Is homosexuality unnatural?

[lemit]

Well, speaking only scientifically, how do you equate left-handedness with homosexuality? How would you equate left-handedness with any kind of sexuality? They don't seem very equatable to me.

 

Added by edit:

 

I know there are good people who want to believe that the cartoon depicts the roots of bigotry, or something like that. But hold on. I would be disappointed if a good scientific forum adheres to the constraining principles of dogma. And that dogma may be operative here in constraining the fresh waters of free thought. Not a good for a scientific forum to do.

 

I am opposed to all forms discrimination against homosexuality, heterosexual, bisexuality, and transexuality. I am equally opposed to all forms of dogma that are in the business of assigning bigotry to philosophers who are in the business of asking hard questions.

 

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain.

 

--lemit

[Jway]

Interesting discourse, this thread is.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Larv,

 

Personally I am hoping that there is no chromosomal "gay marker" or if there is that the scientific community never divulges or tries to use it. Seriously, think of religious-hatred induced abortions of unborn gay fetuses?

 

Though think of the sociologic paradox such a condition would cause: The folks most hating gays and wish'n 'em all dead, being the folks picketing Planned Parenthood. Ha.

 

Serves them right, actually. There is something balancing about the notion of haters having gay children and ultimately shifting away from the conservative rote. I saw this with Arlan Spector when his son come out in the late 80's and to some respects even w/ Cheney. I would expect Cheney might be one who would opt for the abortion if given the chance. Good thing he didn't.

 

Besides, I think that being gay might be tied to the notion of codomenance with some other highly adventageous trait. I say this because of a gay man (or woman) to procreate, then their genes would not get passed on. If their genes were less likely to be passed on, then given well-understood trends of genetic drift, that trait would be wiped out of existence, i.e., it should be a genetic lethal trait and therefore be at no level higher than 0.2%--but this in not what we observe.

 

So then the question might be: which trait might gay-maleness be tied to. Let's just do a little empirical journey through the stereotypic professions held by gay-men: hair-dresser, fashion designer, author, photographer, sculptor, musician, poet, waiter, and writer. Do these professions have anything in common? Yes, ultra-high degrees of creativity!!!! The value for societies ability to advance over other civilizations is in its levels of creativity. Therefore, the gay-gene would be beneficial for communal advancement. Therefore an abortion-test to rid families of this scourge wound not only be sad, but also it would be to the long-term detriment of society.

 

Good luck in spreading your message. Tolerance is one thing, but total acceptance will be elusive for some time, I fear. Folks naturally "hate." I don't know why, but they do. I'm no exception. I lived in Indonesia for 3 years where the natives hate the Chinese. Naturally I hung with the natives (since 98% of the town I was in was native Bugis.) Long story short, even though I "thought" I was immune to their culture wars, when I came home to America, when I encountered a Chinese person I felt a previously unknown feeling of disgust. Don't worry, I'm not Sinophobic anymore. When I went off to college at UCDavis I purposely arranged to share an apartment with two Chinese roommates.

 

Worked like a charm. But that's the point, familiarity helps people understand that societally induced stereotypes should not be used to access others. This type of argument is inherently fallacious.

 

The point is that more people understand a subgroup, the less they are afraid of that subgroup. The problem is that straight folks know tons of gay ones, but the subject is never broached. Why not? If you're a devote Catholic, eventually everyone's going to know that you're a devote Catholic sooner or later. However, many gay men and women are often quite tight lipped about their orientation around the non-gays in their lives. I can totally understand that.

 

BTW, I am a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of "Don't tread on me." Do I make an issue of it, I try not. Everyone I work with knows, and many of the students do--all of the gay ones do. Why do I know? Because they all came out of the woodwork last year after the wedding. It was funny how they all knew. Yes, it was good to get our eleven year relationship validated in front of 200 of our friends and family. It is different than before. But at the same time, this is New England and people are to-themselves: they don't wanna know your business because they don't what you knowing theirs. But like I said, it's like religion. All my good friends know that I'm Moslem and will not eat pork. People who aren't close, need not be bothered with discussing such fact. It's the same way with being gay, the restrictions are just a bit different. Past a certain stage of friendship, how can you keep such central parts of your being hidden...and still consider that friendship to be valid?

