• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Homosexuality

Gaz_hmmmm

Gaz_hmmmm

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,086
Location
England, UK
I don't really know how to put this but I'll try anyway...

I can understand hertrosexuality and bisexuality (I'm talking from a reproduction point of few), as these reproduce and also bisexuals bond more (I'm talking about pack animals) but I don't get homosexuality. How are they meant to pass on their genes if they can't reproduce?:\

Any one got any input or know of any psychological explanations? :\
 
I have often wondered this too. It seems against human nature to be homosexual, which is why I often wonder whether its not so much the way you were born, verses the way you are raised. Environment over heredity. Unless there is some sort of mutation, I don't see how people would be predestined to be gay. I would think it has more to do with environment and how you grow up and what happens in your life.

*disclaimer*
I mean no disrespect to any homosexuals though, I talk very bluntly and like when I say mutation, I don't mean you are some horrible freaks, it just would scientifically be called a mutation. I have nothing against homosexuals and I am in no way a biggot.
 
This is the way i view it.... by looking at nature.

Human beings are not the only species, or eve the only mammalian species to have homosexuals.

Penguins, dolphins, pigs, certain breeds on monkey's have all displayed homosexuality, just to name a few. And looking at it from an ecosystem point of view it makes sense.

When you have an ecosystem, things work continually to balance themselves out along the food chain. If one species becomes over populated, it throws off the food supply, other species end up dying, etc..

Homosexuality is nature's own population control. That is not to say they cannot have families, fall in love, or be naturally attracted to one another. Humanity may have broken the bonds of nature in many ways, but this i feel is not one of them, and i'm cool with that. I see nothing wrong with it.

There's been plenty of reports and studies documenting this take on it.
 
What's the evolutionary purpose of nearsightedness? Of Down's syndrome?


Right. There isn't any. Evolutionarily, they're "mistakes." I think the same is true of homosexuality. A system in our brain has evolved to make men want to have sex with women, and women want to have sex with men. Most of the time it works very well, but occasionally it doesn't; one of the ways it can malfunction leaves men wanting to have sex with men, women with women.

It's just the same way the system which forms the lenses in our eyes usually works, but sometimes doesn't.
 
Only sterile people cannot reproduce naturally. Assuming that they are not sterile, homosexuals are just as capable, and therefore, in theory at least, are just as "meant" to reproduce as heterosexuals are.

Applying your question to sterile people, though, how are sterile people meant to reproduce? Does this mean they have no reason for existing?

Your question implies that the only "purpose" for human existence is reproduction. While that may (or may not) be the ultimate "reason" to exist, is it the only one?

Since homosexuality has existed throughout recorded history, intuitively that would suggest that there is some evolutionary "purpose" for its continued existence. Let me suggest a few possibilities as to why homosexuality continues to exist (by no means intended as an exhaustive list):

1. Homosexuality is evolutionarily preserved as an orientation to maintain every possible adapting mechanism in order to be prepared for even the most extreme eventuality (e.g., extreme conditions force humans to develop hermaphroditic means of reproduction).

2. Homosexuality is an evolutionary form of population control.

3. Homosexuality is present in those individuals who possess extraordinary creative talents, thereby inducing them to fully express these talents...by freeing them from the reproductive drive, they are better equipped to express their creative abilities. This theory is a form of "the world needs ditch diggers too"...of course, nobody would really want to be endowed with anything but the most creative talents if they were also denied the drive to create reproductively.

4. Homosexuality is merely the expression of a combination of recessive genes, like blue eyes.

If you're continuing to ponder the issue, I would suggest that you think a little more outside the box...remember, the act of sex itself, at least the way in which humans engage in it, isn't solely for procreation either.
 
Excellant theories, Glowbug! I like the way you put it.
And you're right... we don't have sex soley to procreate. We do it for the fun of it. Dolphins are the only other mammal who also engage in sex for fun too.
We are attracted sexually to people for many reasons. Phermones (sp?) being one, looks, brains, etc. If the person you are attacted to is of the opposite sex, so be it.
I happen to be bisexual (hehehe.. my friends say I'm trisexual, cause I'll try anything once :P). There are just some women who I find completely attractive sexually... (I'm female btw). Then again, I'm also a very open-minded person and I view sex as a sacred act, not just for making babies (got one them, don't need another).
I think population control is the best theory out there... Nature does have a way of keeping Herself in balance.
 
The population control idea is okay, because some people have reported increased levels of homosexualitiy in stressed rats. But that doesn't really hold true in human epidemiological studies.

Some people argue that homosexuality in men comes from feminization of the brain, and the opposite in women. This could then be put down to a random genetic machinery error.
 
I very much doubt the "population control" is at all right.

First, it doesn't work. Way too few people are homosexual to make any significant difference in population growth. We have plenty of examples of groups of people who are 'overpopulated,' that is don't have enough food to keep everyone alive. They don't turn gay en masse. (Women's fertility does go way down, and the onset of puberty is greatly delayed, both population control mechanisms.)

