Jeez people, we don't even know if there is a "gay gene". There is some evidence for the idea that the levels of hormones in the womb can affect it, but we honestly don't know. More importantly, it doesn't really matter. Stop appealing to evolution and evolutionary benefits, because if you are doing so you don't understand evolution. Science is not going to tell us what is morally right, and neither is "nature". We have other ways to figure that out, like reasoning and logic, which I think we all agree on as pretty effective at this sort of thing.
Wrong. The goal of evolution is to reproduce. If something doesn't help us do that, it's illogical and thus not brought around by evolution unless it's a mutation, and in that case it should be an isolated case.
Wrong. The goal of evolution is to reproduce. If something doesn't help us do that, it's illogical and thus not brought around by evolution unless it's a mutation, and in that case it should be an isolated case.
On anyone who claims that homosexuality has no evololutionary advantage and refuses to read any of the links I have posted in the past, or who just don't bother researching, or just choose to disbelieve. I have a link which has nothing to do with Homosexuality but helps show a point.
It has baffled scientists for ages why these Orchids have developed a practice/trait which seems detrimental to them. They prevent their primary polinater from reproducing, that seems like an evolutionary backstep. Like a trait which should cause their demise. Much like Homosexuality may seem at first glance. What we have recently discovered is because of the way Wasps reproduce (the fact that Males come from unfertalized eggs) that the trait results in more male Wasps and thus more Orchids. The Wasp population doesn't die out due to overpopulation of males and the Orchids don't die out because they are guranteed a good number of male wasps to polinate them.
Much like Homosexuality in nature and in our society has a large number of positive effects. It has an evolutionary purpose. Just because your scope of knowledge does not support or understand it does not make it untrue.
Homosexuality may have an evolutionary advantage we don't fully understand. It may be an error to which our imperfect constitutions are prone (like how the S-curve of our back lends itself to lower back problems). Or it may be aliens zapping us (and other animals) with gay rays for their own amusement. Does it really matter? Are we morally committed to doing only that which is evolutionarily advantageous?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok, it's not just to reproduce, but that's the main goal, right?
Why would homosexuality have developed due to evolution? There's no logical answer I can think of.
Ok, it's not just to reproduce, but that's the main goal, right?
Why would homosexuality have developed due to evolution? There's no logical answer I can think of.
Because nature has no debugger. If it's developmentally easy to make the neurological equivalent of a sign error or displaced line of code that results in homosexuality, and evolutionarily difficult to correct, then it could persist indefinitely even without any countervailing benefit at all. Sure, genetic material would be lost which might otherwise reproduce, but genetic material is also lost to stillbirths (which happen) and physical and mental defects (which also happen). Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is at worst no different than any other reproduction-impairing condition we find in the animal kingdom.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok, it's not just to reproduce, but that's the main goal, right?
Why would homosexuality have developed due to evolution? There's no logical answer I can think of.
Maybe to curb population in areas where resources were scarce to support a larger population. *shrug* Thats the most logical supposition I could think of. Homosexuality could have developed for any number of reasons and most of them probably wouldn't make any sense to anyone other than a biologist.
Maybe to curb population in areas where resources were scarce to support a larger population. *shrug* Thats the most logical supposition I could think of. Homosexuality could have developed for any number of reasons and most of them probably wouldn't make any sense to anyone other than a biologist.
But homosexuality has existed forever. And in times when there was no overpopulation.
@Blinking Spirit: But if people with mutation x can't reproduce, over time shouldn't mutation x die out?
I have a huge problem with it, too and in a way wish I hadn't gone there, but at the same time, there is still a vocal minority that equates homosexuals with child molesters, so maybe the terrible association isn't so far-fetched. I don't imagine you're going to get a very logical answer to what harm homosexuality, homosexuals, or homosexuals cause that can't also be found outside of homosexuality. But, that's probably at the core of your disconnect from people who make such arguments. Murderers clearly hurt someone else, the homicide victim, the family, and the community at large, but the same people who are charging that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so probably aren't logically presenting as fact that homosexuality harms society or individuals, rather only that God's word (as interpreted by man, of course) is that homosexuals are abhorrent to Him.
Of course, if we consider the people who wrote Scripture and the society they lived in, all we can conclude confidently from the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality is that the human authors, and almost certainly the civilization they lived in, found homosexuality to be personally abhorrent. Not necessarily for any good or logical reason; I suspect it's more akin to the yuck factor people have in the 21st century than many religious folk would have us believe.
