Homosexuality and Biology

[Hoek]

You are correct that evolutionary biology does not account for all human behavior (note that I asserted that it is a combination of biology and environment that makes up behavior). However, since alot of liberals do in fact assert that homosexuality is genetic like someone's race, it makes sense to analyze the argument. And in terms of the genetic argument, it doesn't hold up in the face of evidence.

Now don't get me wrong on this==I'm not some gay-basher...I do have some gay friends in fact. To me, regardless of its' origins, I think that a person's sexuality is his or her own business.

Now, in terms of "learned" homosexuality, I think it's fair to say that there are indeed some clear cases of situational homosexuality. Take the ancient greeks for instance. There is strong evidence that homosexual behavior was practiced fairly widely, but that it had a sort of "companionship" connotation with it. And look at prisons. Homosexual behavior in prison is a method of establishing a hierarchy that is independent of a person's sexual desires.

In addition to that, there are a number of other problems with the biology argument. Presumably, if there is a definite and sole biological cause for homosexuality, biological science will some day find a "cure" for it. With genetic and prenatal screening technology already up and running, an ethical dilemna faces those liberals who assert a "biology only" argument. Supposing parents were told that they had the option of having either a homosexual or a heterosexual child. Would those liberals stop those parents from making the inevitable choice?

Another problem is that for some strange reason, homosexuality seems to be the only human characterisic liberals assert has any biological tie. Time after time, when research is done into biological ties to intelligence and criminality, liberals decrie it as "pseudo-science." Why then should they assert with all fervor that in this case, homosexuality IS in fact biological?

My thought on this all is that there are indeed biological ties to all behavior, but that environment can do alot to overwhelm the biological input. People with learning disorders can still learn, people with hereditary achoholism don't necessarily need to become alcoholics. Regarding homosexuality, however, we as a society need to start thinking along the lines of post-evolution. We as humans are the only species that has been able to buck evolution, and we need to recognize that. Those who say homosexuality is bad because it's "unnatural" never bother to tell the rest of us what in this world they do consider "natural". And liberals need to start realizing what their arguments about homosexuality innevitably lead to.

[mindseye]

This so perfectly answers the question that I think it needs to be re-quoted.

Also consider that people's sexuality is highly influenced by societal views. (...)

The prohibition against sexual interest in one's own sex doubtlessly prevents many heterosexuals from even considering bisexuality, where a in a more neutral society that might not be the case.

All we know for certain is the sexuality develops in a highly chaotic interplay of genes, hormones, and social mores. Exactly how much one contributes and influences the other is unlikely to be determined. All one can say with any certainty is that it is not a choice.

[Hoek]

Isn't the bottom line, though, that nobody currently knows for certain? Which makes me question anybody who asserts otherwise. The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded, just as the assertion that it is a definitely a choice is unfounded. Those who assert that homosexuality is genetic are not basing their opinion on science, but rather on dubious logic that says "who would ever want to choose to be homosexual?" And those who assert that homosexuality is purely a choice are not basing their opinion on science either, but more commonly a misinterpretation of the Soddom and Gommora story (which is critical of inhospitabality and rape, not of homosexuality). The way I feel is that if you are going to make a claim one way or the other, you had better have some hard evidence.

[mindseye]

The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded

Now, that's just plain dumb.

Unlike genetic, hormonal, environmental, or other factors, you can simply ask someone if choice was involved. I've known thousands of gay men and women during my life (I lived in San Francisco for 18 years), and trust me when I say this is a discussion topic of great interest for gays and their friends. Gay people usually give a great deal of thought and introspection to the great question of just how they came to be who they are. I have yet to meet even one who felt there was any degree of choice in the matter.

I don't understand how you think you can state that arguments about choice are "wholly unfounded" in the face of unanimous declarations to the contrary by the very folks in question.

By the way, did you choose to be heterosexual?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mindseye

The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded

Now, that's just plain dumb.

Unlike genetic, hormonal, environmental, or other factors, you can simply ask someone if choice was involved. I've known thousands of gay men and women during my life (I lived in San Francisco for 18 years), and trust me when I say this is a discussion topic of great interest for gays and their friends. Gay people usually give a great deal of thought and introspection to the great question of just how they came to be who they are. I have yet to meet even one who felt there was any degree of choice in the matter.

I don't understand how you think you can state that arguments about choice are "wholly unfounded" in the face of unanimous declarations to the contrary by the very folks in question.

By the way, did you choose to be heterosexual?

Oh, didn't you know?? There are some heterosexuals that are ignorant, and think that heterosexuals know more about homosexuality than homosexuals do.

[Monk]

Mr. Fun,

Oh, didn't you know?? There are some heterosexuals that are ignorant, and think that heterosexuals know more about homosexuality than homosexuals do.

They don't, generally speaking, but in a discussion on the issue, the arguments and statements of the homosexual don't carry more weight than those of the rest of us. Although lacking the first-hand experience in the field, the heterosexual can occasionally benefit from the natural distance to the subject. To make a comparisation, there are indeed some men who know more about women than the women themselves - again, generally speaking.

[MrFun]

That might be true to an extent Monk, but for SOME heterosexuals like Boddington's, it is easier to bash a group of people they do not understand.

[mindseye]

the arguments and statements of the homosexual don't carry more weight than those of the rest of us.

First-hand knowledge doesn 't carry any weight? That's a curious proposition.

[orange]

MrFun - Bods is a troll

My personal feeling is that environment influences our sexuality as much as genes/testosterone levels/estrogen levels/etc. As stated earlier, some people would be more inclined to be bisexual or even gay if they lived in a society that felt it normal, but in another society wouldn't even give it a shot.

I for one have searched, and know that i'm 100% straight. I just don't and probably can't feel attracted to a guy. Whether that's more genetics or environment at work, i'm not sure, but probably a good mix of both.

[chequita guevara]

I think Hoek raises some valid points. One thing I should mention about the ancient Greeks, though, is that they had a prohibition against homosexuality also. While it was true that men seduced teen boys, there were rules. First, the teen was not supposed to want to be seduced. Second, sexual intercorse didn't involved actual penetration, but was done by thrusting the penis through the thighs. Anal sex was prohibited, as was having sex with men your own age. Men who allowed themselves to be penetrated were treated as women; men were penetrators, women are penetratees.

Homosexual activity in prison is far more about power than it is about homosexuality. There's certainly no attraction involved. Actual gay people are in danger of being gang raped and murdered in prison. A man is expected to fight to prevent it, because no real man would allow himself to be penetrated.

Homosexual activity on ships and among cowboys is much closer to sexuality of choice. All male situations where there is little hope of female sexual release for long periods of time. Today that isn't so much the case, but in previous times it was.

As for the genetic cause of homosexuality, I think this idea springs from multiple sources. On the one hand, there is definately a "look" to homsexual men. I can't describe it, but there a certain facial structure that is "gay." It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

There is also the higher incidence of identical twins raised seperately to both by gay. Finally there are some brain structures that appear in some gay men.

On the other hand, it provided an easy out for liberals in defending gays. It's genetic, they can't help it, so it shouldn't be punished. This is a lame defense, but it's likely helped to decrease pressure on gays, so while I find it intellectually dishonest, I can't bring myself to condemn it.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why people are gay. Even if it were a choice, there's nothing wrong with it. We should be defending people's right to be gay and to live free from persecution, not because "they can't help it" which implies that there's something wrong with it, but because there's nothing wrong with it what so ever.

[MrFun]

If you say so, Orange.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for the genetic cause of homosexuality, I think this idea springs from multiple sources. On the one hand, there is definately a "look" to homsexual men. I can't describe it, but there a certain facial structure that is "gay." It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

Chegitz, usually you provide intelligent insight on a variety of topics and issues.

But for once, this statement of yours is simply wrong.

And as I have stated before, I am finding the pure genetic theory to be weaker than I originally thought.

[Ramo]

I personally believe that it's likely everyone is genetically bisexual, at least to some degree, and that there is usually some minor margin in which a person's sexual preferences may vary. However, most people are at the relative extremes of the scale.

This assertion makes no sense if you consider evolutionary biology. According to evolutionary biology, genetic traits that would inhibit reproduction would rather quickly get eliminated since they serve no evolutionary purpose.

Consider if a person gets a certain mutated gene that is supposed to produce hemoglobin from both parents, that person will get sickle-cell amenia, while if a person gets a single such gene, that person will get resistance to malaria. So, this mutation survives to this day, despite being very harmful.

Also consider that populations with homosexuals will tend to face fewer over-population problems.

[Hoek]

Look, so far I have not seen one sound argument on behalf of homosexuality being GENETIC, and not some other biological root. Che's argument was just a joke from what I could tell. Ramo's argument that homosexuality acts as a hedge on overpopulation is silly because true lack of resources has not become a serious problem until recently and misses the fact that evolution does not pass on dead ends. Sickle Cell Anemia, which occurs (as far as I know) only in people of African descent, does in fact serve an evolutionary purpose because it fights malaria. The reason it has survived is because evolution determined that for the African continent, resistence to malaria was important enough to keep it in the gene pool. Homosexuality serves no species-wide purpose from an evolutionary stand point, so it therefore makes no sense to say that it is built into the genes.

Che: good points about the analogies. I had an interesting talk with a good friend of the family the other day. His son is gay, and he lives in Fairfax county. The county was putting up a referendum to change the school charter saying "will not discriminate based on race....or sexual orientation." A group of right wingers in the church snuck into the chapel and put an insert into the bulletin saying "homosexuals are after your children." So he is going to give a "rebuttal" tommorow. One thing that he noted about ancient jewish tradition in the case of homosexuality is that not all homosexuality was looked down on. If you were the penatrator, your role as a man remained intact, but if you were penetrated, it was a sin because you were taking the place of the woman. And since women were ignored in the bible, lesbianism wasn't discussed. Also, after moses received the ten commandments, jewish law over time developed an extra 900 commandments. Then Jesus came along and said there is but one commandment: love your god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Alot of these homophobes are just old testament christians who don't like dealing with the new testament for some reason.

PS: next post, I'll show you guys a picture of a Jesus action figure I just got...it's hilarious.

[Ramo]

Ramo's argument that homosexuality acts as a hedge on overpopulation is silly because true lack of resources has not become a serious problem until recently

Completely false. Hunter-gatherer life doesn't exactly mean abundance. If anything, overpopulation is only recently (i.e. within the last several thousand years) becoming a more benign threat.

Homosexuality serves no species-wide purpose from an evolutionary stand point,

The point is that sickle-cell amenia is a recessive characteristic, and that a regular and a mutated allele serves a purpose. There could very well be an analogy with sexual preference. You and I really don't know...

[Ramo]

misses the fact that evolution does not pass on dead ends.

Which could be explained if it's similar to a recessive characteristic. Populations with these alternate sexual preference genes would tend to survive during periods of hardships.