Questions about homosexuality.

[Tanker]

This can be somerhing of a "hot topic" and I was unsure of where to put it, I thought Philosophy was suiting.I have some questions and was wondering about the responses i would get when untaited by religious bias. I also know we have a few gay member on this sight so I was espcialy wonder their take on my questions.I'm gong to start out by puttng up some bullet points to help prevent confusion.

1. I am in NO WAY anti-gay nor do I think Homosexuality is wrong.
2. When I use "abnormal" it is only in the clinical sense. If up 11% of the population is gay, then 89% is strait. Clinicly 11% is ab-normal. (NOT wrong)
3. While anything I say could be from ignorance, I am not overly ignorant of Homosexuality. I'm also not overly knowlegable either. Hence the questions.
4 . Not all gay people are as I describe in my second question, they are however being deliberate so I'm not trying to stereotype all gay people.

My first question has to do with why any of you belive Homosexuality exists. There is a great deal of argument on why someone (or some animal) is gay. Religious people tend to think it's a choice (which doesn't work for animals). I do not agree. That would primarily leave genetic coding, but that too makes little sense to me. Since there is no evidence it is an inherited trait, biologicly speaking it serves no purpose, and evolutionarily speaking It's actually counter productive since a gay person (or animal) won't be able to reproduce if it ONLY mates with it's own sex. Since it's abnormal to be gay, (see point 2) normaly a gene with no positive benefit is bred out. but homosexuality has been part of the human condition for at least as long as man has had a writen language. It is almost certainly older then the aproxamitly 5000-6000 year old writen word, woulden't it have bred out by now or al least be at a much lower level if it was purely genetic.

My second question is about "flamboyance". I don't get it at all. A good example would be gay pride parades. Just because I'm an atheist I wouldn't drawn attention to the fact by say...stripping naked, painting myself blue, and running down the street naked. (Not that gay people would either). I talk the same as everyone else I don't see the need to lisp as proof that I'm an atheist. Why do gay men, almost all of whom didn't before they came out? I don't dress in some way to make me stand out, as if to shout "I don't believe in god, why do some gay people feel the need to wear almost stereotypical "gay fashion" While gay men are the most common perpetrateors some gay women are just as bad doing everything in their power to look like men. I'm NOT saying they should wear dresses and makup but why do they have to go out of their way to shave thier heads and wear flannel and boots, which may be a stereotype too except I've seen women do it.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I really want to know, if only because I don't know now. There is NO malice in the above statements just an ignorance on my part I'm trying to fill.

[AlP]

I don't really know anything about this so I can't answer your question. I can critique it though, which might help =).

I don't agree that homosexuality cannot have evolved. At first glance it seems ridiculous. If a person of one gender only has sex with others of the same gender then there will be no offspring. But remember that survival of the fittest is not survival of the fittest animal, it's survival of the fittest genes. I'm totally making this up but what if a gene that makes women more attracted to women also makes men more attracted to women. In a man, that gene might have an advantage. Again, I just totally made that up but I hope it makes the point. Evolution is not straightforward.

[Tanker]

I don't really know anything about this so I can't answer your question. I can critique it though, which might help =).

I don't agree that homosexuality cannot have evolved. At first glance it seems ridiculous. If a person of one gender only has sex with others of the same gender then there will be no offspring. But remember that survival of the fittest is not survival of the fittest animal, it's survival of the fittest genes. I'm totally making this up but what if a gene that makes women more attracted to women also makes men more attracted to women. In a man, that gene might have an advantage. Again, I just totally made that up but I hope it makes the point. Evolution is not straightforward.

I just want to clarify I did not say it couldn't, I said it didn't make sense to me.

[curiosityandthecat]

Personally I don't think there should be any real differentiation between sexual preferences, at least not in the homosexual/bisexual/transsexual/etcsexual way. It's just a way to label and segregate people. Defining the two as opposites (homo/hetero) allows for a direct contrast, ultimately resulting in us/them or right/wrong. It's not nearly that important. People are people. Period. If one person falls in love with another, whether or not they have bits dangling between their legs should be of no one's interest but that person's.

As I've said many times before, what someone does with their penis or vagina is nobody's business but theirs (and whom they're doing it with).

Regarding evolution in modern humans, it doesn't really hold up. Our mates are chosen often by circumstance or other completely arbitrary reasons. When's the last time you heard a guy say, "Wow, I'd like to mate with her, look at those hips! She can produce many, many children, allowing my genes to thrive prodigiously!" With the invention of money, birthright, society and (especially) arranged marriages, (not to mention the invent of medicine, though that's another topic entirely) the idea of the best genes determining what makes it to the next generation is, in my amateur opinion, meaningless.

