Homosexuality and evolution

[Drox]

If the biological purpose of a species and of individuals is to procreate, what role does homosexuality play?

Should we call it a disorder from an evolutionary standpoint?

[gadzooks]

It's possible that homosexual activity among heterosexual species' can promote intimate bonding.

But complete homosexuality may just be an evolutionary mistake.

[Daily]

god basically makes homoseshuals and then hates homoseshuals for being homoseshual cos being homoseshual is a cin

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Daily

god basically makes homoseshuals and then hates homoseshuals for being homoseshual cos being homoseshual is a cin

Wrong forum.

[Daily]

Sexual orientation is on a spectrum. Similar to the kinsey scale. This leads me to believe that both genes and environment plays a part in the influence of sexuality. Either way, homosexuality is extremely beneficial to humanity, as outlined in a previous post of mine -

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.p...18&postcount=2

[Mantikore]

Yeah, i think for all intents and purposes, it can be called a disease. Just another one of your friendly neighbourhood abnormalities

[tuer502gt]

They come about because their mothers have too much estrogen.

Their mothers make beautiful daughters and are trophies for the men lucky enough to get them.

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by Drox

Should we call it a disorder

Yes, from any way you look at it. Some argue about it being an issue of genetics. If it's an issue of genetics then it can only be a disorder, since it deviates from the norm. If homosexuality is spurred on by hormonal disorders in the womb, it is still a disorder. If it is chosen it is a fucking stupid choice and the excessive justification for it is a sign of disorder.

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by Daily

Sexual orientation is on a spectrum. Similar to the kinsey scale. This leads me to believe that both genes and environment plays a part in the influence of sexuality. Either way, homosexuality is extremely beneficial to humanity, as outlined in a previous post of mine -

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.p...18&postcount=2

I wouldn't put too much stock into the kinsey scale. There is no significant disagreement among modern sexologists over this issue now, the predicted number of homosexuals are far too high. The real percentage of homosexuals gives more weight to an environmentally based reason.


Kinsey 1. didn't use random sampling and most importantly 2. had an ideological agenda. Paul Robinson, a historian and one of Kinsey’s biographers, remarks “Kinsey assigned [prominence] to masturbation and homosexuality, both of which were objects of his partiality…[He had a] tendency to conceive of the ideal sexual universe according to the homoerotic model” Kinsey was bisexual and was “a cryptoreformer spending his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores…of the United States”.

Muir JG, Court JH. 1990. Kinsey, Sex And Fraud. Lafayette, Louisiana:
Lochinvar-Huntington House

Robinson P. 1976. The Modernization of Sex. New York: Harper and Row

Epstein J. 1998. The secret life of Alfred Kinsey. Commentary January:35-9


Some of the best statistical investigators in the world—Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey agree that the methods used by Kinsey and his team inflate the homosexual figures.

Homosexual activist groups have also admitted that the 10% claim is false. An admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003; Lawrence v. Texas.

Modern surveys show a statistic of 2-3% including "bisexuality". From about 1990 to 2010 about 1% of the adult male population was exclusively queer and about 0.6% of the adult female population was exclusively lesbian at any given time. This makes sense when you take into account these heritability estimates:

Heterosexuality(m)

Genetic
0.03

Common Environment
0.11

Unique Environment
0.79



Homosexuality(m)*

Genetic
0.03

Common Environment
0.00

Unique Environment
0.86


Heterosexuality(f)

Genetic
0.21

Common Environment
0.00

Unique Environment
0.86



Homosexuality(f)

Genetic
0.49

Common Environment
0.00

Unique Environment
0.51


Hershberger, 1997

The heritability for either sex should not exceed 50% and is not thus far obviously different to that for heterosexuality. I'm not anti-fag because it's 'unnatural', I'm against it because it's shit, spreads disease and spreads like wildfire the more it's encouraged and allowed to have influence over impressionable young people.

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by Drox

If the biological purpose of a species and of individuals is to procreate, what role does homosexuality play?

Beyond procreation, the biological purpose of a species could be more fully described as also maintaining a population (as procreating too much could easily hurt the population). Homosexuality makes sense there, no sense in wasting energy over-producing if the offspring will die for lack of food, space, what-have-you.

