Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Homosexuality

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems that scientific studies has shown that homosexuality is likely to be caused by genes, or at least a huge part of the reason behind homosexuality.

I don't think they have pin-pointed which gene, but most studies are twin studies in which the probability of a twin being homosexual is affected by an already homosexual twin.

I hope we will try to be completely unbiased while discussing in this thread, so I pose some questions to start things off:

- What is the reason behind homosexuality? Is it evolution? Are there advantages? Are there disadvantages? Has the human species become so evolved so that the disadvantages/advantages of being a homosexual are very negligible?

- What does there seem to be much more homosexual males then females?

- How do we ever confirm the "spectrum and fluidity of sexuality", so that some people could be bisexual or could change sexuality in their lifetime?

- Is homosexuality an experience that is general to all homosexuals? Or is it more personal?

@platorepublic,

There's a lot more studies done on male homosexuality than female homosexuality, but one very interesting note is how boys with more older brothers are more likely to become homosexual which is suggested to be because of, if I remember correctly, the antibodies which the female body releases if. This could lead us to think that there is benefits in population control in homosexuality, however, it could be quite random (especially considering polls suggest bisexuals are considerably more numerous than homosexuals). Then again, it is wide spread throughout the entire animal kingdom, which could tell us other wise. It is quite a bizarre question.

I don't think there is a 'homosexual experience' which is relevant to homosexuals but not species at all though.

EDIT: Sources for good measure, ScienceDirect - Journal of Theoretical Biology : Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men

and

SpringerLink - Journal Article

@platorepublic,

I don't think there has to be a big advantage for evolutionary purposes. It could easily be that the system of how the hormones are released during pregnancy is a big evolutionary advantage, and that homosexuality is just a side effect of that.

Or that since it's been looked down upon/people wanted an heir to pass on their possessions, homosexuals passed on their genes just fine.

@platorepublic,

Quote:

I don't think there has to be a big advantage for evolutionary purposes. It could easily be that the system of how the hormones are released during pregnancy is a big evolutionary advantage, and that homosexuality is just a side effect of that.

Aye, but you can acknowledge the possible benefits it could possibly have for population numbers, even if in a minor way? (that is, if your post was directed to me).

I am none the wiser though.

@Moloch,

Moloch;155758 wrote:

Aye, but you can acknowledge the possible benefits it could possibly have for population numbers, even if in a minor way? (that is, if your post was directed to me).

I am none the wiser though.

Population control?! I would've thought that evolution maximises population no matter the conditions.

@platorepublic,

The perponderance of evidence indicates that homosexuality is not a choice (or a lifestyle). Homosexual or same sex bonding preference is found in other species and in nature. In a world filled with violence, terrorism, disease and starvation, I fail to see why the issue of homosexuality attracts so much attention.

As far as I am concerned any two consenting competent adults can engage in any private sexual behavior they mutually agree to and is not the governments or anybody elses business.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;155761 wrote:

Population control?! I would've thought that evolution maximises population no matter the conditions.

No, evolution helps the survival of genes, and sometimes you have to somewhat limit populations to do that. Having too large a population is not good when there's limited food resources, although there's many factors involved in population control.

@Moloch,

I think some heterosexuals want homosexuality to be completely determined by genetics because they don't want to see their heterosexuality as something that could be fluid and changeable. It's much easier to insist that homosexuals are born that way and didn't choose it because that means that they themselves were born heterosexual and didn't choose it. I mean its only natural to shy away from things that will cause you to question your sexuality. It's just safer and more comfortable to say it's all about the genetics, no question about it, and then change the subject.

@Deckard,

Deckard;155784 wrote:

I think some heterosexuals want homosexuality to be completely determined by genetics because they don't want to see their heterosexuality as something that could be fluid and changeable. It's much easier to insist that homosexuals are born that way and didn't choose it because that means that they themselves were born heterosexual and didn't choose it. I mean its only natural to shy away from things that will cause you to question your sexuality. It's just safer and more comfortable to say it's all about the genetics, no question about it, and then change the subject.

Usually it's the other way around though. Tons of people insist that homosexuality is a choice so that they can criticize them for choosing it, and see the "genetics" argument as an made up excuse.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;155787 wrote:

Usually it's the other way around though. Tons of people insist that homosexuality is a choice so that they can criticize them for choosing it, and see the "genetics" argument as an made up excuse.

Most everyone I know insists that homosexuality is NOT a choice but I travel in pretty liberal circles. My point is that the reasons for their supposedly accepting view that homosexuality is NOT a choice is really just as shallow as the the reasons others insist that it IS a choice, and probably even shallower in many cases.

In my opinion the deeper question is: would it be wrong if it was a choice?

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;155748 wrote:

What is the reason behind homosexuality? Is it evolution? Are there advantages? Are there disadvantages? Has the human species become so evolved so that the disadvantages/advantages of being a homosexual are very negligible?

I'm not sure there a purpose for this; there could be.

As to why it happens, the answer's likely a result of several dynamics at play in the individual; and yes, there could be a genetic basis although I'm unconvinced that the genetic element alone would be the ultimate determinant.

As to evolutionary; I doubt it. The idea that it could be a mechanism to prevent or ward off overpopulation seems a bit of a stretch. Again, I don't know so I'm going to have to stipulate a possibility of such being the case. Nowhere in the natural world, that I'm aware of, are there population conditions wherein genetic mechanisms kick in to lower the birth rate via sexual behavior. In most cases, organisms either move on, adapt or die out. Again, I'm no expert.

platorepublic;155748 wrote:

What does there seem to be much more homosexual males then females?