Those who *do* try to stand on grounds that homosexuality inherently by its nature causes harm because it falls outside of the norm are very much so on shaky ground and it would be hard to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to other "outsiders" that isn't patently ridiculous. Divorced parents and single parents don't fit the model of mother + father + children = family. Neither to children raised by grandparents or foster parents, but I don't see anyone attacking grandparents who raise the children after parents die. There are plenty of religious and racial minorities, too, but the vast majority of people don't preach that the members of these groups are immoral.
Right. These are the same people who think Leave it to Beaver was a documentary and that the world would be a much nicer place if everyone were conformists.
Also, I think your disconnect stems from the fact that you are assuming that it's our right, and perhaps even our duty, to examine life and its rules using logic and reason. That's fine for you and me, but you and I know very well that there are many who simply accept that these things are the way they are because that's the way they are because that's the way they were and always will be. They were taught that way and the Biblical interpretation they know is the only and correct one and it implies homosexuality is an affront to God. Or to put it far more simply: "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so." And that interpretation is correct because it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is wrong.
Well put. This particular part of your post is very helpful in addressing the original question I posted in the opening post of this thread.
I tend to find myself going around in circles in discussion of faith and God that don't involve a stopping point of "okay, you just have to accept that this is the way it is without question." I remember one time a friend of mine ran himself in circles, basically coming to the conclusion that to believe in God, you have to well, believe in God. (He was an evangelical Christian who tried fervently to convert non-believers but I could never good a satisfactory answer to how you get someone to take a leap of faith if they weren't pretty much there already.)
But to be fair, the same could be said for accepting homosexuality as a natural alternative to hetersexuality. It all comes back to accepting that sexual orientation is an immutable, innate characteristic. For anyone who's already discovered their sexuality (whether it be hetero-, homo-, bi-, pan-, etc. TheInfamousBearAssasin is incorrect in stating that I think there are only two types of sexuality: straight and gay), it's difficult to find a more obvious and fundamental truth than physical and sexual attraction is something that cannot be controlled, and is something everyone is born with.
Fortunately that truth doesn't require a leap of faith as belief in God does.
I've been personally puzzled by this second position, myself. If my mother baked a fresh batch of cookies and put them on a plate and scolded me for wanting one, claiming that these were just "looking cookies, not for eating", I'd think that'd be unfair. Yet, I've heard numerous organizations (incuding one I used to be loosely affiliated with many, many years ago), take the stance that it's some kind of test, as if God made millions of Jobs who have these innate feeling, but aren't supposed to act on how they feel, but rather what they should know to be logically true, that their desires are unpure, and thus live their whole lives sexually repressed.
The acceptance and understanding of the true nature of sexual orientation would, I think, clear things up for people and make them see that a person who's sexual feelings are maligned and who's life is lived in total repression is a miserable person. I really want to believe that no one would want anyone to be that miserable, instead that they somehow believe that homosexuals can be happy by convincing themselves that they're straight and courting and sleeping with people of the opposite sex as if they're attracted to them. It seems obvious to me that people have go tto be very hurt by people trying to change their orientation.
Honestly, I hadn't guessed that you were gay. If anything, I have been accused numerous times of keeping TOO open a mind and not realizing that sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason - because sometimes they're true.
Personally, I think as long as a person has good logic and common sense, there's no such things as having a mind that's TOO open. Of course stereotypes exist because they are sometimes true, but the important point is that they're not true nearly often enough for people to make assumptions based on them, and that's what we see people doing.
Take me for example. If you were to meet me on the street, unless I was walking hand-in-hand with a boyfriend (:p), you wouldn't know that I was gay. My masculinity is average in terms of dress, speech, interests, and the way I carry myself.
I remember years ago being attracted to this woman who lived in my same apartment building who had short hair, didn't wear dresses or skirts and was a skater and overall wasn't the most feminine girl ever. (This was before anyone had ever heard of Avril Lavigne or words like "scene" or "emo" were even words.) I was told by my friends and roommates that she obviously was gay, but I asked her out anyway and got the "I'm just coming out of a relationship" line. I took this as evidence that *I* was right and they took it as evidence that THEY were right. As it turned out, they were right, but for the wrong reasons, and I was wrong, for the right reasons.
Right, clearly we're on the same page on stereotypes.
