Why are people gay?

[admiral_ju00]

But does "homo" offend people (gay people).Could I say "Look at those homos"

Yes it does.

 

instead of "Look at that gay couple" (not that I am gonna stare at them)

 

That is what they are looking for, or homosexual.

 

Writing "homosexual people" is quite long

 

So it is, but it help others avoid biases and prejudices.

 

so if it is politically corect I would prefer to write "homos"

 

That would be wrong, but just for fun of it, let's check the good ol' dictionary:

 

ho·mo1 ( P )

n.

A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans.

 

 

ho·mo2 ( P )

n. Offensive Slang pl. ho·mos

Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian.

 

homo- or hom-

pref.

Same; like: homophone.

 

etc....

 

Courtesy of Dictionary.com

[Kbzon59]

Ok, so it is offensive, tahnks for asnwering the question. And since you made me a favor, improving my english, I will improve your sapnish in the same manner: never call "joto" or "puto" to a latin gay man.

By the way, is "queer" offensive?

[JaKiri]

Most words may or may not be offensive, it depends on how they are said.

[Leison]

not only in case of man but in all the animals the gayism is found. It's natural .

Darwin's theory explains like this:

He states that population is ctrl by nature. Human pop is too high. so to moderate the pop the nature bend the mind toward the attraction of the same sex. when this happens there is less chance of attraction toward opposite sex which means less reproduction so the rate of pop decreases. like this nature balances the pop in one or other way. lesbian and gays are due to this.

[Aardvark]

not only in case of man but in all the animals the gayism is found. It's natural .

Darwin's theory explains like this:

He states that population is ctrl by nature. Human pop is too high. so to moderate the pop the nature bend the mind toward the attraction of the same sex. when this happens there is less chance of attraction toward opposite sex which means less reproduction so the rate of pop decreases. like this nature balances the pop in one or other way. lesbian and gays are due to this.

 

That may be your theory but it is not Darwins. Darwinism works on the basis of individual selection NOT group selection. As such it makes no case for population to be controlled by homosexuality.

 

If homosexuality was linked to over population then areas with denser populations such as Bangladesh would have higher rates of homosexuality than areas with lower population densities such as Sweden. As this is not the case the theory is clearly false.

[Leison]

That may be your theory but it is not Darwins. Darwinism works on the basis of individual selection NOT group selection. As such it makes no case for population to be controlled by homosexuality.

 

If homosexuality was linked to over population then areas with denser populations such as Bangladesh would have higher rates of homosexuality than areas with lower population densities such as Sweden. As this is not the case the theory is clearly false.

 

Your ideas seem Ok.But don't the evolution happens to the whole group? According to your saying' date=' the evolution happens individually and if so then the world will comprise of [i']no two creature of same species[/i].

And I still stick to the point that more pop is responsible for homosex. And I think this homosex. behaviour is the global evolution as it can be seen in every nation,every society and mind you every animal species!!!

And, how can u say that B'desh has less homosexuals ? if u still reference to some data then i'll again say the data is inaccurate because B'desh being South Asian nation, the society is still shy to talk about sex, the homosex is the far thing .India is close developed neighbour of B'desh but still in India the movies do not have even kiss scenes. so u can imagine condition of B'desh. Thus even if survey is done in public no one will say "I'm a homo" So u can't compare Asian and European country.

[Aardvark]

Your ideas seem Ok.But don't the evolution happens to the whole group? According to your saying, the evolution happens individually and if so then the world will comprise of no two creature of same species[/i'].

 

Evolution does not happen at a group level, it happens at an individual level. If an individual were to respond to overpopulation by becoming homosexual then it would have fewer descendants then others who did not respond in that way, as such that response would be selected against, whatever the consquences for the overall population.

 

That's one of the pleasures of Darwinism, it's fundamentally so simple.

 

No, it doesn't mean that no two creatures of the same species would exist. Individuals need to breed with members of the same species. I don't understand your line of reasoning there.

