Evolutionary View on Homosexuals

[Woody]

I have a question:

How does evolutionary theory handle the issue of homosexuality?

First let me summarize the evolution trilogy:

1) Within a species there is variation among the offsping. (mutations)
2) Life is a struggle with competition between the offspring and hardships within the environment. (adaptation)
3) The fit survive the struggle and pass on their genetic information to the next generation. (survival of the fittest)

If indeed homosexuality is a genetic trait as it is claimed by the gay community, I see an apparant problem with the 3rd tenet of evolution.

Homosexual's can not produce offspring by their own sexual method and it would lead to extinction would it not? Does that mean it is an unfit trait from the evolutionary point of view, like vestigial wings on a fruit fly?

 

[tablariddim]

No, it means that most homosexuals (used to) supress their sexuality, get married and have children.

 

[Woody]

tablariddim said,

No, it means that most homosexuals (used to) supress their sexuality, get married and have children.

So in the absense of social pressure, and left to their own desire, would they go extinct?

On the other hand, is it really a behavioral issue rather than a genetic one? If it is a behavioral issue, then why does the gay community make it a genetic one?

It looks like they lose either way whether it is a choice or it is genetic.

 

[tablariddim]

Well, If All homosexuals are that way because of a genetic trait and if they All decided to be true to their sexuality, then, in theory they would wipe themselves out. But, because there are also a fair amount of Bi-sexuals, this particular genetic trait could never be fully wiped.

Personally, I think sexuality is not as black and white as the official classifications would have us believe. I think there are connecting grey areas on either side of the black dots that say, Heterosexual this side and Homosexual this side. It is evident that some of us seem predisposed to be either one or the other, but in actuality, we are all capable of being either. The issue rests on so many variables, such as, genetics, conditioning, religion, society, upbringing, personal character, personal mentality, personal sex drive, personal imagination, etc, etc.

 

[Leo Volont]

How does the Mechanism of Survival really work?

Too many people confine their analysis of survival dynamics to units of individuals... how single individuals are able to get on. That would be a mistake. If it were simply a matter of individual capability, then the Cro Magna and Neanderthal would have been for more survivable than our species.

The proper study of Survival Dynamics needs to focus on man in society, that is, the social mechanisms which foster the proliferation and thus the survival of the groups that adhere to those institutionalized mechanisms.

As primitives, Man's most essential survival institution was to befriend the kanines and thus set up a symbiotic relationship with a far more successful hunting species than Man alone ever could have been. Joined with the dogs, we gained their keen sense of smell and were able to learn of the benefits of their pack behavior.

With the advent of agriculture in the River Valley Societies, the great leap in survivability came in, surprisingly enough, the Institution of Human Sacrifice. We guess that the idea behind Human Sacrifice was to provide Ghost Spirits to protect the Seed Grain from predation between Harvest and Planting. Pre-Civilized People would have little inhabition to eating grain as seeing grain, acting upon urge and impulse. It was only by the strongest impressions, as provided by Sacramental Murder, that they could be impressed with the importance of saving some Grain for Seed Planting. As Renunciation and Self Control became a Civilized Habit, the Institution of Human Sacrifice was allowed to become outmoded and unnecessary, except under Republican Administations where it is thought a certain number of every Generation must be murdered off to protect our Freedoms.

But to the point of the Survivability Benefits of Homosexuals... in some cases maximum growth rates can be as harmful as minimum growth rates -- over populated societies can become dysfunctional, pathological and malignant. We have seen densely populated Chinese Civilizations practically implode upon themselves, and after disease, famine and civil strife have run their course there would be nothing left of them but vast de-populated stretches of land covered with unburied dead. So rather than striving for maximum population growth, we should think in terms of optimum population growth.

Societies create institutions which can control population growth, such as birth control, infantcide, late marriage, confraternities which hold celibacy as their primary virtue, and polygamy (wives in harems do not average the same number of births as monogamous wives who are their husbands' only sexual outlet). In addition to these Societal Institutions for limiting populations to optimum levels, nature has added Homosexuality. A certain number of people are born who will not reproduce.

