Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby xcthulhu on May 21st, 2011, 4:08 pm 

johnbnelson wrote:Agreed. However, in regards to your example of sickle cell, it could be argued that it provides no benefit due to the use of anti-maleria medication, much like homosexuality has little context in terms of reproduction due to medical advancements.


Well... there are still areas in Senegal, South Africa, and Somalia where malaria medication is hard to come by. And of course modern medicine has changed evolutionary pressures. But it's tedious to have to write every sentence in the past tense and qualify it with "except this doesn't matter anymore now".

Anyway, you're still dodging the point: why is it beneficial for eusocial animals to have non-reproductive offspring? Is this explanation applicable to homosexuality in human evolution or not?
User avatar
xcthulhu
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Paralith on May 21st, 2011, 4:21 pm 

...I'm sorry, this is getting to be off-topic, but - sickle cell is a case of heterozygote advantage, not frequency dependent selection. The fitness of the heterozygotes and homozygotes for the sickling allele does not change when the frequency of those alleles in the population change. Perhaps you could consider it frequency dependent if you count the fact that a population full of nothing but heterozygotes is going to have nothing but less-than-optimally-fit-children, but the reproductive benefits of the sickling allele are basically constant within a malarial environment.

Nor do I see how a trait simply described as "sometimes beneficial" is necessarily under frequency dependent selection. It's only frequency dependent if the "sometimes" are times when the frequency of that allele is within a certain range. Homosexuality probably would be such a trait, since too high a frequency of homosexual children means no one reproduces.

-----

There is a hypothesis that homosexual individuals have evolved to be "helper" individuals that do not focus on their own reproduction, but aid their parents and/or siblings instead, and are able to gain greater indirect fitness by this behavior than they could by directly reproducing themselves. This is similar to the logic behind some hypotheses for the evolution of eusociality.

However, as Forest pointed out, these individuals probably weren't solely used as helpers but were made to reproduce themselves anyway. It would be interesting to know if there was ever a culture or society where families regularly took advantage of homosexual children this way, but I'm guessing there isn't. Forest? Know of any?
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3160
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 21st, 2011, 4:30 pm 

xcthulhu wrote:
johnbnelson wrote:Agreed. However, in regards to your example of sickle cell, it could be argued that it provides no benefit due to the use of anti-maleria medication, much like homosexuality has little context in terms of reproduction due to medical advancements.


Well... there are still areas in Senegal, South Africa, and Somalia where malaria medication is hard to come by. And of course modern medicine has changed evolutionary pressures. But it's tedious to have to write every sentence in the past tense and qualify it with "except this doesn't matter anymore now".

Anyway, you're still dodging the point: why is it beneficial for eusocial animals to have non-reproductive offspring? Is this explanation applicable to homosexuality in human evolution or not?


In regards to eusocial animals, para made the statement that in many ways the 'hive' behaves as a single organism, and each of the animals functions as a part of the whole.

Even outside of that context, though, the non-reproductive members of the 'hive' serve to propagate the next generation. In other words, a bee hive without all the workers out to gather honey wouldn't be able to produce the royal jelly which is needed for the next reproductive offspring.

As far as being applicable to humans; certainly. I'm sure what it's called, but i recall from my formal psych classes that there is a 'need' for people to contribute to the next generation. Often it's expressed by having children, but in the absense of children it can be expressed in other ways, such as adoption, charity work, educating, ect.

But, it's been some time since i studied psych in a formal setting, so if this theory has been debunked, please let me know.

I apologize if it seemed i was dodging your question.

On another point though; much like the medications for milaria aren't readily available in all parts of the world, the same could be said for the medical advancements making it possible for strict homosexuals to reproduce.

Edit: just a thought, but perhaps the more publicly accepting attitude towards homosexuals in western society could be due in part to the decreased need for multiple (3 or more) children as opposed to the trend in less developed societies to have multiple children. I think there could definately be a correlation, but, to be honest, this isn't something i'm curious enough about to actually dive into enough and search for evidence of causation.
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on May 21st, 2011, 5:30 pm 

Paralith wrote:Forest, my understanding was that children out of wedlock had by those lusty males had no legal rights to their father's wealth...


