Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

[iNow]

Thank you for the kind words, Theo. It really seems so obvious in retrospect, doesn't it?

[iNow]

A particular species of whip-tail lizards is all female and HAS to engage in lesbian sex to stimulate parthenogenic ovulation...

 

And the albatross thing works with male swans too... theyll pair up, knock up a female, then steal her eggs and raise them with a greater survival rate than heterosexual pairs... which was sorta glancingly mentioned in the first post...

Cool.

[pioneer]

When it comes to humans, two observed behavior seem to occur side by side. One is gay/lesbian and the other behavior reacts defensively to this. Has there ever been a study to see if this defensive reaction is natural? We assume this is learned behavior. Learned behavior was also assumed to be the case for homosexuality, before further studies. Homosexuality was also originally assumed to be a type of psychological problem. The defensive reaction is now called homophobia, which sort of assumes this is a psychological problem. Maybe both initial scientific POV jumped the gun.

 

One possible study would be to see if there are any animals that get defensive?

Edited October 11, 2010 by pioneer

[Sayonara]

When it comes to humans, two observed behavior seem to occur side by side. One is gay/lesbian and the other behavior reacts defensively to this. Has there ever been a study to see if this defensive reaction is natural? We assume this is learned behavior.

Interestingly enough, there are plenty of cases in which out homosexuals have, later on in life, discussed their own homophobia in the years between being too old to not have heard of homosexuality, and too young to really understand their own sexual identity.

 

In the current "It Gets Better" meme on Youtube, several notable gay Youtubers have told similar stories of their early school life when they became aware of homosexuality and learned from the group reaction to revile it. This was of course before they really understood anything at all about adult sexuality, and before they started becoming aware of themselves as sexual beings.

[Psychedelicacy]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, only the first few, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned already..

 

First off, in the last quote in OP (wikipedia ), it mentions both Echinoidea spp. (Sea Urchins) and Aphis spp. (aphids) "never have sex at all" [sic], which one must assume means sexual reproduction; a lack of..

 

Well, sorry to give ya the bad news, but, well, that is completely fallacious. While many aphid species may employ parthenogenesis regularly, it is far from their only source of reproduction. It is common knowledge that common garden aphids will reproduce sexually during stressful environmental conditions, likely to increase the likelihood of at least some of their genes surviving - only returning to asexual reproduction when conditions are optimal.

 

And sea urchins, like aphids, are only partially dependent on asexual reproduction, google really is your friend.. And then to top this little tangent off, the reference for that nice little slice of pseudo-science was the exact same page as the second citation in OP.

 

Regarding this rather large blight on your argument, I would strongly advice starting again and trying to find some legitimate scholarly articles instead of, well, what you have now [nothing]. Be wary of your sources, if you are going to try and argue something in the realm of science, you will need to back up you claims, with, well, science..

 

Now, to your approach on this argument, first; it would be obvious to guess that you have no schooling in science, everything about your posts and replies reeks of bias and scientific incompetence. Emotions have no place in a scientific argument, unless you are a psychologist, and psychology isn't science..

 

Your glaringly obvious bias and lack of any substantial proof of said claims is ironically, quite comparable to what I would expect from poorly educated Christians trying to argue creationism.

 

Secondly, considering all what you have claimed is indeed true [?], you are simply overlooking the greater picture. You are looking at this in a purely 'natural' and out of context view, you say: "look at nature, look at animals in the wild having homosexual sex, they do it, so it must mean we should", giving complete ignorance to the fact that we are not those species, we do not live like them, we do not live in the wild, we do not live in small groups.

 

And I must mention that by using the word homosexual, I do not imply animals that will only have sex with the same sex exclusively; I strictly mean any form of intrasexual sexual contact.

 

Now, to look at this rationally, first we must ask ourselves: "what factors of homosexuality that would possibly make it a detrimental act [biologically] in a population?", and: "what is different about how we live, and how animals live, that might make homosexuality overall a negative act in our context?", and: “why would homosexuality become taboo in modern society in the first place?” (why would societies deem it illegal or sinful? There has to be a biological and is probably an ecological answer to this, unless you want to argue this in a creationist sense).

