Recently I have read that there are homosexuality in both human and animals. I am just wondering if it is good for nature and why does it exist?

well, at an early stage of species development, it would be quite harmful by lowering the gene pool. But now that populations are booming, and with the new advent of in vitro and other scientific discoveries, it helps as a birth control. Suppose that half the world was gay... Lots of fabulous, but not a lot of crowding. :m:

If homosexuality really is due, primarily, to a genetic factor (rather than social stimuli and childhood environment) then it is clearly a common genetic mistake: one which occurs easily and can be passed on, recessively, by heterosexual parents.

In a wild animal population, of course, this gay gene would weed itself out by preventing offspring for those in whom it was expressed. We humans may, paradoxically, have hastened its spread in past centuries - by making homosexuality a sinful taboo, ancient & medieval societies pressured homosexuals to make a pretence at normal life. This could have included marriage and children, in those with sufficient willpower - and hence, the gene was propagated...

Not good for evolution in the purely biological sense, but good for diversifying our culture and society today!

someone here said, homosexualitly is a hormonal disorder during the formation of fetus rather than genetics.

Homosexuality is still present in both humans and animals. I am just wonder if it has any benefit at all. Maybe it does.

or it is caused by unique development in the sexual and unconscious mind during childhood, as Sigmund Freud points out, sexuality is initially developed during childhood

good for controling the soaring population, bad for social order... I guess?

If people would just mind their own damn business then asking whether homosexuality is good or bad would be like asking whether having blue eyes is good or bad.

I'd like to see one properly designed study that demonstrates any negative attributes of a gay person. And no, I'm not gay, if you must ask.

If homosexuality really is due, primarily, to a genetic factor (rather than social stimuli and childhood environment) then it is clearly a common genetic mistake: one which occurs easily and can be passed on, recessively, by heterosexual parents.

or it is caused by unique development in the sexual and unconscious mind during childhood, as Sigmund Freud points out, sexuality is initially developed during childhood

But then, what would cause a homosexual to become a heterosexual? I have heard of this happening several times before. The above seems to suggest that you are clearly one or the other, it doesn't change.

Can I add a question? What about bisexuals?

I am just wondering if it is good for nature.....

:rolleyes:

What do you mean "is it good for nature"? It's not good or bad, it <B>*IS*</B> nature.

Homosexuality is more good than bad. We need to diversify our culture, as Starthane Xyzth said.

But then, what would cause a homosexual to become a heterosexual? I have heard of this happening several times before.

Confused identity? Those who are gay are very strong in their preferences just like hetrosexuals. Those who convert probably found solace in a certain gender at some point in their lives only to go back to what really worked for them. Eventually it gets hard to fake being homosexual or hetrosexual if you're not.

No, I mean like I no several people and they used to be homosexuals and stuff, but now they're in a heterosexual marrige relationship, no longer homosexual.

:rolleyes:

What do you mean "is it good for nature"? It's not good or bad, it <B>*IS*</B> nature.

You are completely missing the point. What I am asking is is nature better off with or without homosexuality. What positive and negative contribution does homosexuality have on nature. Read the question again.

Of course it is nature. Duh! Stop being such as retard.

You are completely missing the point. What I am asking is is nature better off with or without homosexuality. What positive and negative contribution does homosexuality have on nature. Read the question again. Of course it is nature. Duh! Stop being such as retard.

<img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/stupid.gif">

Oooooh, I’m sooooo sorry. It was such an inspired scientific question. I’ll leave you and your awesome intellect with the crap fest that is this thread (judging by the scientific nonsense that people have posted so far).

Loser. <img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/finger.gif">

No, I mean like I no several people and they used to be homosexuals and stuff, but now they're in a heterosexual marrige relationship, no longer homosexual.
any chance they might be under peer pressure, resisted their natural instincts and formed a heterosexual marriage relationship?

Can I add a question? What about bisexuals?

It's probably a combination of genetic, hormonal and developmental factors which determine people's sexuality. Even if (as I assumed before) the difference is entirely genetic, like the difference between brown and ginger hair, there may be several individual genes involved, and the possibility of producing intermediate shades. Incomplete dominance is a well-known biological phenomenon, where both alelles of a varying characteristic are expressed in the same heterozyous individual.

For example: my father's hair is brown, but his beard is red... My hair is red, but my eyebrows are brown...

Joeman.

What something must be to be classified as bad or good, positive or negative, isn't official. What these words mean, and what can be thought of as belonging to one of these labels, is very subjective and controversial. But it usually includes things that we don't feel good about. Natural processes don't have feelings, we only ascribe them feelings when trying to explain them.

Since nature isn't trying to accomplish anything, it can't make a mistake. Nature never tried or wanted to make lifeforms heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. Nature doesn't want peace or violence. Nature doesn't care if people do or don't get raped or killed.

You're anthropomorphizing evolution. People do this alot when talking about things, it's called the pathetic fallacy (not trying to be offensive, that's what it's called). For example, someone may say that water tries or wants to take the path of least resistance. An example from dictionary.com was "angry clouds" and "cruel wind". While this may be useful when trying to describe something to someone, it shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Since people do this so much, it's often easy to forget that we're doing it. If you really want to understand something, you should be careful about anthropomorphizing it.

I can't judge others sexual wants and needs, only my own. I would think though that if gay men have sex they should always use condoms so as to prevent the spread of aids. It seems that reading about having unprotected sex can lead to aids very easily which would say , in a natural sense, that it isn't a very smart or right thing to do, since it can lead to your death.