Originally Posted by Drox

Should we call it a disorder from an evolutionary standpoint?

If it's an evolutionary disorder, doesn't that mean it will inherently eliminate itself through generations of life? I'm not sure what your definition of disorder is.

I don't know exactly what role it plays, but I always have a laugh when people get mad about it and rant that it's 'unnatural' and shit. Either way, it's here to stay so I don't see the point in fighting it, it's not like all of our children will be converted to teh gayz like conservative media likes to scream about.

Always a good link for these threads-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by yawanur

Beyond procreation, the biological purpose of a species could be more fully described as also maintaining a population (as procreating too much could easily hurt the population). Homosexuality makes sense there, no sense in wasting energy over-producing if the offspring will die for lack of food, space, what-have-you.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evolve something like restraint?

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by King of the world

I'm not anti-fag because it's 'unnatural'

good, those people are just fuckin stupid

Originally Posted by King of the world

I'm against it because it's shit, spreads disease and spreads like wildfire the more it's encouraged and allowed to have influence over impressionable young people.

Can you go into more detail as to why "it's shit"?

I don't think it should be 'encouraged' per say, but I'm not about to discourage it either. People can fuck eachother in the nostrils for all I care. I do see how things have gone to far in the promotion of homosexuality; seems to be a natural backlash to the history of suppression, and I think it will die down as less homophobics actively attack them from the other side.

As far as spreading disease, homosexuality only seems to spread disease among itself... seems like you'd be a-okay with that? I don't understand...

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by yawanur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

and your point is? Why is there no animal lesbianism? Maybe because this 'homosexual' behaviour is displayed for dominance and not sexual gratification. Females do not typically fight for domination. At the most, you could argue that animals are bisexual

Always a good link for this type of post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Even if it was 'natural' doesn't mean it's good.

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Wouldn't it make more sense to evolve something like restraint?

Restraint is an easy concept to see when we're evolved beings analyzing population dynamics, but from an evolutionary standpoint it's no good if animals don't want to fuck. Those with such a mutation don't reproduce and boom, that shit's gone.

I can't see how that would work out with any type of population other than people...

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by yawanur

Restraint is an easy concept to see when we're evolved beings analyzing population dynamics, but from an evolutionary standpoint it's no good if animals don't want to fuck. Those with such a mutation don't reproduce and boom, that shit's gone.

I can't see how that would work out with any type of population other than people...

This is all just wild speculation anyway.

Homosexuality seems like a pretty weird thing to evolve as well.

I'm still pretty sure it was for bonding purposes.

Or, maybe (and I'll admit to this being highly speculative), it is just a genetic mistake that occurs from time to time among all species due to some defect in sex chromosomes.

NOTE TO ALL: Don't pull some shit up and correct me on this and think you've check mated me or something. It was a totally wild guess. I really don't care enough to do in-depth research on this topic.

But do correct me if you would like to. Because I am somewhat curious.

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by yawanur

As far as spreading disease, homosexuality only seems to spread disease among itself ...

You have the problem of bisexuals and those who are groomed into it at a young, curious and impressionable age, regret it but it's already too late. Also with faggotry comes vanity, uselessness, femininity, another victim special rights culture and the destruction of the spirit that uplifted humanity to its succesful state.

"In a civilization where equality is the standard, where differences are not linked, where promiscuity is in favor, where the ancient idea of 'being true to oneself' means nothing anymore—in such a splintered and materialistic society, it is clear that this phenomenon of regression and homosexuality should be particularly welcome, and therefore it is no way a surprise to see the alarming increase in homosexuality and the 'third sex' in the latest 'democratic' period, or an increase in sex changes to an extent unparalleled in other eras" (The Metaphysics of Sex, p. 64, Julius Evola).

