Is homosexuality unnatural?

pamela · March 1, 2009

originally posted by infinitenow
I suggest you are over sensitive. It was a statement of fact, no bashing. When someone believes they are acting on the will of god, reason and logic are no longer viable weapons to correct them on their misguided path.

well, you are most certainly welcome to your opinion, whether there be any truth to it or not. The point was to stay on topic.

InfiniteNow · March 1, 2009

well, you are most certainly welcome to your opinion, whether there be any truth to it or not. The point was to stay on topic.

Perhaps you'd be able and willing to help me out, then. The discussion here is about whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural. A significant amount of data was shared that it IS natural, and this position was well supported during the first three pages of the thread.

However, challenges continue to come that homosexuality is NOT natural, and the only reason presented for support of this position have been religiously based and motivated.

I commented that it is difficult to argue using logic, reason, and scientific evidence against a person who believes they are acting on the will of god and the infallibility of a book, yet that's all these people who suggest homosexuality is unnatural have to support their position.

How was I off topic? I welcome clarification so I can ensure I am aligned with the desires of the site staff such as yourself.

EDIT: I do note that HydrogenBond attempted to offer evolutionary based reasoning to support the unnatural argument, in that he says two gay people cannot reproduce. As I've already corrected him, however, that relies on a misframing of evolutionary theory, treating single instances of procreation as more important than survival of the offspring, and further... survival of the larger group. Looking merely at individual instances of procreation ignores the social benefit conferred by fellow members of the pack in aiding child survival, the broader health of the pack, and the decrease in social tensions and increase in social bonding brought by sexual activity among both same and opposite sex group members. I also specifically referenced the grandmother hypothesis for a parallel view on this suggestion. In essence, the only non-religious-based "homosexuality is unnatural" position shared has already been flatly refuted as inaccurate and based on faulty premises, hence the present argument is squarely with the religiously-supported/motivated position.

pamela · March 1, 2009

posted by Infinite
Perhaps you'd be able and willing to help me out, then. The discussion here is about whether or not homosexuality is natural or unnatural. A significant amount of data was shared that it IS natural, and this position was well supported during the first three pages of the thread.

However, challenges continue to come that homosexuality is NOT natural, and the only reason presented for support of this position have been religiously based and motivated.

Infinitenow, you were not the first to stray off topic, you happened to be the last.I am attempting to divert the topic back to a biology based discussion and not one of theology.

I commented that it is difficult to argue using logic, reason, and scientific evidence against a person who believes they are acting on the will of god and the infallibility of a book, yet that's all these people who suggest homosexuality is unnatural have to support their position.

I agree with your statement, do not be mistaken.Problem is, religious views are not scientifically based and cannot hold water on this subject. Hence my redirecting the topic of discussion back to biology:)

InfiniteNow · March 1, 2009

Thanks for the clarification. That was a very fair response. I am also not privy to whatever correction you used against those who DID bring religion into a biology forum thread, so I'm confident you weren't singling me out, and that you and the staff DID take action against the original transgressors.

pamela · March 1, 2009

I have adjusted the above post for fairness to you. I was not intentionally singling you out:)

InfiniteNow · March 2, 2009

More on the misconceptions surrounding evolution and homosexuality.

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"

Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in

hundreds of species

, from bison to

penguins

. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.

A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

Reasons why

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques,

females prefer female sexual partners

to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success,

albeit indirectly

. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a

shortage of males

- rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it

benefits groups

or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion.

One study in Samoa

found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).

For your health

Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure.

Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as

boosting fertility in women

, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see

Evolution always increases fitness

).

Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species.

There is, of course, much more. That was just something I re-read this evening and thought I'd share here. :daydreaming:

Michaelangelica · March 2, 2009

Back to HB's and my question 'What is "natural" and unnatural"

How come we even ask the question "Is homosexuality unnatural?"?

The question seems to me to imply a moral stance,(God said it was wrong) assumption (natural is 'good'; unnatural is 'bad') or value judgement. Hence the reason religion has been dragged in to the argument.

Scientifically you can point to many, many animals where homosexuality is the norm (e.g. American Bison).

Does the very frequent occurrence of the behaviour in animals (including mankind) make it "natural"?

pamela · March 2, 2009

originally posted by Michaelangelica
The question seems to me to imply a moral stance,(God said it was wrong) assumption (natural is 'good'; unnatural is 'bad') or value judgement. Hence the reason religion has been dragged in to the argument.

from dictionary.com
natural
1. existing in or formed by nature
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science

I do not think that we should place an immoral/moral view on this subject. There are reasons why homosexuality occurs in nature.

In Infinitnows last post he refers to this

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words

I find this interesting. Does the female choose to stay with the other female to insure that the offspring have maternal double duty to ensure their survival? And being so close, share a form of intimacy to bond the family unit together? Just speculation, but these are the types of questions that further help us to understand that this is naturally occurringThe only judgement placed on homosexuality is derived from religion, which does not dictate the processes of nature, only the thoughts of it's believers.

Michaelangelica · March 17, 2009

Gay ducks derail repopulation plan

Gay ducks derail repopulation plan: Scientific American Blog

Michaelangelica · March 17, 2009

I do not think that we should place an immoral/moral view on this subject.

I agree, however we have and do.