 

Then again, there is always a downside of outing ones' self to acquaintances--rejection. Ouch does that hurt. back in the 80's two "friends" replied that they could never talk or look at me again--for religious reasons. Actually, I prefer their in-your-face honesty. The worst is the false saccharine, "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin," BS, which is accompanied by false thin scared smiles. I'm just glad that the Bible-thumping part of my family from Southern Ohio showed up to the invitation of our P-Town wedding on the deck of the Boat Slip.

 

I wonder how outing myself will affect the controversial debate going on on the "Dominium" threads in the Alternative Theories board. If you think I care, 'dey got'ta 'nother thing com'n. Good luck with this thread... hopefully you'll change hearts. Though I still believe that the most hearts are changed by being open, out, unapolegtic (God, after all, made you that way) and just free to follow the inspiration in your heart to the fullest potential. Take care

[Larv]

...Science appears to be working under the false assumption that natural is better in all cases, because this is a cultural buzz word that sells soap and snake oil. What we should do is an objective study, to see if new instinct in more advanced, relative to natural instinct, based on tangible cost. This will take it out of subjective opinion and turn the subject into objectivity.

I mostly agree. But I think the question "Is homosexuality natural?" is awfully close to the question "Is homosexuality yuckie?"

 

I'm not exactly sure what is or isn't natural. Are nuclear weapons natural? Why not? Are hate and aggression natural? Why not? Are humans natural? Is the Mona Lisa natural? What about Buicks?

 

The only things I can think of that are unnatural are concoctions of religious beliefs: virgin births, resurrections, and the general run of miracles.

[InfiniteNow]

Natural and unnatural is not really a good argument, when it comes to human behavior, because all that is natural human may not be progressive for humans. For example, it is natural for animals to relieve themselves of body wastes, where they stand.

You made this same exact point in this thread back at post #19, and it was addressed in post #21. It was silly, tangential, and unrepresentative of reality then, and it still is now.

 

Moderation Note: The recent posts in this thread have been moved as they were off-topic for the biology forum. They can be found in the new thread "Same-sex Marriage". Please post any sociological discussions of marriage in the new thread.

 

 

 

EDIT FROM INOW:

The below is a post I made after this one which was mistakenly moved. I'm adding it to this post in this edit so it appears in the correct order. Sorry for any confusion.

 

 

 

I thought this was interesting:

 

 

Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study - Telegraph

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

 

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

 

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

 

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

 

A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.

 

Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.

 

He said same homosexual behaviour was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.

 

Dr Bailey said: "It's clear same-sex sexual behaviour extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies.

 

"Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said.

 

"But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

[Hasanuddin]

It was probably good to move those comments. I apologize for contributing to causing the discussion to slide from science to politics. It is such a razor thin delineation.

 

Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic. As such, rules of population dynamics would suggest genetic drift would have wiped it out of the population eons ago. But that didn't happen. Apparently all human populations, regardless of religion/culture, have approx the same proportion of gay phenotypes as each other. This homogeneity of statistics between isolated group would suggest that this gene expression (assuming genetics) that has some sort of codominance aspect of benefit to the overall survivability of the group.

 

From a cursory view of stereotypes professions predominated by gay men (florist, designer, writer, painter, hair-dresser, fashion, etc) a common denominator is creativity and three-dimensional thought. Now, if either of these two traits are tied to the genes resulting in the gay phenotype, then you have a solution to your question.

 

(Which leads directly to politics, if there are gay-genes, would you regulate/allow/stop abortions by bigoted families who think that bringing a gay child into the world would be either a family dishonor or too difficult for that child to bear.)

[InfiniteNow]

Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic.

I disagree, Hasanuddin. Perhaps you should read the thread again. In fact, many of my own posts brought forth information as to why homosexuality CAN exist and continue to propogate genetically.

