This is something I've been pondering myself recently, the leading scientific opinion is that jomosexuality is based on biology rather than being a choice, but I still wonder. I think Nature vs Nuture comes into play. Just wondering what others thoughts are.

Views: 1610

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that a human isolation study, as well as twin separating, could offer interesting insight into nature vs nurture

The site you link to is a politically motivated site run by "Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment" where they discuss the "negative effects of homosexuality" with other articles such as "The Case Against Homosexual Activity" and "On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle". The papers are very selective and many are out of date, and this is basically a "hate site" papered with a veneer of pseudo-science. There is a rebuttal at http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html and many other places. The argument simply holds no water if you stop and think about it. None of my gay friends have ever been abused, and the overwhelming majority of people who are abused do not become gay.

Haha, sorry about that, I found a more neutral site offering interesting data on the subject

 

http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/06/05/a-major-study-of-child-abuse-an...

 

I'm not saying that sexual abuse ALWAYS leads to homosexuality, Nor that ALL homosexuals were sexually abused.

But there does seem to be data supporting a correlation, and this is a case of NURTURE, not NATURE....

 

Unless they were born to be abused? Maybe they were asking for it...

 

I disagree. You can't conclude that the abuse is causative in those cases where it is reported. Plus homosexual behaviour is different to being homosexual. If you were to indulge in sex with anotehr man out of curiosity, that would not make you gay. Same sex populations in, say prisons, sometimes do this. It doesn't make them gay. Is your last sentence a joke?

Yes my last sentance was a joke, a bit off color, I apologize.

I haven't concluded anything.

I'm interested, and curious, and that's why I started this thread.

This is a topic I know relatively nothing about,

I have also thought long and hard about this. In an evolutionary sense, I see your point. Why would homosexuality arise, when the fundamental principles of evolution tell us that the most fit individuals will survive and pass on their genes to offspring. In this sense all gays will die off. So why does it arise? I know it has to be genetic (But under some circumstances such as a traumatic experience i think it might be a kinda choice). And of course it occurs in other species (homosexuality occurs in over 400 species, homophobia only exists in one - i love that quote!) I've thought maybe they are there because they aid their siblings in some way in taking care of offspring, from which they would still partially benefit genetically, or help their parents in raising their siblings. How would this apply to humans? Afterall we are still animals.

I remember reading that if there were a gene which controls homosexuality, then given the vast number of humans in the gene pool, that gene would naturally mutate in about the same number of people as there are currently identified as homosexual. What I am saying is this: even if there is a gene controlling a persons sexuality, natural mutations could and probably would lead to individuals being homosexuality. Just more argument stating that homosexuality is entirely natural, not that we really needed more.

Having sexualities other than hetero is either itself evolutionarily advantageous in some way or it's connected to another trait of ours that is evolutionarily advantageous. If it were nurture I don't think we'd be seeing homosexuality in so many other species.

 

Take the example of sickle cell anemia. Why on earth does this disease continue to persist despite the fact that it harms many people?  It continues to exist because the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of evolution. It turns out the people who are heterozygous for the sickle cell trait have higher tolerance to malaria.

 

Also we can't forget that we are social creatures. Our social bonds are more important to our survival than pure strength or intelligence. Perhaps when we still lived primarily in family groups there was something advantageous about having people with other sexualities around. Check out the Bonobos... I wonder just how similar to them we would really be if we stripped away our modern cultures and taboos.

 

It's also important to remember that just because one is attracted to the same sex doesn't mean they aren't capable of producing offspring. Every year I have a same sex family or two whose child is in my classroom. Sometimes it's because they adopt, invitro fertilization, from a sperm bank, from a previous hetero relationship, a surrogate and so on.

 

I think what is comes down to is that homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality and so on are products of complicated intermingling genetic/evolutionary processes and certainly aren't anymore a choice than being heterosexual.

 

Another homo topic, a repeater too! Come on guys, have you not thrashed the gay themes to bits by now?

A bored lesbian.

You raise an interesting question.  For something to make evolutionary sense (to me at least) we must adapt and procreate to pass on genetic mutations or new talents. Homosexuality almost by definition does not allow this as a gay couple cannot reproduce. So my first thought would be No, in a strictly evolutionary viewpoint homosexuality doesn't make evolutionary sense.

However.  A gay couple can of course have children via a surogate or sperm donors which allows the advancement of their genetic line.  At this point we are ignoring adoption as this doesn't allow the continuation of genetics, merely family.

We should also consider the possibility that we don't need to pass on talents purely to our children. We live in an age where we can share information on an almost global scale. The vast majority of the human race has access to the internet which allows us to share huge amounts of knowlege giving an evolutionary advantage. This of course does not apply to genetic mutation, that still lies with our direct descendents.

Personally I don't think I can bring myself to lean either one way or the other on whether homosexuality makes "Evolutionary Sense" or not but one question I would certainly ask is: What harm does homosexuality do?

My answer: None at all.

Agreed.

 

If, as one of the hypotheses suggests, some of the genes are carried on the X chromosome and helped females carrying it produce more offspring then it would have an evolutionary advantage which would outweigh the guys not being as reproductive.

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service