Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

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.

Quote from: "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!" 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.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"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.

Quote from: "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 (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249579141&sr=8-1), 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.

Quote from: "crocofish"

Quote from: "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 (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249579141&sr=8-1), 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?

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "Thom Phelps"

Quote from: "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)

Quote from: "Tanker"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.

Quote from: "Tanker"Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose.

There's no stress, burden, invested time and energy into raising and caring for children. In the animal kingdom this would surely make it easier for the individual animal (particularly a female) to survive. Indeed, it doesn't benefit the species, but the would be mother is free to use any gathered resources, such as food, all for herself.

From a males perspective they wouldn't have to go out of their way to perform tasks to win over a female.
Such as fighting if you're a hippo or singing if you're a bird (there have been birds who have sung themselves to death while trying to attract a mate).

None of this is a 'purpose', but it is beneficial.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tanker"Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose.

There's no stress, burden, invested time and energy into raising and caring for children. In the animal kingdom this would surely make it easier for the individual animal (particularly a female) to survive. Indeed, it doesn't benefit the species, but the would be mother is free to use any gathered resources, such as food, all for herself.

From a males perspective they wouldn't have to go out of their way to perform tasks to win over a female.
Such as fighting if you're a hippo or singing if you're a bird (there have been birds who have sung themselves to death while trying to attract a mate).

None of this is a 'purpose', but it is beneficial.

Since this phrase has been quoted twice I would like to say I should have said "Evolutionarily speaking" since regardless of the benifit to an individual the trait would not, in fact could not, get passed on.

I would also Like to say I have not forgotten about this thread but am Revaluating my thoughts, as well as organising them. While my current understanding my not change I am taking the time to think things through before I make another signifcant post.

Just my two cents worth on question 1:

Obviously is is absurd to suggest that homosexuality is directly beneficial....

I think the strongest explanation for any gene that promotes homosexuality being selected for is that the same gene is beneficial in some other way (for instance it might promote fertility or promiscuity, or less likely some "higher" benefit. The fact that the gene promotes homosexuality has to be a less significant effect than the main effect.

Quote from: "Tanker"Since this phrase has been quoted twice I would like to say I should have said "Evolutionarily speaking" since regardless of the benifit to an individual the trait would not, in fact could not, get passed on.

I know what you mean, but even that I wouldn't rule out. At least not in a case of bisexuality. I believe I read that: If an animal forms a behavior on its own that is not the cause of some gene, it can become genetically inherited by its offspring.*

[li]Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken.[/li]

Quote from: "templeboy"The fact that the gene promotes homosexuality has to be a less significant effect than the main effect.

It's a misfire in males. Helpful in females from whose "grandmothers" reproduced more than the average female.

QuoteObviously is is absurd to suggest that homosexuality is directly beneficial....

I can see some benefits to the individual. Obviously not for the species as a whole.

I myself am a homosexual and I do not have a choice over my sexuality. Do you think a lot of us want to be gay in a society that patronises and belittles us?

There are flamboyant people of any race, creed, religion, sexuality, etc. For instance, I know a lot of Christians that flaunt how much they love Jesus. Some people are just vocal about certain aspects of their lives.
No one I know would guess that I'm a fag.

I think homosexual behavior in social animals has a beneficial effect and is part of a reproduction "strategy" employed by multiple species.

Non-reproductive, non-competitive animals may represent a reproductive advantage for their siblings or their species.  Note that "gay" penguins have been seen raising chicks, obviously filling the void left by a missing parent for a chick that would otherwise die.  While they are not, themselves reproducing they are preserving offspring of their species.  

Humans are born in pretty equal numbers, male and female, with a few more males born than females which soon levels out due to higher male mortality rates.  It makes for fierce competition for mates.  But if 10% of the male population is not competing it gives the other males a slight advantage.  That does make sense for the continuation of the genome if we examine the possibility that the successful male maters are siblings to homosexual males.  Perhaps this is why (according to a study I need to look up) each successive male child is slightly more likely to be homosexual than the first.  And if those homosexual sibs serve as part of the support structure for feeding and protecting their brothers' offspring instead of their own, those children will stand a better chance of survival than children of males with no sibs or sibs with their own children.  A child with a a mother, a father and an uncle has orphan insurance.  A woman with a non-reproductive brother (because, face it, in primitive societies, the woman's sexuality didn't matter, all women capable of bearing young probably did whether they enjoyed penises or not) might also experience the same benefit - an extra provider and protector for her children.

Quote from: "Pineapple"I myself am a homosexual and I do not have a choice over my sexuality. Do you think a lot of us want to be gay in a society that patronises and belittles us?

There are flamboyant people of any race, creed, religion, sexuality, etc. For instance, I know a lot of Christians that flaunt how much they love Jesus. Some people are just vocal about certain aspects of their lives.
No one I know would guess that I'm a fag.

Well said sir.

As I said I have not abbondoned this tread But have spant some time thinking.

First I would like to say thank you to everyone

Kylsssa thats probably the most reasonable thing I have heard. There seems to be a few hole to me that will bear more thinking on, but it is far better the my previous "I can't see the evolutionary point" I was at before.

On flamboyance while common in many groups my subject is on homosexuality so they are the group I'm asking about. Since it has become the near stereotype of being gay. Wetaher we like it or not many stereotypes have a grain of truth to them. After some reflection I think the reason some gay people go a bit overboard with their flamboyance is they are so often repressed and live in closet for years, predending to be what they are not, ect that now that they are out they are showing the world and expressing those shrugged off repressions in the extreme. The lose the fear at with it some of the reserved inhibtions they had in the closet.

I think a bennefit that has resulted is since the more exteme flamboyance is rare it make the more subdued in they gay community seem that much more "normal" and therefor acceptable to the rest or society. Though I doubt this was a conscience reason for it.

Quote from: "Tanker"My first question has to do with why any of you belive Homosexuality exists.

One possible explanation for some instances: http://www.google.com/search?q=homosexu ... +evolution (http://www.google.com/search?q=homosexuality+sexually+antagonistic+evolution)

QuoteThere 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

\\\

You present a false dichotomy

Quote. Since there is no evidence it is an inherited trait,

Clearly, you're not familiar with studies of twins.

Quotebiologicly 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.

Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. See my first links and also see the studies regarding more successful feminization of the fetus after multiple births by a single mother.

QuoteSince 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.

Again, see sexually antagonistic evolution

QuoteMy 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).

Most gays I know hate flamers. I have known hetero flamers, as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

 

As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Quote from: "-43-"As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "-43-"As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

I am not trolling, merely stating my opinion about homosexuality. If I was trolling I would become far more offensive.

Quote from: "-43-"

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "-43-"As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

I am not trolling, merely stating my opinion about homosexuality. If I was trolling I would become far more offensive.

Well your "opion had NOthing to do with the post. Your record of post are about 1-2 miutes apart. which unless you are a ridiculously fast reader means you're not reading the treads, mabye just the subjects, then giving your opinion which is not helpfully or conductive to the usuall free discourse of this forum. One of the best things about this forum is the obvious effort most people put into thier responses, you just seem to want to make lots o' posts quickly without contributing anything worthwhile.

Okay, if you want some thorough answers this is what I can do:

Homosexuality exists for a myriad of reasons, an emotional need created by childhood circumstances, a possible genetic mutation, a simple animal need for any form of sexual contact, a dissolutionment or dissatisfaction with members of the opposite sex, an adaptation to circumstances (such as that which exist in prison) and an emotional connection which has been intensified. These seem to be the major contributing factors to homosexuality.

As for the flamboyance, it's a call to attention, and it is by no means a universal trend in homosexuals. Those who dress as such usually enjoy a "shock value" or identify themselves with gay pop culture icons (Perez Hilton comes to mind). It is much like the baggy pants worn by gangsters or the emo haircuts, it's to fit in to some social group.

On another note: I enjoy being concise, occam's razor.

Quote from: "-43-"Okay, if you want some thorough answers this is what I can do:

Homosexuality exists for a myriad of reasons, an emotional need created by childhood circumstances, a possible genetic mutation, a simple animal need for any form of sexual contact, a dissolutionment or dissatisfaction with members of the opposite sex, an adaptation to circumstances (such as that which exist in prison) and an emotional connection which has been intensified. These seem to be the major contributing factors to homosexuality.

As for the flamboyance, it's a call to attention, and it is by no means a universal trend in homosexuals. Those who dress as such usually enjoy a "shock value" or identify themselves with gay pop culture icons (Perez Hilton comes to mind). It is much like the baggy pants worn by gangsters or the emo haircuts, it's to fit in to some social group.

On another note: I enjoy being concise, occam's razor.

While my original questions was why it exists despite evolution, some of you reasons are quite valide while also not being quite the from birth homosexuality I was originaly asking about. more reasons of choice, convience, or circumstance. Still all around good points.

On flamboyance as I stated earlier in the post I was ONLY asking about the sub-group of homosexuals who act in this way. not the stereotype of all of them acting that way. I even found my own answer, which you might have read if you had bothered.

Being concies is a great quality. However you failed to read this or other topics topics fully or even enough to get a good apreciation of the conversation before answering which is not being concise it's being obtuse. Ie; your original reponse to this topic was not related to the conversation.

Quote from: "Tanker"While my original questions was why it exists despite evolution, some of you reasons are quite valide while also not being quite the from birth homosexuality I was originaly asking about. more reasons of choice, convience, or circumstance. Still all around good points.

Some current ideas suggest that homosexuality is passed down through family trees. Some research was done on Monkey's, and it was found that homosexual monkey's spent much more time caring for the young, gathering food and protecting the group then a heterosexual male normally would. So although there would not be a greater number of offspring, the offspring they did have were more likely to survive and prosper. So brothers and sisters of the homosexual monkey who had offspring, were passing down genes that could mean future generations have homosexual monkey's (because it's good for the overall welfare of the group).

It's an area that hasn't been studied a huge amount, because of the taboo that existed, and still persists around gay culture and homosexuality today. But the research that is being done is finding several reasons why in evolutionary terms, that a small percentage of homosexual members of a species could improve it's overall welfare.

Quote from: "Arctonyx"

Quote from: "Tanker"While my original questions was why it exists despite evolution, some of you reasons are quite valide while also not being quite the from birth homosexuality I was originaly asking about. more reasons of choice, convience, or circumstance. Still all around good points.

Some current ideas suggest that homosexuality is passed down through family trees. Some research was done on Monkey's, and it was found that homosexual monkey's spent much more time caring for the young, gathering food and protecting the group then a heterosexual male normally would. So although there would not be a greater number of offspring, the offspring they did have were more likely to survive and prosper. So brothers and sisters of the homosexual monkey who had offspring, were passing down genes that could mean future generations have homosexual monkey's (because it's good for the overall welfare of the group).

It's an area that hasn't been studied a huge amount, because of the taboo that existed, and still persists around gay culture and homosexuality today. But the research that is being done is finding several reasons why in evolutionary terms, that a small percentage of homosexual members of a species could improve it's overall welfare.

I believe something to this was posted earlier. I found it the most reasonable exlination when I saw it then.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Arctonyx"

Quote from: "Tanker"While my original questions was why it exists despite evolution, some of you reasons are quite valide while also not being quite the from birth homosexuality I was originaly asking about. more reasons of choice, convience, or circumstance. Still all around good points.

Some current ideas suggest that homosexuality is passed down through family trees. Some research was done on Monkey's, and it was found that homosexual monkey's spent much more time caring for the young, gathering food and protecting the group then a heterosexual male normally would. So although there would not be a greater number of offspring, the offspring they did have were more likely to survive and prosper. So brothers and sisters of the homosexual monkey who had offspring, were passing down genes that could mean future generations have homosexual monkey's (because it's good for the overall welfare of the group).

It's an area that hasn't been studied a huge amount, because of the taboo that existed, and still persists around gay culture and homosexuality today. But the research that is being done is finding several reasons why in evolutionary terms, that a small percentage of homosexual members of a species could improve it's overall welfare.

I believe something to this was posted earlier. I found it the most reasonable exlination when I saw it then.

Ah ok, sorry I've entered this conversation rather late and only thoroughly read the first page of replies

Quote from: "-43-"Homosexuality exists for a myriad of reasons, an emotional need created by childhood circumstances...

Some of your proposals were correct, but your first one is horribly off.  If you truly wish to learn more, here is something I've contributed recently on this topic:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48599#p48599 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48599#p48599)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48633#p48633 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48633#p48633)

Quote from: "iNow"

Quote from: "-43-"Homosexuality exists for a myriad of reasons, an emotional need created by childhood circumstances...

Some of your proposals were correct, but your first one is horribly off.  If you truly wish to learn more, here is something I've contributed recently on this topic:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48599#p48599 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48599#p48599)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48633#p48633 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3508&p=48633#p48633)

I would agree, except that first case applies to my lesbian cousin, which is why it was first.