Joeman.

What something must be to be classified as bad or good, positive or negative, isn't official. What these words mean, and what can be thought of as belonging to one of these labels, is very subjective and controversial. But it usually includes things that we don't feel good about. Natural processes don't have feelings, we only ascribe them feelings when trying to explain them.

Since nature isn't trying to accomplish anything, it can't make a mistake. Nature never tried or wanted to make lifeforms heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. Nature doesn't want peace or violence. Nature doesn't care if people do or don't get raped or killed.

You're anthropomorphizing evolution. People do this alot when talking about things, it's called the pathetic fallacy (not trying to be offensive, that's what it's called). For example, someone may say that water tries or wants to take the path of least resistance. An example from dictionary.com was "angry clouds" and "cruel wind". While this may be useful when trying to describe something to someone, it shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Since people do this so much, it's often easy to forget that we're doing it. If you really want to understand something, you should be careful about anthropomorphizing it.

I don't care. You have absolutely no idea what my motives are. The only thing I know is that you are not helping at all.

Actually I really should have stated my question as "Is homosexuality good or bad for a specie." So I guess that's my fault. A specie can get wiped out.

I just need arguments from both sides - good and bad. This is NOT for an intelligent discussion on biology or evolution. I can't state my motive because it's kinda stupid. Just think of it as helping me.

Thanks.

Actually I really should have stated my question as "Is homosexuality good or bad for a specie." So I guess that's my fault. A specie can get wiped out.


Evolution acts on the level of the individual and not the species. Hence homosexuality is not a problem for the species.

A new species may start with only one or two differing individuals - if they successfully pass on their new characteristics or behaviour, their offspring will diverge further from the parent species and eventually become classifiably distinct.

Needless to say, homosexuality cannot result in speciation!

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
The whole article is interesting but you might want to look more on "Love, Not War"
I'm sure that you'll find more information on that topic.

it cant be that bad for nature, how would they pass on the gay genes?

Actually I really should have stated my question as "Is homosexuality good or bad for a specie."

Yes, I like that much better. Although I'd go with something like "How beneficial or detrimental is homosexuality to the survival of a species".

Homosexuality doesn't really seem to ever help or cause problems when concerning the survival of a species. Any mutation that doesn't spread through the gene pool very well isn't going to do much of anything at all.

But what the hell, lets say that it spread throughout the entire gene pool somehow and every member of that species became a homosexual. If it didn't happen too fast, they would adapt. Sex would probably evolve to become nothing more than an indulgence between two members of the same sex while reproduction would probably become a different non-stimulating task preformed only to add new life to the community.

in a species that forms a society and in a situation where food is
limited, i can see how a homosexual animal could offer some benefit.
they can contribute more than those who must take care off their
offspring. there's no way to call it 'bad' from the standpoint of a
process that is(as mentioned) intrinsically indifferent to our
subjective labeling.

in a species that forms a society and in a situation where food is limited, i can see how a homosexual animal could offer some benefit.
they can contribute more than those who must take care off their
offspring.

From that viewpoint, the species may as well contain asexual individuals who cannot reproduce, only look after the offsrpring of others. This, of course, is what the majority of colonial insects do - as sexless workers & soldiers who feed and protect their breeding queens and drones, as well as raising the young.

Wouldn't it be weird if humanity contained only a small minority of heterosexuals - whose only function was to breed endlessly - and their children were all raised by pairs of gay dads, or in lesbian communes? :p

(The select few breeding males would enjoy life, at least... :D )

Homosexuality is an important part of human society and is most prevalent in mammalian species that rely on social structures for survival. It is a bonding process most common in the male of the species but not excluding females. Sex is an excellent bonding exercise. It helps to create a communal environment, cooperation that helps maintain secular groups for the benefit for all. It has become a bit redundant in our human societies but still has strong influences in the social structures of (dare I say) the army, prisons and disenfranchised humans.

We are in a matriarchal classical society, and historically it supports homosexuality between consenting adults. The problem is that there is the cry that homosexuality is a dysfunction similar to pedophilia and thus wrong (especially from religious powers that rely on dominate repressive power to hold their slice of humanity). We as humans have developed a culture and we have learn't to create a right and wrong. We can recognize the difference between sexual exploitation and sexual bonding. Homosexuality between consenting adults for joy is good for the species. Sexual exploitation is bad for the species, even heterosexual, as it does not create a bonded society. We are the most social animal ever to exist.

We are not a herd of animals, we are a culture that prides its self on individuality and love.

Homosexuality is an important part of human society and is most prevalent in mammalian species that rely on social structures for survival. It is a bonding process most common in the male of the species but not excluding females.

It is the most scientific explanation (and indeed very intelligentI have heard either for or against homosexuality (sic). Followed by what Saith has said.

Indeed it has ended this discussion on this page. It seems!

nice one. yeah, think of gender and sexuality etc like a spectrum spiral that is dynamic and evolving. ALIVE. and sex isn't black and white, like light and dark aint, and all complimentary opposites, or relationships.

I have to mention patriarchy. patriarchy-when you looka t its history--promotes watfare. thus it is completely disdainful of homosexuality, ESPECIALLY effeminacy. because it contradicts its ideal of 'male' warriorship. you know being told to kill other humans from order from above.

