behaviourally rather than genetically. Whilst it's relatively easy to make quantitative comparisons between genetic makeup (i.e. number of shared genes), it's less easy to make qualitative comparisons in terms of cognitive-behavioural similarities (i.e. the ultimate influence of genetic makeup).

[Guest mohaamadlaee...]

"exotic makes erotic"

 

This hypothesis proposes that a child that displays behaviors that tend to separate the child from his/her gender plays a primary role. Such a child may primarily spend time with children of the opposite sex, gradually finds complete separation, and eventually will find characteristics of the other gender more exotic and eventually erotic. For example, a male child may not particularly enjoy the agressive play by being around other boys. Initial expressions of behavioral genes, influence of role modeling, or other environmental factors may play a role.

[Giles]

Originally posted by fafalone

Actually, we're alot more different than we previously thought. It turns out we actually share 95%, not 98.5% or 99.4%, with chimpanzees.

This is a completely meaningless number unless we know what those genes actually do. Since we're not even close to mapping the proteome and hence completely mapping development, all we have to go on is how closely we phenotypically resemble chimpanzees, which just brings us full circle.

[Giles]

Originally posted by mohaamadlaee...

exotic makes erotic

This has horrible echos of freud, and doesn't resemble the mechanisms i know of in animal species for patterning sexuality. Is there support for this hypothesis? (I am on an institutional network with access to a lot of research journals if that helps.)

[Glider]

Originally posted by Giles

This is a completely meaningless number unless we know what those genes actually do. Since we're not even close to mapping the proteome and hence completely mapping development, all we have to go on is how closely we phenotypically resemble chimpanzees, which just brings us full circle.

My point exactly

[Guest jurassic]

i don't think this is all necessary

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by jurassic

i don't think this is all necessary

What does that mean / refer to?

[secretsmile]

But you still can't grasp the concept of an abnormality. Homosexuality is an abnormality because the majority of the human race is heterosexual. It has nothing to do with the sex act itself. Birth-control, sterile people, etc.

[Sayonara]

If you are just using the "majority" approach, then you must count 90% as being a majority (which excludes bisexuals, so it's not even close).

 

If this is the case then redheads are "abnormal abberations" too, as on average they occur in the population with lower frequency than homosexuality.

 

Hence why the Appeal to Common Practice is a bad idea.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Couldn't eating your hair when you are stressed be an abnormality because most people don't?

[Sayonara]

If it was, it would be behavioural rather than 'biological'.

[Kbzon59]

Homosexuality, I think is a choice: that is why there more amercian gay men, tahn muslim or other religions openly gay men, for the amercians it is a cghoice, for others it is a sin.

Of course, it is not like "today i'll be gay" or so, but it is a choice. And I don't think it is perversion or something like taht

[Sayonara]

If that were so, why would heterosexual men be just as repulsed by the thought of a sexual relationship with another man as many homosexuals are by the thought of one with a woman?

 

I'm sure there are people who chose to be gay or bisexual; whether for variety of sexual experience, getting attention or whatever - I really can't say. But I am certain that the average person - straight or gay - no more chooses their sexuality than they do the colour of their eyes.

[Aardvark]

It is possible that homosexuality could be a biological adaptation in certain circumstances.

 

Homosexual men would bond and so display loyality to each other (some ancient Greek warriors only went into battle with their gay lovers), useful in a hunting group. These homosexual men might not breed themselves, but act as protectors and providers for the young in their group who are likely to be closely related to them if people operate in small family based groups as it is possible our paleolithic ancestors did.

 

This theory might not be correct but it does show that there is a mechanism for natural selection to work without directly breeding, kin selection, the protection and promotion of others who are related to yourself, nephews and nieces. A Gay uncle who successfully feeds the family will pass on more DNA that a unsuccesful straight Dad whose family faces starvation.

 

As such homosexuality is not necessarily selected against and it might be wrong to consider it unnatural or even a perversion.

[Sayonara]

I'd like to add, that even if it did have a purely genetic basis with a direct link to successful fecundity it would still be unlikely to be selected against (the evidence is that it obviously has not been, or there would be very few gay people).

 

Arguments against this position are undermined by even the most rudimentary grasp of Mendelian genetics.

[Kbzon59]

Aadvark made an interesting point, but I think that the relation between hunting safety-homosexuality is in the past. Today, every straigt man has a "buddy", a pal, a compadre, a best friend, which fills such a role, together with the father. I don't pretend to speak with the whole truth, but if you look into it, most straight man have that pal, or a circle of "guys" (like, mom, I'm gonna play Nintendo with the guys" or "Hon, I'll be at the bar with the guys", and many gay men lack this "co-teching" of "straigtenness".

On Sayonara's "repulsion" point, you can't forget that the repuslsion that is felt in each case seem to be quite different in cause: one is caused by sheer repulsion and/or fear of actually becoming gay by thinking it, while the other seems to be caused by a "no thanks" philosophy.

[Sayonara]

Aadvark made an interesting point, but I think that the relation between hunting safety-homosexuality is in the past. Today, every straigt man has a "buddy", a pal, a compadre, a best friend, which fills such a role, together with the father. I don't pretend to speak with the whole truth, but if you look into it, most straight man have that pal, or a circle of "guys" (like, mom, I'm gonna play Nintendo with the guys" or "Hon, I'll be at the bar with the guys", and many gay men lack this "co-teching" of "straigtenness".