 

I did so as recently as yesterday, but it looks like that post was mistakenly moved with the thread split to the same-sex marriage discussion. More here. [EDIT] I've put the original back into this thread at post #158 [/EDIT]

 

Either way, the simple fact is that if homosexuality were "genetically lethal," then it would never survive past a small handful of generations. Really, 'nuff said.

 

Again, check out earlier posts in the thread. Many of my own have already addressed that specific misperception you've raised. Enjoy. :cup:

[Larv]

Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic. As such, rules of population dynamics would suggest genetic drift would have wiped it out of the population eons ago. But that didn't happen. Apparently all human populations, regardless of religion/culture, have approx the same proportion of gay phenotypes as each other. This homogeneity of statistics between isolated group would suggest that this gene expression (assuming genetics) that has some sort of codominance aspect of benefit to the overall survivability of the group.

Let me tackle this one to clear up a couple of misconceptions: Firstly, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically lethal; indeed it may actually be genetically beneficial. And, secondly, homosexuality would not necessarily be a consequence of random genetic drift. Instead it would be a consequence of selection, either sexual selection or natural selection or kin selection, or any combination thereof .

 

Please bear in mind the credible theory of kin selection. Where homosexuality is concerned kin selection might render it beneficial by providing “altruistic” support to the population, such a non-parental child nurturing.

 

Genetic drift would be quite a different thing, but if a population bottlenecked somehow in favor of its homosexual members (I’m not sure how this could happen) then this might disproportionately reduce the reproductive members and engage NS. But such a thing could happen only if a population were small enough to allow it.

 

Personally, I think kin selection is a good argument in favor of the position that homosexuality is both natural and beneficial.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Larv,

 

I believe we are not in disagreement. Yes, I know of kin selection, but I was talking on a grander scale. Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies. Anthropologists note this village behavior going back many thousands of years. Kin selection considers what happens within the nuclear family. What I’m talking is societal advancement on the village, valley, and nation status.

 

Going back to the notion of a co-dominance between the gay phenotype and another societally beneficial trait. I put forward that stereotype, although not necessarily true for the individual, are based on global trends. Although I don’t know the first thing about cutting hair, there are a huge number of gay hairdressers, same thing with artists, musicians, designers, and glitzy financial analysts. Now, lets assume the people gravitate towards jobs in which they have some sort of special talent over the general population. Now, consider the job requirements of these various careers. Within those job requirements, are there any common denominators? My answer is yes: creativity, multi-variant thinking, 3D visualization, etc.

 

Now, going back to society. Does society benefit by having a few, less-likely to reproduce, individuals who possess enhanced ability to create, invent, and produce advancements? Yes. Just look at the 16th century along the old spice route. The societies to invent, copy, and control the weapons of gunpowder first were the ones that advanced, and some of those didn’t embrace the new technology right away have virtually vanished. (I believe the weapons had something to do with that.) My point is that this type of warring is not new to that period. Nor should any believe that Hitler invented genocide, he merely perfected it. My point is the gunpowder was only one kink in a very punctuate human, often violent, evolution. There were many other advancements that caused other kinks in the line. There were also surely a great number of advancements (like the one’s we see in science today) that globally benefit mankind.

 

--Creativity has turned into an evolutionary variable when it leads to weapon creation.

--The stereotypical professions of gay men have high degrees of creativity.

--Therefore, could the expression of enhanced creativity lead to societal co-dominance?

[InfiniteNow]

Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies.

Ermmm... No.

 

Chimps, gazelle, dolphins, ants, bees... I could keep going, but your assertion is plainly false.

 

 

 

Although I don’t know the first thing about cutting hair, there are a huge number of gay hairdressers, same thing with artists, musicians, designers, and glitzy financial analysts.

Errmm... you apparently don't know the first thing about lots of stuff. There are also HUGE numbers of heterosexuals in those same vocations.

 

What you're doing is using inaccurate stereotypes as the foundation of your speculations, and you are, quite simply, wrong. Try using facts as the base of your argument and you'll do much better.