 

If you don't like the comparison between Bangladesh and Sweden, (why do you asume that Bangladesh is 'shy' concerning sex?, Thailand, another South Asian country certainly isn't) Then compare Sweden and the UK. Or Canada and Japan. If you can find any evidence showing high levels of homosexuality with popluation density and low levels with low population density it would back your theory. Unfortuately the evidence isn't there.

 

We can see in history that societies of relatively few people such as the ancient Greeks and Romans had homosexuality, well before the population explosion.

 

It's a neat theory but the evidence doesnt support it.

 

It's a neat theory but

[Leison]

Evolution does not happen at a group level' date=' it happens at an individual level.

 

(why do you asume that Bangladesh is 'shy' concerning sex?, Thailand, another South Asian country certainly isn't) .[/quote']

 

First let's talk about "shyness":

"B'desh is shy" is not assumption but is fact.Not only B'desh all the South Asian countries are shy. "SEX" is still not a comfortable word there. Thailand ,China, Japan ,etc has the same condition only exception is their capitals because of the media. Only the Europe ,US, Australia and some other developed countries are flexible with "sex" matters. To verify I've some proofs:

1)U've probably heard that China government asked Britney Spears not to wear vulgar dress in the show in China.

2)U wont find any scenes of even "kiss" in Asian movies, sex is a far thing .

3)U'll have to visit the Asian countries (not the cities but the villages;mind u only somw few % of people live in cities)So u can't draw conclusions from the cities.

U can never never compare countries from different regions.**************************

 

what we now observe is, evolution is happening to the whole group or society at same time not individually. For instance the Europeans are white, Africans are black, Mongols are short ,etc.This shows whole society of africans evolved at same time not individually.Had they been evolved individually,they wouldn't have been in same color .

 

So, i think your concept of individual evolution is a bit vague.

 

By giving this group evolution concept, i want to ask u can't the homosex. be a group evolution or global evolution ?

 

[edit]

 

Enough with the colours.

 

Jakiri

[Skye]

Evolution occurs within populations but selection acts on individuals.

[Aardvark]

what we now observe is' date=' evolution is happening to the whole group or society at same time not individually. For instance the Europeans are white, Africans are black, Mongols are short ,etc.This shows whole society of africans evolved at same time not individually.Had they been evolved individually,they wouldn't have been in same color .

 

So, i think your concept of individual evolution is a bit vague.

 

By giving this group evolution concept, i want to ask u can't the homosex. be a group evolution or global evolution ?

 

[edit']

 

Enough with the colours.

 

Jakiri

 

I think you will find that Africans evolved to have darker skins because individuals in Africa who had darker skins did better and so propogated more DNA on average. All the individuals live in the same environment and breed with each other so the most advantagous adaptations will spread through the population. That doesn't mean evolution acts at a group level, it's driven by individuals.

 

Skyes point neatly encapsulates that.

 

Any individual who acts in a way that helps the group but hurts itself will leave less DNA and so will be selected against. That halts any group evolution.

 

I'm surprised you think the concept of individual evolution a bit vague (i can't claim it's my concept, that honour is Charles Darwins).

 

 

I'll try and put it concisely. An individuals that have the most descendants are the ones whose DNA is carried on. An individual who responds to a situation by becoming homosexual will leave fewer descendants and less DNA will carry on. So over time a trait to homosexuality as a response to a situation will be eradicated, whatever the implications for the overall good of the group.

 

Evolution is very selfish. It doesnt understand the concept of self sacrifice or acting for the greater good. After all, why should you have fewer children just so my family can have more food?

 

On the side matter of South Asia. You can't generalise. India is mainly Hindu, Bangaldesh Muslim, Thailand Buddist. All very different cultures. Remember the Karma Sutra comes from India, and Buddist Thailand has never had the hangups about sex that we still have in the West. Thailand is much more relaxed about sex than the West, and not just in the cities but also in the countryside. I'm not talking about redlight districts, but an open healthy approach to sexuality, including homosexuality that is more than our 'flexible' attitude. To think only the West is open minded on these things is a mistake.

 

In summary, no the homosexual thing can not be a group evolution because it would be selected against at the individual level, evolution works from the bottom up.

[Kbzon59]

Now, is there any theoy regarding thsi theme that is actually supported by evidence?