I think you grossly under-estimate the social capacities and roles of gay people. Also "X fulfills role Y" does not mean the same as "Z does not fulfill role Y".

 

 

On Sayonara's "repulsion" point, you can't forget that the repuslsion that is felt in each case seem to be quite different in cause: one is caused by sheer repulsion and/or fear of actually becoming gay by thinking it, while the other seems to be caused by a "no thanks" philosophy.

Seems to you, maybe. Have you ever discussed this issue with any gay men or women?

[Skye]

Shouldn't we asmwer 'how people are straight' before answering 'how people are gay'?

[Kbzon59]

I think you grossly under-estimate the social capacities and roles of gay people. Also "X fulfills role Y" does not mean the same as "Z does not fulfill role Y".

 

Seems to you' date=' maybe. Have you ever discussed this issue with any gay men or women?[/quote']

 

Gay men or women dont' really have a social role, since homosexuality, in normal circumstances has no say in work, society, etc. Homosexuality is an intimate matter taht only concerns one person and those who immediatly surround him, say copule, say family.

"Buddies" do not fill a social role either. Their role is private, just like any friendship is.

Accoirding to you what would be the social role of ONE gay man?

And don't say taht I mean that the gay community is useless. What I mena is taht ONE gay person, or any individual cannot fulfill a "role"

Abou the capacities, I dont undersatnd whay you mean wiyh that.

About fulfilling the role, Buddies do fill the role of "hunting mates". I don't understand your XYZ rant because it is pointless.

On the other matter, I have noticed gay friends of mine react, upon I or other straight men satring at a hot girl, with a "what do you look in her" kinda face. However, straight men react violently or "how could yopu conceive that I..." to the idea of homosexual intercourse.

[Sayonara]

Oh boy.

 

 

Gay men or women dont' really have a social role, since homosexuality, in normal circumstances has no say in work, society, etc.

Neither does heterosexuality. In general terms the same things that apply to one apply to the other, unless one lives in some crazy repressive country where people who aren't straight are taken out and shot.

 

Homosexuality is an intimate matter taht only concerns one person and those who immediatly surround him, say copule, say family.

The point I was trying to make, which apparently still eludes you, is that the usefulness of a person to society is not related to their gender preferences. Hence, since many of the evolutionary selection effects that currently apply to mankind rely on societal interaction, there is little or no difference whether they are driven by straight or gay individuals.

 

 

"Buddies" do not fill a social role either. Their role is private, just like any friendship is.

Accoirding to you what would be the social role of ONE gay man?

Well, you brought up this buddies notion, not me. I don't particularly subscribe to that idea. In any case, the question can just as easily be asked of heterosexual men.

You might also want to consider that society is made of of individuals. Perhaps, seeing as we were talking about population biology (essentially), I should have said "community".

 

 

I don't pretend to speak with the whole truth, but if you look into it, most straight man have that pal, or a circle of "guys" (like, mom, I'm gonna play Nintendo with the guys" or "Hon, I'll be at the bar with the guys", and many gay men lack this "co-teching" of "straigtenness".

That's just complete rubbish. Sorry, but it is. People do not live in TV shows where the gays are stuck on super-entertaining queen mode and the straight guys have to be bar-flies so everyone will realise they are not rampant bisexuals who like shopping for shoes.

 

 

Abou the capacities, I dont undersatnd whay you mean wiyh that

What I meant was that you are drawing sweeping conclusions about the inability of homosexual people to cope with, face or resolve certain common every-day situations, due to their sexuality. Unless you give some actual specifics with the data to back your claims, this is called "rampant discrimination".

 

 

About fulfilling the role, Buddies do fill the role of "hunting mates". I don't understand your XYZ rant because it is pointless.

If you don't understand it, how do you know if it is pointless or not?

 

I was using it to illustrate the logical fallacy of claiming that "homosexuals are not socially useful because heterosexuals are", which is essentially what you did earlier.

 

 

On the other matter, I have noticed gay friends of mine react, upon I or other straight men satring at a hot girl, with a "what do you look in her" kinda face. However, straight men react violently or "how could yopu conceive that I..." to the idea of homosexual intercourse.

Well, I'm impressed you think you know what people are thinking and feeling with such accuracy, but there are many many layers of complex mechanisms between the brain and the muscles in the face which help to convey emotion. In someone who faces the very real prospect of being judged and discriminated against every single day of their lives you can reasonably expect a reaction to a question to go through extra processing before it is allowed to damn the owner by revealing their true feelings.

 

The funny thing is is that most people don't realise this applies to gay and straight men. Just as the closeted gay, at minimum, gives a cool or non-committal reaction when confronted with a question regarding a female's sex appeal, a straight guy at minimum feels pressured to make a big show of not having ever considered man-on-man action (even though we all know research shows that pretty much everyone visits that town eventually).

 

I think you'd find if you told your gay friend "if you don't have sex with [insert female's name here] you'll die", and told your straight friend "if you don't have sex with [insert male's name here] you'll die", you'd get pretty much the same kind of reaction.

 

I find it interesting you are only discussing gay men.