I am a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality which is why I. don't partake. But I understand it isn't a choice it is internal. I however also don't agree with judging people when I'm not God. If god says that is a sin it is, but I'm not going to punish or treat people like dirt because of it. He'll take care of it at a later time if it really is a sin.
@Blinking Spirit: But if people with mutation x can't reproduce, over time shouldn't mutation x die out?
You're assuming it's a mutation, but biology isn't that simple. The homosexual potential could be a trait that all of us have, but that is only "turned on" by some developmental trigger that most of us aren't exposed to. Think of the basic human psyche as a computer program that is written into us as we grow. If sexual orientation is determined by, say, a pair of lines that are easy to transpose, or a variable that it's easy to flip the sign on, then homosexuality could occur naturally without being genetic at all.
When something like this is the case, nature has to wait for a random mutation to produce the "fix", and such a thing may not even be possible. I already mentioned the human lower back: the way all of us are designed, we're prone to "errors" - injuries - in that area, but the injuries aren't genetic. And, despite the fact that lower back injuries pose a definite obstacle to survival and reproduction, we still get them after walking around upright for more than two million years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Evolutionarily speaking, every divergence from a species is a mutation and a flaw until it shows a benefit and is duplicated to result in a new species.
There are countless advantages to Homosexuality. I will avoid the discussion of most animals I usually drag into this, because people ignore them. It is weird how you can provide scientific research and study and people ignore it and say there is no proof. It is part of what keeps making these homosexuality debates so painful.
Person A "A!"
Person B "No sorry, B!"
Person A "Links and research prooving A!"
Person B "I ignore your A, and have no backup for B no matter how many times you ask for it"
However, I will present some studies on our closest living relative ;
The species is distinguished by relatively long legs, parted hair on their head, a matriarchal culture, and the prominent role of sexual activity in its society.
Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. With the exception of a pair of Congoese gorillas caught in the act, Bonobos were thought to be the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex. In scientific literature, the female-female sex is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing.
Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it, and often involves adults and children, even infants. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by gender or age, with the possible exception of sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.
Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex (frot). One form has two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "***** fencing". Frot may also occur where two males rub their penises together while in missionary position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, where they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together.
Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital sex (tribadism) to socially bond with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding between females allows them to dominate Bonobo society - although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the Bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity
.
Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the Common Chimpanzee. Female Bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared with Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, allowing them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are either sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.
Craig Stanford, an American primatologist, has challenged the claim that Bonobos are more sexually active than Common Chimpanzees. Stanford compared existing data on Common Chimpanzees and Bonobos in the natural habitat and found that female Common Chimpanzees copulated at least as often as female Bonobos, while male chimpanzees actually copulated more than male Bonobos. His comparison excluded same-sex sexual contacts, however, which are very common in Bonobos. De Waal's book on Bonobos includes interviews with field workers and relies on the studies by Takayoshi Kano, the only scientist to have worked for two decades with wild Bonobos. New studies in Africa by Gottfried Hohmann, a research associate at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology of Leipzig, Germany, believes to have seen significant violence, but fact remains that there are thus far no documented cases of lethal aggression among Bonobos, in sharp contrast to the evidence for Common Chimpanzees.[26]
There also seems to be Morality within their sexual behaviour, it is Taboo for Mother/Son to procreate. While we may question certain activities (ie sex with infants) it is obvious their society has its own morals, and even among man's societies we see other cultures having morals which we question.
Our Morality is created by ourselves. The fact there seems to be Morality within this primitive society shows that morality grows from the needs of said society. Of course we should not base our morals off of that of apes, but we should examine the falicies of our morals. It would be ignorant to not better ourselves by understanding these animals.
Our Morals have developed from the needs of our past societies. We see historically that over generations the severity of certain taboos lessen and tighten. Things which were deemed moral even 20 years ago may be deemed immoral now. It is not too long ago that it was normal for girls as young as 10 to be married off, and now law protects them from even having sex.
Many moral rights and wrongs even in the Bible are ignored now because they have no place in current society. Women's rights, slavery, punishments for various crimes. At one time Adultrous women might even be stoned, and now we debate whether the death penalty is even correct for mass murderers and rapists.
So we see here a species which is cognitive and able to solve complex problems. I watched a documentary a few weeks back on these guys. They put a Bonobo in a cage, in the cage was a clear tube attached to the bars with a nut at the bottom. The Bonobo could not reach it.