Jai Saraswati Maa

The Open and Free western society --- a blatant lie

For more than two thousand years, the society has taken extreme measures to tie down men to participate in the reproduction process and the raising of children. Given the close bonds that the human male shared with each other that was virtually impregnable, the society sought to achieve its goals in two ways, which were very effective:
- By de-institutionalising male sexual bonds and making them socially shameful
- By forcing men to marry and produce children.

Amongst the measures that were taken to assure this, the most effective measure was to change the rules of masculinity to accomodate "marriage" and a "disdain for open sexual desire for men".

Even though these measures were unnatural for men, and hard on them, men have borne their oppression for more than two thousand years, primarily because the society did give them a leeway --- a breathing space. This was done by way of a wonderful phenomenon called a 'cover' or a (social) 'purdah' --- something that does not exist anymore in the western so-called 'open' societies. This means that men had a lot of freedom to do a lot of natural male stuff behind the scenes (i.e. in private) as long as they publicly upheld the social norms of masculinity --- i.e. got married, produced children and pretended not to have a sexual interest in straight men (sexual interest in third gender males was allowed).

To be more specific, the society allowed men to express their sexual need for men under a cover --- without talking about it or acknowledging it in anyway. Two straight men who liked each other would just get together on some pretext --- and there were plenty of pretexts --- and then have some mutual fun. If there was an intense feeling for each other it may be expressed in terms of deep friendship that could last a lifetime. No one else in the society would suspect anything --- it was so normal for two men to be intimate with each other --- even two men living with each other or sleeping in the same bed was no big deal. And even if someone suspected they would look the other way, because for one thing the members of the society had an enormous respect for this 'purdah' and second that the issue of sex or love between two straight men was absolutely unspeakable (however, not un-do-able in private)

Numerous such committed bonds flourished without anyone ever knowing about them. Some becoming famous as an example of true friendship.

There'd be no acceptance or acknowledgment of a sexual liking for each other or (especially) of men in general, even between each other. Sex between men was the theme of innumerable men's jokes. The sexual intimacy would persist under some pretexts (of which there were many). The strongest pretext would be an absence of women. And in a society where men and women lived separate lives (in keeping with their nature), such pretexts were aplenty. Two friends cum lovers would eat, sleep, and do everything else together, like two normal straight men did.

That there was no such thing as 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' (though there was a third gender passive male) made it easier for men too.

However, any acknowledgment of what was going on between the two men by one of them would amount to breach of a basic rule --- something that would make the continuance of the relationship impossible, unless the one 'breaking' the implicit contract takes on the 'lesser male's' role.(This lesser male role bordered on the third gender male – today's homosexual). And the relationship would become an unequal one, where the other man would keep his pretense of not having any real interest in the man and just doing it to bide his time or as a favour to the other man.

Therefore in most cases men would not even think of crossing their limits. They would live out their love behind this purdah, while performing the social duties of men at the same time and upholding social values on the outside. Take away this purdah and the two men will just kill the relationship and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The forebearers of the modern heterosexual society knew that, and did just that --- took away this age old male cover.

Another thing that helped men in those days was that "marriage" back then did not mean 'bonding' with women. There was absolutely no need to love or be romantic to your wife. In fact someone who bonded too closely with his woman was laughed at as being 'unmanly'. Relationships between men and women in marriage were limited to occasional sex and the family matters --- ration, children, relatives, etc. Men spent most of their time outside of the house with other men.

And as far as male-female relationships outside marriage were concerned the society was extremely hostile to it. You would better not be seen even talking to a woman that you are not related to or married to. A man or woman may never do such a thing as even touch each other's hands in public.

******

The nature of earlier male oppression had allowed men to be themselves under this 'purdah', and gave men a breathing space. Indeed men found it extremely distasteful to talk about sexual desire for men even in private. However amongst the men there was a tacit acceptance that all men shared this sexual desire to be with other men, but this desire must not be spoken of. Lifting of this cover would mean instant death of this freedom and men turning into 'heterosexuals' so fast as if by magic. All the male eroticism would vanish into thin air.

The modern western society that claimed to be free and fair was in reality extremely hostile to sexuality between men, and so without showing the least of concern for men:

- came down heavily on this cover men had enjoyed for centuries and took it off at one sweep, making the men go helter skelter seeking refuge under a 'heterosexual' identity.

- While the society claims to be fair and equal, it actually intensifies, makes more sophisticated and institutionalises the oppresion of male need for other men. This makes sure that the heat is turned on on men in full force as the social cover is lifted –lifted in the name of 'openness' and 'freedom' Men are forcefully exposed, become vulnerable, and are then isolated through a pseudo-scientific concept known as "Sexual orientation".