 

 

Sorry, but your whole post was crap, and flat out unmistakably false on multiple fronts.

 

 

Parody: Since all black people like fried chicken and watermelon, this explains why they made better slaves, since farming abilities must be innate. :cup:

[Zythryn]

Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies.

 

Ermmm... No.

 

Chimps, gazelle, dolphins, ants, bees... I could keep going, but your assertion is plainly false.

 

And wolves! Don't forget wolves! :cup:

[lemit]

I need to repeat the apology I posted on the "Same Sex Marriage" thread:

 

When I conceded the case could be made that homosexuality was not natural, I was boxing myself into an over-specific use of the word "natural" and forgetting that even I had used the word differently before that.

 

Sorry.

 

--lemit

[Hasanuddin]

Oh well, I suppose if serves me right for comparing man to animals at all. I should have just said man forms societies, which would have been perfectly correct. I didn't mean to dis' other city-societies of the animal kingdom, like the termites. But humans are different than swarms of bees, ants, or termites because we are not clones. The other animals don't form semi-static villages, that raid and compete against each other (tho one could make an argument for chimps.)

 

I also knew that it is dangerous ground to ever talk of stereotypes. I agree, such practice is dangerous, and not applicable to the individual. I guess it is also dangerous practice to suggest that there could be any beneficial aspects being gay could have for the gay individuals themselves, and not just as nursemaids for siblings.

 

Still nothing on the idea of differently expressed phenotype (I proposed creativity) that would be of benefit to survivability of the clan, village, etc

[InfiniteNow]

But humans are different than swarms of bees, ants, or termites because we are not clones. The other animals don't form semi-static villages, that raid and compete against each other

Actually, yes... they do. Just look at wolves, for example. :lol:

I'd also challenge you to explain for all of us just how precisely you think human groupings are "different" than swarms of bees, ants, or termites, and how cloning has anything whatsoever to do with societal groupings.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi InfiniteNow,

 

What a great lead-in! I was actually considering your previous sarcasms about wolves, monkeys, and such. The reason I was thinking about those two examples is because both of them display characteristics worth noting. Both types of animals exile young males (the lone wolf or the single-roaming bachelor monkey.) The reason why I think of this behavior is because it does not exhibit kin-supportive behavior. So the question becomes, does lone-wolf/bachelor-monkey behavior relate more to gay men or are they normally doting aides to their sister’s children??

 

I can only speak from my own personal experience and observations, but the gay-community I’ve known (Sacramento, Hartford, and Boston) is made up of a bunch of true lone-wolves. True, many gay-men are employed in health, education, and human services… but ask them where their “parents” or “family” live, and it’s usually far away. And if there is family nearby, the last thing the majority would what to do is “mind” the kids of their siblings. Sure, I’ve known gay parents who do good jobs raising children, but that is not the norm. And, those that are raising kids, are not raising nephews or nieces. But my point is, gay men, or at least the one’s I’ve known, are not hardwired to raise their siblings’ kids, or at least I have never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

There is also other evidence that being gay is more akin to the lone wolf, versus a nuclear familial help-maid. Just look at modern demographics, gay men ghettoize. To do that one must leave the family. Even within small villages in places like Indonesia, gay men self-segregate into a house of their own. The Bugis culture is an extremely established tradition-run society. I met an anthropologist in Bugis-country who was studying the transvestite tradition of that culture. As mentioned, the transvestites had their own little house in the center of town. Apparently, in the days before the Dutch conquered them, that was a mighty kingdom and the transvestites served as counsel to the sultan. To this day, remnants of that ancient tradition still exist in remote villages.

 

This all brings me back full circle to the question (which has not been addressed yet) of codominance and/or the expression of the gay phenotype to inject greater degrees of savvy (e.g., transvestite counselors) which thereby protects and enhances the survivability of all members of the village, not just of the family. If the village’s chances are improved, then ultimately the survivability of one’s siblings and of their children, be improved.