True in theory but obviously some provisions were often made even for the bastards born out of wedlock. And of course, as you mention, laws of primogeniture were made! Generally you don't pass a law banning X if X is not happening and seen as a problem for someone e.g., we have no laws against time travel. So if someone took the trouble to pass the laws regarding primogeniture, then non-primogeniture inheritance must have been happening and seen as a problem by someone. However, I think in the context of what I was talking about, the real problems were the additional male children and legitimate heirs.

Paralith wrote:It would be interesting to know if there was ever a culture or society where families regularly took advantage of homosexual children this way, but I'm guessing there isn't. Forest? Know of any?


Not quite in this way. However, in the past I had mentioned cases where non-reproducing individuals had been discussed by scholars talking about complex societies. Celibate (real or not) priests, eunichs or others who "chose not to marry" (e.g., perhaps homosexuals who were relatively discrete) could in different contexts earn wealth and prestige that would reflect well on their siblings and extended family. The argument should be familiar to those who have read up on sociobiology (and in fact some of it predates that literature and is found in some earlier studies of nationalism, etc.)

And again thinking about some cases where homosexuality was even encouraged as a means of building espirit de corps such as in some historical military or naval contexts, then "in theory", if you did well in those contexts, fortune might smile on you later. I would bet that Champlain's and Lord Nelson's cabin boys would have done relatively well in life (although to be honest I don't know the specifics in either case).
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on May 21st, 2011, 5:33 pm 

BTW, I have been avoiding discussing some of the many cases where what we would call homosexual behaviour (or perhaps worse) was simply a "stage in life". There are certainly cases where, for example, (all) young boys had to receive semen from older men before they could generate their own. Obviously in cases like that, I am not sure we are really talking about homosexuality.

As I mentioned before, Judeo-Christian "sins" regarding homosexuality make a certain kind of sense if you consider the contexts. Why was it happening and why was it a problem? Judeo-Christian roots included patriarchal polygamous societies where older more successful men ruled the world and had many wives (think Solomon). This obviously left a shortage for other males who needed an "outlet" until they could afford their own. This would be why it happened. Why was it considered a problem? Because if you were content with your homosexual partner, you might be less inclined to work to get your own wives and in all these kinds of scenarios, working to get your own wive almost always benefited these older more successful males in some ways. Hense it might be tolerated to some degree but at the same time discouraged.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on May 21st, 2011, 6:02 pm 

I think one hypothetical example I had in mind comes from old Quebec. Originally properties were located along the river and the river frontage was the important component to ensure transportation for crops and other necessary resources. Through time, properties were divided among heirs so that river frontage was provided and farms became increasingly narrow with each generation. Clearly primogeniture was not that enforced hence the historic dividing into increasingly narrow strips (and I would suspect that in general primogeniture was more a concern of the elite). Hypothetically, while there may be many reasons why fewer heirs could have occurred, keeping relatively larger farms in successive generations, presumably any male who did the barest minimum to have heirs, including a proclivity towards homosexuality, would have one heir who would inherit more land than the man who had more heirs who would be relatively less well off.

While I think this could be a reasonable hypothesis, testing it with reliable data would obviously be more difficult due to the social stigma that could be attached. But, should the day come when we can actually identify genetic markers for homosexuality, who knows?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 21st, 2011, 6:04 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:BTW, I have been avoiding discussing some of the many cases where what we would call homosexual behaviour (or perhaps worse) was simply a "stage in life". There are certainly cases where, for example, (all) young boys had to receive semen from older men before they could generate their own. Obviously in cases like that, I am not sure we are really talking about homosexuality.