- At the same time the society does away with all pretexts or social opportunities that men used to bond with men. It basically:

o finished off all male only spaces in the society. So now there will be girls sitting in male gyms, schools will be co-ed, women will join the army amidst men, and so on. Everything that has to do with men will be a male-female thing --- from T.V. news casts to sports events to male prisons to nurses in male hospital wards.

o re-organises the society into mixed gender spaces that are extremely against men bonding with each other. Such spaces isolate men who do bond with other men as 'homosexual' (i.e. a third gender category that was earlier meant only for the feminine male who was exclusively passive).

o Makes bonding with females a compulsory thing for men – propagates is as a basic natural trait of men. Ironically, bonding with women was considered an extremely womanly and deplorable thing for a straight man. It was fit only for the third gender male in the past. Marriages now become love-marriages and customs such as dating are introduced, that all men have to go through. In an environment where women are available a dime a dozen, it is impossible to claim absence of women as a pretext for being with men.

o Unlike the past, physical intimacy between man and woman in public becomes acceptable and 'normal' while between men becomes almost 'banned'. So while man and woman kiss each other in public --- even two brothers can't hold hands in public without causing raised heckles. Kissing between men --- a common form of greeting in the past disappears as a practice replaced by kissing between "opposite sexes".

o Glorifies sexually aggressive women who in earlier societies were stigmatised as 'whores' as the ideal woman. At the same time stigmatises a male being too close to another in a mixed gender setting as a 'homo' --- even if he is masculine. In the past it was the most normal straight male behaviour.

o The society no longer glorifies or celebrates friendships between men, which are always viewed with suspicion. It's a clear signal that the society wants to break men from each other so as to disempower them.

It is no surprise that as societies turned from the traditional order where men had a social cover, to the modern one that claims to be open and free, men have always opposed this openness in the beginning. Men instinctively knew that talking about issues of sex between men is not going to be good for them, because it will in the end be made inaccessible to them. While talking about sex with women openly will take away their pretenses thus intensifying their pressures.

The modern western heterosexual society is the exact opposite of an open and free society. If at all, it is a skewed way of opening up.

******

The freedom that the earlier straight men enjoyed behind the scenes was limited but was enough that prevented men from revolting for two thousand years. Indeed the modern 'open' world looks down upon this 'purdah' as hypocrisy. But this hypocrisy helped the society maintain an unnatural order for its supposed gains for so long and made it easier on the victims (i.e. men). Today's society has intensified the oppression of men several times, without giving them the leeway of this 'hypocrisy'. All this in the name of being 'open'.

What remains to be seen is how long will the male race which is now driven to an extreme corner continue to take things lying down. Will it finally revolt in a big way or will it forever accept an inferior and subservient position to women?

******

it cant be that bad for nature, how would they pass on the gay genes?

There's a lot of differing opinions on this. One idea is that a gene that leads to a gay <i>predisposition</i> (presumably Xq28), may be linked to another that is required for survival.

It's also been suggested that being gay is a remnant of our past, as people who do not produce progeny can help others with progeny within the communal unit (gathering food, childrearing). So, it's been said that it is an 'altruistic' trait, as one will give up his or her own reproductive fitness, in order to benefit the group.

All of these explanations have their flaws.

However, I'm vastly oversimplifying here as there really is no gay gene, and this region on the X has been blown out of proportion both in the media, and here. As someone said earlier, being gay is most likely due to the result of genetics, development, and societial pressures.

A lot of the stuff that passes for 'science' on these forums is crap.

So far homosexuality hasn't been able to wipe out evolution, so it can't be that bad.

deleted

Bisexuality is superior.

No, I mean like I no several people and they used to be homosexuals and stuff, but now they're in a heterosexual marrige relationship, no longer homosexual.As was stated previously, society puts a lot of pressure on gay people to "act normal." I knew a gay guy who got married and instantly his career took off. His wife was delighted because he was a manager so it did a lot for her social status. (Not everyone can spot gays, despite what people think. Most of her friends assumed he was straight.) I know another woman who married a gay guy without even knowing it. They had two children. He too was using the marriage as a camouflage to gain respectability. The second woman's husband, and probably also the first one's, continued having clandestine gay relationships during the marriages.

All is not what it appears. Many gay men are capable of having sex with women without throwing up.

deleted

In a wild animal population, of course, this gay gene would weed itself out by preventing offspring for those in whom it was expressed. while 'gay genes' would be weeded out in time, my question then would be two-fold;
1) does each generational cohort have 'gay genes' that are weeded out each spring or are there only a few stray 'gay genes' every so often? &
2) do population pressures contribute to 'gay gene' expression or are there other factors involved?
We humans may, paradoxically, have hastened its spread in past centuries - by making homosexuality a sinful taboo, ancient & medieval societies pressured homosexuals to make a pretence at normal life. This could have included marriage and children, in those with sufficient willpower - and hence, the gene was propagated...interesting hypothesisNot good for evolution in the purely biological sense, true enough, because as far as I can see, the nature of nature is to reproduce, & reproduce wildly, as often as possible, with (mostly) as many mates as possible; think viruses, bacterias, fungi, coral, fishes, plants, birds, mammals, you name it...but good for diversifying our culture and society today!that pre-supposes that some, most or all change is attributable to 'gays', a fine theory if you are gay, but flawed to the rest of us that think of ourselves as artists, inventors, writers, change agents, freethinkers, etc. 'gays' may gravitate to those fields because they are surrounded by more understanding & interesting people on the 'avant garde' of life, willing to thumb their nose at society & its norms

If people would just mind their own damn business two points here;
1) this is an open forum, questions are allowed, last time I checked &
2) humans are naturally inquisitive, so someone askedthen asking whether homosexuality is good or bad would be like asking whether having blue eyes is good or bad.that depends on whether it is a natural or cultural expression of ourselves, green or blue eyes are natural, Elton John (who forgets in “Your Song”) may be 'cultural', thats what we are trying to figure outI'd like to see one properly designed study that demonstrates any negative attributes of a gay person. actually, I'd be skeptical of any test, because whether the testers did or didn't say they were 'gay' or 'straight', I would always suspect bias by "pro" or "anti" people, there is too much riding on the “facts”, for there to be an unbiased experiment, in my opinion of course. I'd wait for several reviews of these tests, to form an informed opinion afterwardsAnd no, I'm not gay, if you must ask.not that I care, but thanks for telling us

: rolleyes :
What do you mean "is it good for nature"? It's not good or bad, it <B>*IS*</B> nature.your opinion or fact? if fact, please add reference sources, test data or logical reasoning that let to your statement

Nothing is good or bad for nature. Whatever is [or isn't] is nature.