This is a puzzle in which most humans I know cannot solve, and the ones I know who can solve it have seen it before.
So what did the ape do?
He returned with a mouth full of water and spat it in the tube, and repeated until the nut floated within reach.
It is clear to see the advantage of homosexual activity within the Bonobo culture. Sexual favour is offered to resolve all sorts of conflicts and form bonds. In reality; the handshakes, hugs, cheek kissing you see in mankind is just a step down from this. A decrease in promiscously open sexual activity for man likely came about due to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. From this stems the idea of Marriage and Monogamy as a "moral" protection for the gene pool. Disease spreads much less in a monogamous society.
Perhaps we have lost something with that advancement.
Closeness to humanity
Bonobos are capable of passing the mirror-recognition test for self-awareness. They communicate through primarily vocal means, although the meanings of their vocalizations are not currently known. However, most humans do understand their facial expressions and some of their natural hand gestures, such as their invitation to play. Two Bonobos at the Great Ape Trust, Kanzi and Panbanisha, have been taught a vocabulary of over 3,000 words which they can type using a special keyboard of lexigrams (geometric symbols), and they can respond to spoken sentences. Some, such as philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the "rights to survival and life," rights that humans theoretically accord to all persons.
Seriously though. Gay couples take up the slack on child rearing. One of the things we see in nature is Gay couples raising the children of deceased parents. We also see this trend in our society since we finally gave them the right to adopt. There is also the Gay Uncle syndrome. Having offspring who will not have their own children provides support for the children your straight children have. Raising children is a complex and time consuming job.
Also, if we took a cue from the Bonobo's, we see that a little same sex play does alot for building bonds and conflict resolution. Perhaps if our society lessened its taboo on sex in general and its moral distaste of same sex play we would find Kinsey was right about us being mostly Bisexual and we would have a friendlier world. George Bush definately could use a little Frotting I think.
Seriously though. Gay couples take up the slack on child rearing. One of the things we see in nature is Gay couples raising the children of deceased parents. We also see this trend in our society since we finally gave them the right to adopt. There is also the Gay Uncle syndrome. Having offspring who will not have their own children provides support for the children your straight children have. Raising children is a complex and time consuming job.
Also, if we took a cue from the Bonobo's, we see that a little same sex play does alot for building bonds and conflict resolution. Perhaps if our society lessened its taboo on sex in general and its moral distaste of same sex play we would find Kinsey was right about us being mostly Bisexual and we would have a friendlier world. George Bush definately could use a little Frotting I think.
I don't see these as advantages as the result of homosexuality. To me advantages mean being better at something compared to other people.
Grandparents can raise the children of deceased parents. They're might not be better suited for the job than the gay couple, but they are not worse either.
Sure enough. I think moral opposition to homosexual intercourse is a tough position to rationally defend, although much less daunting than to rationally defend opposition to legal recognition of homosexual marriage.
Yes, somewhat, though perhaps negligibly in the end. There are at least some doable arguments against the recognition of homosexual marriages. The unspoken gist is that recognizing de facto marriages isn't what the institution is for.
Which is the step that usually gets left out: why legal marriage at all, for anyone? I'm willing to come out and just say it's certainly not as a way to honor heterosexuality, or to facilitate reproduction. It's greedy reductionism to boil sexual bonding down to procreation, especially in the context of long-term mating that has social relevance. My assertion remains that if we're going to simplify it down to anything, it's not offspring; it's social-unit building.
In both cases, the line between homosexual mates and heterosexual mates isn't getting justified. We're not even getting that scarce glimmer thereof, á la "more evidence will reveal what to think of that." To be plain, we should already know what to think of it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
I don't see these as advantages as the result of homosexuality. To me advantages mean being better at something compared to other people.
Grandparents can raise the children of deceased parents. They're might not be better suited for the job than the gay couple, but they are not worse either.
Because elderly couples often seek out to adopt children?
Ever notice how the majority of Big Brothers tend to be be Gay. (At least I noticed that. Every Big Brother I have known except one has been Gay. The one my Uncle had in his youth was Gay, the one my friend Travis had was Gay, and any other person I have spoken too who was a Big Brother was Gay except one.)
Because elderly couples often seek out to adopt children?
Ever notice how the majority of Big Brothers tend to be be Gay. (At least I noticed that. Every Big Brother I have known except one has been Gay. The one my Uncle had in his youth was Gay, the one my friend Travis had was Gay, and any other person I have spoken too who was a Big Brother was Gay except one.)