As for the flamboyance, it's a matter of identity. Consider any group that's not well within the umbrella of mainstream, accepted society: punks, goths, gays, (ahem) atheists, etc. It's those qualities that make us different that, when attempting to find our own identities, we accentuate. A business suit and one ear pierced with a safety pin isn't that much of an identity-signifier for the punk. Change the suit to leather, a kilt, Doc Martens, a mo-hawk and add a few more safety pins and there is no longer any question about what group he or she identifies with. The same is true for any group that wishes to set itself apart from the general population. Unfortunately, this does allow for a more stringent bifurcation, but the cohesiveness and community that results makes up for that, I think.

[Tanker]

Regarding evolution in modern humans, it doesn't really hold up. Our mates are chosen often by circumstance or other completely arbitrary reasons. When's the last time you heard a guy say, "Wow, I'd like to mate with her, look at those hips! She can produce many, many children, allowing my genes to thrive prodigiously!" With the invention of money, birthright, society and (especially) arranged marriages, (not to mention the invent of medicine, though that's another topic entirely) the idea of the best genes determining what makes it to the next generation is, in my amateur opinion, meaningless.

Ah but what about non-modern humans, we were not always such thinking beings, or how common it is in the animal world in which sexual attarction is controlled by instinct and genes. If we were to only consider animals, from a purely evolutionary stand point, "gayness" if it is genetic would breed itself out. Yet it remains. I believe evoluion to be true yet this seems like a gap in the therory to me. I don't like gaps.

I would like to reiterate yet again I am not judging anyone, I do NOT think being gay is wrong, I see a gap in my knowlege and I'm trying to fill it.

[curiosityandthecat]

Regarding evolution in modern humans, it doesn't really hold up. Our mates are chosen often by circumstance or other completely arbitrary reasons. When's the last time you heard a guy say, "Wow, I'd like to mate with her, look at those hips! She can produce many, many children, allowing my genes to thrive prodigiously!" I commend anyone who's willing to admit ignorance and seek knowledge. I hate gaps, too.

Well, consider how many gay men have married women and had children. Being gay doesn't preclude one from having heterosexual intercourse, it just determines a preference. Now, of course, I'm sure that there are some gay men who simply can't get an erection with a woman and that would prevent intercourse from happening, but the imagination is a powerful thing and, obviously, some are able to overcome that. It's important to remember that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive and there is some overlap. Does that make sense?

[Tanker]

Well, consider how many gay men have married women and had children. Being gay doesn't preclude one from having heterosexual intercourse, it just determines a preference. Now, of course, I'm sure that there are some gay men who simply can't get an erection with a woman and that would prevent intercourse from happening, but the imagination is a powerful thing and, obviously, some are able to overcome that. It's important to remember that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive and there is some overlap. Does that make sense?

I have to refer back to pre-sentient man and what about non-sentient animals (some are arguable apes, dolphines, ect) their sex drive is not decided by waying of pro and cons of seeking a reproductivly compatible mate or seeking acceptance, but by nearly pure instinct. Gay animals which exist today would have been bred out since they lack the thinking compacity to go against their nature. If being strait or gay is not mutually exclusive wouldn't that make bisexuality the more likey trait It would still breed out animals/people who are....full(?) gay, because they would never reproduce.

[crocofish]

Gay animals which exist today would have been bred out since they lack the thinking compacity to go against their nature. If being strait or gay is not mutually exclusive wouldn't that make bisexuality the more likey trait It would still breed out animals/people who are....full(?) gay, because they would never reproduce.

There is a science book, Biological Exuberance, which is a huge 768 page book covering all kind of animal homosexual behavior.  There is so much data in the book that it is hard to argue that such behaviors would be naturally bred out of animal populations.  There is something about homosexual behavior that causes it to persist across a wide variety of animals, and it probably does not have to do with the ability to think like modern day humans.

[Tanker]

Gay animals which exist today would have been bred out since they lack the thinking compacity to go against their nature. If being strait or gay is not mutually exclusive wouldn't that make bisexuality the more likey trait It would still breed out animals/people who are....full(?) gay, because they would never reproduce.

There is a science book, Biological Exuberance, which is a huge 768 page book covering all kind of animal homosexual behavior.  There is so much data in the book that it is hard to argue that such behaviors would be naturally bred out of animal populations.  There is something about homosexual behavior that causes it to persist across a wide variety of animals, and it probably does not have to do with the ability to think like modern day humans.

Yes but rather then narrowing my earlier stated belief that there is a gap in evolutionary therory this only iluminates it more for me. Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose. So why does it continue to exist when,from what I understand, evolution would not have continued a genetic line that favored it. I don't belive it could be a recuring random mutation (kinda defeats it being random too). Maybe an envirnmental factor, but with that too while I believe it can, to a much lesser extant, influence sexuality what envirmental factor could possible be so pervasive, for so long, across so many species. No I don't think that could be it. The only other option I see would be choice which I dismiss fom personal observed experience. My cousin, who I'm not close to (or I'd ask him) is gay his mother said she knew it from the time he was 7 or 8. With hindsight it's obvious I remember him collecting My little Ponies at 7 or so, which, while not proof in itself, is one of MANY examples from our youth I can remember. At such a young age I doubt he knew what "being gay" was. So a choice on his part would be...improbable. Not to mention animals completely lack the ability to "choose" their sexual preference in any case.

