Question about homosexuality

[alphamale]

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?

 

[FallingPianos]

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.

 

[Independent Patriot]

I imagine its a combination of the latter, and the fact that many homosexuals do in fact procreate.

OK, I will need a pardon for my ignorance here but are you talking about human homosexuals procreating?

 

[FallingPianos]

OK, I will need a pardon for my ignorance here but are you talking about human homosexuals procreating?

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.

 

[Thinker]

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?

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.

 

[massive_attack]

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

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).

 

[Sir_Alec]

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.

 

[Donkey1499]

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'll go with birth defect.

 

[alphamale]

This is an old argument used to suggest that homosexuality cannot be innate.

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

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.

Provides "reproductive benefits"???

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.

The question is - what could those possibly be?

 

[alphamale]

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).

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?

 

[Sir_Alec]

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.

 

[Thinker]

Provides "reproductive benefits"???

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

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.

 

[alphamale]

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.

Speculate, please, on what those benefits might be.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[alphamale]

anti-homosexuality is as much of a survival trait as war is.

War CAN be a survival trait! People have often had to fight to survive, and from the most ancient times!

 

[ngdawg]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[Blind man]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[massive_attack]

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?

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.

 

[alphamale]

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.

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:

 

[alphamale]

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

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

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.

 

[alphamale]

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.

 

[Blind man]

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:

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.

 

[Blind man]

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.

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.

 

[Thinker]

FINALLY, a real answer! Then maybe the production of homosexual offspring is triggered by say, poor nutrition in mothers...

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.

 

[nineplus]

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?

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.