As I mentioned before, Judeo-Christian "sins" regarding homosexuality make a certain kind of sense if you consider the contexts. Why was it happening and why was it a problem? Judeo-Christian roots included patriarchal polygamous societies where older more successful men ruled the world and had many wives (think Solomon). This obviously left a shortage for other males who needed an "outlet" until they could afford their own. This would be why it happened. Why was it considered a problem? Because if you were content with your homosexual partner, you might be less inclined to work to get your own wives and in all these kinds of scenarios, working to get your own wive almost always benefited these older more successful males in some ways. Hense it might be tolerated to some degree but at the same time discouraged.


Oddly enough, i've actually seen that in practice overseas; men working to acquire the resources to purchase a wife. In several of these instances, the men practiced homosexuality but did not consider themselves homosexual because they were working to acquire a wife.

BTW, great posts forest, lotta good information there. I never considered the family prestige angle.

I think there was a study published a few years ago that showed evidence that same sex couples tended to earn more than thier heterosexual counterparts.

Also, within impoverished households, having a non-reproductive member would be beneficial in that they would provide additional income without the chance of adding another mouth to feed.
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on May 21st, 2011, 6:10 pm 

johnbnelson wrote:I never considered the family prestige angle.

I think there was a study published a few years ago that showed evidence that same sex couples tended to earn more than thier heterosexual counterparts.


As I mentioned above, the "family prestige" angle was one that I think the sociobiologists might have actually adopted from some discussions on the history of nationalism and similar institutions (e.g., the churches). Various kinds of celibates (not just priests) were often considered more reliable to their masters because they had fewer divided loyalties and often could and would work harder and be willing to be away from home more gaining riches. Someone had to benefit and it was often the nephews. Even in the cases of perhaps historic pedophilia, presumably the altar boy who was favoured by a well-placed bishop, etc., but was discrete could do well later in life due to rewards for services.

In many of these cases I think we can often benefit more by wondering why there is a problem with something like homosexuality rather than why there might be a benefit.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby xcthulhu on May 21st, 2011, 6:33 pm 

Paralith wrote:...I'm sorry, this is getting to be off-topic, but - sickle cell is a case of heterozygote advantage, not frequency dependent selection. The fitness of the heterozygotes and homozygotes for the sickling allele does not change when the frequency of those alleles in the population change. Perhaps you could consider it frequency dependent if you count the fact that a population full of nothing but heterozygotes is going to have nothing but less-than-optimally-fit-children, but the reproductive benefits of the sickling allele are basically constant within a malarial environment.

Nor do I see how a trait simply described as "sometimes beneficial" is necessarily under frequency dependent selection. It's only frequency dependent if the "sometimes" are times when the frequency of that allele is within a certain range. Homosexuality probably would be such a trait, since too high a frequency of homosexual children means no one reproduces.


You're right about this getting a little off topic, but more importantly your right about diagnosing my mistake. A proper population geneticist is worth her weight in gold on this forum ;-)

Anyway, I tried to make a simple model using the replicator dynamic, and I now realize that it doesn't model the cross over mechanics correctly at all.

Thanks for the correction; it's been edifying as usual.
User avatar
xcthulhu
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 21st, 2011, 6:54 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:In many of these cases I think we can often benefit more by wondering why there is a problem with something like homosexuality rather than why there might be a benefit.


Wouldn't you have to first assume there is a problem with it, to wonder why that problem is?

You are right though, especially considering that this thread is about 'problems with homosexuality'. I guess we derailed it a bit, but it was certainly a good run.

Although, i think we might have exhausted this topic, but perhaps someone could add a breath of fresh air.
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on May 21st, 2011, 7:07 pm 

johnbnelson wrote:Wouldn't you have to first assume there is a problem with it, to wonder why that problem is?


Well, isn't that the premise of the whole thread? I have certainly been involved in threads about homosexuality before but to be honest, I avoided this one for a while because I really don't like threads that start off assuming there is some kind of problem with homosexuality. I often try to avoid threads that start off in any kind of antagonistic stance such as perceived "problems with religion X, or practice Y", etc., unless there is some premise that the problems really do effect the public good. People's sexual practices or preferences, religious beliefs, etc., usually are not a problem or concern unless or until they are somehow forced on others and then they become a concern. The title of this thread is "non-religious problems with homosexuality". As near as I can tell, there aren't any. So why would anyone assume there were and start a thread on it?
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Paralith on May 21st, 2011, 7:15 pm 

xcthulhu wrote:A proper population geneticist is worth her weight in gold on this forum ;-)


Oh dear! I'm hardly a "proper" population geneticist. I'm just the closest you've got, haha.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3160
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 21st, 2011, 7:39 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:
johnbnelson wrote:Wouldn't you have to first assume there is a problem with it, to wonder why that problem is?