 

I think, but I do not know, I can only postulate, that the reason homosexuality has become taboo in so many modern societies is that in a large and well-connected society, that homosexual sex drastically increases the spread of infections (particularly sexual) within a large community, especially considering homosexual promiscuity and the subsequent very high rates of sexually transmitted infection in the homosexual community. Now you must consider, in a large community where any disease is likely to spread incredibly quick regardless of transmission route, how would homosexual sex cause itself to become a negative act (reduce the fecundity of involved parties)? Basically, I think answer to why homosexual sex would reduce a males fecundity (over-looking the obvious) lies in the factor female choice, it is going to be quite obvious in a large community with well-developed communication, who exactly is having homosexual sex and what their health is like, especially considering the pre-modern societal context. A human female, in a human society is simply not going to be as likely to choose to reproduce with a potentially infectious male who will likely bear less-fit offspring (higher likelihood of infection and negative societal stigma of homosexual offspring), and likely cause her to loose fitness via infection. From this simple problem, in our early societal beginnings, I am sure is the seed that stemmed all the modern homophobia in all its forms that exists today, seeing as homosexuality being a negative sexual trait in a breeding community, any males possessing the ability to hide it, most likely would. Homophobia is not likely some almost supernatural anomaly as many make it out to be, it is a natural force and can be explained by science.

 

What I have mentioned, I do not believe to be in the truth and is not well thought-out in any sense, nor have I quoted any scientific work - it is purely a theory that I simply came up with it as I wrote this now, nor have I actually thought about this problem in any depth before and should be regarded as such.

 

All I can truly argue is that there is a scientific answer to this ‘problem’.

[Ophiolite]

First off, in the last quote in OP (wikipedia ),

Just for your information: there are many forum regulars who understand the value of wikipedia as entre to a topic. Most science articles are well written and generally accurate, the reference section typically provides a good next step for many. Perhaps the icon shold be reserved for those who fail to appreciate wikipedia's value, or who lack the discretion, or education to use it, as they should use any reference, with scepticism.

 

Well, sorry to give ya the bad news, but, well, that is completely fallacious.... And then to top this little tangent off, the reference for that nice little slice of pseudo-science was the exact same page as the second citation in OP.

Here is another tangent: incorrect or incomplete information is not the same thing as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience, as a label, is probably best reserved for speculations that are clothed in some of the trappings of science without any of the substance. On that basis bad data do not cut it.

 

Regarding this rather large blight on your argument, I would strongly advice starting again and trying to find some legitimate scholarly articles instead of, well, what you have now [nothing].

Echinoderms that occassionally indulge in a sexual frenzy hardly constitutes a large blight on inow's argument. I would strongly advise you consult a dictionary for the meaning of the two words. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom? That is, after all, inow's argument.

 

Now, to your approach on this argument, first; it would be obvious to guess that you have no schooling in science, everything about your posts and replies reeks of bias and scientific incompetence. Emotions have no place in a scientific argument, unless you are a psychologist, and psychology isn't science..

And this would explain your snide, hostile, small minded, emotionally loaded post how exactly?

I'm sure I am missing something, but with your profound scientific education I have little doubt you will shortly enlighten me.

 

Secondly, considering all what you have claimed is indeed true [?], you are simply overlooking the greater picture. You are looking at this in a purely 'natural' and out of context view, you say: "look at nature, look at animals in the wild having homosexual sex, they do it, so it must mean we should", giving complete ignorance to the fact that we are not those species, we do not live like them, we do not live in the wild, we do not live in small groups.

You would benefit from lessons in English comprehension. inow did not claim that we should do it. He made the perfectly reasonable assertion that given the common occurence of homosexuality among many other animal species, it would hardly be surprising to find it occuring naturally among humans. And, guess what, we look around and there it is.

 

You say we do not live like them. Does any species live like any other? Generally not. It comes with the territory of being different species. Yet many species have much in common in their anatomy, biochemistry and their behaviour. It is therefore irrelevant and trivial to say we do not live like them. We are animals. We share many traits with other animals. One of those shared traits is homosexual behaviour on the part of a proportion of the population.

 

You say we do not live in the wild. what has that got to do with the issue? Are you saying if we lived in the wild homosexuality would be natural, but in a 'civilised' world it is not? Come now, bring your scientific precision to bare and explain yourself.

 

You say we do not live in small groups. That idea could certainly be challenged. Tally up the people you currently know and routinely interact with. Guess what....it is about the same number as a typical tribe, back when we were living in 'nature'. We haven't escaped our nature, we have merely carried it with us into the cities, where we studiously ignore anyone not of the hundred.