Also, I have often wondered about how among Homosexuals there seems to be such a marvelous tendency to incorporate in their own behavior the idealization of the roles and behaviors of the Opposite Sex. For instance, whatever we think, rightly or wrongly, is the place of Women in our society, and how they are expected to behave, this seems to be manifested in the most complete Perfection, not in the Women, but in their Homosexual imitators. There is no specific of Woman's Work in which Homosexual Males do not excell the women themselves. Likewise, regarding Lesbians, we can notice the idealization of macho bullism. I can't help but to suppose that these instances of Cross Sex Idealization do not have a Social Value, and thus contribute to the survival of Societies. Perhaps it is the way Society has of truly identifying the Proper and Best Role and Behavior of the Sexes through the Idealization and even the Emphasized Exaggeration of these Roles and Behaviors by the Flamboyant Homosexual Elements of the Society. The Queens demonstrate how women should conduct themselves, and the Butches show men how to be Manly, as in the case of Joan of Arc.

 

[Woody]

Leo said:

As Renunciation and Self Control became a Civilized Habit, the Institution of Human Sacrifice was allowed to become outmoded and unnecessary, except under Republican Administations where it is thought a certain number of every Generation must be murdered off to protect our Freedoms.

Actually I believe the democrats are way ahead on that count. There have been more than 40 million babies aborted as a sacrifice to appease the god of sexual pleasure. But they aren't really considered humans unless you murder the pregnant mother as in the Laci/Peterson case where there were two charges of first degree murder.

Leo:

But to the point of the Survivability Benefits of Homosexuals... in some cases maximum growth rates can be as harmful as minimum growth rates -- over populated societies can become dysfunctional, pathological and malignant.

This appears to make the third tenet of evolution irrelevant. Survival value in genes then become good on some average scale instead of an absolute scale. I'd have to say it is counterintuitive because it says sometimes it is better for a species to genetically stagnate or de-evolve rather than evolve. It slows down the evolution clock. It also removes the driving force behind evolution. In the overpopulated scenario, the strong overcome the weak -- that is part of the necessary competitive process that brings about evolution, is it not? Therefore tenet #2 is violated.

Also bad mutations then become good mutations and vice versa. It's ok for a species to become slightly improved, but no major improvements. Evolution theory goes into cardiac arrest, because major improvements are required for the big steps, i.e. reptile to bird, bird to mammal, etc. and status quo becomes the best possible outcome because it remains stable over time, and animals can migrate to adapt to environmental changes. Tenet #1 becomes irrelevant.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, either the three tenets of evolution remain as stated or there appears to be a logical flaw. I have heard this argument before.

 

[SkinWalker]

I have a question:

How does evolutionary theory handle the issue of homosexuality?

Homosexuality does not imply sterility. Homosexuals still have the ability to reproduce, and, even in other animals such as bonabos, they do so despite a preference to same-sex relationships.

For a strictly homosexual mutation (that somehow restricted reproduction) to be deleterious, it would have to occur in a far greater percentage of a species' given population that would make it a benefit. Homosexuality could be a benefit to a species by providing diversity in kinship systems, creating home for displaced offspring of other members of the population, creating specialization of societal members, etc.

 

[Woody]

SkinWalker said:

For a strictly homosexual mutation (that somehow restricted reproduction) to be deleterious, it would have to occur in a far greater percentage of a species' given population that would make it a benefit. Homosexuality could be a benefit to a species by providing diversity in kinship systems, creating home for displaced offspring of other members of the population, creating specialization of societal members, etc.

I hate to say this but what about pedophilia (sex with children), necrophilia (sex with dead people), bestiality (sex with animals)?

Are these sexual orientations genetically predisposed as well?