Well, isn't that the premise of the whole thread? I have certainly been involved in threads about homosexuality before but to be honest, I avoided this one for a while because I really don't like threads that start off assuming there is some kind of problem with homosexuality. I often try to avoid threads that start off in any kind of antagonistic stance such as perceived "problems with religion X, or practice Y", etc., unless there is some premise that the problems really do effect the public good. People's sexual practices or preferences, religious beliefs, etc., usually are not a problem or concern unless or until they are somehow forced on others and then they become a concern. The title of this thread is "non-religious problems with homosexuality". As near as I can tell, there aren't any. So why would anyone assume there were and start a thread on it?


Seeing as how the OP was asking if there were problems, wouldn't a question mark, instead of a period have been much more appropriate, and eliminate some of the starting assumption that there is a problem?

I have to admit, i looked in the thread at first because i wanted to see what non-religious arguments against homosexuality were, and only after reading the OP did i even begin to toy with the idea that there may be a problem in regards to propogating the species.

As far as homosexuality providing a benefit though, it was somewhat relavent to the context of the thread because it was used to highlight that even though homosexuality could be detrimental in very extreme, highly unlikely hypothetic situations, it could also be beneficial in different, but equally extreme and unlikely situations. It also helped to highlight that benefit and detriment are often(if not always) subjective.

Regardless though, i'm coming away from this thread knowing i gained something from it, and isn't that what it's all about?
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby mtbturtle on May 23rd, 2011, 12:51 pm 

xcthulhu wrote:
mtbturtle wrote:In terms of gene propagation, is there really ever an "evolutionary problem" if some individual or even group of individuals do not reproduce?


Sometimes. If you have a small population then a genetic line can die out completely if an individual does not reproduce (think of pandas, for instance).

I could point out other times where it's beneficial. As I have argued on this forum before, evolutionary dynamics is a complicated and nuanced subject.


ok yes that was sloppy of me with "ever". It is hard for me to see though how a person not propagating their genes could be described as an "evolutionary problem" today.

All the comments were interesting.

Did anything really end up popping out in terms of benefit/detrimental in biological terms with regards to human homosexuality behaviors?

From the social (society) end I can recall a few arguments that were generally made along the lines of - it's going to destroy society, the family, it causes dysfunctions.

At one time and there are still some who consider homosexuality a mental illness.

I can think of maybe a few other non-religious lines I've heard. Not that any of them ever made any sense, but just the kind of things people try to use.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 23rd, 2011, 2:26 pm 

mtbturtle wrote:ok yes that was sloppy of me with "ever". It is hard for me to see though how a person not propagating their genes could be described as an "evolutionary problem" today.

All the comments were interesting.

Did anything really end up popping out in terms of benefit/detrimental in biological terms with regards to human homosexuality behaviors?

From the social (society) end I can recall a few arguments that were generally made along the lines of - it's going to destroy society, the family, it causes dysfunctions.

At one time and there are still some who consider homosexuality a mental illness.

I can think of maybe a few other non-religious lines I've heard. Not that any of them every made any sense, but just the kind of things people try to use.


IMO, those examples are just people attempting to find "scientific" justification for thier personal bias.
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby selfless on May 25th, 2011, 10:58 am 

rickymouse wrote:I'm staying out of this one too. I just can't understand why a guy would desire a sexual relationship with another guy. To me there is no attraction at all, except friendship. If someone asked me how I know without trying it, I'de respond I know who I am and I want to keep it that way. If they started to force their thinking on me I would just quickly grab their throat with my hand and squeeze their jugglers till they get a little lightheaded while I politely tell them to go find someone else to convince. I like that technique, people don't seem to challenge you again. Being a 6'2" 260 lb construction worker has benefits. Calmness and self awareness is an intregal part of intelligence.