Second, it almost certainly wouldn't happen. An inherited trait that caused homosexuality would immediately eliminate itself from the population. Population control traits generally have to apply to everyone. A trait which just knocked its carriers out of reproduction would quickly disappear. And there would no point in a trait that just stopped ~2-5% of people from reproducing -- why not just not birth those individuals in the first place, and save a lot of resources?

Most likely, it's either an 'error' that evolution was unable to correct; or else an unavoidable "side-effect" of some useful trait.
 
Under the Darwinian theory of evolution, organisms that develop genetic mutations that allow them to better cope with their environment and deal with survival pressures are more successful than those without this mutation or trait, and thus the trait becomes more prevalent.

In the modern world, however, humans are not hunted as such and enjoy very comfortable lifestyles (especially in first world/developed countries) and thus recessive traits will often surface and children born with cerebral palsy, downs syndrome etc. will thus lead lives as any other child would or at least to the fullest extent possible, depending on their condition (due to the level of care that they are able to receive).

if we see homosexuality as an inherent, recessive genetic trait, then it is easy to see how with the removal of survival pressures relating to reproduction (i.e. gay couples can use donated eggs/sperm, surrogate mothers etc.) then homosexuality as a genetic trait is allowed to flourish, as it were, or at least would not 'die out' if we were living two thousand years ago (where a gay couple, being unable to reproduce, would not pass on their genetic information etc. etc.)

I don't see homosexuality as a genetic trait, however, just a product of either a) hormonal imbalance, b) environment within which a child is raised (lack of a father figure perhaps), or c) an aesthetic. Some men find other men more attractive than women, simple as that. That being said I'm heterosexual but can still find men handsome or appreciate good looks - just not attractive in the sense I would want to be with one. Just doesn't interest me, I suppose
 
Look up "INAH3" and "hypothalamus" in any search engine and you'll see the biological reason for homosexuality. A lot of people don't want to see this information let out, because their "moral" reasons for "outlawing" homosexuality will be shot to hell. Very extensive research has pretty much proven that homosexuality has a HUGE biological component. People attracted to males have a smaller INAH3 area in the hypothalamus and people attracted to females have an larger INAH3 cluster. Plain and simple. It works out very well, typical hetero males have very large clusters, and typical homosexual females have very large clusters as well, and the same works vice versa. Granted, there is still a "nuture" component to homosexuality, but we now know that there is a very large "nature" component.

I don't want to get into the argument of whether this is a mutation or an evolutionary function or whatever you want to call it. It is what it is. For whatever reason, some humans have different sized INAH3 clusters, and depending on gender that makes you homosexual or heterosexual. It doesn't really matter why... it just *is* that way....

BTW: the way this function is set up makes it very likely that it is NOT a recessive trait, just one that happens to pop up once in a while most likely due to differing levels of sexual hormones present in the womb. They are not quite sure why this happens yet, but it does not appear to have a strictly genetic basis.
 
INAH3 was what I was talking about when I said feminization of the brain. But the question is, what causes INAH3 to have a smaller volume?
 
dragonsflame said:
Excellant theories, Glowbug! I like the way you put it.
And you're right... we don't have sex soley to procreate. We do it for the fun of it. Dolphins are the only other mammal who also engage in sex for fun too.
We are attracted sexually to people for many reasons. Phermones (sp?) being one, looks, brains, etc. If the person you are attacted to is of the opposite sex, so be it.
I happen to be bisexual (hehehe.. my friends say I'm trisexual, cause I'll try anything once :P). There are just some women who I find completely attractive sexually... (I'm female btw). Then again, I'm also a very open-minded person and I view sex as a sacred act, not just for making babies (got one them, don't need another).
I think population control is the best theory out there... Nature does have a way of keeping Herself in balance.
Click to expand...

I see ur point but i disagree......

Animals dont have the mental capabilties to make the decision that they are only going to have sex just for reproduction......The only reason they have sex is b/c of the hormones which give desire and the intense feeling to have sex.......The reproduction part is just simply a byproduct.....

Same goes for humans..... Since the early caveman days sex resulted from hormones(sex drive) and the intense pleasure the act of sex involves.....

Naturally people do what feels good......and im sure most will agree sex is prob one of the best experineces us humans will ever experience.

Sex drive is necessary to keep the animal kingdom from going extinct. If it wasnt for a sex drive then what would make animals want to reproduce?

So the pleasure vs. reproduction theory is false......All reproduction results from the instinctive desire for pleasure.....

Anyways........I just believe that homosexuality is just a mere coincidence of evolution......It just happens.......Homosexuality is a unique characteristic just like any other unique trait the animal kingdom may have...

Its a roll of the dice....

