WOW and homo-/bisexuality

[oDDity]

The very fact that homo- and bisexuallity is so widespread in nature, and persisting since eons, means that there is more behind it, than just a "wrong" gene. If that were the case, it would have been lon erradicated.

 

THE reason it's persisted is because, like many hereditary diseases, the gene can be carried by females wihtout being affected themselves, and then passed on to her children, also because many gay people choose to have children anyway, and because of the social unacceptability in most cultures for the most of history, gay people ended up getting married and having kids like normal people.

 

And you can't chose your sexuality. It just is. I'd imagine if you are bisexual you find yourselves attracted to both genders.

 

You can't choose to be homosexual if you're born heterosexual, but you can certainly choose to be bisxual.

Just look at the situation in ancient Greece. THey had a social convention whereby older men would help young boys into manhood by having relationships with them, this included training in many things, as well as a full sexual relationship. We call it paedophila today. THey would woo these boys openly in the steet with gifts and in front of their parents. THere were whole regiments of older warriors and their younger lovers.

Now, you're not going to tell me that all of these people were suddenly born gay or bisexual are you?

Of course not, it was bisexuality created and nurtured by the society they lived in.

[OrbWeaver]

I always find it strange that the people who argue that homosexuality is a "disease" because it has no reproductive purpose, never have a problem with heterosexuals who choose not to have children.

 

By their own logic such people should be attempting to impregnate every woman they meet, and would view "young, free and single" or "stable couple using contraception" lifestyles as diseases also.

[oDDity]

If I was the king or absolute ruler of a country in the past, then I would certianly have hundreds of concubines and be impregnating them all, unfortunately, being an average man in modern society, I have to dampen my ambitions a little.

It's another battle in the constant war of mind over instinct we fight every day.

[Ishtvan]

I think people get pissed off if you use the word "disease" due to the negative connotations. People don't like being told that they're diseased, and it brings to mind treatment of homosexuals like locking them in mental wards or beheading them.

 

It's genetic. Whether you call it a disease is rather subjective. It doesn't necessarily rule out reproduction. As Orbweaver pointed out, many gay couples still follow the reproduction instinct and nurture children by some means: adoption, artificial insemination, grinning and bearing heterosexual coitus, whatever). Reproductive options were limited in the past, but with modern science, if they want to have kids it's not a problem. You could call this a "cure" for the "disease," but if gays still have the instinct to reproduce, and humans have evolved brains to make tools to make that reproduction possible, I'm not seeing why it's a disease even from a Darwinian standpoint.

[OrbWeaver]

I think people get pissed off if you use the word "disease" due to the negative connotations. People don't like being told that they're diseased, and it brings to mind treatment of homosexuals like locking them in mental wards or beheading them.

 

I don't like the use of the word "disease" not because of the connotations, but because it doesn't fit with my concept of a disease as something which causes harm or suffering to the host. There are many things which may affect the likelihood of reproduction, but if they don't cause harm to the individual I would not consider them diseases, even if they are "flaws" from a Darwininian standpoint.

 

It's genetic. Whether you call it a disease is rather subjective. It doesn't necessarily rule out reproduction. As Orbweaver pointed out, many gay couples still follow the reproduction instinct and nurture children by some means: adoption, artificial insemination, grinning and bearing heterosexual coitus, whatever).

 

I didn't point this out - what I pointed out is that there are many heterosexual people who are not going to have children for numerous reasons, and these people are never considered "diseased" by anybody.

 

Also, as yet I am unaware of any evidence that homosexuality has any genetic background whatsoever. Given that men and women are actually very similar in appearance and anatomy, I find it amazing that far more people aren't bisexual - it may be that homosexuality is just a minor bug in the "identify suitable mate" routine which has a pretty difficult job to do in some cases.

[Macsen]

Being gay is just a preference. I like to play Thief, some people like a bit of bum. The fact that most people aren't inclined to play Thief doesn't make it wrong, and the fact that I don't like a bit of bum doesn't make that wrong either. People's sexual fantasies/habits are just as varied as people's sport hobbies or eating habits, it's just down to what you enjoy doing rather than some 'gene'.

[Ishtvan]

@Macsen: If that's the case, how do you explain self-hating homosexuals who keep trying to "pray away the gay?" I'd say a preference you're born with has something to do with genetics.