I would really like to know why you responded to this thread. I'm not trying to start an argument, but rather trying to get a handle on male homophobia. I mean you started out by saying that you were going to 'stay out of this one' and then proceeded to describe how you would physically thrash anyone who tried to force their homosexual way of thinking on to you.

Please explain.
selfless
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 May 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby mtbturtle on May 25th, 2011, 11:37 am 

Hi selfless and welcome,

Rickymouse as I recalled said he was leaving and we already dealt with his threatening comments.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby sillysmile on May 25th, 2011, 11:31 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:
johnbnelson wrote:Wouldn't you have to first assume there is a problem with it, to wonder why that problem is?


Well, isn't that the premise of the whole thread? I have certainly been involved in threads about homosexuality before but to be honest, I avoided this one for a while because I really don't like threads that start off assuming there is some kind of problem with homosexuality. I often try to avoid threads that start off in any kind of antagonistic stance such as perceived "problems with religion X, or practice Y", etc., unless there is some premise that the problems really do effect the public good. People's sexual practices or preferences, religious beliefs, etc., usually are not a problem or concern unless or until they are somehow forced on others and then they become a concern. The title of this thread is "non-religious problems with homosexuality". As near as I can tell, there aren't any. So why would anyone assume there were and start a thread on it?


Hi Forrest Dump,
This topic was not intended to be prejudiced or offensive towards homosexuality.
I was raised to believe that there were problems with homosexuality (as many people are), and I wanted to determine the actual truth and reasoning of that belief.

By the way, your points were very interesting and insightful, so thanks.
User avatar
sillysmile
Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia.


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby xcthulhu on May 26th, 2011, 12:46 am 

sillysmile wrote:Hi Forrest Dump,
This topic was not intended to be prejudiced or offensive towards homosexuality.
I was raised to believe that there were problems with homosexuality (as many people are), and I wanted to determine the actual truth and reasoning of that belief.

By the way, your points were very interesting and insightful, so thanks.


It is my ethical opinion that if people love each other then that ought to command respect, regardless of whether anyone else understands or sees something beautiful in it. And moreover, people have a right to privacy and freedom in the bedroom, provided all parties are consenting adults.

Beyond that, I don't see any plausible case for homosexuality as being unnatural, given that it is a widely occurring phenomenon in other species.

In addition to this, there is some research indicating an increased likelihood in homosexuality depending on the birth order of right-handed fraternal siblings, but various sociological studies have disputed this (wikipedia has a great bibliography detailing this research).

This research, if true, would support the just-so story from evolutionary psychology that homosexuality might have evolved in humans so non-reproducing offspring could aid their siblings in raising their offspring. John B Nelson suggested this earlier and I alluded to it. On the other hand I also consider just-so stories to be extremely weak science, to be taken in conjunction with a heaping bowl of salt. See Stephen Jay Gould's writing for an exegesis of this variety of explanation (here is one of his traditional tirades).
User avatar
xcthulhu
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: 14 Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 26th, 2011, 6:08 am 

Nice post X.

But i wasn't the first in the thread to suggest the 'homosexuality aiding siblings' idea (knitpicking, i know).
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby selfless on May 26th, 2011, 7:09 am 

mtbturtle wrote:Hi selfless and welcome,

Rickymouse as I recalled said he was leaving and we already dealt with his threatening comments.