I believe that soceity is the main cause of strict heterosexuality b/c of the belief that homosexuality serves no purpose....same thing w/ bisexuality.....IF it wasnt for society sexuality wouldnt be limited to the opposite sex.....Bisexuality would be more prevalent......Notice how many women these days are openly bisexual.....Its simply b/c society deemed it much more acceptable for women than men......I beleieve many men have same sex feelings too but are not open about simply b/c of the societal view on man on man sexual relationships

Its the human mind that formed the view that sex was purely for reproductive purposes.....

Just look at the rest of the animal kinigdom......Monkeys masturbate....Masturbation is a sexual activity yet serves no reproductive purposes.....Until the last couple of decades did soceity say maturbation is natural....

Sexual feeling is the what drives us to reproduce.....In the early stone age we wouldnt reproduce merely cuz of the fact that we didnt know what reproduction was yet......Then we would go instinct and our minds never would have figured out where babies come from....

Hence, the survival of species is dependent on sexual drive for reproduction
 
^^^^
I'd have to disagree with you...I think you're putting the cart before the horse there with respect to how you relate sex, pleasure and the instinct to reproduce.

I would say that pleasure is a byproduct of the reproduction instinct, not the other way around. I don't think the reproductive function evolutionarily attached to the sexual act because sex happened to be pleasurable...I think the pleasure aspect evolutionarily attached to the reproduction instinct because hey, let's face it, if you're going to be running around engaging in an activity quite frequently (which we are pretty much programmed to do if you're talking about reproduction), an activity that renders you vulnerable to predators during the act itself, it ought to be pleasurable, right? What better way to ensure that the organism is even more driven to reproduce?

As organisms evolved in terms of intelligence, though, they recognized the pleasure component of sex and naturally began to have sex for pleasure as well.
 
Zorn, your points are well taken regarding the population control theory, though I don't think it could be ruled out altogether.

Another possible theory, imo, might be that homosexuality is a vestige from a time when organisms possessed the ability to reproduce with members of both sexes.

Homosexuality seems to me to be at most a benign differentiation like baldness or left-handedness, so it seems a bit problematic to term homosexuality a "mistake", given the human predisposition to attempt to correct mistakes and engineer things that are ultimately at odds with the natural equilibrium state.

Kitty, I believe that study to which you refer regarding the hypothalamus was noted to have quite a few methodological problems.
 
nah sorry.....Your kinda missing my point........

Sexual desire drives reproduction......

It all starts w/ hormones.....Sexual drive is the result from hormones.....Hormones are the intitial difference b/w a male and female.....

How can u seperate the instinct to reproduce and sexual drive? What is the difference? Explain the instinct to reproduce?

I know we're gettin a lil off topic but this is the base for my point....
 
glowbug said:
Homosexuality seems to me to be at most a benign differentiation like baldness or left-handedness, so it seems a bit problematic to term homosexuality a "mistake", given the human predisposition to attempt to correct mistakes and engineer things that are ultimately at odds with the natural equilibrium state.
Click to expand...

If you think about it on biological terms, every step of human 'evolution' has been a 'mistake' - the only way to evolve is for a gene to mutate or be copied incorrectly, which may code for an organism to, for example, grow slightly longer claws - which may help it cope with its survival pressures, thus those with longer claws soon outnumber those with shorter claws etc. The whole vestige theory is plausible, but it's hard to say homosexuality is a genetic leftover as much as say the appendix is

That isn't really relevant to what you're saying though, I agree entirely.

And sexual desire is driven by hormones, yes - that's why, when going through puberty, you get really horny, because of the sudden release of hormones that cause to develop etc. but as humans have developed our sense of consciousness and our ability to perceive ourselves as something other than an animalistic, reproductive being, we are able to think of sex as not merely a reproductive tool but rather as something pleasurable to do.

How can u seperate the instinct to reproduce and sexual drive? What is the difference? Explain the instinct to reproduce?
Click to expand...

The instinct to reproduce is driven by sexual drive which is stimulated by hormonal release. Thus, they're the same thing, which I think is what you're trying to say? Our 'instincts' are purely hormonal.
 
I would suggest that you think a little more outside the box
Click to expand...

I thought that was what homosexuality was all about....in fact they just about ignore the box completely ;)
 
I think the original poster is succumbing to the fallacy of adaptation.
When weilding the theory of evolution, we are often lead to attempt to explain every biological phenomenon in terms of its being the best possible adaptation to some sort of selective pressure of the past.

This is not the case. Selective pressures in the environment have lead to the proliferation of certain traits that happened to be "good enough" solutions to problems present in the environment. Genetic variety that has not been placed under high selective pressure continues to remain, making our species as a whole more fit for future, unexpected selective pressures.

Furthermore, I think it is a bit odd to begin with the question, "why are some people homosexual?" If we look to our very close cousins, the Bonobo Chimps, a better question would be, "why aren't the vast majority of humans rampantly bisexual?" Why don't we use sexual expression to bind each-other socially in a more casual and thorough way? I think the answer her lies in human culture.

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top