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by King of the world

and your point is?

my point is when people say it's unnatural, I always make this face:

Originally Posted by King of the world

Why is there no animal lesbianism? Maybe because this 'homosexual' behaviour is displayed for dominance and not sexual gratification. Females do not typically fight for domination. At the most, you could argue that animals are bisexual

Beyond our definitions of sexuality I would argue that animals are just plain sexual. I don't know why there is no animal lesbianism, but I would imagine it has something to do with females having a lot more shit to worry about with bearing children and all, while males are generally looking for "one night stand" type gratification.

As far as dominance vs sexual gratification, I think dominance is part of it but no way that explains everything; that's too black-and-white of an explanation. Dominance is often inherently sexually gratifying. I haven't researched animal homosexuality in depth really, but I'm sure there's evidence of repeat homosexual behavior to the point where it's not solely a dominance issue.

Originally Posted by King of the world

Always a good link for this type of post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

I'm not saying it's "good" or "right" it's just that a lot of homophobics are either unaware or cognitively dissonant of that fact that animals do it too. Clearly that's not you; no need to take it personally. It's just a relevant link.

[gadzooks]

Speaking of animals having sex for non-procreational purposes, why do dogs hump people's legs? They obviously know that they're not going to impregnate a human leg...

Also, I've heard of female dogs humping human legs. If that's the case, that might say something about animal lesbianism...

[King of the world]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Speaking of animals having sex for non-procreational purposes, why do dogs hump people's legs? They obviously know that they're not going to impregnate a human leg...

He's just a horny animal.

Also, I've heard of female dogs humping human legs. If that's the case, that might say something about animal lesbianism...

Once again, at the most you could make an argument for bisexuality. There are no homosexual animals.

[yawanur]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

This is all just wild speculation anyway.

Which is why I love this site!

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Homosexuality seems like a pretty weird thing to evolve as well.

I'm still pretty sure it was for bonding purposes.

Bonding seems to be part of it, I think a lot of it is just males blowing off steam since they clearly want to fuck all the time and females do not. Not so weird really. It's a good thing males have a higher sex drive though, keeps them fighting for a mate and the females bearing offspring.

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Or, maybe (and I'll admit to this being highly speculative), it is just a genetic mistake that occurs from time to time among all species due to some defect in sex chromosomes.

That probably plays a role, again it's nearly impossible to pin shit like this down to cause A and effect B.

Originally Posted by gadzooks

NOTE TO ALL: Don't pull some shit up and correct me on this and think you've check mated me or something. It was a totally wild guess. I really don't care enough to do in-depth research on this topic.

But do correct me if you would like to. Because I am somewhat curious.

I agree, I don't really give a shit but it's interesting to think about, especially when we are confronted more and more with it in the world.

Originally Posted by King of the world

You have the problem of bisexuals and those who are groomed into it at a young, curious and impressionable age, regret it but it's already too late.

I suppose that's a problem, though it seems at that age young ones are more likely to fuck each other as opposed to older dudes, and first-timers won't have diseases to give to each other. Valid point.

Originally Posted by King of the world

Also with faggotry comes vanity, uselessness, femininity, another victim special rights culture and the destruction of the spirit that uplifted humanity to its succesful state.

Vanity is so prevalent these days it's hard to act like hetero's are sooo much better. I know you hate women so I won't argue about femininity, but I will say it's not the worst thing in the world for guys to recognize they have estrogen inside them. Acting on it is a different matter.

I agree victim special rights cultures are often taken too far; The spirit of humanity has a whole shit ton of challenges these days. That's fucking complicated though imma stay on one subject.

Originally Posted by King of the world

"In a civilization where equality is the standard, where differences are not linked, where promiscuity is in favor, where the ancient idea of 'being true to oneself' means nothing anymore—in such a splintered and materialistic society, it is clear that this phenomenon of regression and homosexuality should be particularly welcome, and therefore it is no way a surprise to see the alarming increase in homosexuality and the 'third sex' in the latest 'democratic' period, or an increase in sex changes to an extent unparalleled in other eras" (The Metaphysics of Sex, p. 64, Julius Evola).

Nice quote, reminded me of brave new world. You read the whole book? Recommend it?

Wanna send me a pdf?

[Mantikore]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

They obviously know that they're not going to impregnate a human leg...

Do they really?