[New Horizon]

I think there has been enough research done to validate sexual orientation as genetic. Society is just so caught up in seeing things as being either black or white, when there are far more possible outcomes. Some people are genetically inclined to heterosexuality, some homosexuality and some fit in the middle. Reproduction is beside the point, that's a bi-product of sexual intercourse. A lot of assumptions about homosexuality are based solely on the act of sexual activity with someone of the same sex, when it runs much deeper than that. Two people of the same sex can love each other in an intimate, personal and spiritual way. Sex is as much about expression between human beings as it is about reproduction. Just because traditional reproduction is limited to opposite sex couples does not validate their orientation as 'the' correct sexuality.

[Macsen]

@Macsen: If that's the case, how do you explain self-hating homosexuals who keep trying to "pray away the gay?" I'd say a preference you're born with has something to do with genetics.

You can find things pleasurable but also feel that you have to stop doing it. I love chocolate but try my best to eat as little as possible, in the same way homosexuals really enjoy having sex with other men, but because of the social stigma/religious beliefs/and so on try their best to stop doing it. Unfortunately Anglo-American culture is very sexually repressed, we should all go back to being heathen pagans.

[Domarius]

My friend told me something she read about how it was suggested that sexuality was like a slider scale for everyone, and everyone has their own setting of sexuality ranging from hetro, to gay at the other end, and bi in the middle.

 

So according to this, there isn't a hard line between gay and hetro, its just the people who get classified as gay are at the extreme end.

 

Some guys at a party were wrestling in the pool and I shuddered at the sight of it. So I consider myself to be firmly at the hetro end and maybe theirs is a bit slightly less hetro but not nessicarly bi or gay. They are just a bit more relaxed there than me, who was actually repulsed by their behaviour.

 

"Not that there's anything wrong with that", hehe.

[Macsen]

World population passed 6.5 billion yesterday.

 

You never know, baby spawning hetrosexual couples could be the unpopular ones a few years down the line when we're all living in closets.

 

Increased homosexuality may be a species' way of saying 'enough babies already!'

[sparhawk]

THE reason it's persisted is because, like many hereditary diseases, the gene can be carried by females wihtout being affected themselves, and then passed on to her children, also because many gay people choose to have children anyway, and because of the social unacceptability in most cultures for the most of history, gay people ended up getting married and having kids like normal people.

 

If gay have kids, then it seems that it is from the evolutionary point of view, not strong enough to get weed out. Quite on the contrary, we see a lot of hetero having no kids either these days, especially in the modern city areas. So this seems to be not such a striong argument as you make it. You should read "The Selfish Gene" to see why homosexuallity may still have merits even though they don't may have kids of their own. It's also intersting to note, that apparently families with a lot of kids seem to have a higher homosexual rate in the later kids, then smaller families. If you look at, for example ants or bees, it is a good example that it is not strictly neccessary to produce kids of your own just to get your genes propagated. Homopsexuality can have similar effects.

 

Now, you're not going to tell me that all of these people were suddenly born gay or bisexual are you?

Of course not, it was bisexuality created and nurtured by the society they lived in.

 

I'm pretty sure that a certain preference of sexuallity, can be trained. I read somehwere once that only 1% of gays are born with it. Don't know though how this number would have been derived.

[sparhawk]

@Macsen: If that's the case, how do you explain self-hating homosexuals who keep trying to "pray away the gay?" I'd say a preference you're born with has something to do with genetics.

 

That can be explained with cultural pressure. It can also be some other problem, which is unrelated to homosexuallity, but just uses this as an outlet because it is convenient. If it were not this, it could be something else. Just like poeple who cut up and hurt themselve. There are all kind of selfhurting aberations, and this can be simply one of them.

[sparhawk]

Reproduction is beside the point, that's a bi-product of sexual intercourse.

 

Actually it is just the other way around.

 

Just because traditional reproduction is limited to opposite sex couples does not validate their orientation as 'the' correct sexuality.

 

That's democracy. The majority rules.

[sparhawk]

You never know, baby spawning hetrosexual couples could be the unpopular ones a few years down the line when we're all living in closets.

 

Speaking of that, how doe chinese see this? After all, I think they have rather strict regulations (at least in some areas) about how many kids you can have. Wouldn't they be happy about it, or is there more homosexuallity there? Never heard of it though, it just came to my mind speaking of a big number of inhabitants.

[oDDity]

There's no point trying to work out some big, fancy reason why honosexuality exists, when the answer is perfectly simple. It's just a random genetic flaw, like colourblindness.

THe flawed genes are carried by women which is why it hasn't died out ,along with more complex social reasons.

