• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question about homosexuality

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've read that homosexuals claim, with I believe some backing by studies, that homosexuality is innate. If that is the case, then why should such beings be "allowed" by nature, since every evolutionarily acquired trait seems to be to either facilitate survival or procreation? Or maybe homosexuality is a birth defect? Or what?
 

I imagine its a combination of the latter, and the fact that many homosexuals do in fact procreate.
 
star2589 said:
I imagine its a combination of the latter, and the fact that many homosexuals do in fact procreate.
Click to expand...

OK, I will need a pardon for my ignorance here but are you talking about human homosexuals procreating?
 
Independent Patriot said:
OK, I will need a pardon for my ignorance here but are you talking about human homosexuals procreating?
Click to expand...

yes, but not with eachother obviously. the pressure to be straight is huge in this country, especially in more religious areas, and many homosexuals actually date and get married before coming out as being gay.
 

This is an old argument used to suggest that homosexuality cannot be innate.
It is flawed in many respects, but here are some things to think about.

It is very difficult to know how traits can affect viability. For example,
thalassemia kills people and appears to threaten survival, but in an
environment where malaria is widespread, it provides protection that can
allow individuals to live long enough to reproduce.

It may be that homosexuality is a side-effect of another mechanism that
provides reproductive benefits we do not yet understand.

Perhaps there may be a similarity to ants where most are sterile yet ants don't die out.

The fact that homosexuality continues to exist in all human populations (and
probably in most mammal populations) despite huge social pressures against it
suggests there may be hidden benefits for the population as a whole.

Homosexuality may be passed down from the mother, who could keep the
population going and pass on the trait by having non-homosexual offspring as
well.
 
Thinker said:
It may be that homosexuality is a side-effect of another mechanism that
provides reproductive benefits we do not yet understand.
Click to expand...


I've "heard" that one function is that it helps (pardon the pun) gel society together. A better gelled society = a healthier society = you see where this is going.

Keep in mind this was all developed before "god" said homos are evil and a lot of society nodded its collective head (while at the same time tinkering in their own closets).
 
This is hard question because there are varying degrees of homosexuality. Some people are 100% homosexuals who only get atrracted to people of their own sex. Bisexuals, like myself, are in the middle area. I think this is proof that homosexuality comes from several different factors:

1. Enviroment- A very hard factor to look into, but lets just say that I am more connected to my mom than my dad.
2. Genes- While most scientists say there is no gay gene they say there is a gene that can lead to homosexuality in a sort of domino affect among other genes.
3. Hormones- which can be different in certain people and have great influence over your sexual nature.
 

I'll go with birth defect.
 
Thinker said:
This is an old argument used to suggest that homosexuality cannot be innate.
Click to expand...

Now give me some old answers. I have not argued anything - simply asked a question.


Provides "reproductive benefits"???


The question is - what could those possibly be?
 

How could it gel society together? And since you are using "god" in scornful quotes, why would people decide on a large scale that homosexuality is evil? Are they responding to some innate anti-homosexuality? Perhaps nature inculcates such anti-homosexuality because it is an anti-survival trait?
 

anti-homosexuality is as much of a survival trait as war is.
 
alphamale said:
Provides "reproductive benefits"???
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might be less confused if you didn't select phrases in isolation.

I actually wrote "It may be that homosexuality is a side-effect of another
mechanism that provides reproductive benefits we do not yet understand."

In other words, there could be a mechanism that usually results in reproductive
benefits but, under certain circumstances, can also give rise to homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been with us as far back as we can look and continues
to be a reasonably common state in populations around the world. Add to
that the observations that it is expressed in almost every mammal species we
investigate and the conclusion must be that its existence probably has
some evolutionary benefit.

why would people decide on a large scale that homosexuality is evil
Click to expand...

I suspect it's more the case that a few people of incluence have persuaded
others that homosexuality is evil. It's very easy to use people's innate
suspicion of anything ""different" to make them believe almost anything you
want. Most civilised people have grown out of believing that "blacks are
subhuman", "jews, per se, are evil", "if I don't keep sacrificing people, the sun
won't rise" and all the rest. Eventually most will grow out of accepting the
fallacy that "homosexuality is evil" too.
 

Speculate, please, on what those benefits might be.


Brain cancer is all over the world, but I can't think of any benefit. Once again, what could conceivably be the benefit?

I suspect it's more the case that a few people of incluence have persuaded others that homosexuality is evil.
Click to expand...

Evidence? It's amazing to me the wide variety of cultures which have little in common agree in their opposition to homosexuality.

It's very easy to use people's innate suspicion of anything ""different" to make them believe almost anything you want.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence to the contrary - cultures have always borrowed "different" things from other cultures.


That's a red herring dragging in all that other stuff, and evades my question. If people believe homosexualiy is evil, just because a few people told them so, how would such antipathy be so pervasive, and persistent? I'm not convinced by that idea - I think there's something more operating, but I don't know what it is.
 
Sir_Alec said:
anti-homosexuality is as much of a survival trait as war is.
Click to expand...

War CAN be a survival trait! People have often had to fight to survive, and from the most ancient times!
 
alphamale said:
Speculate, please, on what those benefits might be.
Brain cancer is all over the world, but I can't think of any benefit. Once again, what could conceivably be the benefit?
Click to expand...
In its most basic form, nature's 'thinning of the herd'. If there was absolutely NO form of cancer (and everyone is born with some cancer or abnormal cells, but they are dormant until something in the body's natural balance sets everything in motion for cancer to grow), think of how many people would be into old age on earth.