Total, undisputable evidence? Is homosexuality really a subject for biology and other natural sciences or is it destined to be for social and individual sceinces like sociology and psichology?

On the latest polls, I say I have to agree with Aardvark, homosexuality is not an evolution related issue. Hisp oint that homosexuality doesnt reallu help to the survival of the specie is quite strong.

[Sayonara]

In summary, no the homosexual thing can not be a group evolution because it would be selected against at the individual level, evolution works from the bottom up.

Not necessarily so.

 

Firstly you have no idea what (if any) genetic basis there is for homosexuality, and therefore can't arbitrarily rule out that it is present in a population.

 

Secondly you are assuming that a homosexual individual will never pass on genetic information, which is a pretty big assumption given that (A) we have documented observations of animals switching their sexuality back and forth under certain conditions, and (B) gay humans do it all the time.

 

Thirdly you are ignoring the fact that the individuals in populations that have complex interactions are liable to adopt behaviours which are not specifically related to their own biology, depending on the needs of the group.

 

 

Now, is there any theoy regarding thsi theme that is actually supported by evidence?

What theme specifically?

 

 

Total, undisputable evidence? Is homosexuality really a subject for biology and other natural sciences or is it destined to be for social and individual sceinces like sociology and psichology?

Both.

 

 

On the latest polls, I say I have to agree with Aardvark, homosexuality is not an evolution related issue. Hisp oint that homosexuality doesnt reallu help to the survival of the specie is quite strong.

No it isn't; it's based on a Darwinistic view of evolution only, which is nowhere near the whole picture.

 

We've already done this dicussion over and over in the various long threads on homosexuality.

[Kbzon59]

The theme of the "cause of homosexuality". Why are people gay?.

[Kbzon59]

Is this over???

[boxhead]

homosexuality gene is a big reason behind ... but some times environment around also makes difference and infantile sexuality also have great impact on the things....

[Severian]

Why don't homosexual people find the idea of a 'homosexual gene' offensive? Doesn't it imply that they are not masters of their own desires but somehow dictated to by their genetic makeup? Isn't it more attractive to consider one's sexuality as a statement of our personalities rather than the function of a single gene?

[atinymonkey]

No, it's an over simplistic interpritation of events. We are all based on a genetic makeup, but that does not account for sociological behaviour. We are more complex animals than that.

[ed84c]

Due to the fact that i wish to do other things in my lifetime i havent read the whole thread, but most of it.

 

I dont think anybody has pointed out (correct me if im wrong) that there is a part of the brain that is sexually specific?

 

I think it is smaller in Females than males, allthough in some cases, Gays, Lesbians, Transvestites and transexuals, it is the wrong size.

 

So technically we can quantify 'gayness', although unless people are totally truthful, it is difficult to observate.

[cool_b74]

i think it is because of the atmosphere where u live . AFTER PUBERTY WHEN U HAVE MORE SEXUAL DRIVE and no girls around ,thinking of society and parents restrictions remain more in boys groups or study in boys only schools. slowly this particular boyish atmosphere look for other boys . there is no discussion of sexuality. maternal uncles force them to involve in such an act. . it is something that affects a boy very early in his life.

homosexuality is not genetic but eunuch is genetic

[Sayonara]

Flying in the face of the evidence, I see.

[Evangelante]

In my finds I would like to think that it may in the end have to do with some type of genetic configuration, because that is what controls us for most of our life since we are born.

 

However, that being said, I think it's more about the mental state of the human being more than anything else. I find that such people are open-minded or confused and a lot different than normal people. They just decide to to date whoever they like the most, this being the same sex.

 

I find a lot of interesting attributes among homosexual and bisexuals but perhap the greater mystery is of homosexuals because bisexuals flow in either direction and flow of where they go for love or otherwise.

 

I believe a lot of other social factors will come into play. Simply put, I believe everyone homosexual has their own reason. I find that talking to them gave me more information. During puberty they noticed they liked the same sex more and more and when people are in puberty it's hard to make choices and people usually do as they will and that determines who they are for most of their life. I think that homosexual people give into the urge for the opposite sex.