My mentor wasn't. I think that's pretty much the same deal as the big brother program. But yes, it seems like everyone I've ever met that was a tour guide, or a customer service person was gay. Hilarious and true. I actually know quite a few gay people, including one of my brothers.
I don't see these as advantages as the result of homosexuality. To me advantages mean being better at something compared to other people.
Grandparents can raise the children of deceased parents. They're might not be better suited for the job than the gay couple, but they are not worse either.
Prairie Dogs will call a warning when they spot a predator. The one calling the warning usually gets eaten. The behavior survives because the family, brothers, sisters, and cousins of the one who called the warning survive. Grandparents are not a reliable source of adoptive parents. My son if four. My father is dead, gone two years now. He lived into his early sixties, short by American standards, but not at all by the standards of a generation or two ago, let alone the distant past.
Seriously though. Gay couples take up the slack on child rearing. One of the things we see in nature is Gay couples raising the children of deceased parents. We also see this trend in our society since we finally gave them the right to adopt. There is also the Gay Uncle syndrome. Having offspring who will not have their own children provides support for the children your straight children have. Raising children is a complex and time consuming job.
One theory I read was that a gene predisposing men to homosexuality could be on the mitochondrial DNA (which comes from the mother) so a heterosexual woman with this gene would on average have more surviving heterosexual children than a woman without it because the homosexual ones would help her to look after them. A gene on the chromosomal (normal) DNA though would make less sense.
There is a potential argument for heteronormativism that appeals to some kind of imperical principle. Typically, this is something along the lines of ''gay marriages are against family values." That one begs the question, of course.
Since such an argument is an abstraction of a consequential analysis, it's not the same as being a strictly different basis for the objection than a consequential one. And, of course, it doesn't address the principle objections to heteronormativism.
A pro-heteronormativist always has to face not only the hurdle of justifying heteronormativism in the first place, but that of justifying it in the face of observations that it's an unreasonable prejudice that is principally harmful to LGBTI people. That's a really big obstacle, and is a much bigger strike against heteronormativism, I think, than the fact that there is little consequential evidence supporting it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Of course, if we consider the people who wrote Scripture and the society they lived in, all we can conclude confidently from the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality is that the human authors, and almost certainly the civilization they lived in, found homosexuality to be personally abhorrent. Not necessarily for any good or logical reason; I suspect it's more akin to the yuck factor people have in the 21st century than many religious folk would have us believe.
The Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual practices had much to do with distinguishing the Hebrews from their Canaanite neighbors, whose religious practices involved both gay and straight prostitution and a nasty little thing called human sacrifice.
Anyways, I have come to conclude, as a Christian, that all the available data makes it impossible for me to either condemn or endorse homosexual behavior. It is hardly comfortable to be on the fence; but honesty permits me no other position. I would advise Christians to remember, in regards to homosexuals, what they learned in kindergarten: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Remember Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." And remember also 1 Corinthians 5:13 -- God judges those outside the church. And if someone is gay and also Christian, then have faith in the Holy Spirit's power to convict him of his sins; and if he does not repent of homosexual behavior, then either he is not really a Christian or his homosexuality is not truly sinful. But in any case, who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another (Romans 14:4)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Hey, don't dis states' rights. We have the Tenth Amendment for a reason. Besides, you have a much better argument at hand, one that uses states' rights instead of criticizing them: the full faith and credit clause.
I wasn't dissing states' rights - I just resent people using them as an excuse to perpetrate inequality.
The Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual practices had much to do with distinguishing the Hebrews from their Canaanite neighbors, whose religious practices involved both gay and straight prostitution and a nasty little thing called human sacrifice.
Anyways, I have come to conclude, as a Christian, that all the available data makes it impossible for me to either condemn or endorse homosexual behavior. It is hardly comfortable to be on the fence; but honesty permits me no other position. I would advise Christians to remember, in regards to homosexuals, what they learned in kindergarten: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Remember Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." And remember also 1 Corinthians 5:13 -- God judges those outside the church. And if someone is gay and also Christian, then have faith in the Holy Spirit's power to convict him of his sins; and if he does not repent of homosexual behavior, then either he is not really a Christian or his homosexuality is not truly sinful. But in any case, who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another (Romans 14:4)?
This was awesome Panda
You see the distinction of the cannite religeous prostitutes vs the homosexual act. You have really been educating yourself, that is awesome. Did you see the links I posted earlier?
