Is homosexuality good or bad for nature?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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..........

 

thanks for setting us straight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

straight!!!hehehehe

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

please post your sources

 

Really?

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

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

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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

 

What?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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>

 

^ Took the words right outta my mouth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

Arrrrggggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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>

 

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.