Given that almost everything in nature is a scale made up of very very tiny steps and mid-point mixtures of traits, I'd say that there is a good chance that everyone is partly hetero and partly homosexual - based on genes, hormones, and environment.

If you get only heterosexual genes, you are not flooded by particular hormones during your early growth in-utero, and you are raised by anti-gay parents, then your chances of finding people of your sex physically attractive are just about 0%.

Give how difficult women are, I'd be homosexual if I had the choice. Guys are much more easy going and, IMO, realistic. I, however, find boobies waaay too fascinating to give up on them. Men just don't do it for me.
And I was raised in a very feminine household w/ at least one gay "uncle" (close family friend) and one gay Aunt visiting occationally. So there MUST be a genetic or hormonal reason for homosexuality - otherwise, I'd be the posterchild.

Homosexuality is an important part of human society and is most prevalent in mammalian species that rely on social structures for survival. It is a bonding process most common in the male of the species but not excluding females. Sex is an excellent bonding exercise. It helps to create a communal environment, cooperation that helps maintain secular groups for the benefit for all. It has become a bit redundant in our human societies but still has strong influences in the social structures of (dare I say) the army, prisons and disenfranchised humans.

When humans started settling down into civilisations, they felt the need the grow fast in numbers much more than nature allowed them to, as they setlled in far off, unpopulated places; and therefore they started forcing men to mate with women. This meant taking men away from their primary sexual drive --- i.e., towards other men, and some amount of restrictions were exercised on male-male bonds. But they were not made redundant for a long time to come. Probably, not till Christianity came into being.

Christianity (and later Islam) were two extremely ambitious religions which converted spiritual practices into a matter of social identity, and thus a source of socio-political power. It was crucial for them to grow in numbers in order to consolidate their power, and so they just could not afford men to waste sexual energy on non-procreative bonds. Therefore, they did what was the only way to take men away from other men. They brought in 'god' into the whole mess, and made him declare 'sex between men' as a great sin, punishable by death. What followed was mayhem for centuries, till male-male bonds went completely underground. They were tolerated there as long as men did not talk about their sexual bonds with other men. That the socities were still divided into male-only and female-only was a big respite for men, and several male-male love bonds flourished unsung under this male solidarity.

But as the modern era came, religion replaced science as the oppressive tool. Some vested interests tried to consolidate the immense power that society had granted to male-female bonds. They broke the male-only spaces and made the society a mixed gender society. This snatched all pretences of men, which had given them a relief from the pressure to exaggerate their sexual attraction for women. Dating was enforced as a custom, further intensifying the pressures on men. Plus, male-male bonds were driven out from the underground, into the open ----- in the name of an open and free society. Further, a new concept of sexual orientation was used to label and isolate male-male sexual behaviour into a category which was earlier (in non-christian societies) a third-sex category for lesser/ transgendered men. Naturally, this made sure that most straight men took on a heterosexual identity to avoid this label at any cost. And transgendered/ meterosexual men thronged this space.

Thus, the biggest factor that has made sexual bonds between men (and thus sexual desire for men) redundant in human societies is the manipulative breaking of earlier male-only and female-only societies into mixed gender heterosexual society. This plus the two ancient pressures of: 1. exaggerating sexual need for women and 2. suppressing sexual need for men has made life a hell for men.

Today, in such a western heterosexual society, man has been completely broken from another man. He cannot relate with other men. He is totally dependant on women ----- for his social masculinity and power, for his friendship, for love and for sex. The heterosexual society is so hostile and insecure about male-male bonding that two men cannot even hold hands in public. Of course, some men have been -- all by themselves -- working on men's rights, but in the absence of any unity between men their work so far has not brought any fruit. Men's rights are violated day by day, and they are becoming second class citizens.

But still it is misleading to call male-male bonds as redundant. Sexual need for men has lingered on -- even behind an outward heterosexual mask, even when it is hated and despised by self --- as such a need the essence of being a man. One day, when men are finally driven to a wall, with no escape whatsoever, they will then strike back and create a revolution -- that may be as bloody as the one that oppressed them. What will eventually liberate men from thousands of years of oppression will be their instinct to bond sexually with other men. That time seems to be round the cornerr.

We are not a herd of animals, we are a culture that prides its self on individuality and love.

I wish we could be a herd of animals, like we were supposed to be. We would have lived and died as per nature's will. There would be no religion or science to oppress us.

Homosexuality is an abberation... it exists in nature but it is not the natural order of things. In the animal world, very few males 'bond', on the contrary what most of them do is fight other males for supremacy in order to get the female.

Homosexuality is an abberation... it exists in nature but it is not the natural order of things. In the animal world, very few males 'bond', on the contrary what most of them do is fight other males for supremacy in order to get the female.