Galapagos · March 17, 2009

Has anyone ever heard of the tribe called "Sambia" studied by anthropologist Gilbert Herdt?

Apparently the group of New Guineans have a masculinization ritual that involves homosexual acts between younger and senior male tribesman.

The Sambia Tribe
"A crowd of men hem the boys in beside a pool in the brook. A war leader picks out a sharp stick of cane and sticks it deep inside the boys nostrils until he bleeds profusely into the stream of a pool, an act greeted by loud war cries." (Herdt, p. 85) The men repeat the war chant for each boy. Here if the initiate tries to escape he will be treated worst then the others - this brutality is certainly overwhelming and astonishing. Older men now tell the boys that the bachelors are going to copulate with them orally in order to make them grow. The whole purpose of this is because several elders testify that boys are unable to mature into men unless they ingest semen and that all men have, “eaten the penis”. After formal ceremonies end, the bachelors make erotic advances to the boys and homosexual activity takes place outside on the darkened dance ground. "Not all initiates will participate in this ceremonial homosexual activity, but in about five days later several will have perform fellatio several times." (Herdt, pp. 87-91) It is quite astonishing to see the men who are known to be so prudish to participate in homosexual activity so openly and welcoming. Boys would even seek out their favorite bachelors by openly stimulating their genitalia. There is no doubt that the first and second stage initiates have developed an erotic attraction toward their inseminators.

Here is another link with some detailed accounts of the rituals:

Intro to Cultural Anthropology: The Sambia

I was pointed to this tribe by a friend on another forum, and am still interested in reading more about them or other tribes like them. There are a lot of interesting questions raised by this tribe, but the one in the title(Is homosexuality unnatural?) seems to me answered unequivocally with a big "No". Homo sapiens in their natural habitat will engage in homosexual acts, and it can even play a pivotal role in their ritual and culture.

sman · April 26, 2009

Natural/unnatural has very little meaning for me. Best definition I read further up in thread (I forget who...sorry) "if it happens in nature, I'll call it natural"

But a lot of behavior does not happen in nature that COULD be biologically growable. Because nature hasn't grown it yet, doesn't mean it's unnatural. Furthermore, that homosexuality happens in humans is enough for me to call it a product of nature without referencing the behavior of bonobos or exotic birds. WE are a product of nature.

Maybe what's really being talked about in this thread is weather homosexuality is BENEFICIAL TO THE GENOTYPE. This is a much more concrete concept. It could be argued that ANY behavior that's co-opted to strengthen group cohesion (over competing groupes) in social animals may benefit the genotype and thereby be selected for. I don't think this is the case for homosexuality in humans. (I think it IS the case for homosexuality in bonobos, and maybe other animals.)

Sexual deviation, in ANY direction away from straightup hetero procreation, is much more tolerated by biology in males than in females. A lot can go wrong in the wireing for sexual behavior in males and not need be trimmed back by selection. If 5% or so work out...that'll do. It's very different for females. Every one is preciouse. This is magnified in our species by the prolonged gestation and childrearing.

I have more thoughts here, but if this thread is to continue I think we should disentangle the biological discussion from the ethical one. Both are meaningful but the terms cross up.

InfiniteNow · April 26, 2009

Maybe what's really being talked about in this thread is weather homosexuality is BENEFICIAL TO THE GENOTYPE. This is a much more concrete concept. It could be argued that ANY behavior that's co-opted to strengthen group cohesion (over competing groupes) in social animals may benefit the genotype and thereby be selected for..

You are quite right. There is another idea to supplement what you describe whereby homosexuals may be useful in raising the children of their kin... That having a gay brother or cousin or something brings more resources and care to a young kin member... an idea which closely parallels the grandmother hypothesis.

Grandmother hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The grandmother hypothesis is meant to explain why menopause, rare in mammal species, arose in human evolution, and how late life infertility could actually confer an evolutionary advantage. The hypothesis suggests that this is because of risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth and the relative importance of parental investment to the human species. Grandmotherly investment may also be important in the few other animals which experience menopause, such as whales. Kristen Hawkes [1]originated the hypothesis, and G.C. Williams was the first to posit that menopause may be protective.

Both pregnancy and childbirth are extremely detrimental to the health and longevity of women. Pregnancy increases a woman’s caloric intake requirements and childbirth exposes women, especially older women, to deadly infections. For these reasons physical anthropologists think that older women in primitive times were less productive child bearers than younger women.

It is conceivable that older mothers that lost their fertility were able to spend more of their time helping, protecting and teaching their children and grandchildren. Such an investment of time is referred to by behaviorists as parental investment. Experiments and observation have shown that those animals that have had time invested in them by family members, in the form of protection and education, are much more likely to live to the age at which they are able to reproduce.

Anyway, I think part of this thread... and why it asks about homosexuality being natural... has to do with the silly arguments we get from indoctrinated minds who simply come to assert "homosexuality is unnatural," and then present arguments laden with logical fallacies and false premises, arguments that twist the way the actual world works to justify their belief in iron age fairy tales and the teachings of tribal peoples who didn't even understand germ theory... that is, of course, if they bother to present an argument for their position at all.

The simple fact is... It happens in nature, so is natural. :naughty:

Larv · April 26, 2009

The simple fact is... It happens in nature, so is natural. :naughty:

Questions that require a “no” answer:

Is pedophilia unnatural?