UD: There are many potential reasons homosexuality could exist, and the persistent nature of same-sex sexual behaviour (SSSB) across species suggests that it is adaptive or at least tied to some adaptation. (In fact, there appear to be multiple forms of homosexual behaviour between species and cultures, and this convergence indicates adaptiveness even more strongly.) Really, the "gay gene" idea is rather erroneous; multiple factors - genetic, cultural, and developmental, for instance - all combine and contribute, and to varying degrees depending on circumstance.
Presumably though you're talking about exclusive homosexuality, which is more puzzling than merely SSSB because the latter doesn't preclude heterosexual relationships allowing for a larger range of possible explanations. Obvious theories like those underlying the oft-mentioned bonobo alliance example apply to SSSB, but it takes a little more effort to put forth a reasonable hypothesis for exclusivity. Nonetheless, they exist, and if you bothered to look, you would find them and maybe understand evolution a little better. I fired up a good old academic search engine and within a minute found a great article detailing hypotheses and proposing that exclusive homosexuality was an exaptation. (Muscarella, F. (2006, December). The Evolution of Male-Male Sexual Behavior in Humans: The Alliance Theory. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(4), 275-311.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wrong. The goal of evolution is to reproduce. If something doesn't help us do that, it's illogical and thus not brought around by evolution unless it's a mutation, and in that case it should be an isolated case.
Congratulations, you don't understand evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15wasp.html?ex=1373774400&en=846dbf79e20f864d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
It has baffled scientists for ages why these Orchids have developed a practice/trait which seems detrimental to them. They prevent their primary polinater from reproducing, that seems like an evolutionary backstep. Like a trait which should cause their demise. Much like Homosexuality may seem at first glance. What we have recently discovered is because of the way Wasps reproduce (the fact that Males come from unfertalized eggs) that the trait results in more male Wasps and thus more Orchids. The Wasp population doesn't die out due to overpopulation of males and the Orchids don't die out because they are guranteed a good number of male wasps to polinate them.
Much like Homosexuality in nature and in our society has a large number of positive effects. It has an evolutionary purpose. Just because your scope of knowledge does not support or understand it does not make it untrue.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok, it's not just to reproduce, but that's the main goal, right?
Why would homosexuality have developed due to evolution? There's no logical answer I can think of.
Because nature has no debugger. If it's developmentally easy to make the neurological equivalent of a sign error or displaced line of code that results in homosexuality, and evolutionarily difficult to correct, then it could persist indefinitely even without any countervailing benefit at all. Sure, genetic material would be lost which might otherwise reproduce, but genetic material is also lost to stillbirths (which happen) and physical and mental defects (which also happen). Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is at worst no different than any other reproduction-impairing condition we find in the animal kingdom.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe to curb population in areas where resources were scarce to support a larger population. *shrug* Thats the most logical supposition I could think of. Homosexuality could have developed for any number of reasons and most of them probably wouldn't make any sense to anyone other than a biologist.
But homosexuality has existed forever. And in times when there was no overpopulation.
@Blinking Spirit: But if people with mutation x can't reproduce, over time shouldn't mutation x die out?
Of course, if we consider the people who wrote Scripture and the society they lived in, all we can conclude confidently from the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality is that the human authors, and almost certainly the civilization they lived in, found homosexuality to be personally abhorrent. Not necessarily for any good or logical reason; I suspect it's more akin to the yuck factor people have in the 21st century than many religious folk would have us believe.
Right. These are the same people who think Leave it to Beaver was a documentary and that the world would be a much nicer place if everyone were conformists.
Well put. This particular part of your post is very helpful in addressing the original question I posted in the opening post of this thread.
Perhaps you did; I apologize if I was a bit too harsh in my accusation.
But to be fair, the same could be said for accepting homosexuality as a natural alternative to hetersexuality. It all comes back to accepting that sexual orientation is an immutable, innate characteristic. For anyone who's already discovered their sexuality (whether it be hetero-, homo-, bi-, pan-, etc. TheInfamousBearAssasin is incorrect in stating that I think there are only two types of sexuality: straight and gay), it's difficult to find a more obvious and fundamental truth than physical and sexual attraction is something that cannot be controlled, and is something everyone is born with.
Fortunately that truth doesn't require a leap of faith as belief in God does.