There is no such thing as homosexuality in nature. So there is no question of it being either an aberration or a normality in nature. Homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are all an invention of the western society. Loosely, homosexuality would refer to a transgendered/ meterosexual male's sexual attraction for a masculine male or another transgendered/ meterosexual male. In nature (as well as in traditional male-only/ female-only societies) there is only a gender division of males, no sexual division.

As far as male bonds are concerned, they have been found to be the universal practise amongst several species, prominent among them --- mammals (refer to research by Bagemihl, Joan Roughgarden, etc.). Of course there are species, where sex between males is so all encompassing that females have to act like young males, in order to attract males for mating. Sex between males is not always 'copulation', which is only a 'heterosexual' society's idea of sex. It is also documented how the scientists have for 200 years suppressed such details, and misreported them, and how authorities rejected their findings when they were indeed reported. If the heterosexual society is so sure of heterosexuality being the natural order, why did it need to suppress information.

On the contrary, there are extremely few cases of heterosexuality. Mating between male and female takes place --- BUT only once in a year or two or even four years, when its time for reproduction. Therefore, the driving force can hardly be said to be a strong sexual desire, but rather a desire to procreate. Sexual desire for the opposite sex is though present is extremely transient, periodic and minimal. This is hardly heterosexuality. The male and female don't look back at each other one's the required copulation is over. A strong and continuing sexual desire would make them want to stick together, and even raise children together.

There is a strong case for the contention that the driving force for mating amongst animals is reproduction and not a sexual desire. E.g., there are species where there are no males, but females still have sex. These species are at a pre-sexual dimorphism stage, which all animal species were at one time. Therefore, sexual desire precedes reproduction. Nature seems to have ridden piggyback on an already existing sexual desire for same-sex, in order to accomplish reproduction after sexual dimorphism took place.

Also, there are species like the fish, where the male fish competes with other male fish in order to attract the female, and when the female comes and makes her choice the male frantically follows her. She drops her eggs and the male impregnates the eggs --- and not the female. Once the job is done, the male loses all interest in the female (and vice versa). The male does not even touch the female. Therefore, it is clear that a desire to procreate is primary, and a sexual drive for the opposite sex, if present is low --- whether it is in mammals or fish. (The same cannot be said of sexual drive for same-sex.)

Another male behaviour that proves this point is that the male takes a lot of precautions to ensure that the female uses his sperms for procreation and does not mate with other males. Such precautions may include shutting her vaginal passage. It is clear that the male is driven by a desire to have progenies, because he is not even going to meet that female again, and otherwise he could'nt care less who she has sex with after him.

While males do compete with each other ---- it is only a few males. The rest of the males quietly chew on the grass or do their stuff, while a couple of them fight over the female. Often males who are into a love bond, allow each other to mate without competition (It's documented). Males that mate do that only a few times in their lives. E.g., Elephants who have sexual bonds with other males, start mating only once they reach 40 years of age. They mate only a few times in their life-span of about 60 years.

A significant number of males do not mate at all. And this often includes the alpha male, that leads the male pack. He has sexual relations with several males in his pack, but may not mate with the female even once in his life.

If animals were heterosexual, there should not have been a need to fight at all. There are so many females. There should be one for each male. After all, darwinism assumes that nature works so hard to make animals procreate, and does not allow them to waste their efforts in non-procreation purposes, Further if nature really considers those who do not procreate a waste, why does it give the chance to mate only to a few males --- creating such a lot of waste. Surely, his theory is flawed.

Those macho males who bang their heads to mate, are definitely not heterosexual. They invariably go back to their male companions with whom they have a committment (take the case of bottleneck dolphins or Chimpanzees). But it will be derogatory to call their love relationship 'homosexuality', which is a poor concept of sexual love between males. Males often fight with each other for lots of things --- it could be for territory, for food or for a male lover. But the heterosexual scientists only show them fighting for females to make them appear heterosexual.

The closest counsins of men, especially the Chimpanzees share close love bonds with other males. For them male sexual bonds are an extremely important factor in their social fabric.Males grow stronger because of this. Packs of males hunt together, fight enemies together, take care of each other and even mate with females together. They never have such a relationship with a female.

AND THE BEST EXAMPLE TO DENUDE HETEROSEXUAL MEN OF THEIR STRAIGHT STATUS IS:
That the males who are actually heterosexuals in the mammal world are those males who are inferior. At least, they are not capable enough to fight for mating with the female -- that is how the programme on discovery channel reported it. In the case of the sea-lion, one such male was found living with the female year after year --- a very unusual male behaviour. A strong possibility is that such a male is a transgender or feminine male, due either to an excess of female hormones or a brain structure that may not be a disorder but quite natural for that class of males.

E.g. amongst the sheep there are some males who do not want to live in the rough and tough life of the males. They prefer to live with and mate with the females, thinking of themselves as females (refer to Joan roughgarden's research). They relate with the females more than with the males. THEREFORE HETEROSEXUALS IN NATURE ARE ACTUALLY THE THIRD SEX.

It is the same with humans. Transgendered males are the real heterosexuals. The straight men just pretend to be heterosexual because of social pressures.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT IS AN ABERRATION, ITS HETEROSEXUALITY IN STRAIGHT MEN.

Nothing is good or bad for nature. Whatever is [or isn't] is nature.that works for inanimate objects, lower aniamls were instincts control behavior, but you 'Kemosabe'; are a mixture of nurture, nature

we are a 'tabla rosa' for those big brains of ours to absorb input

We are not 'tabla rosa'. A large chunk of personality and thought patterns is encoded in the genes so that any input is secondary..........