Oh O.K. thanks :)
selfless
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 May 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby sillysmile on May 26th, 2011, 10:58 am 

xcthulhu wrote:It is my ethical opinion that if people love each other then that ought to command respect, regardless of whether anyone else understands or sees something beautiful in it. And moreover, people have a right to privacy and freedom in the bedroom, provided all parties are consenting adults.
That's very respectable xcthulhu, genuine requited love is certainly a positive thing. Truthfully, I'm still trying to determine my own stance, and this topic is part of that process.

xcthulhu wrote:Beyond that, I don't see any plausible case for homosexuality as being unnatural, given that it is a widely occurring phenomenon in other species.
Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of evidence supporting the notion that homosexuality is not unnatural.

xcthulhu wrote: In addition to this, there is some research indicating an increased likelihood in homosexuality depending on the birth order of right-handed fraternal siblings, but various sociological studies have disputed this (wikipedia has a great bibliography detailing this research).
Ah I've never heard of that before, but I think it has some very interesting implications, and I am a fraternal sibling myself, haha.

xcthulhu wrote: This research, if true, would support the just-so story from evolutionary psychology that homosexuality might have evolved in humans so non-reproducing offspring could aid their siblings in raising their offspring. John B Nelson suggested this earlier and I alluded to it. On the other hand I also consider just-so stories to be extremely weak science, to be taken in conjunction with a heaping bowl of salt. See Stephen Jay Gould's writing for an exegesis of this variety of explanation (here is one of his traditional tirades).
Well, it's definitely something to consider, thank you :)

A theory: Homosexuality serves as a sexual and romantic replacement in the absence of/ or with a dysfunctional experience of heterosexuality. This acts to fulfill an individual, which ultimately increases their well-being and thus longevity. I'm not quite sure how to link this with increased human reproductivity though. Perhaps (with an idea somebody suggested in mind) homosexuals would be more efficiently equipped in aiding the survival of heterosexuals?
User avatar
sillysmile
Member
 
Posts: 250
Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia.


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby johnbnelson on May 26th, 2011, 3:03 pm 

sillysmile wrote:A theory: Homosexuality serves as a sexual and romantic replacement in the absence of/ or with a dysfunctional experience of heterosexuality. This acts to fulfill an individual, which ultimately increases their well-being and thus longevity. I'm not quite sure how to link this with increased human reproductivity though. Perhaps (with an idea somebody suggested in mind) homosexuals would be more efficiently equipped in aiding the survival of heterosexuals?


Italisized: this may be the case in some instances, but (IMO) it'd be foolish to say it is the case for every instance of homosexuality.

It does certainly apply to some of the examples we find in nature. I just learned resently, that without a rooster, one chicken in a group will begin to behave like a rooster. To the point of stopping laying and attempting to 'do the funky chicken' with other chickens.
johnbnelson
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: 27 Apr 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby WebCrusader97 on August 16th, 2011, 3:11 am 

If you look at this issue from a secular perspective, Every animal's one and only function is to procreate. Homosexuality is useless in terms of evolutionary theroy.

-P.S. Also in the theistic relm, homosexuality is wrong according to at least 98.99 percent of all religions, and every abrahamic one.
WebCrusader97
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Aug 2011


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Lomax on August 16th, 2011, 11:05 am 

Hello WebCrusader97,

We knocked down the evolution argument quite near the start of the thread. You should read back.

Also, I don't think you understand evolution theory. Genes prosper if and only if their vehicles survive and procreate. This does not mean that the vehicle's only "function" is to procreate.

Lomax


___

P.S. welcome to the forums.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3664
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby CanadysPeak on August 16th, 2011, 12:35 pm 

WebCrusader97 wrote:If you look at this issue from a secular perspective, Every animal's one and only function is to procreate. Homosexuality is useless in terms of evolutionary theroy.

-P.S. Also in the theistic relm, homosexuality is wrong according to at least 98.99 percent of all religions, and every abrahamic one.