The acceptance and understanding of the true nature of sexual orientation would, I think, clear things up for people and make them see that a person who's sexual feelings are maligned and who's life is lived in total repression is a miserable person. I really want to believe that no one would want anyone to be that miserable, instead that they somehow believe that homosexuals can be happy by convincing themselves that they're straight and courting and sleeping with people of the opposite sex as if they're attracted to them. It seems obvious to me that people have go tto be very hurt by people trying to change their orientation.
Personally, I think as long as a person has good logic and common sense, there's no such things as having a mind that's TOO open. Of course stereotypes exist because they are sometimes true, but the important point is that they're not true nearly often enough for people to make assumptions based on them, and that's what we see people doing.
Take me for example. If you were to meet me on the street, unless I was walking hand-in-hand with a boyfriend (:p), you wouldn't know that I was gay. My masculinity is average in terms of dress, speech, interests, and the way I carry myself.
Right, clearly we're on the same page on stereotypes.
You're assuming it's a mutation, but biology isn't that simple. The homosexual potential could be a trait that all of us have, but that is only "turned on" by some developmental trigger that most of us aren't exposed to. Think of the basic human psyche as a computer program that is written into us as we grow. If sexual orientation is determined by, say, a pair of lines that are easy to transpose, or a variable that it's easy to flip the sign on, then homosexuality could occur naturally without being genetic at all.
When something like this is the case, nature has to wait for a random mutation to produce the "fix", and such a thing may not even be possible. I already mentioned the human lower back: the way all of us are designed, we're prone to "errors" - injuries - in that area, but the injuries aren't genetic. And, despite the fact that lower back injuries pose a definite obstacle to survival and reproduction, we still get them after walking around upright for more than two million years.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There are countless advantages to Homosexuality. I will avoid the discussion of most animals I usually drag into this, because people ignore them. It is weird how you can provide scientific research and study and people ignore it and say there is no proof. It is part of what keeps making these homosexuality debates so painful.
Person A "A!"
Person B "No sorry, B!"
Person A "Links and research prooving A!"
Person B "I ignore your A, and have no backup for B no matter how many times you ask for it"
However, I will present some studies on our closest living relative ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior
There also seems to be Morality within their sexual behaviour, it is Taboo for Mother/Son to procreate. While we may question certain activities (ie sex with infants) it is obvious their society has its own morals, and even among man's societies we see other cultures having morals which we question.
Our Morality is created by ourselves. The fact there seems to be Morality within this primitive society shows that morality grows from the needs of said society. Of course we should not base our morals off of that of apes, but we should examine the falicies of our morals. It would be ignorant to not better ourselves by understanding these animals.
Our Morals have developed from the needs of our past societies. We see historically that over generations the severity of certain taboos lessen and tighten. Things which were deemed moral even 20 years ago may be deemed immoral now. It is not too long ago that it was normal for girls as young as 10 to be married off, and now law protects them from even having sex.
Many moral rights and wrongs even in the Bible are ignored now because they have no place in current society. Women's rights, slavery, punishments for various crimes. At one time Adultrous women might even be stoned, and now we debate whether the death penalty is even correct for mass murderers and rapists.
So we see here a species which is cognitive and able to solve complex problems. I watched a documentary a few weeks back on these guys. They put a Bonobo in a cage, in the cage was a clear tube attached to the bars with a nut at the bottom. The Bonobo could not reach it.
This is a puzzle in which most humans I know cannot solve, and the ones I know who can solve it have seen it before.
So what did the ape do?
It is clear to see the advantage of homosexual activity within the Bonobo culture. Sexual favour is offered to resolve all sorts of conflicts and form bonds. In reality; the handshakes, hugs, cheek kissing you see in mankind is just a step down from this. A decrease in promiscously open sexual activity for man likely came about due to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. From this stems the idea of Marriage and Monogamy as a "moral" protection for the gene pool. Disease spreads much less in a monogamous society.
Perhaps we have lost something with that advancement.
In humans? Such as...what, exactly?
We need someone to make us look good. jk
Seriously though. Gay couples take up the slack on child rearing. One of the things we see in nature is Gay couples raising the children of deceased parents. We also see this trend in our society since we finally gave them the right to adopt. There is also the Gay Uncle syndrome. Having offspring who will not have their own children provides support for the children your straight children have. Raising children is a complex and time consuming job.