Imagine a society where everyone is blonde and green eyed and right handed.
Then a child comes along with black hair, blue eyes and is left handed. To that society, that child isn't normal. Doesn't matter about intelligence or skill-it's different from the accepted norm.
That's the thinking behind homosexuality being 'evil'. It's not, but it's not within majority and small minds seem to think if it's not within some preconceived notion of 'normal', it must be bad.
Remember stories of leper colonies? Leprosy is the least contagious and slowest progressive of any contagion, yet people who had it were confined due to fear and ignorance. Homosexuality is today's leprosy. Too many times the most ignorant have the most influence.
 
First off something can be societally healthy and not contribute to reproduction. Reproduction, while necessary for a society, is not the only requirement for a healthy society.


alphamale said:
Speculate, please, on what those benefits might be.



Brain cancer is all over the world, but I can't think of any benefit. Once again, what could conceivably be the benefit?
Click to expand...

actually diseases are a very important part of any animal society. I know the rosy world outlook is in right now, but reality states that for a society to be healthy people have to die. If you study nature you will find that survival past reproduction is not a priority as people living past reproductive age consume valuable resources.
Evidence? It's amazing to me the wide variety of cultures which have little in common agree in their opposition to homosexuality.
Click to expand...

your knowledge of history is laughable. In South American cultures homosexuality was viewed as a natural condition and even favored at times adolescents were encouraged to expel sexual energies homosexually before they were formally married. A decent percentage (probably around 10% continued in this lifestyle and was accepted. The oriental cultures also accepted homosexuality as part of the great balance.

So here's your supposition as corrected for your ignorance "It's amazing to me the variety of Judeo-Christian cultures that agree in their opposition to homosexuality.


yes it's pervasive in Judeo-christian influenced cultures. It seems you went to school back when they only taught Western history. that's ok, I did too, however i decided to educate myself on the greater history of the world.

And the something more that's operating is power and the use of scapegoating to get it. Since there always have been homosexuals, there always will be, and their population is a consistent minority it's easy to use them as a scapegoat. And unlike religious or ethnic groups, there will always be more homosexuals to persecute.
 


It's pretty obvious. Sexual relations brings people closer together brings society closer together.

Regarding god, please feel free to point out a religion that mentions homosexuality in a positive light. Islam ? No. Christianity ? No. Those two alone account for *about* 50% of the worlds believing polution, about 2.4 billion people.

Edit : If god is so against homosexuality it's pretty silly of him to have created all these homsexuals / bisexuals. You`ll have to take up that point with god when you meet him, which I`m sure you wont.
 
So here's your supposition as corrected for your ignorance "It's amazing to me the variety of Judeo-Christian cultures that agree in their opposition to homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Uh, I refer you to the above poster's reference to islam. And YOU are the one saying other people's knowledge is laughable? :lol:
 
Back-on-track post:

In starting this thread, my intention wasn't to draw the ire of a pack of raging queens, but merely inquire into the evolutionary connection of homosexuality, since homosexuals say it's innate. Draw back your fangs, ladies! :rofl
 
Lazy as my handle would indicate, I don’t have any links at hand, but I remember hearing about a study showing that the female siblings of gays tend to more fecund than females deprived of gay brothers. If that’s true, I’d think that homosexual tendencies could be a by-product.

What would be the evolutionary role of homosexuality? Non-breeders could be a benefit to the extended family by helping procure resources without focusing their energies on raising children of their own.
 

FINALLY, a real answer! Then maybe the production of homosexual offspring is triggered by say, poor nutrition in mothers, that would in turn trigger some combination of hormones during pregnancy that produces some gay children. But what about gays in modern well-fed societies? Perhaps it's a remaining remnant of ancient times when food was frequently scarce.
 
alphamale said:
Uh, I refer you to the above poster's reference to islam. And YOU are the one saying other people's knowledge is laughable? :lol:
Click to expand...

ROFL, you really are an idiot. While it's not in the name Islam IS A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION.


BTW i like how you latched onto the strawman argument. it shows that your truly incapable of arguing your point of view.
 

You can try to lay it on one source after another until you turn blue, until you are capable of accepting the complexity of genetics and environment as something you just can't understand (I mean you specifically, educated scientists will figure it out someday) then your confusion will continue to haunt you.

Just go to a gay bar and get laid, maybe that will cure you.
 
alphamale said:
FINALLY, a real answer! Then maybe the production of homosexual offspring is triggered by say, poor nutrition in mothers...
Click to expand...
You are showing your true colours by immediately suggesting a negative
influence ( "poor nutrition"). Why can't it be a completely neutral effect, just like
whatever it is that causes left-handedness?

There is nothing abnormal or wrong about homosexuality. It's just a part of life.
 
alphamale said:
If that is the case, then why should such beings be "allowed" by nature, since every evolutionarily acquired trait seems to be to either facilitate survival or procreation? Or maybe homosexuality is a birth defect? Or what?
Click to expand...



Maybe certain *controls* on procreation were factored into the evolutionary process.........such as infertility and homosexuality??

On the birth defect line of thinking, I read an article just a couple years back where some study had proven homosexuals resulted from stressed out pregnancies.........I can't remember the parameters of the study (though I remember feeling there were TONS of leftover questions needing to be answered after reading it) but the article was in the Washingon Post I think, not some grocery store rag sheet.

We know of a family with six children.........three boys, three girls..........1 hetero, 1 bi and 4 gay.........makes you wonder how stressful of a person their mother was during her pregnancies eh?? lol

Personally, I think everyone is bisexual..............obviously to varying degrees............so I don't think of homo or heterosexuality as normal or a birth defect. Both are just words people feel comfy defining themselves as. For those of us who are confirmed old hetero acting people, we just haven't ever met (or been open to meeting) the right person of same gender who'd shove us towards bi thoughts. For those in the confirmed old gay camp, I could say the same. Most of us define as we do based on a combo our inner tendencies, experiences up to this point in time and various social impressions or pressures we've personalized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…