Is Homosexuality psycological or biological?

in a recent new scientist:

the more brothers you have the more likely the chances are that you are gay....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Homosexuality is not among other animals, if it is there then in all probability they had lost their natural senses. In humans if it is not due to harmone disorder then it is psychological. i think natural selection process could mostly eliminate that physical disorder..(?!) from the gene pool long back.

If the percieved creativity among homosexuals is true then it might be due to their off-the-line thinking. (ranging from pervert loonies to sensual artists). no pun intended. this is what with out any bias i could think of.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fabulous kingdom of gay animals

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, well you're no friend to Big Gay Al apparently. Hehe. Southpark RULES!

 

Ya read some of my post here in this thread, there are some links but I'm about a lazy as you and I am not going to look back through all this.

 

Wes,
remember eminem is on the run now, branded homophobic.. poor guy.. im thinking of supporting him in his crusade..!

 

I was thinking it might be a result of depression or discrimination. Like they are desperate to love someone so they say that they ar , even though they don't believe it (people lie to themselves) and go on with there life, "pretending" they are, eventually leading themselves to believe they are, becoming happier that way, and staying that way, and eventually finding that they don't want t go back, because of a forgotten fear that they do not want to be dissed. It can be also biological, and that has to do with chromosomesand hormones.


But I do have a question. Why does the opposite sex get turned on when they see two homos together????

 

Some of you earlier on in the thread seemed hung up about why homosexuality continues to evolutionarily exist if homosexuals don't pass on genes.

Well the following is a theory in response to that thought, created by Edward Wilson (a pretty well known sociobiologist).

First you need to understand an important evolutionary principle called "inclusive fitness". Fitness is the measure of perpetuating your genes. Inclusive fitness on the other hand is an expanded notion of fitness which includes perpetuating your genes by helping family members, because they carry a majority of your genes.

An example of this is kin altruism, which is risking your neck to save members of your family. Prairie dogs can often times be seen doing this. If there is danger one prairie dog will stand straight up out of their hole, risking their life, making him/her a visible target, while the other family members make their escape.

How does all this relate to homosexuality? Humans and most other mammals have very few offspring, so the survival of these offspring are determined by how much protection they receive. If there is a homosexual member in the family, they would be there to help rear, because their time would not be spent raising a family of their own. They would still be perpetuating their genes, because their family members have a majority of the same genes.

- Wilson, E. O. (1994). On Human Nature. New York: Bantam.

This correlates well with the study spuriousmonkey was alluding to: "the more brothers you have the more likely the chances are that you are gay...."

One, if you have a large family, it would be advantageous to have more rearing members. Two, the more brothers, the more competition between the brothers, the more likely the family will split up, the less likely chances for survival.

Make sense?

 

I think our sexual orientation is biological.

As a heterosexual male I can't help being attracted to women rather than men, nor can I help being attracted to specific women and not being attracted to others.

I don't see why it would be any different for homosexuals.

 

Xenu: The inclusive fitness concept ala Edward Wilson is an interesting idea. It is reasonable, but seems very difficult to verify or refute, making it an interesting opinion rather than a workable scientific theory.

If the concept was valid, more homosexuality would be expected in primitive cultures with high birth rates and lower standards of living. Homosexuality seems to occur more often in sophisticated cultures among people with comfortable living standards. Modern day American and ancient Greece come to mind as examples. To me, this is a bit of evidence against the concept.

From what I have read, about 2% to 10% of the US population is homosexual. I suspect the high and low figures are due to bias on the part of the those doing the statistics. Even the 2% figure seems high for an exclusively genetic cause. Exclusive homosexuality is undoubtedly worse than hemophilia for preventing passing along genes. This suggests an upper bound to genetically based homosexuality.

The claim for a hormonal basis due to prenatal environment is an interesting concept. This requires analysis of the cause of the alleged prenatal environment, pushing the nature or nurture argument onto a different playing field. How many pregnant women are exposed to some special diet of medication causing the unusual prenatal environment? If the cause is alleged to be genetic, the same arguments against it apply.

It seems reasonable to me to start with the known power of the sex drive, which trails the drive to eat and breathe, but tends to be ahead of everything else at the instinct level. In simple societies, the basic instincts are expected to function as directed by our millions of years of evolutionary development. In complex and moderately affluent cultures, is it so hard to imagine the basic instincts being suppressed and/or redirected?

Homosexuality seem to me to be a harmless abnormality or misdirection of the sex drive brought about by conflicts between our genetically derived instincts and the complex culture in which we live. We are no longer primitive hunter gatherers, although our genetic heritage is almost the same as it was in prehistoric times. We are coping with a modern society using instincts designed for survival in prehistoric times. Is it any wonder that we have all sorts of abnormal behavior?

