Is homosexuality good or bad for nature?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Joeman, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    it cant be that bad for nature, how would they pass on the gay genes?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saith Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    149
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dissolute Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Starthane Xyzth returns occasionally... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,465
    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  8. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    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.
     
  9. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    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!
     
  10. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    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.
     
  11. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    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?

    ******​
     
  12. Christopher Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    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.
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    So far homosexuality hasn't been able to wipe out evolution, so it can't be that bad.
     
  14. deleted
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2007
  15. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    Bisexuality is superior.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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.
     
  17. deleted
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2007
  18. 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?
    interesting hypothesis
    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...
    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
     
  19. two points here;
    1) this is an open forum, questions are allowed, last time I checked &
    2) humans are naturally inquisitive, so someone asked
    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 out
    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 afterwards
    not that I care, but thanks for telling us
     
  20. your opinion or fact? if fact, please add reference sources, test data or logical reasoning that let to your statement
     
  21. Thersites Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    535
    Nothing is good or bad for nature. Whatever is [or isn't] is nature.
     
  22. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2005
  23. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2005

Share This Page