There is no such thing as homosexuality in nature. So there is no question of it being either an aberration or a normality in nature. Homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are all an invention of the western society.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT IS AN ABERRATION, ITS HETEROSEXUALITY IN STRAIGHT MEN.
thanks for setting us straight :D
straight!!!hehehehe

anyway, you have research to back your statements, or only opinions?

please post your sources

There is no such thing as homosexuality in nature.

Really?

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Really?
he has a diff difinition of terms, read the rest of his long post, where he/she implies that all males should be gay, or at least a little 'festive', cha-cha-cha :D

Ahhh, yes. Hmmm...

I don't think anal fucking really matters. Unless you're a Christian or prude or both. In which case, you're lame.

Buddha1 has an interesting theory in his post. However, I don't agree with it due to scientific evidence that currently suggests a genetic cause for homosexual phenotypes. If better and more detailed research suggests otherwise in the future, then I am always open to reconsider.

Needless to say, homosexuality cannot result in speciation!

Perhaps in cases of "biological lesbianism" in a species which is capable of parthenogenesis, such as some lizard species.

....a genetic cause for homosexual phenotypes.
What?! :eek:

Are you talking about humans? There is no such evidence as far as I am aware. At least, no definitive evidence. For instance, I believe that identical twin studies and family lineage analysis suggests that there may be a genetic basis to homosexuality, but I am pretty sure that there is no evidence from molecular biology that implicates any specific gene(s). Can you provide references for the evidence to which you refer?<P>

I don't think anal fucking really matters. Unless you're a Christian or prude or both. In which case, you're lame.
^ Took the words right outta my mouth. :cool:

What?! :eek:

Are you talking about humans? There is no such evidence as far as I am aware. At least, no definitive evidence. For instance, I believe that identical twin studies and family lineage analysis suggests that there may be a genetic basis to homosexuality, but I am pretty sure that there is no evidence from molecular biology that implicates any specific gene(s). Can you provide references for the evidence to which you refer?<P>

Never mind that; what you said was correct. There's probably multiple factors at play here, of which one of them might be genes.

I don't think anal fucking really matters. Unless you're a Christian or prude or both. In which case, you're lame.

Well, I don't know about that ...perhaps you should check out the extremely high concentrations of bateria and viral infections found in human shit. You might not be so quick to give it the "Good-Roman Seal of Approval".

Baron Max

I found this topic very interesting, unfortunately I don't have much time to follow the whole thread these days.... but I'll intromit a bit anyway...

first of all, I'm not commenting it in agreement with the message replyed by this one I'm commenting.

Sex between males is not always 'copulation', which is only a 'heterosexual' society's idea of sex.
But what would exactly be that "extended" idea of sex? Because of course if we change the definitions, then the conclusions that use the old definitions wouldn't be valid anymore.

I think that for sexual interaction should be considered the act of fertilisation and courtship. If we extend to much to things that aren't related to sex/reproduction, it totally misses the poinf of being called sexual interactions. Would be just "social" interation, of some sort. When the same behaviors of fertilisation and courtship happen between individuals of the same sex, that would be homosexuality.



On the contrary, there are extremely few cases of heterosexuality. Mating between male and female takes place --- BUT only once in a year or two or even four years, when its time for reproduction. Therefore, the driving force can hardly be said to be a strong sexual desire, but rather a desire to procreate. Sexual desire for the opposite sex is though present is extremely transient, periodic and minimal. This is hardly heterosexuality. The male and female don't look back at each other one's the required copulation is over. A strong and continuing sexual desire would make them want to stick together, and even raise children together.
That's equating sexual desire with affection, with "falling in love", which I don't think it's true. I think that sexual desire would be better equated with desire to procreate. Yet not exactly, I see sexual desire more as a mechanism that ends up in procreation.

That doesn't mean, anyway, that it's required strict heterosexuality in order to procreate, it could occur only when procreation would be better strategically.

About raising offspring together, I can't see how it could be related with sexual appointment. I think it has to do only with costs and benefits and the necessity of passing away one's own genes. Many times, one sex will end up having more offspring by having multiple partners rather than raising the offspring with only one partner. I think that usually is the female which are somewhat constrained to raise the offspring, but inversions occur.
I think that both will raise the offspring together in cases which the development of the offspring is more expensive, only effective if done this way.

I think it could be counter argued that the offspring were allowed to be more expensive in species which already had male and female stronger bonds, rather than the bonds being generated by the expensiveness of the offspring.... hopefully these alternatives wouldpredict different things, but I can't think of any right now.


There is a strong case for the contention that the driving force for mating amongst animals is reproduction and not a sexual desire. E.g., there are species where there are no males, but females still have sex. These species are at a pre-sexual dimorphism stage, which all animal species were at one time. Therefore, sexual desire precedes reproduction. Nature seems to have ridden piggyback on an already existing sexual desire for same-sex, in order to accomplish reproduction after sexual dimorphism took place.
I'm a bit confused now....
First you said that desire for procreation is distinct of sexual desire; now sexual desire exists before the existence of sex itself, and looks pretty much as if it were desire to procreate.

I think that before sex, of course there was no way to have sexual appointment, only desire to procreate. But after/during the origin of sex, sexual appointment arises as a selective mechanism that makes mating between different sexes more effective than if it were purely random.