 

[Athelwulf]

Also, I have often wondered about how among Homosexuals there seems to be such a marvelous tendency to incorporate in their own behavior the idealization of the roles and behaviors of the Opposite Sex. For instance, whatever we think, rightly or wrongly, is the place of Women in our society, and how they are expected to behave, this seems to be manifested in the most complete Perfection, not in the Women, but in their Homosexual imitators. There is no specific of Woman's Work in which Homosexual Males do not excell the women themselves. Likewise, regarding Lesbians, we can notice the idealization of macho bullism. I can't help but to suppose that these instances of Cross Sex Idealization do not have a Social Value, and thus contribute to the survival of Societies. Perhaps it is the way Society has of truly identifying the Proper and Best Role and Behavior of the Sexes through the Idealization and even the Emphasized Exaggeration of these Roles and Behaviors by the Flamboyant Homosexual Elements of the Society. The Queens demonstrate how women should conduct themselves, and the Butches show men how to be Manly, as in the case of Joan of Arc.

:bugeye:

Leo, ya do know that's a stereotype, right? If ya don't, ya should.

 

[SkinWalker]

I hate to say this but what about pedophilia (sex with children), necrophilia (sex with dead people), bestiality (sex with animals)?

Are these sexual orientations genetically predisposed as well?

There are only two genders to be oriented toward, so those wouldn't be considered "sexual orientations," but rather "sexual deviations.

While there is nothing conclusive, there are some strong indications that sexual orientation is genetically influenced, though probably not determined. I've yet to see any studies that link the deviations you mentioned to a genetic predisposition, though they may exist.

But if we can suppose, hypothetically, that these deviations were genetic and that there was an allele responsible for, say, pedophilia, then to rule out a possible benefit to the species would be a reasoning originating from cultural taboo rather than logic. A male that impregnates as many females in their fecund period as possible stands the best chance at reproducing/producing the most offspring, and the female that does the same as early as possible, also stands the best chance of producing as many offspring as possible.

As to necrophilia or bestiality, logically these could be considered deleterious, should they be assumed to be genetic in origin, since the chances of cross-contaminating STDs or encountering harmful bacteria increase. Not to mention that the animal that is the obect of the fetish could be risky (ever pork a jaguar?).

Still, I must stress that these deviations are not, to my knowledge, demonstrated or suggested to be genetic, though it is probable that a general sexual desire is genetic, which could be advantageous to the species should the viable, fertile mates encounter each other, but deleterious should deviations point the deviant to an unviable, infertile (or incompatable) mate.

Richard Dawkins explained sexual orientation's genetic influences best when he pointed out that DNA is only a blueprint to a certain point in human devlopment. Early in the womb, DNA becomes more epigenic. That is to say, DNA is more like a recipe than a blueprint. It is the effect of multiple genes that create the final product, much the way two people can make the same cake recipe but end up with two, vastly different qualities of cake. The concentrations of ingredients, cooking times, mixing methods, qualities of ingredients, etc. are all factors.

 

[spidergoat]

It's survival of the fittest gene pool, not necessarily the fittest individual. Cooperation can be as much of a factor as competition. Too much sex drive is as bad as too little. Women need time to raise their kids, without having to fight off horny males all the time. Many animals have a limited mating period for this reason. But, humans can mate all the time, and it would be beneficial to the group (being a social animal) to have some outlet for that sexual energy, otherwise, like the Republicans, we become irritable and warlike, which is bad for everyone. I think this is why anal sex is both possible, and pleasurable (for some), since sexual drive is usually more intense in males.

Homosexuality could also have evolved to cement social bonds within the group. Chimps use sex all the time as social currency. This would explain lesbianism. Lesbians would still reproduce, since mating was not always a voluntary thing, like we have now.

There is some evidence that humans used a harem strategy, as someone mentioned. In a harem situation, we find sexual dimorphism- males are larger than females, and that is true to some degree of us. What are the males left out of the harem supposed to do? Well, they can still help raise children, so perhaps homosexuality (in males) is just a side effect of whatever hormonal process drive the maternal instinct. Just like infantile traits are a side effect of tameness in dogs and domestic animals.