Also, if we took a cue from the Bonobo's, we see that a little same sex play does alot for building bonds and conflict resolution. Perhaps if our society lessened its taboo on sex in general and its moral distaste of same sex play we would find Kinsey was right about us being mostly Bisexual and we would have a friendlier world. George Bush definately could use a little Frotting I think.
I don't see these as advantages as the result of homosexuality. To me advantages mean being better at something compared to other people.
Grandparents can raise the children of deceased parents. They're might not be better suited for the job than the gay couple, but they are not worse either.
Which is the step that usually gets left out: why legal marriage at all, for anyone? I'm willing to come out and just say it's certainly not as a way to honor heterosexuality, or to facilitate reproduction. It's greedy reductionism to boil sexual bonding down to procreation, especially in the context of long-term mating that has social relevance. My assertion remains that if we're going to simplify it down to anything, it's not offspring; it's social-unit building.
In both cases, the line between homosexual mates and heterosexual mates isn't getting justified. We're not even getting that scarce glimmer thereof, á la "more evidence will reveal what to think of that." To be plain, we should already know what to think of it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Because elderly couples often seek out to adopt children?
Ever notice how the majority of Big Brothers tend to be be Gay. (At least I noticed that. Every Big Brother I have known except one has been Gay. The one my Uncle had in his youth was Gay, the one my friend Travis had was Gay, and any other person I have spoken too who was a Big Brother was Gay except one.)
My mentor wasn't. I think that's pretty much the same deal as the big brother program. But yes, it seems like everyone I've ever met that was a tour guide, or a customer service person was gay. Hilarious and true. I actually know quite a few gay people, including one of my brothers.
Thanks to the guys at Highlight Studios for the great banner and avatar.
Trade with me http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=101483&highlight=" rel="nofollow"here.
One theory I read was that a gene predisposing men to homosexuality could be on the mitochondrial DNA (which comes from the mother) so a heterosexual woman with this gene would on average have more surviving heterosexual children than a woman without it because the homosexual ones would help her to look after them. A gene on the chromosomal (normal) DNA though would make less sense.
There is a potential argument for heteronormativism that appeals to some kind of imperical principle. Typically, this is something along the lines of ''gay marriages are against family values." That one begs the question, of course.
Since such an argument is an abstraction of a consequential analysis, it's not the same as being a strictly different basis for the objection than a consequential one. And, of course, it doesn't address the principle objections to heteronormativism.
A pro-heteronormativist always has to face not only the hurdle of justifying heteronormativism in the first place, but that of justifying it in the face of observations that it's an unreasonable prejudice that is principally harmful to LGBTI people. That's a really big obstacle, and is a much bigger strike against heteronormativism, I think, than the fact that there is little consequential evidence supporting it.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
The Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual practices had much to do with distinguishing the Hebrews from their Canaanite neighbors, whose religious practices involved both gay and straight prostitution and a nasty little thing called human sacrifice.
Anyways, I have come to conclude, as a Christian, that all the available data makes it impossible for me to either condemn or endorse homosexual behavior. It is hardly comfortable to be on the fence; but honesty permits me no other position. I would advise Christians to remember, in regards to homosexuals, what they learned in kindergarten: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Remember Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." And remember also 1 Corinthians 5:13 -- God judges those outside the church. And if someone is gay and also Christian, then have faith in the Holy Spirit's power to convict him of his sins; and if he does not repent of homosexual behavior, then either he is not really a Christian or his homosexuality is not truly sinful. But in any case, who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another (Romans 14:4)?
I wasn't dissing states' rights - I just resent people using them as an excuse to perpetrate inequality.
This was awesome Panda
You see the distinction of the cannite religeous prostitutes vs the homosexual act. You have really been educating yourself, that is awesome. Did you see the links I posted earlier?
Presumably though you're talking about exclusive homosexuality, which is more puzzling than merely SSSB because the latter doesn't preclude heterosexual relationships allowing for a larger range of possible explanations. Obvious theories like those underlying the oft-mentioned bonobo alliance example apply to SSSB, but it takes a little more effort to put forth a reasonable hypothesis for exclusivity. Nonetheless, they exist, and if you bothered to look, you would find them and maybe understand evolution a little better. I fired up a good old academic search engine and within a minute found a great article detailing hypotheses and proposing that exclusive homosexuality was an exaptation. (Muscarella, F. (2006, December). The Evolution of Male-Male Sexual Behavior in Humans: The Alliance Theory. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(4), 275-311.)