I'm sure homosexuality in an animal species would lead to the affected animals never reproducing, since the instinct to mate with the opposite gender would be gone, and instinct is all animals have.

Humans aren't shackled to instinct, we do what we want, so homosexuals can still choose to have kids even in the absense of any instinct to mate with a woman.

So no, it isn't a debilatating disorder in humans, because of our unique ability to make free chocies, the downside of that being that for a lot of human history it has been pretty dangerous to your health to be homosexual.

[sparhawk]

I'm sure homosexuality in an animal species would lead to the affected animals never reproducing, since the instinct to mate with the opposite gender would be gone, and instinct is all animals have.

 

Then explain why homosexuality is also persistant in animals.

 

Humans aren't shackled to instinct, we do what we want,

 

LOL! You really believe that, do you?

[OrbWeaver]

I think there has been enough research done to validate sexual orientation as genetic. Society is just so caught up in seeing things as being either black or white, when there are far more possible outcomes. Some people are genetically inclined to heterosexuality, some homosexuality and some fit in the middle.

 

You mean, actually genetic as in "carried by genes made up of DNA", or are you referring to "gay by nature" as opposed to a lifestyle choice?

 

I am well aware that sexuality is considered inherent, in that people cannot simply choose a different sexuality, but I am unaware of any research which has identified homosexuality as a hereditary trait caused by DNA.

[oDDity]

Then explain why homosexuality is also persistant in animals.

I've already told you twice. The gene responsible is carried by normal heterosexual women without them being affected, and then passed onto their kids. That means the disease can never die out.

 

LOL! You really believe that, do you?

 

Uhh..yes. Give me an example of something that is possible to do which you can't choose to do.

Even the major natural instincts like sex, reproduction, eating, drinking, sleeping, you can choose not to do them.

[OrbWeaver]

I've already told you twice. The gene responsible is carried by normal heterosexual women without them being affected, and then passed onto their kids. That means the disease can never die out.

 

Whether or not there as some genetic basis, given that homo/bi/heterosexuality is a continuum the idea of a single gene which switches it on or off is absurd.

[sparhawk]

I've already told you twice. The gene responsible is carried by normal heterosexual women without them being affected, and then passed onto their kids. That means the disease can never die out.

 

You are aware that crossover and other mutations can effect all kind of genes, so if the gene (if it even exists) would have no effect there would be NO way to carry it over several hundred thouisands of years without getting lost. The fact that it is preserved means either that it has some value, or that the neccessary mutation is so frequent that it can not get lost easily.

[sparhawk]

Whether or not there as some genetic basis, given that homo/bi/heterosexuality is a continuum the idea of a single gene which switches it on or off is absurd.

 

For the argument it doesn't really matter, wether it would be single gene or a group thereof.

[OrbWeaver]

For the argument it doesn't really matter, wether it would be single gene or a group thereof.

 

Or no genes at all. I'd be willing to bet that it is possible to find pairs of identical twins, one of whom is gay and the other heterosexual. Not every single last detail of behaviour is completely specified by DNA, as this would require a massive amount of DNA with no particular evolutionary advantage.

[sparhawk]

Not every single last detail of behaviour is completely specified by DNA, as this would require a massive amount of DNA with no particular evolutionary advantage.

 

Well, I would say that sexual behaviour has a VERY high priority on the list of evolutionary requirements, and therefore I would expect that this is indeed genetically determined. Of course the DNA doesn't determine wether you go to McDonalds or in some first class restaurant today, but the type of food is pretty much predetermined. Saying that sex is irrelevant for reproduction, what DNA is all about, seems a pretty strange line of argumentation.

[OrbWeaver]

Well, I would say that sexual behaviour has a VERY high priority on the list of evolutionary requirements, and therefore I would expect that this is indeed genetically determined.

 

The existence of sexual behaviour is certainly genetically predetermined. My point is that the determination of which sex to be attracted to is the final step in the chain, which may only be specified with a certain probability. For instance, a given set of genes which is present in all humans might represent "attraction to the opposite sex with a 90% probability of success". While the failure of this step in the process MAY be genetically predetermined, it may also be a random factor of development in the same way iris patterns or fingerprints are.

 

Saying that sex is irrelevant for reproduction, what DNA is all about, seems a pretty strange line of argumentation.

 

Indeed it would be, which is why I'm not saying this. As long as the genes that produce sexual behaviour work in most cases, there is room for random variation or anomalies that do not harm the species as a whole so long as they are relatively infrequent.