Note that ants and termites are also social creatures, and contain large populations of sterile workers.

As far as other "philias", they are far less common, so perhaps they are more the product of psychological factors, but who knows?

It is true that the phenomenon of the gene pool slows down evolution, but it also tends to weed out harmful mutations.

Evolution theory goes into cardiac arrest, because major improvements are required for the big steps, i.e. reptile to bird, bird to mammal, etc.

Evolution happens fast enough even with a large gene pool, so, no, it dosn't go into cardiac arrest.

Birds never evolved into mammals.

More rapid evolution occurs when species are isolated geographically, as happened with the continents drifting apart, thus reducing the size of the gene pool, in some cases perhaps to a single individual, like happens on islands. Lizards have been known to drift far out to sea on floating masses of vegetation broken loose by a storm or flood.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: itopal, thank you for posting your well-defined explanation of fetal sexual differentiation, but it will most likely fall on deaf xian ears.

 

[spidergoat]

Sexual orientation would still apply to pedophelia, beastiality, and necrophilia- ie. wether they prefer a boy or girl child, animal, or corpse. They are not strictly gender-based orientations, thus, the mechanism evolution would have to effect to control such behavior would be different.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo said:



There have been more than 40 million babies aborted as a sacrifice to appease the god of sexual pleasure.

Infanticide is a time honored means of keeping society's population within managable bounds, but it is horrifying. Abortion, if it is done before the Soul enters into the infant, which it does after about 21 weeks after gestation in what we call The Quickening... if Abortion is accomplished before then, it is really not tantamount to Murder. An abortion in the first trimester is like killing a frog, and you would compare that to the wholesale slaughter of our troops, mostly teenage boys, sent to terrorize other Societies.

Also, you should remember that to call it Sexual Pleasure is something of a misnomer. Is it a pleasure to eat when starving, to drink when thirsting to death, to breath again after being held under water? Certainly. But the pleasure comes from appeasing an urgent appetite. People who must take heart medicines or anti-depressants that curtail the sexual appetite suddenly forget all about your "sexual pleasure" and since they no longer need sex, hardly give it a second thought, unless their spouses begin to complain.

So Humanity is quite stuck with sex. But this does not obviate the responsibility to manage population growth. At the Societal level and at the level of the Family, it would be simply negligent to bring a Life into the World which does not have a set and prepared place. Indeed, I don't think any child should be permitted to be born that does not already have a Capital Account already set up that will provide an income of twice the poverty rate by the time the 'infant' will be 30 years old. In this Technological Age in which capital machinary and automation are quickly taking over production, we cannot count upon Labor Employment to provide for our futures. Until we have a System of Distribution of Wealth that goes beyond exchanging Wealth for Labor which is becoming less and less necessary, we should consider that Society should not multiply its persons if they are useless and there is no overall Plan to provide for them.

 

[Leo Volont]

:bugeye:

Leo, ya do know that's a stereotype, right? If ya don't, ya should.

"Stereotype" is the bad word used to describe the thing that is ordinarily understood to mean "generalization". We "generalize" whenever we look at a large representative set of particular datas, and make decisions upon the trends and appearances that are obvious to us. Indeed, not being able to ever know everything, the only way we have to interpret the World intellectually is through being able to "generalize", that is, to categorize our experiences into thinkable "stereotypes".

But if you don't think, you don't need to worry about it, which is almost always the case with people who accuse other people of "stereotyping".

 

[SkinWalker]

Abortion, if it is done before the Soul enters into the infant, which it does after about 21 weeks after gestation in what we call The Quickening...

How did you measure this "soul" as it "entered" the test subjects? What was your sample size?

 

[Woody]

Everyone on this forum seems to think homosexuality is genetic.

From what I've seen of it, it seems likely to come from child sexual abuse, and bad relationships with parents. One of the parents didn't fill a basic need for love. I don't know how many times I've heard this from homosexuals. I've also seen some that just plain chose to be gay.