Also, there are species like the fish, where the male fish competes with other male fish in order to attract the female, and when the female comes and makes her choice the male frantically follows her. She drops her eggs and the male impregnates the eggs --- and not the female. Once the job is done, the male loses all interest in the female (and vice versa). The male does not even touch the female. Therefore, it is clear that a desire to procreate is primary, and a sexual drive for the opposite sex, if present is low --- whether it is in mammals or fish. (The same cannot be said of sexual drive for same-sex.)
And the fishes of the same sex, do they touch each other?

I think that fits well with what I said. Sexual drive doesn't need to be a desire to be all over the body of one individual of the other sex, but rather a mechanism that tries to ensure that the organisms will mate effectively. In this case, the males want to fertilise eggs rather than other sperm and females lay eggs to be fertilised rather than trying to lay on another egg or in sperm laid as if it was an egg.



If animals were heterosexual, there should not have been a need to fight at all. There are so many females. There should be one for each male. After all, darwinism assumes that nature works so hard to make animals procreate, and does not allow them to waste their efforts in non-procreation purposes, Further if nature really considers those who do not procreate a waste, why does it give the chance to mate only to a few males --- creating such a lot of waste. Surely, his theory is flawed.
That was the point that made me want to reply....

Well... darwinism doesn't assume that natures work hard for anything.... it's completely ateleological. It surely doesn't say that nature considers those who doesn't mate are a waste and then "try" to eliminate them. Nature doesn't consider anything.

Sexual desire/selection would be an selective advantage in relation to mating randomly where sex already exist. But from that doesn't follow that there shouldn't or couldn't exist homosexuality or that the males should be fair with each other and share the females equally.

The latter because a male that mates with more females and avoid non-related males (or what are mistakenly recognized as that) will have more offspring than those who don't do that. That's very logical. It's not what nature is thinking, it is simply not "caring" if the other males will be wasted.
Homosexuality (or sexual abstinence) can occurs as long it's relatively neutral, not representing a disvantage. It wouldn'y be in many cases that I won't point right now, but as mating seasons were pointed as one of the few periods when heterosexual behavior occurs, I'll say just one: out of the mating seasons.

I think that then we shouldn't expect heterosexual behavior, or at least fewer mating attempts, because mating seasons probably evolved (my guess) because it synchronizes the development of the offspring with the most effective period of the year in a certain habitat, in relation to envioronmental resources. Outside that period, when resources are more scarce, "effective" mating would be more likely a "waste", while homosexual behavior could be neutral, if we're not talking of some species in which individuals of the same sex simply hate each other.


Those macho males who bang their heads to mate, are definitely not heterosexual. They invariably go back to their male companions with whom they have a committment (take the case of bottleneck dolphins or Chimpanzees). But it will be derogatory to call their love relationship 'homosexuality', which is a poor concept of sexual love between males.
Well, I agree. If we call sex the non-sexual interactions between individuals between the same sex, just because they're hanging around together, then a nuclear family would be some sort of endogamic orgy.


Males often fight with each other for lots of things --- it could be for territory, for food or for a male lover. But the heterosexual scientists only show them fighting for females to make them appear heterosexual.
I think I've heard about males fighting other males for territory or food, but I must confess that for male lovers is the first time. But I'm not surprised.
I just think that fight for females is more shown because it's the most evident, I guess that is when it's the mating season that the fights became more intense or frequent.


The closest counsins of men, especially the Chimpanzees share close love bonds with other males. For them male sexual bonds are an extremely important factor in their social fabric.Males grow stronger because of this. Packs of males hunt together, fight enemies together, take care of each other and even mate with females together. They never have such a relationship with a female.
That's explained, I think, by the finite social space theory, plus a byproduct of sexual desire mechanism.

Later I'll continue and put my views of sexual behavior in humans

Originally Posted by Starthane Xyzth
In a wild animal population, of course, this gay gene would weed itself out by preventing offspring for those in whom it was expressed.

That is a big fat assumption. While a homozygous carrier of the 'gay allele' would be weeded out, a heterozygous carrier could have some benefit from having one 'gay allele'. Perhaps increased fertility?

The fact that homosexuality is observed in nature, and in human beings, means it is NOT being weeded out. Gay humans don't reproduce... so why haven't gays been weeded out of the human gene pool?

Either the mutation which causes gayness occurs quite often, or it is due to 2 recessive alleles.

Either the mutation which causes gayness occurs quite often, or it is due to 2 recessive alleles.
Arrrrggggghhhh!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

This place is positively painful sometimes.

Whilst identical twin studies and family lineage analysis <I>suggests</I> that there may be a genetic basis that contributes to homosexuality, there is <B><I>no evidence</I></B> from molecular biology that implicates any <I><B>specific gene(s)</B></I> (recessive, dominant, co-dominant, additive or otherwise).

Just to repeat that: <I><B><U>there is no such thing as a "gay gene"</U></B></I><P>

Just to repeat that: there is no such thing as a "gay gene"

Great. Prove it.
BTW, I never stated that there was. However, I was responding to the comment that 'gayness' would be weeded out of the gene pool. Having certain alleles which are involved in causing homosexuality might also confer some advantage to its recipient.

Great. Prove it.
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. :rolleyes: <P>

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.

Recently I have read that there are homosexuality in both human and animals. I am just wondering if it is good for nature and why does it exist?
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.

Hercules Rockefeller

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.

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...


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.

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


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.

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.