Is homosexuality good or bad for nature?

I don’t have to as the burden of proof is on you. You are the one talking about “gay genes” so you are the one who has to provide evidence that they exist. It’s not up to me to provide evidence that they don’t exist as that is a logical fallacy and a strawman argument. Many geneticists have studied human homosexuality and there are numerous reports in the scientific literature. None of them have come close to identifying a specific underlying gene or genes. At some point in the future a definitive gene may be discovered, but until such time the scientific consensus will be that there are none. If you think you can do better then do please go ahead. I look forward to reading your paper in Nature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<P>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that's not unreasonable to suppose that there are "gay genes".

If sexual attraction between both sexes can be considered genetically determined (that or would be just random or fashion that most males are attracted to females and vice-versa), woudn't be unexpected that variations in sexual attraction can be genetically determined.

There wasn't a polemic research that has shown that human male gays had something different in their brains? Then more recently the same thing was found in sheeps? Was that mentioned already in this thread?

That's not unequivocally evidence for genetically causes, of course, but could be that something genetic causes that, or make it prone to happen, although that wouldn't not be necessarily the only cause of that difference.

But I think it could be also somewhat "learnt", at least to some degree. Maybe even overcoming an hypothetic genetic determined hetero or homossexual tendence. More or less like aversion or appreciation for certain foods in different cultures.


Another detail that I don't know if was already mentioned... it seems that it's being talk mainly about male homosexuality, with almost no regard for the respective hehavior happening in females. Sorry if that wasn't the case, I still haven't read all the thread, but that's what I generally see in news or discussions. I guess that female homossexuality may be something different in its origin, if there are biological roots. Maybe even for "cultural" roots.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you need to ask lexicographers why homosexuality exist. I think what they will certainly respond is "because there exist "heterosexually."

Joe, homosexuality that you`ve known is applicable only in humans and not in animals. You have no right to enter the realms of animals (like cats, dogs, rats, etc) or you will cease as a rational being.

Homosexuality is seen in the evil lust of the flesh. Nature dictates that we act in the human way. The fact remains the same, there are homosexuals who are not engaged in lustrous acts and there are also homosexuals who pervert their ways. The latter being biblically prohibited.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hercules Rockefeller

I never stated that the 'gay gene' existed, I merely made an assumption to demonstrate a point. While a gene or series of genes may cause a disadvantage in one form, they may provide a survival advantage in another form. The allele scenario is the best way in which I could demonstrate this.

However, you clearly stated that the 'gay gene' doesn't exist. That's an absolute statement, which requires evidence of some sort. He who asserts must prove...

Scientists haven't found them yet, hence they don't exist??? And you're lecturing me about logic fallacies?!

Correct. However, the 'consensus' is an assumption. A reasonable assumption, definitely. But absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence...

 

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is due to gentic inheritance. If someone wants to practice homesuality, that is their sexual preference. That is their right. But the original question is "is it good for nature."

Homosexuality is a deviant form of Nature and does not allow for the propagation of the species, in so far as we are restrictng the discussion tio humans. Homosexuality is a way of gratifying one's sexual desire without heterogenous copulation. Do as one wishes, but it is a deviant form of Nature. Consider this: If ALL humans were homosexuals, then humans would soon become extinct. Then we would no longer be part of Nature.

 

I would suggest it is not a "mistake", but rather a natural expression of perfectly normal behavior. The basic evolutionary dogma states that variation exists within a population, like longer and shorter beaks in pigeons. Selection determines survival rates and so on. We've all heard it (or at least I hope so!)

Well, homosexuality is something that exists in the population just like coarse or smooth hair, lighter or darker skin and so on - and it would make sense that a continuum would exist there, too, as it does in the case of other phenotypic traits.

Our aversion to it comes directly from religious sources, and these religious aversions stem directly from the role of religion in society, which is a to act as a behavioral control mechanism. Why discourage homosexuality? Well, it increases the population growth rate. This is a means of spreading the religion, and religion is linked to politics, finance, etc. Classic Imperialist strategy - breed them out. Controlled breeding is a key component of every religion and is utilized in phenomenally complex ways such as celibacy in the Catholic Priesthood. This keeps the money in the church. It's a brilliant, highly effective strategy.

Religion wants population to expand. Therefore homosexuality is discouraged. Eating pork is potentially dangerous (unless you cook it properly), so it is discouraged for the same reason. Expand and retain the population.

Ultimately homosexuality is just sexuality, and I guess we could draw a Venn diagram to demonstrate how sexuality itself is separate from reproduction and interpersonal bonding, yet intersects both of these. This explains why two strangers can meet, have sex, and part ways without reproducing (at least intentionally) or even really forming a relationship. Likewise two people can have a very deep, loving relationship without having sex. Or two people can reproduce without ever meeting or forming a relationship - simply for the purpose of satisfying the drive to propagate - and so on.

Sexuality is just sexuality, it's neither good or bad, though it is necessary for reproduction and ultimately survival. If we met, fell in love, but never had any desire to rub our genitalia against other's genitalia in the pursuit of tactile pleasure then none of us would be here.

Thanks to modern technology, though, even homosexuals are now capable of reproducing, so the old population control argument is becoming less important. Granted it is easier for a Lesbian couple to reproduce, but males could certainly interchange chromosomes in a test tube and synthetically replace the nucleus of a human oocyte. There is no biological reason a person cannot have two fathers.

I think it's time society got used to the fact that homosexuality has always and will always exist. As previously stated it is not good or bad, except in terms of its satisfaction of the human drives for companionship, sexuality and even reproduction. The consequences of these events could be seen as positive or negative depending on the situation.