Careful with quoting percentages like that unless you have a source. In fact, not all Abramic religions say homosexuality is wrong. I provide the following links for your edification:

http://urj.org/ask/questions/homosexuality/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_quak.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_uua.htm

For the non-Abrahamic religions (you do know that Abraham was a mythical figure and not real, don't you?):

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Shinto/E ... ality.html

So, most don't say it's wrong.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5931
Joined: 31 Dec 2008


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Forest_Dump on August 16th, 2011, 12:39 pm 

Indeed. As i have noted many times before, many religions, like many First Nations religions (but also Asian and African, etc., religions) view homosexuals, hermaphrodites and transvestites as being highly prestigious people who often become shamans, etc.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Paralith on August 17th, 2011, 9:17 am 

johnbnelson wrote:
sillysmile wrote:A theory: Homosexuality serves as a sexual and romantic replacement in the absence of/ or with a dysfunctional experience of heterosexuality. This acts to fulfill an individual, which ultimately increases their well-being and thus longevity. I'm not quite sure how to link this with increased human reproductivity though. Perhaps (with an idea somebody suggested in mind) homosexuals would be more efficiently equipped in aiding the survival of heterosexuals?


Italisized: this may be the case in some instances, but (IMO) it'd be foolish to say it is the case for every instance of homosexuality.

It does certainly apply to some of the examples we find in nature. I just learned resently, that without a rooster, one chicken in a group will begin to behave like a rooster. To the point of stopping laying and attempting to 'do the funky chicken' with other chickens.


I would just like to add my agreement to johnb's comments. Many people who are homosexual (or anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum) will tell you that they've known their proclivities were different from most people's from a very early age, and have "normal" heterosexual siblings. This makes it very unlikely that something in the family life between the ages of zero and five somehow gave these children an absent/dysfunctional experience with heterosexuality. Or, at the very least, they had a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality that their heterosexual siblings did not, such that they responded differently to a similar environment.

I would like to note that while homosexuality is prevalent a lot in nature, most of it appears to be of the nature of what johnb described. Male gorillas, for example, live in all-male groups when they're too young to have their own harem but too old to stay in the harem they were born into. And they make do with each other until they're old enough to acquire females of their own. One of the few examples I can think of that are not of the "any port in a storm" variety are bonobos. They use sexual behavior to ease social strife and strengthen social bonds. Though they are still different from humans in that they don't have individuals who appear to be obligate homosexuals - born with that preference, and totally undesirous of mating with someone of the opposite sex.

It is interesting to point out that bonobos are more socially generous and cooperative than chimpanzees, and that humans are often considered one of the most socially generous and cooperative animals on the planet. It's my personal just-so story/hypothesis that humans have more genetic variants that promote highly affiliative behavior, especially with members of the same sex, and that sometimes these variants come together in an individual to yield a phenotype of homosexuality. This idea is largely untestable until the genetics of sexuality are better understood, both in humans and other animals. Though it might be interesting to do a cross-species survey of social/cooperative and sexual behaviors and see what comes out.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3160
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Newagemystic on October 25th, 2011, 10:16 pm 

Why should I have a problem with someone else's sexual orientation? It is their choice, not mine. I can see no problems with same gender relationships. Love is love, it has no boundaries or limits and, in my opinion, should be expressed freely. My problem is with those that have a problem with it, especially since it is a double standard. If two people of opposing genders want a relationship there are no problems. If two women want to have a relationship many men have no problem, some would even encourage it. It is when two men want a relationship that most have problems. This annoys me to no end. Why is it ok for two people of opposite sexes or two women and not for two men? Because it's normal? Because it's your fantasy? Ludicrous! If you don't agree with homosexuality then ask yourself this: how would you like it if a law was passed that said two people of different sexes cannot be married and were told constantly that it is wrong to have a relationship with the opposite gender? You may laugh and say that that isn't the case, and true it isn't, but the fact of the matter is you would not like it one bit. So think about this the next time you put down somone for being a homosexual, if you were in their shoes, would you want to made fun of? We as humans do not like what we do not understand in many cases, nor do we enjoy being laughed at or put down for being different. Understanding and acceptance is preached by many, but followed by few.
User avatar
Newagemystic
Member
 
Posts: 319
Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (1)


Re: Non-religious problems with homosexuality.

Postby Paralith on October 26th, 2011, 8:11 pm 

I just have to note that, it is one thing to say that straight men often like to see a little girl-on-girl action in their pornos, and it is entirely another thing to say that real-life lesbian couples are accepted by society at large and gay couples are not. One of these things is true, and one of them isn't.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3160
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests