Is homosexuality good or bad for nature?

J

Joeman

Eviiiiiiiil Clown
Registered Senior Member
Recently I have read that there are homosexuality in both human and animals. I am just wondering if it is good for nature and why does it exist?
 
well, at an early stage of species development, it would be quite harmful by lowering the gene pool. But now that populations are booming, and with the new advent of in vitro and other scientific discoveries, it helps as a birth control. Suppose that half the world was gay... Lots of fabulous, but not a lot of crowding. :m:
 
If homosexuality really is due, primarily, to a genetic factor (rather than social stimuli and childhood environment) then it is clearly a common genetic mistake: one which occurs easily and can be passed on, recessively, by heterosexual parents.

In a wild animal population, of course, this gay gene would weed itself out by preventing offspring for those in whom it was expressed. We humans may, paradoxically, have hastened its spread in past centuries - by making homosexuality a sinful taboo, ancient & medieval societies pressured homosexuals to make a pretence at normal life. This could have included marriage and children, in those with sufficient willpower - and hence, the gene was propagated...

Not good for evolution in the purely biological sense, but good for diversifying our culture and society today!
 
someone here said, homosexualitly is a hormonal disorder during the formation of fetus rather than genetics.

Homosexuality is still present in both humans and animals. I am just wonder if it has any benefit at all. Maybe it does.
 
or it is caused by unique development in the sexual and unconscious mind during childhood, as Sigmund Freud points out, sexuality is initially developed during childhood

good for controling the soaring population, bad for social order... I guess?
 
If people would just mind their own damn business then asking whether homosexuality is good or bad would be like asking whether having blue eyes is good or bad.

I'd like to see one properly designed study that demonstrates any negative attributes of a gay person. And no, I'm not gay, if you must ask.
 
If homosexuality really is due, primarily, to a genetic factor (rather than social stimuli and childhood environment) then it is clearly a common genetic mistake: one which occurs easily and can be passed on, recessively, by heterosexual parents.
Click to expand...

or it is caused by unique development in the sexual and unconscious mind during childhood, as Sigmund Freud points out, sexuality is initially developed during childhood
Click to expand...

But then, what would cause a homosexual to become a heterosexual? I have heard of this happening several times before. The above seems to suggest that you are clearly one or the other, it doesn't change.

Can I add a question? What about bisexuals?
 
Homosexuality is more good than bad. We need to diversify our culture, as Starthane Xyzth said.
 
Enigma'07 said:
But then, what would cause a homosexual to become a heterosexual? I have heard of this happening several times before.
Click to expand...

Confused identity? Those who are gay are very strong in their preferences just like hetrosexuals. Those who convert probably found solace in a certain gender at some point in their lives only to go back to what really worked for them. Eventually it gets hard to fake being homosexual or hetrosexual if you're not.
 
No, I mean like I no several people and they used to be homosexuals and stuff, but now they're in a heterosexual marrige relationship, no longer homosexual.
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
:rolleyes:

What do you mean "is it good for nature"? It's not good or bad, it <B>*IS*</B> nature.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. What I am asking is is nature better off with or without homosexuality. What positive and negative contribution does homosexuality have on nature. Read the question again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enigma'07 said:
No, I mean like I no several people and they used to be homosexuals and stuff, but now they're in a heterosexual marrige relationship, no longer homosexual.
Click to expand...
any chance they might be under peer pressure, resisted their natural instincts and formed a heterosexual marriage relationship?
 
Enigma'07 said:
Can I add a question? What about bisexuals?
Click to expand...

It's probably a combination of genetic, hormonal and developmental factors which determine people's sexuality. Even if (as I assumed before) the difference is entirely genetic, like the difference between brown and ginger hair, there may be several individual genes involved, and the possibility of producing intermediate shades. Incomplete dominance is a well-known biological phenomenon, where both alelles of a varying characteristic are expressed in the same heterozyous individual.

For example: my father's hair is brown, but his beard is red... My hair is red, but my eyebrows are brown...
 
Joeman.

What something must be to be classified as bad or good, positive or negative, isn't official. What these words mean, and what can be thought of as belonging to one of these labels, is very subjective and controversial. But it usually includes things that we don't feel good about. Natural processes don't have feelings, we only ascribe them feelings when trying to explain them.

Since nature isn't trying to accomplish anything, it can't make a mistake. Nature never tried or wanted to make lifeforms heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. Nature doesn't want peace or violence. Nature doesn't care if people do or don't get raped or killed.

You're anthropomorphizing evolution. People do this alot when talking about things, it's called the pathetic fallacy (not trying to be offensive, that's what it's called). For example, someone may say that water tries or wants to take the path of least resistance. An example from dictionary.com was "angry clouds" and "cruel wind". While this may be useful when trying to describe something to someone, it shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Since people do this so much, it's often easy to forget that we're doing it. If you really want to understand something, you should be careful about anthropomorphizing it.
 
I can't judge others sexual wants and needs, only my own. I would think though that if gay men have sex they should always use condoms so as to prevent the spread of aids. It seems that reading about having unprotected sex can lead to aids very easily which would say , in a natural sense, that it isn't a very smart or right thing to do, since it can lead to your death.
 
Saith said:
Joeman.

What something must be to be classified as bad or good, positive or negative, isn't official. What these words mean, and what can be thought of as belonging to one of these labels, is very subjective and controversial. But it usually includes things that we don't feel good about. Natural processes don't have feelings, we only ascribe them feelings when trying to explain them.

Since nature isn't trying to accomplish anything, it can't make a mistake. Nature never tried or wanted to make lifeforms heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual. Nature doesn't want peace or violence. Nature doesn't care if people do or don't get raped or killed.

You're anthropomorphizing evolution. People do this alot when talking about things, it's called the pathetic fallacy (not trying to be offensive, that's what it's called). For example, someone may say that water tries or wants to take the path of least resistance. An example from dictionary.com was "angry clouds" and "cruel wind". While this may be useful when trying to describe something to someone, it shouldn't be taken very seriously.

Since people do this so much, it's often easy to forget that we're doing it. If you really want to understand something, you should be careful about anthropomorphizing it.
Click to expand...

I don't care. You have absolutely no idea what my motives are. The only thing I know is that you are not helping at all.

Actually I really should have stated my question as "Is homosexuality good or bad for a specie." So I guess that's my fault. A specie can get wiped out.

I just need arguments from both sides - good and bad. This is NOT for an intelligent discussion on biology or evolution. I can't state my motive because it's kinda stupid. Just think of it as helping me.

Thanks.
 
Joeman said:
Actually I really should have stated my question as "Is homosexuality good or bad for a specie." So I guess that's my fault. A specie can get wiped out.
Click to expand...

Evolution acts on the level of the individual and not the species. Hence homosexuality is not a problem for the species.
 
A new species may start with only one or two differing individuals - if they successfully pass on their new characteristics or behaviour, their offspring will diverge further from the parent species and eventually become classifiably distinct.

Needless to say, homosexuality cannot result in speciation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top