 

i would have thought that homosexuality resulted from the advantages of people being really attracted to other people. making people really horny meant they sought same-sex when they felt like it, but overall pumped out more babies = good for nature. nature spent its time encoding us with what to find attractive, and forgot that sometimes men were going to share those attributes?

 

There's also a morphological aspect to it. Relative discordance in the size of the hemispheres or something. Heterosexual women and homosexual men are bilaterally similar, heterosexual males and homosexual women discordant. Think the paper just came out. That being said, it really has no 'bad' or 'good' bearing on nature in our species in any way. Just is.

 

The Gay Animal Kingdom by Jonah Lehrer

Mod note:
Hi delineator,
I draw your attention to #5 in the Rules and guidelines:

"5. It is suggested that posters use links wherever possible rather than posting large quantities of material that exists elsewhere. ... Any overly-long copy&pasted material with no reference link will be deleted."

If you want to edit your post with some selected quotations from the article or provide a direct link to the article then that would be fine.


From seedmagazine.com
JUN/JUL 06 issue of Seed:
"EVOLUTION"

The Gay Animal Kingdom: The effeminate sheep & other problems with Darwinian sexual selection.

by Jonah Lehrer

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she's no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality. (See article for more)

 

delineator,

-20 points for copy and pasting!
+5 points for thread necromancy!

 

You are incorrect. Recent evidence as published in New Scientist claims that homosexuality is a result of a misplaced gene that ordinarily increases sexual attraction to the opposite sex. When that gene happens to be expressed once in a while in the wrong sex, it causes homosexuality. So, it's a gene that in the vast majority of cases is beneficial to the species. In that sense, homosexuality is a side effect of something that increases heterosexuality (remember, human females are some of the few primates that are almost always ovulating). The 10% or so of homosexuals this gene (or set of genes) creates must necessarily not be an overall deficit to the species, otherwise the gene would decrease in frequency.

 

Can you provide a link please?

 

quite obvious

answer me this then.
why in the world did God create a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina?
obviously, God planned for a man to be with a woman and vice versa. It just seems unnatural to be homosexual.To me it just doesn’t seem natural to change the order of the universe.

Is a homosexual born a homosexual?
I am opposed to the idea that people are “born” being homosexual. The reason why I say so is because people that are or even support homosexuals say that it is a person’s choice to be whoever they want to be, so technically this wouldn’t be since the day you were born. You couldn't have possibly made such a big decision without your brain being fully grown and developed. This topic is quite sensitive, especially in today’s society, but people shouldn’t be afraid to speak their minds. Do I think homosexuals should be treated unequally? No, they are human beings and should be treated like one. But I disagree with homosexuality.

Some people may say I’m close-minded. I disagree because I do have friends that are gay and I don’t judge them. I just don’t believe what they believe. And that’s perfectly fine because people ARE supposed to have opinions. If opinions didn’t exist then what if President Obama decided to not make any changes and even start a draft, people would listen and do it because they wouldn’t have their own opinion on this and fight against it. We, as a nation and world, need opinions whether they are good or bad. We have freedom of speech.

 

I've read that the incidence of homosexuality increases in societies that are very densely populated. I'm not sure of the reference, because I read about it some 30-40 years ago. It makes me wonder whether homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, as some claim, or whether the increasing incidence of the practice populations reach a certain density--I remember it was 80 per square mile--suggeststhat there is some sort of psychological reaction to that density. They were using lab. mice in the study, and comparing mouse behaviour with Human activity. I assume they were also doing a study of humans in densely populated cities at the same time, or were relying on studies that had been done previously.

 

That's assuming god exists.

"Obviously"?
Maybe god wanted a bit of variety.

Yet it occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

I think you're misinterpreting the word "choice" or not looking at the subject correctly.

Hmm, and some people with a supposedly "fully grown and developed" brain still can't think...

Really?

It's not a belief.

What about bone-headed opinions?
Do we need them?

 

Homosexuality is good for nature. If you don't overdo it.

Biologist often say natural selection acts only on individuals, not on the species or community or groupings at any level. Here is where i disagree. I say natural selection acts to promote the way you see things now, i.e. on all levels.

Therefore homosexuals may not reproduce themselves, but their behavior help the group survive as a whole.

An example. Often in animals, there is an alpha male who gets all the females. The other males cannot mate as they want. Hence they engage in homosexual behavior or masturbation to relieve sexual pressure. The alternative is to fight for a mate, which may end in injury/death, thereby reducing the effective hunting strength of the group.

Assuming the presence of a "gay gene". i use this term very loosely. There has been studies that show gay men are more likely to be a later sibling than an earlier sibling, and the cause is attributed to the higher levels of estrogen in the womb during subsequent pregnancies. Hence the cause for gay may not be really a gene, but some other biological factors that can be passed down through the generations.

Now consider a scenario of 2 brothers. One of them is gay. One is straight. The gay wouldn't compete with the straight for a mate, but he would stay and contribute to the strength of the family. In other words he helps survival of the straight. Now this "gay gene" or whatever should be present in the straight, just not activated. He can then pass it down to the next generation.

 

Nature is in control it doesnt really matter if its good or bad "nature" in every sense of the word will deal with homosexuality appropriately. If its "bad" for nature and not intended "nature" will eventually wipe it out. If its "good" for nature then it will persist. You have to realise that "nature's" good and bad is completely different than the man made versions of "good and bad"

The survival of our society and way of life may be at a conflict of interest with nature as in it is good for "us" and bad for "nature" I don't think there is any question of which one will win.

 

No, it's you that's missing the point. Herc was spot on. Clown.