I guess my question boils down to why? Or mabye how? I'm not really expecting any hard conclusion. Mabye I'm wondering if other had thought about this, and what conlusions they had drawn?

[Thom Phelps]

My response to your question #1:  there are so many variables and conditions that make up the whole of a  living creature, that the "why?" is moot. For each combination of hormones, proteins, environment, genetics, personal choice, and random fate that make animals or people gay that might be "bred out" of the equation, there are thousands of new or different intricate mixes of those variables to generate the same result.

My response to your question #2: similarly, there are far too many subtle intricacies in our brains that make us who we are and what we are to be able to answer the question, "why are some gay men flamboyant, and some lebians butch?" with any certainty. Best to just accept it. A certain percentage of the population is gay and a certain percentage of the gay population exhibits certain traits.

[Tanker]

My response to your question #1:  there are so many variables and conditions that make up the whole of a  living creature, that the "why?" is moot. For each combination of hormones, proteins, environment, genetics, personal choice, and random fate that make animals or people gay that might be "bred out" of the equation, there are thousands of new or different intricate mixes of those variables to generate the same result.

My response to your question #2: similarly, there are far too many subtle intricacies in our brains that make us who we are and what we are to be able to answer the question, "why are some gay men flamboyant, and some lebians butch?" with any certainty. Best to just accept it. A certain percentage of the population is gay and a certain percentage of the gay population exhibits certain traits.

That almost translates to it's to hard to figure out so don't try to me. That won't work for me.

[Thom Phelps]

That won't work for me.

I didn't mean to imply that you should give up on figuring it out. Just that there are lots and lots of reasons why, more than could possibly be answered in a short forum response.
But maybe instead of gross generalization, you should focus on a particular person in question an ask them. Sounds like you know someone who didn't have a lisp until he came out of the closet. Have you asked him about this?

[Sophus]

We know what makes men gay. We don't know what makes women lesbian. It was originally an idea of Richard Dawkins about animals. Another scientist has confirmed it in humans as well, which comes as no surprise. It's called Sexual Antagonistic Selection. Basically if you're grandmother had many children and you're a male or female you will have a particularly strong attraction to men.

[Tanker]

That won't work for me.

I didn't mean to imply that you should give up on figuring it out. Just that there are lots and lots of reasons why, more than could possibly be answered in a short forum response.
But maybe instead of gross generalization, you should focus on a particular person in question an ask them. Sounds like you know someone who didn't have a lisp until he came out of the closet. Have you asked him about this?

These "gross generalisations" as you say are a group deliberatly going out of their way to to brodcast, in no uncertain term, that they are gay. My question to them is why? If they're not going out of you way to draw attention to themselves then they arn't the one I'm discussing. I saw no need to be that specific. I also take exception to the punk style brought up by Curio (for other reasons)but this thead is about resolving some questions I have about gay culture.

While I don't have issue with people expressing themselves I do get frustrated with any group or sub group that goes out of it's way to bring attention to the differences they have to the rest of society, which only serves to distance them further, then then act surprised when people react to it. I'm not saying they should hide their gayness but wonder why some feel the need to flamboyantly (perfect word for it BTW) broadcast the fact.

I did NOT say all gay people so it isn't a "gross generalisation" and have in fact gone out of my way, repeatedly, to make it understood I don't think it's wrong and am looking for clarification on a subject I am not the best versed on. There are many people, with many backgrounds, including actually being gay, with a wide range of knowledge on this forum. I have come to respect the intelligence of many of the posters here so I thought I would try to get some answers here.

I also know no gay people well enough o ask such personal question to them so through the anomnymity of the interwebs I seek answers here. The cousin I'm not close with that I mentioned earlier I have not spoken to in 3 years. So I don'tf eel comfortable asking him either. ( he's kinda a dick too which is why it's been so long since we've spoken)

[curiosityandthecat]

Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose.

Can you definitively say that, or is it really just an assumption? At first glance, sickle-cell anemia serves no beneficial biological purpose, it just tends to make the person sick. However, we learned later that it gives that person a high resistance to malaria. So, what appears to be detrimental actually becomes beneficial when you weigh the two.

There is the possibility that homosexuality feels good to those who participate in it, thereby making them happier, and there's no secret to how happiness improves one's health and lifespan. Again, there's a number of things to remember when dealing with this in contemporary times: culture, hegemony, sex as a social construct, or even cognitive dissonance on the part of those who see what they are or how they feel as antithetical to what is good or normal. And again, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not perfectly opposite without any overlap. It's entirely possible for a homosexual man to life live (even have a sex life) as a heterosexual before coming to the realization (or acceptance) that he's gay. Likewise, it's far easier for a lesbian to have children from a heterosexual relationship (biologically speaking).

In my opinion, homosexuality in animals and homosexuality in people can't really be used in comparison to one another. The amount (or lack thereof) of acceptance or permission in the species are on totally different levels.