I am truely sorry for someone that by no choice of their own, ended up with a family environment that would cause these kinds of problems. But they do have a choice about having sex or not having sex, just the same as straights, and it doesn't give them an excuse to sexually abuse someone else.



By the way -- on the abortion issue -- it is against the law to televise an abortion or to publish pictures of it. Yet the aborted "fetus" is just considered to be a piece of tissue. Any other operation can be shown on television, but not this one. That is because the government doesn't want people to see what it looks like -- then they will know the truth and be outraged by it.

Abortion doesn't just stop a beating heart, it also breaks the heart of the would-be mother. It leaves scars that never heal. If you have a wife with a miscarriage you know what I'm talking about.

 

[SkinWalker]

You should read D.H. Hamer et al, A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation in Science, 1993, vol. 261, pp. 321-327.

This research team reported that homosexual males were more likely to have homosexual brothers and homosexual maternal uncles and cousins. At the least, this pattern suggests that something to do with homosexuality is carried on the X chromosome.

They were able to find particular markers in a region called Xq28, that were identical and shared by a high percentage of the homosexual brothers.

That by itself doesn't mean, of course that having these particular markers in the Xq28 region will mean that you are automatically homosexual. It simply means that there are some conditions present in the blueprint that make it more likely to occur in putting together the recipe. Remember, recipes don't just include ingredients, they also include other factors, just as human development would, from chemical transmission from mother to fetus (alcohol, nicotine, diet) to the unborn mother's phsical fitness, to the nutrition and postnatal nurturing of the new born through toddler.

To quote Dawkins, "genes have no monopoly on determinism."

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Woody: Everyone on this forum seems to think homosexuality is genetic.

From what I've seen of it, it seems likely to come from child sexual abuse, and bad relationships with parents. One of the parents didn't fill a basic need for love. I don't know how many times I've heard this from homosexuals. I've also seen some that just plain chose to be gay.

I am truely sorry for someone that by no choice of their own, ended up with a family environment that would cause these kinds of problems. But they do have a choice about having sex or not having sex, just the same as straights, and it doesn't give them an excuse to sexually abuse someone else.
*************
M*W: Why would you think that the acts of homosexuality are not consensually mutual? Homosexuality is no more considered to be "sexual abuse" than is heterosexuality. Whenever the sex act occurs, it should be with the consent of both parties. I would venture to say that there is probably a lot more "sexual abuse" going on in heterosexual relationships than in homosexual ones. It's when the sexual act is non-consensual that makes it wrong and hurtful. Anytime sex is used as a control mechanism and not as a consensual one, it is abuse.

Child sexual abuse is often started by the perpetrator as promises of rewards, endearing the child into trusting the perp. This leads to tickling and teasing to get the child into a submissive position, yet in a seemingly trustful one, then the perp is in control.

Sexual abuse can also be found in long-term married relationships. Men are usually the perps here, too. They see sex as a physical need. Women want to see sex as a romantic fantasy. However, the twain shall never meet. Unless it's truly consensual, it is sexual abuse.

Sex is a basic human need. We all need sex in our lives, even Leo Volont, but he doesn't know it. Sex isn't dirty unless it's not consensual. Whether in straight or gay relationships, it's a give and take deal. When one is giving more than the other or taking more than the other, it is sexual abuse. Homosexuality in and of itself is NOT sexual abuse. I would even categorize Leo Volont's view of sexuality as extremely vile and dirty even though he is adamantly an asexual perp. He's still a perp.

 

[spidergoat]

If you already made your mind up about it, why do you ask? Why don't you debate our response? You just want to preach. I put some thought into my answers, but no one will feel like answering you anymore if the conversation is one-sided.

The bad relationship with parents has alot to do with the parent's reaction to a socially unacceptable orientation.

Even is homosexuality is not genetic, there is nothing wrong with it.

...and it doesn't give them an excuse to sexually abuse someone else.

What are you talking about?