 

I think, but I do not know, I can only postulate, that the reason homosexuality has become taboo in so many modern societies is that in a large and well-connected society, that homosexual sex drastically increases the spread of infections (particularly sexual) within a large community, especially considering homosexual promiscuity and the subsequent very high rates of sexually transmitted infection in the homosexual community. Now you must consider, in a large community where any disease is likely to spread incredibly quick regardless of transmission route, how would homosexual sex cause itself to become a negative act (reduce the fecundity of involved parties)? Basically, I think answer to why homosexual sex would reduce a males fecundity (over-looking the obvious) lies in the factor female choice, it is going to be quite obvious in a large community with well-developed communication, who exactly is having homosexual sex and what their health is like, especially considering the pre-modern societal context. A human female, in a human society is simply not going to be as likely to choose to reproduce with a potentially infectious male who will likely bear less-fit offspring (higher likelihood of infection and negative societal stigma of homosexual offspring), and likely cause her to loose fitness via infection. From this simple problem, in our early societal beginnings, I am sure is the seed that stemmed all the modern homophobia in all its forms that exists today, seeing as homosexuality being a negative sexual trait in a breeding community, any males possessing the ability to hide it, most likely would. Homophobia is not likely some almost supernatural anomaly as many make it out to be, it is a natural force and can be explained by science.

What was that you were saying earlier about pseudoscience?

 

Finally, a word of advice. The mods here don't tolerate flame wars. I see a 50:50 chance both our posts may be deleted. Lose the angst. Lose the attitude. Recognise that with a single post all you've done is show yourself up as a total dork. Try coming back with some of that objectivity you are so fond of promoting. It might lead to productive discussion.

[Psychedelicacy]

I am a potent critic, and currently suffering from a degree of heat stress from being in the sun all day, what I said I meant, just it was formulated rather poorly.

 

First of all, the reason I use the rolleyes 'emoticon', was that OP quoted directly from wikipedia, without showing the slightest aptitude or foresight to first even check the source, and secondly actually review the material. Blind, unreferenced tangents are not science, simple. Had he checked the reference and seen the little note in the list, and shown some level fortitude I would have not of started out on such a harsh foot.

 

Here is another tangent: incorrect or incomplete information is not the same thing as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience, as a label, is probably best reserved for speculations that are clothed in some of the trappings of science without any of the substance. On that basis bad data do not cut it.

 

S: (n) pseudoscience (an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

Oh, I am quite sure that claiming one thing that contradicts scientific fact as scientific fact, is actually a perfect example of pseudoscience. Argue all you wish, just don't call it science.

 

Echinoderms that occassionally indulge in a sexual frenzy hardly constitutes a large blight on inow's argument. I would strongly advise you consult a dictionary for the meaning of the two words. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom? That is, after all, inow's argument.

 

Well, considering the source claims that one whole genera and one whole phyla completely lack sexual reproduction, when they very obviously do, would infact be a large blight in any scientific argument. You can argue otherwise, just don't call it science.

 

And this would explain your snide, hostile, small minded, emotionally loaded post how exactly?

I'm sure I am missing something, but with your profound scientific education I have little doubt you will shortly enlighten me.

 

Snide, hostile, small minded AND emotionally loaded? Wow, geez, golly, you know what? I didn't realize being the harsh hand of science and reason was such an awful thing, sorry, I didn't realize this place was Sunday school.

 

Oh wait, or is this a scientific forum? Yeah, you know, I am pretty sure, that this isn't Sister-Marys' Bible circle.. It is a place to talk science, well, sorry for talking science, but I cannot help but if any place on the web, this would be the place to talk science, wait, am I wrong?

 

Have you ever met a scientist? Have you even debated with a scientist? I can assure you right now, that if you were to propose such a flawed argument as the OP has, to any schooled person, they wouldn't be quite as soft as I have been.

 

Emotions and bad wikipedia quotes is not science, the OP completely failed to even deliver the slightest thread of science to this debate. I am 'acting' the way I am, because things like what the OP has posted and you all have praised is the cornerstone of every great urban legends' or wives tales' beginning.

 

You would benefit from lessons in English comprehension. inow did not claim that we should do it. He made the perfectly reasonable assertion that given the common occurence of homosexuality among many other animal species, it would hardly be surprising to find it occuring naturally among humans. And, guess what, we look around and there it is.

 

Congratulations, well done, my argument is doomed! Lucky this isn't about semantics.. Hey, but it can be if you want.. Just keep clutching at straws and it will be!

 

And finally, you later retorts lack any substance so I will not even bother commenting on that, except go study some biology before making biological claims..

 

Oh no wait, I thought I might just join in the semantics to, I am not anxious at all, why would you claim I am?

 

Oh, and the pseudoscience bit, yeah. I didn't claim my theories to be science, I clearly stated that. Why do you say I am trying to propose it as science when I clearly did not? Semantics that all you want..

[Ophiolite]

A scientific critique of the opening post would not have included comments about the education, scientific experience and alleged bias of inow. It would have addrressed, and only addressed, the statements made by inow and the references he provided.

 

Instead you chose to launch an emotional diatribe. This told me more about you than about any inconsistencies in inow's argument. Not science, my lad.

 

You don't like semantics? You don't like meaning? You don't like the heart of clear, unambiguous communication? Science free of definitions, i.e. free of semantics, is not science, but bluster. Do you like bluster?

 

Now, please address my specific questions on the science of this thread. I shall repeat them to save you the trouble of looking back.

1. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom?

2. You say we do not live in the wild. what has that got to do with the issue?

3. Are you saying if we lived in the wild homosexuality would be natural, but in a 'civilised' world it is not?

[Psychedelicacy]

Sweet Jesus, you have obviously never even entertained the idea of reading what I have said.

 

Here, now, once again, you launch into the accusations of semantics, when you are the greatest culprit of all. You pull me up with one so-called inaccuracy, which you fail to see was a dramatization of what was obviously being said in OP, with a lacking retort full of smug rebukes and lacking entirely of any science.

 

I proposed sound scientific questions in my original post, care to answer those? If you would have even read my post you would have realized how irrelevant and presumptuous your half-witted supposed questions are.

 

1. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom?

Where, ever, did I deny that? If you had read my post you would have realized my question was why homosexuality would be a negative thing in the human population. I blasted the frivolous assumptions that the OP made on the claims of homosexuality in the wild due to the use of less than scientific sources.

 

2. You say we do not live in the wild. what has that got to do with the issue?

It has everything to do with the issue, if you cannot differentiate between the effects of modern social living and a nomadic existance then, well, perhaps this place isn't the place for you.

 

3. Are you saying if we lived in the wild homosexuality would be natural, but in a 'civilised' world it is not?

Of course it would, again, can you not spot the differences between the modern societal constructs and a wild populations? Can you not envisage the differences? Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it? You sir, would get laughed out of any scientific debate with that kind of idea, be it in a place with actual scientists and scientifically minded people.

 

How about this, why is homosexuality taboo in so many modern societies huh? Answer that.

 

Your arguments are weak and blind, please, go learn science before trying to argue science - it will simply become tedious having to reply to such asinine retorts.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Psychedelicacy

[zapatos]

Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it?

I assume you are implying that we are more than "just animals". Is that correct? If so can you expand a bit and tell me what you mean by this? Thanks.

Edited November 1, 2010 by zapatos

[Psychedelicacy]

I am implying that anyone who uses a purely 'natural' context i.e. using indiscriminate examples of wild animal social interactions as a supportive homology or analogy for human social interactions and issues in an argument is a fool. So yes, we are 'more than just animals', we live in a way completely alien to any other species on earth, our closest comparisons would perhaps be ants, termites, bees, wasps, moles or groundhogs, but their societies are still completely incomparable to ours beyond a few 'skin-deep' similarities.

 

It is perfectly sound and reasonable to use natural examples to explain certain biological and behavioral traits in humans, but the minute you start using broad natural examples to simply blanket-explain modern human social issues, you are being incredibly short-sighted, to overlook the implications of the way we live in a biological debate is simply wrong and completely lacking in scientific rigor. You can not, in any conceivable way, argue against that.

 

What I am arguing is not that homosexuality does not occur in the wild.. What I am arguing is that homophobia did not just magically spring out of nowhere independently in every modern human society, there must be some biological reasoning as to why there is homophobia in modern human societies, unless you want to believe in fairytales.

 

After my proposal I then I offered a theory that tried to explain why homophobia might have arisen in modern human societies using fundamental biology principals.. I never once claimed, or even implied my theory to be fact, I openly said it was a theory without any scientific proof known to me...Unlike many of the posters in this thread, who seem to be more than happy making rampant and frivolous assumptions with the sketchiest of references and proof..

 

May I remind you all, that this forum is about science, and not loose speculation and pseudoscience..

 

Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button.

[Ophiolite]

1. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom? Where, ever, did I deny that? If you had read my post you would have realized my question was why homosexuality would be a negative thing in the human population. I blasted the frivolous assumptions that the OP made on the claims of homosexuality in the wild due to the use of less than scientific sources.

I was not addressing your question about homosexuality in humans. I was asking about your view of homosexuality among animals. I now understand that you accept the common occurence of homosexuality in a wide range of animal species. Is that correct?

 

2. You say we do not live in the wild. what has that got to do with the issue? It has everything to do with the issue, if you cannot differentiate between the effects of modern social living and a nomadic existance then, well, perhaps this place isn't the place for you.

Do you consider that a nomadic existence is equivalent to living in the wild? Do you think the characteritics of 'civilisation' lead to an increase or a decrease in the incidence of homosexuality? What is your evidence for your thinking on this matter?

 

 

 

3. Are you saying if we lived in the wild homosexuality would be natural, but in a 'civilised' world it is not?Of course it would, again, can you not spot the differences between the modern societal constructs and a wild populations? Can you not envisage the differences? Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it?

As per my previous point: which differences do you believe are significant in relation to homosexuality and what impact do they have upon its expression? Since this is a scientific discussion I expect you to justify your thinking with appropriate citations.

 

Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it?.

Certainly we are animals. We differ from animals and we share similarities with them. Your suggestion - in another post - that we are perhaps closest to the ants and bees, etc, would not be well received by the vast majority of anthropologists, primatologists or ethologists. If you wish to promote such an off-the-wall position you really need to defend it with some solid research material. I await your citations from peer reviewed journals with interest.

 

How about this, why is homosexuality taboo in so many modern societies huh? Answer that.

That is an interesting question, as is its counterpart - why is homosexuality so readily accepted in so many societies, ancient and modern? I have no idea. The theme of the OP is that the taboo has not arisen because the practice is unnatural and that there must, therefore, be some other explanation. That seems a reasonable position to take.

 

 

Your arguments are weak and blind, please, go learn science before trying to argue science - it will simply become tedious having to reply to such asinine retorts.

I haven't presented any arguments. I have made some observations and asked some questions.

[iNow]

This thread was a direct factual response to those who regularly assert that homosexuality is unnatural. Countless examples from the animal kingdom establish and make clear the fallacious nature of that claim. That is all.

Edited November 3, 2010 by iNow

[zapatos]

So yes, we are 'more than just animals', we live in a way completely alien to any other species on earth, our closest comparisons would perhaps be ants, termites, bees, wasps, moles or groundhogs, but their societies are still completely incomparable to ours beyond a few 'skin-deep' similarities.

I've always thought of humans as just another animal, albeit the one with the most advanced brain and living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. But using your scenario there are other animals that have the most advanced (whatever) and are living in a way completely alien to other species on earth. So it seems they too could be considered "more than just animals". I just don't see being at the top of a particular food/ability/complexity chain as giving some sort of exalted status.

Edited November 3, 2010 by zapatos

[Moontanman]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, only the first few, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned already..

 

You need to read them all then.

 

First off, in the last quote in OP (wikipedia ), it mentions both Echinoidea spp. (Sea Urchins) and Aphis spp. (aphids) "never have sex at all" [sic], which one must assume means sexual reproduction; a lack of..

 

Nope, no one has suggested that aphids or sea urchins do not reproduce sexually.

 

Well, sorry to give ya the bad news, but, well, that is completely fallacious. While many aphid species may employ parthenogenesis regularly, it is far from their only source of reproduction. It is common knowledge that common garden aphids will reproduce sexually during stressful environmental conditions, likely to increase the likelihood of at least some of their genes surviving - only returning to asexual reproduction when conditions are optimal.

 

I have to ask why does the reproduction of aphids have to do with homosexuality? I grow large amounts of Daphnia magna, they alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction so i do understand the principles involved.

 

And sea urchins, like aphids, are only partially dependent on asexual reproduction, google really is your friend.. And then to top this little tangent off, the reference for that nice little slice of pseudo-science was the exact same page as the second citation in OP.

 

Not true, sea urchins do indeed have sex to reproduce, the closest we would would understand as sex between urchins is masterbation, yes echinoderms reproduce by masterbation.

 

Regarding this rather large blight on your argument, I would strongly advice starting again and trying to find some legitimate scholarly articles instead of, well, what you have now [nothing]. Be wary of your sources, if you are going to try and argue something in the realm of science, you will need to back up you claims, with, well, science..

 

You really need to read the entire thread...

 

Now, to your approach on this argument, first; it would be obvious to guess that you have no schooling in science, everything about your posts and replies reeks of bias and scientific incompetence. Emotions have no place in a scientific argument, unless you are a psychologist, and psychology isn't science..

 

Your glaringly obvious bias and lack of any substantial proof of said claims is ironically, quite comparable to what I would expect from poorly educated Christians trying to argue creationism.

 

Secondly, considering all what you have claimed is indeed true [?], you are simply overlooking the greater picture. You are looking at this in a purely 'natural' and out of context view, you say: "look at nature, look at animals in the wild having homosexual sex, they do it, so it must mean we should", giving complete ignorance to the fact that we are not those species, we do not live like them, we do not live in the wild, we do not live in small groups.

 

And I must mention that by using the word homosexual, I do not imply animals that will only have sex with the same sex exclusively; I strictly mean any form of intrasexual sexual contact.