Interesting aside: The Bugis culture was thousands of years old when the Dutch arrived with the unfair advantage of gunpowder. Even so the Bugis gave the Dutch the greatest battles of their 350 year occupation. The Bugis had a kingdom that spread across much of modern Indonesia and the southern Philippines. Their culture has always valued shipmaking and dagger-smithing. Even today, the Bugis of Bulukumba build custom boats for international clients. At the time of the initial battles with the Dutch, they had the fastest ships on Earth at the time (the proto-type of the schooner.) They would swarm slow moving Galleons, kill everyone on board, loot, and then burn. After the bloodiest battles destroyed the Bugis main land-based “homeland,” they took to the sea in search of revenge. For the next 300+ years, the Bugis hijacked, ambushed, and killed any foreign vessel. Between tribes of Caucasians, they could not differentiate… nor did they truly care. Piracy became a way of life. Therefore, all ships fated to pass between the Indian and Pacific oceans were always warned of the dreaded Bugis men, because if you’re not careful, the Bugis men will get you. To keep children in line… a sailor could have made the mistake of making the tribe singular to scare kids into line, “Watch out, cause if you’re bad the boogieman will get you." At least, the same anthropologist recounted to me, that is one scenario considered to account for this word/concept.

[Turtle]

Interesting aside: The Bugis culture was thousands of years old when the Dutch arrived with the unfair advantage of gunpowder. Even so the Bugis gave the Dutch the greatest battles of their 350 year occupation. The Bugis had a kingdom that spread across much of modern Indonesia and the southern Philippines. Their culture has always valued shipmaking and dagger-smithing. Even today, the Bugis of Bulukumba build custom boats for international clients. At the time of the initial battles with the Dutch, they had the fastest ships on Earth at the time (the proto-type of the schooner.) They would swarm slow moving Galleons, kill everyone on board, loot, and then burn. After the bloodiest battles destroyed the Bugis main land-based “homeland,” they took to the sea in search of revenge. For the next 300+ years, the Bugis hijacked, ambushed, and killed any foreign vessel. Between tribes of Caucasians, they could not differentiate… nor did they truly care. Piracy became a way of life. Therefore, all ships fated to pass between the Indian and Pacific oceans were always warned of the dreaded Bugis men, because if you’re not careful, the Bugis men will get you. To keep children in line… a sailor could have made the mistake of making the tribe singular to scare kids into line, “Watch out, cause if you’re bad the boogieman will get you." At least, the same anthropologist recounted to me, that is one scenario considered to account for this word/concept.

 

fascinating! if i may take things further aside without sinking this topic, (although homosexuality & Greeks go hand in hand in many accounts), i recall that in the Odyssey Homer has Penelope warn her kids to behave or the boogy man would get them.:confused: now i don't recall if it was Chapman's Homer, but in any regard there may be various translations of whatever word Homer used that ended up as 'boogyman' in the version i read. something to maybe look into for someone versed in Greek.

[Michaelangelica]

Actually, yes... they do. Just look at wolves, for example.

LOL :confused: A nod to my man, Zyth (? what IS going on here:naughty:)

I'd also challenge you to explain for all of us just how precisely you think human groupings are "different" than swarms of bees, ants, or termites, and how cloning has anything whatsoever to do with societal groupings.

me too

Gay people are in all occupations politics, literature, army, navy, teaching, medicine, football, the arts, etc Stereotypes are just that. Not all gays "mince" like those on TV shows.

 

Were the Indonesian Boogy Men the ones the Phantom was fighting?

Were they gay? ;)

 

"The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery and the lash."

(Winston Churchill)

That’s not to say sailors spent all their time singing sea chanteys and tying knots. As in any environment in which males live in close quarters for extended periods (prison and boarding school are the other well-known venues in this respect), both consensual and nonconsensual homosexual behavior did and doubtless does occur aboard ships — see for example Barry Burg’s Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition (1995), which lends vivid new meaning to such expressions as “shiver me timbers” and “thar she blows.”

The Straight Dope: Rum, sodomy, and the lash: Did the Royal Navy supply ships with "peg boys" for sex?