Animal reproductive and paternal/maternal instincts do exist, but i think animals dont know that sex leads in impregnation.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by King of the world

and your point is? Why is there no animal lesbianism? Maybe because this 'homosexual' behaviour is displayed for dominance and not sexual gratification. Females do not typically fight for domination. At the most, you could argue that animals are bisexual

Always a good link for this type of post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Even if it was 'natural' doesn't mean it's good.

Of course not. However, the naturalistic fallacy is most often applied by the anti-homosexuality crowd in my experience, when they claim that it's "unnatural" and "icky", which cognitive research has shown probably means "hot" and "sexy", except they're too stupid and repressed to realize that if they could just bust their load all over Brad Pitts' sweaty balls just once they wouldn't gay people quite as much.

Of course, arguing that its unnatural is silly, as animals do it all the time. So that argument should be thrown out entirely.

Good and bad can be defined by what results in the maximum number of healthy, happy humans, and we know that healthily expressing your sexuality and being sexually active in the manner you wish is integral to mental health and happiness. So assuming that your sex is comfortable, safe, consensual, and desired by all involved parties, it should be considered "good" no matter the details of the sex.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by Mantikore

Do they really?

Animal reproductive and paternal/maternal instincts do exist, but i think animals dont know that sex leads in impregnation.

Actually that is a pretty good point.

Inferring causality is actually a pretty higher-order cognitive function.

They're probably just genetically programmed to fuck, and then when offspring are born, the genetic program to take care of said offspring kicks in.



Although... I'm sure the dog also has a genetic program that dictates what is impregnable and what isn't... A program that would, you would think at least, exclude human legs.

[Actor]

It probably first developed in the HOMO-ERECTUS.

[Bring Back Barrymore]

The whole concept of evolution is that random mutations can lead to adaptations which can increase rates of survival and reproduction. If the mutated gene does this, this allele is likely to increase in frequency in the population meaning more and more of the population will have this allele. If a mutation has no effect then it's frequency will stay the same. If a mutation is harmful it's frequency will be reduced.

Homosexuality is not beneficial to reproduction because obviously the 'homosexual gene' does not get passed on. I am of course referring to 100% homosexuality as opposed to being somewhere else on the spectrum.
Dawkins tries to explain this with a few theories (e.g. a homosexual will be trusted with the wives of a community and therefore has sex with them, thus passing on the 'gay gene'). But that's just absurd because it half implies that homosexuality doesn't exist and it is simply a reproductive strategy. Also the idea of a 'gay gene' is ridiculous because anyone with a basic understanding of genetics will know that a single gene cannot code for something as complex as being homosexual. It's an intricate web of multiple genes which are in a specific epigenetic (on/off) state that interact with an even wider number of genes, which only produces a predisposition to being homosexual. Environmental factors (e.g. upbringing, social groups etc.) then also influence whether someone will become a homosexual.
So, being one of the leading figures in evolutionary theory, I have no idea why Dawkins is using such bad science to explain all of this. Some people have speculated that he is siding with homosexuals in order to annoy the religious folk, but that's another story.

Anyway, unless homosexuality has some other benefit to the individual/society (which I can't think of), I'd suggest that it isn't mainly biological but social, which is supported to an extent by the increasing amount of the population who are homosexual.

Hope this was interesting/enlightening.

[Sopio]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

This is not Reddit. Why are these grotesque and revolting images officials smilies on this website? When did this happen? I want blood for this.

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by Sopio

This is not Reddit. Why are these grotesque and revolting images officials smilies on this website? When did this happen? I want blood for this.

Originally Posted by Bring Back Barrymore

Anyway, unless homosexuality has some other benefit to the individual/society (which I can't think of), I'd suggest that it isn't mainly biological but social, which is supported to an extent by the increasing amount of the population who are homosexual.

Though I'm not saying genes are the sole determinants of sexuality or anything, I recall reading somewhere that certain genes associated with female fecundity also increase the likelihood that male carriers of those genes will report attraction to the same sex later as adults. From an evolutionary perspective, it's easy to see how the benefits of an especially fertile female could outweigh the burden of a male not particularly keen on procreative sex.