 

Now, to look at this rationally, first we must ask ourselves: "what factors of homosexuality that would possibly make it a detrimental act [biologically] in a population?", and: "what is different about how we live, and how animals live, that might make homosexuality overall a negative act in our context?", and: “why would homosexuality become taboo in modern society in the first place?” (why would societies deem it illegal or sinful? There has to be a biological and is probably an ecological answer to this, unless you want to argue this in a creationist sense).

 

I think, but I do not know, I can only postulate, that the reason homosexuality has become taboo in so many modern societies is that in a large and well-connected society, that homosexual sex drastically increases the spread of infections (particularly sexual) within a large community, especially considering homosexual promiscuity and the subsequent very high rates of sexually transmitted infection in the homosexual community. Now you must consider, in a large community where any disease is likely to spread incredibly quick regardless of transmission route, how would homosexual sex cause itself to become a negative act (reduce the fecundity of involved parties)? Basically, I think answer to why homosexual sex would reduce a males fecundity (over-looking the obvious) lies in the factor female choice, it is going to be quite obvious in a large community with well-developed communication, who exactly is having homosexual sex and what their health is like, especially considering the pre-modern societal context. A human female, in a human society is simply not going to be as likely to choose to reproduce with a potentially infectious male who will likely bear less-fit offspring (higher likelihood of infection and negative societal stigma of homosexual offspring), and likely cause her to loose fitness via infection. From this simple problem, in our early societal beginnings, I am sure is the seed that stemmed all the modern homophobia in all its forms that exists today, seeing as homosexuality being a negative sexual trait in a breeding community, any males possessing the ability to hide it, most likely would. Homophobia is not likely some almost supernatural anomaly as many make it out to be, it is a natural force and can be explained by science.

 

What I have mentioned, I do not believe to be in the truth and is not well thought-out in any sense, nor have I quoted any scientific work - it is purely a theory that I simply came up with it as I wrote this now, nor have I actually thought about this problem in any depth before and should be regarded as such.

 

All I can truly argue is that there is a scientific answer to this ‘problem’.

 

 

So homosexuals are diseased? Homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals? Do you just troll this nonsense out by repeating what you have been told your whole life? Can you show your sources of this revelation other than your own rectum? I can and so can many others in this forum back up my assertions with real data so far all you have done is make claims about other peoples data and shown none of your own.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Moontanman

[Psychedelicacy]

I am busy with exams at the moment, so do not think that you have won and I am conceded - far from it. When I am finished getting all my A+'s, I shall return, and with supporting evidence. My last exam is on the 11th, but I will likely not be in any great rush to back on here as one could understand; being the start of my summer and all (southern hemisphere).

 

All I ask is you try to compress your main issues and I will mine, I really cbf'd both re-answering the same questions (Oph.), nor dealing with the tedious task of chopping multiple quotes and what-not.

 

Prenotes:

 

I should probably make this clear, when I talk about homosexuality I practically exclusively refer to male on male sex, female on female sex I consider is likely a 'different ballgame' with all sorts of different origins, biology and consequences - and something that I have yet to even contemplate nor interpret..

 

Male homosexuality probably does occur in nature, I never did, and am not arguing the contrary (I simply defamed the OP simply due to the shady and obviously fallacious 'evidence' and oh-so obvious bias). Male homosexuality is an understandable occurrence in nature, whatever the cause of it; be it sexual frustration or some form of bonding.

 

 

Arguments:

 

1) Homophobia didn't just spring out of nowhere and that it is likely a biological artifact not a 'magical' social anomaly (simply blaming religion is far from an adequate answer for homophobia). That the occurrence of homophobia indicates that homosexuality is likely a negative trait for ones biological fitness in a modern human context.

 

2) Homosexuals are far more likely to both contract and distribute sexually transmitted infections due to their very high and disproportionate numbers of sexual partners, this fact alone is likely one of the key biological answers as to why homophobia exists in modern human societies.

 

 

Rant (reasoning):

 

Stop trying to make science subject to politically correct ideals, science is about fact, not about making you feel like a good person. Science answers to nothing but evidence, the day science becomes a tool for liberals to congratulate themselves, we are all surely fucked.

 

 

See y'all in a few weeks..

[Ophiolite]

I really cbf'd both re-answering the same questions (Oph.), nor dealing with the tedious task of chopping multiple quotes and what-not.

You have made substantial claims of 'fact'. You have also defined the character of scientific argument. Consequently, it behoves you to supply justification, in the form of peer reviewed research work, or the equivalent. It is wholly insufficient for you to say something is so without offering such evidence. That is not an answer to any question, that is merely a meaningless stomach rumble. Therefore I repeat my salient questions: Do you consider that a nomadic existence is equivalent to living in the wild? Do you think the characteritics of 'civilisation' lead to an increase or a decrease in the incidence of homosexuality? What is your evidence for your thinking on this matter?