The homophobes should worry more about the dangerous deviations from normal behavior, rather worrying about the gay community. Go ferret out and pick on the rapists, pediphiles, serial killers, lousy politicians, con men, and other predators.

I understand (and disagree with) the motivations of the religious types who are anti-gay, but do not comprehend the others who are homophobic. In my youth, my lifestyle brought me into contact with a lot of gay men. They never did anything to cause me concern. What is the problem?

I suspect that those who defend the gay life style by claiming that it is genetically caused or normal behavior are looking for a justification, when the right to be left alone is certainly the best argument they have. Behavior that causes no harm to others should surely be allowed.

 

repeating my self again and again and...

Heterosexuality is genetic pre-implanted instinct. Homosexuality arises when a feti is exposed to unusual hormone levels during the specific time in fetal development. The above theory has been tested and proven in rats and monkeys (cannot be tested on humans because no parent would be willing to subject there unborn baby to such experiments). There for homosexuality is hormonally induced anomaly and not genetic... nor is it psychological!

 

i know that many of you may not like me saying this, but the governments know exactly what causes our sexual preferences.
there is good evidence that police have used psychotronic weapons to manipulate them to try to take these innocent people of the streets.
there has been many cases throughout the world off police using psychotronic weapons, to stimulate people into becoming paedo's. they undertstand what parts of the brain can be stimulated and they abuse these weapons knowledge to abuse innocent peoples lifes.
so your best bet would be to ask a person who made these weapons for the use, that i described.

but for me the answer is, because i know how these weapons are used, i would have to say that Homosexuality is psycological and not biological.

the security services have and still are abusing this knowledge, and there are many people around the world that are locked up for being paedo's but there really were not, and quite famous people too, but i will not say here.

so with the technology of these psychotronic weapons they can change an average heterosexual man into a full gay man or vise versa. i think this explains all you people need to know, and it should be end of this discussion.

here is another view on it, remember that sex is basically for reproduction, so how would evoultion make a man gay. it would only and can only be psycological. remember that when a gay man has sex with another man it is not for the need of repproduction, it is just his brain fooling him into believing him being gay.

i can guarentee with these weapons that the security forces can make you believe in whatever sexual concept they want you to believe in.

 

andy1033,

you have any proof of those claims?

 

can i never say what i know to be true, and do i always need to have proof of this and that before i said it. i happen to know it first hand, but all you have to do is look on the internet for some info on these weapons and how there are(truefully) abused.

 

There is evidence that the level of androgens in a mom may cause a child to be homosexual, but in terms of natural selection the effects of becoming homosexual from a high level of these hormones is a genetic trait. Otherwise you could say that gender is not genetic, because gender is determined the same way.

The hormones may carry out the plan, but the genes determine what those hormones do.

 

andy1033,

I been lookking but I can't find any homosexuality rayguns you mind helping me out here?

Xenu,

Gender is determine the same way! Genes turn on and produce the necessary steroid (sex hormones) during a specific time in fetal development and that determines sexual preference and identity. Some times outside sources will do the same thing but using the wrong steroid (or simulating the wrong hormone) and cause a child to be born homosexual or with enough dosage and accruing early enough: hermaphroditic.

A homosexuality gene would not be evolutionarily sound because it would greatly reduce the rate of reproduction… then again with homosexuals force to be “in the closet” they could still reproduce well. I would admit to the possibility of a gene or genes that would increase the risk.

 

Dinosaur,

No this wouldn't be evidence against the theory I posted above, because you are assuming that evolution works as fast as modern societies change. On an evolutionary scale, the industrial revolution was just yesterday.

Very true, that's the problem with a lot of sociobiological theory. I didn't post the theory as a "this is the truth" concept, but as a possibility for those who say homosexuality can't possibly be evolutionary.

Kin Altruism is an observable trait in the world. It seems the only way for Evolutionist can accept this concept is through inclusive fitness which seems to make sense as much as standard evolutionary theory does anyway.

For those of you interested, the psychological evidence found so far show that homosexuality has both biological and environmental factors. As with most things in psychology, it's not an "either/or" issue, but a "both" one.

 

In order for the hormone to turn someone gay to work, you have to have a genetic makeup that basically says "when this hormone is at this level, change the brain in this way", right?. If being gay was "against" evolution, the genetic makeup would change and that hormone would no longer be effective in turning people gay.

I posted a theory above that shows how homosexuality can possibly help in the passing of genes. It's not through increasing rate of production but increasing rate of survival.

 

Aaaah I don't get what your saying here!

Hormones are needed for genes to enforce their instructions, so when a feti gets testosterone exposure during a specific time in fetal development the feti is masculinized... no mater what sex it was genetically! If the hormone could not turn people gay it would also not turn people any sex and we all would be render sterile!

 

WellcookedFetus: How do the hormones alleged to cause homosexuality get into the bloodstream?