 

When I am finished getting all my A+'s, I shall return, and with supporting evidence...

Ah, that explains a lot. You are in the position of seeking grades. I am in the position of handing them out.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

This thread is primarily in response to those who insist that homosexuality is an abomination, or that it harms peoples morals, or any of the other stupid nonsense people say after they've been poisoned by religious teachings. Also, it's just an interesting topic of conversation.

 

 

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."

 

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

 

As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia.

Thus, any distractions from the business of making babies—distractions like homosexuality, masturbation, etc.—are precious wastes of fluids. You'd think by now, several hundred million years after sex began, nature would have done away with such inefficiencies, and males and females would only act to maximize rates of sexual reproduction.

 

But the opposite has happened. Instead of copulation becoming more functional and straightforward, it has only gotten weirder as species have evolved—more sodomy and other frivolous pleasures that are useless for propagating the species. The more socially complex the animal, the more sexual "deviance" it exhibits. Look at primates: Compared to our closest relatives, contemporary, Westernized Homo sapiens are the staid ones.

Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection. As Roughgarden points out, "a 'common genetic disease' is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease."

 

Interesting. I never knew that more than 450 vertebrate species exhibited homosexual behavior. Gollly.

 

Wait... Did I say 450? I think I meant 1,500:

 

 

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

 

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

 

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

 

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

 

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

 

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

 

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

Well, that's odd. The article suggested that homosexual animals might actually be better suited to raising offspring. That seems counter to all of the love and truth the religious people have been sharing with me.

 

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.

 

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

 

 

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

 

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.

 

In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin.

 

Even wiki has an entry:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behaviour

Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.

 

To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

 

 

 

This is wild stuff. It leaves me pondering the question... What is more wrong... Homosexuality in humans, or humans who refuse to accept it as natural?

 

I find this posting of yours quite offensive! You seem to lack knowledge that " although" animals may be homosexuals, the real " deal" is that they are not under the jurisdiction of " religion, leaders, and other " front lobe thinking animals" meaning humans"

 

This post lacks " real" issues with " real " scenarios about a gay person's and or a lesbian person's true life and public issue in the world..

 

Also you " highlight" religious teachings." In some countries they don't use religion as an excuse to defy gays and or lesbians, they consider their un-willing contribution of having children a financial burden for the countries survival.

All I have to say is hooray for sex! I also find it odd that the religions of the God of Abraham, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, condemn sex out side of marriage or even for any reason other than procreation. It almost seems like God doesn't want anyone to have sex for any reason other than procreation and especially sex other than good old fashioned "man on top get it over with quick!" So sad, how much more popular would religion be if if Sunday go to meeting meant an orgy of pleasure!

so then you agree in adultery??

 

if you do then you support..

 

STDs, children with no father's and or mother's, you support tax payer money that goes to fund the broken family and etc..

 

Lets face it, adultery does not fall into the hands of religion, it falls on common sense. I haven't really met anyone whom agrees their spouse should lay with others sexually and if they do, they don't respect themselves!

Edited February 3, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Dissily Mordentroge]

 

I really must object to this ungodly talk about sex. It is quite clear from the following post that sex is not the issue.Sex is simply a substitute for the far more important life-issue of geology.

Far more important life

 

In no particular order...

 

 

 

That's what we would call a strawman of my actual position. Since it was not my argument, I'll leave it at that.

 

Your very first line in this thread is as follows:

 

 

 

My point was not a "straw man". Your whole point was that homosexuality is not an abomination, as some claim, because studies show that it happens in nature.

 

So that is the exact, and spruious, argument that you meant, or you had a poor choice of words.

 

 

 

 

 

Okey dokey. My OP was intended to make a point using the science, which I've done. Not sure what your deal is, as you seem to be contrary here for little to no reason whatsoever.

 

No, you have intended to make a political point while misusing science.

 

 

 

Not enough information exists in your "reductum ad absurdum" argument.

 

 

 

No, I understood you quite well. The problem was you stated your position poorly. You have now changed your initial statement and inserted a brand new "not natural" argument.

 

All you have adequately defended is the "not natural" argument, but you have failed to argue away the "abomination" argument.

 

Nature is full of actions that would be abominations if practiced by mankind.... and actually ARE abominations when practiced by mankind.

Can we accept for now psychology is as yet an immature science? Intance, what understanding do we have of our species almost universal joy at being 'naughty'? Given such naughtiness is more often than not a culturally induced attitude we still don't fully understand why 'being bad in the bedroom' is so much of a turn on for so many. Interestingly the data suggests ( no I can't put my finger on peer reviewed studies just now) behaviours such as sadomasochism/ masochism are more often than not the province of the religious.

Reminds me of a recent trip to a middle eastern country where homosexuality is punishable by stoning to death. I have never encountered a more thriving gay bath house scene than there, not even San Francisco in the 1960's before the AIDS epidemic. Fear as an aphrodisiac?

As to the validity of discussing these issues on a forum where scientific evidence is meant to back assertions I suggest at this point in time we are unable to explain many of our species behaviours fully. But hey, many of our specie's behaviours, not just in the bedroom, defy any logical analysis.

 

 

You are in the position of seeking grades. I am in the position of handing them out.

Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Dissily Mordentroge

[Fuzzwood]

I find this posting of yours quite offensive! You seem to lack knowledge that " although" animals may be homosexuals, the real " deal" is that they are not under the jurisdiction of " religion, leaders, and other " front lobe thinking animals" meaning humans"

 

This post lacks " real" issues with " real " scenarios about a gay person's and or a lesbian person's true life and public issue in the world..

 

Also you " highlight" religious teachings." In some countries they don't use religion as an excuse to defy gays and or lesbians, they consider their un-willing contribution of having children a financial burden for the countries survival.

so then you agree in adultery??

 

if you do then you support..

 

STDs, children with no father's and or mother's, you support tax payer money that goes to fund the broken family and etc..

 

Lets face it, adultery does not fall into the hands of religion, it falls on common sense. I haven't really met anyone whom agrees their spouse should lay with others sexually and if they do, they don't respect themselves!

How is this offensive? That your face is shoved into the fact that gay sex is happening all the time? Deal with it and don't you dare claim it's unnatural.

[mooeypoo]

I find this posting of yours quite offensive! You seem to lack knowledge that " although" animals may be homosexuals, the real " deal" is that they are not under the jurisdiction of " religion, leaders, and other " front lobe thinking animals" meaning humans"

Priceless sentence in a scientific forum. This should be framed and hung for prosperity.

 

See, no one is under the jurisdiction of religion except for religious people. That's the point, and why religion is separated from state in most modern (advanced, free, democratic) countries around the world. That is without getting into religious arguments about homosexuality that do not belong in this thread (feel free to open a thread about those in *religion* forum if you insist on discussing it)

 

This post lacks " real" issues with " real " scenarios about a gay person's and or a lesbian person's true life and public issue in the world..

What " real " issues are those?

 

Also you " highlight" religious teachings." In some countries they don't use religion as an excuse to defy gays and or lesbians, they consider their un-willing contribution of having children a financial burden for the countries survival.

They do. They just hide behind pseudo-scientific claims because they know that "religion says so" is not a valid claim for laws since the days of the inquisition.

 

so then you agree in adultery??

A straw red herring. Nice. Are you suggesting that only religion is against adultery and therefore only religion is the source of morals? BEcause even if you do, that would require you transforming this thread into an issue of *morality* which it is not. It is a discussion about natural cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Which not only exists, but is quite prevalent.

 

Shooting all over the place will not cause us to miss the point you are not really making any valid points. But good try.

 

if you do then you support..

 

STDs, children with no father's and or mother's, you support tax payer money that goes to fund the broken family and etc..

We're in a science forum, not a delusional claim forum. Beyond that, children without mothers or fathers exist in straight families too, so do STDs. In fact, ironically enough, religion's insistence against contraceptive *increases* danger of STDs, so it could be said that if you support religious sex education, it is YOU who support STDs.

 

But I digress.

 

We should really stick to the topic at hand here, which is the undeniable fact that homosexuality exists in nature, whether you personally like it or not.

 

It's okay, though, it's not the first natural phenomena the bible got wrong.

[Dissily Mordentroge]

From one perspective we might be able to say homosexuality exists in nature, however we need to be certain of our definitions.

Our species for instance often suffers the delusion of homosexuality/ heterosexuality being mutually exclusive states. Lock enough males of our species away on a sailing ship or in goal and you'll soon find how these rigid definitions start to blur at the edges. Certainly many males who indulge in such opportunistic adventures would often prefer to be with women but knowing that doesn't explain how these 'hard up' (excuse the pun) blokes somehow manage to find it in themselves to be turned on by another male.

Or as Feud I think it was claimed, we are all potential deviants.

[mooeypoo]

Gender and orientation are not binary. We tend to push them into binary definitions because society tends to work wtih "absolutes".

This is a great video, by the way, about the subject. Slight NSFW, but in an educational sort of way:

[Dissily Mordentroge]

Sweet thing. Shame about the green nail polish.

[mooeypoo]

Yes. The way she looks and her nail polish just invalidate everything she explained in that video.

 

In case it wasn't clear, that was

</sarcasm>