No idea. Since homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual attraction to those of your own gender, I've always attributed this perceived imbalance (and I do mean perceived; since it seems there are more males, I wouldn't assert that unequivocally) to the nature of a generally more aggressive libido in the male - wherein sexual desire is expressed.

platorepublic;155748 wrote:

How do we ever confirm the "spectrum and fluidity of sexuality", so that some people could be bisexual or could change sexuality in their lifetime?

I'm not sure I understand this completely. I've known a number of folks whose sexual preference has changed over their lifetime; one way, another, back again, etc., over long periods of time. To me its self-evident that there is a 'fluid' element; again, likely owing to the dynamic mental and emotional impact on sexuality within the human.

platorepublic;155748 wrote:

Is homosexuality an experience that is general to all homosexuals? Or is it more personal?

Are we talking about "homosexual behavior" as opposed to being a "homosexual" (as a general categorization)? Not quite sure of the question here, but someone who may be bisexual or heterosexually-oriented may have homosexual experiences. I suppose it depends on the proper terminology here; is someone who has a homosexual experience therefore justifiably called a_homosexual from then on? I wouldn't think so, I'd make a distinction between the activity and the general or overall sexual orientation; between the behavior and the general desires of the person in question.

Good Question

@Deckard,

Deckard;155795 wrote:

Most everyone I know insists that homosexuality is NOT a choice but I travel in pretty liberal circles. My point is that the reasons for their supposedly accepting view that homosexuality is NOT a choice is really just as shallow as the the reasons others insist that it IS a choice, and probably even shallower in many cases.

In my opinion the deeper question is: would it be wrong if it was a choice?

The country-wide debate seems to be divided along these lines:

1) liberal: homosexuality is not a choice, and therefore homosexuals can't be discriminated against
2) conservative: homosexuality is a choice, and therefore homosexuals can be discriminated against

A lot of times people get entrenched in a "shallow reason" because they see that leaving wiggle room is a victory for those arguing for something they disagree with strongly. This is where a lot of silly political positions on divisive issues come from.

I think people are uncomfortable with the idea that they might have "hidden" homosexual urges, but I don't know that they do or that that is why they say that homosexuality is not a choice.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;155748 wrote:

It seems that scientific studies has shown that homosexuality is likely to be caused by genes, or at least a huge part of the reason behind homosexuality.

I don't think they have pin-pointed which gene, but most studies are twin studies in which the probability of a twin being homosexual is affected by an already homosexual twin.

I hope we will try to be completely unbiased while discussing in this thread, so I pose some questions to start things off:

- What is the reason behind homosexuality? Is it evolution? Are there advantages? Are there disadvantages? Has the human species become so evolved so that the disadvantages/advantages of being a homosexual are very negligible?

- What does there seem to be much more homosexual males then females?

- How do we ever confirm the "spectrum and fluidity of sexuality", so that some people could be bisexual or could change sexuality in their lifetime?

- Is homosexuality an experience that is general to all homosexuals? Or is it more personal?

There are several things to say, but I will confine myself to a few about which I might be able to actually say something somewhat useful. If you want to find out about studies regarding these issues, you will want to look at psychology and such.

There are many things that happen that are not evolutionarily advantageous. There are many people who imagine that every change is for the better, but that is not the case. With reproduction, there are many things that occur, some of which are "beneficial" (meaning, in this context, help continue the species), some of which are "harmful", and some of which are relatively unimportant one way or the other. For example, birth "defects" are not generally beneficial, but they are far from extremely rare. Mutations of various sorts occur all the time, and some of them die quickly, and some are better suited for a particular environment.

So, whether homosexuality is beneficial or not for the continuation of the species is something that is irrelevant to whether it is genetically determined.

Also, you do not have to become a parent to help pass on your genes; your siblings have much genetic material in common with you, and so if you help them with their children, you are passing on many of your genes, without becoming a parent. There have been some studies regarding this, though I have no links at my fingertips and do not wish to do your research for you.

With people who are bisexual, I do not see any disadvantage to that (from an evolutionary perspective), as one can still easily become a parent. Having sex with more people than necessary does not prevent one from passing on one's genes, and if one is able to form strong personal bonds with more people, that might help one to survive longer and pass on more genetic material. So being bisexual might be the best one can be, though "aberrations" of pure heterosexual and homosexual people are likely to be a result of a species for which bisexuality is best. And if one is bisexual, one can "pass" for either heterosexual or homosexual, if one wishes. So one can fit in with any group that way.

@platorepublic,

I was watching one of those religion channels on the tv today and these two people argued against homosexuality by saying that if we let gays to marry, then what's stopping us from letting a father and daughter marry..

I thought their argument was funny because: More US States Allow Marriage Between First Cousins Than Gay Marriage | mancouch

Is there anything wrong with homosexuality naturally? -- socially? -- culturally?

@mister kitten,

mister kitten;155829 wrote:

I was watching one of those religion channels on the tv today and these two people argued against homosexuality by saying that if we let gays to marry, then what's stopping us from letting a father and daughter marry..

I thought their argument was funny because: More US States Allow Marriage Between First Cousins Than Gay Marriage | mancouch

Is there anything wrong with homosexuality naturally? -- socially? -- culturally?

It seems like the media has portrayed homosexuality in a much biased way. And those who blog about their gayness - well, they may also spread the "negative" impression of homosexuality.

How about those homosexuals who do not voice their views? How would we ever know what it's like to be them if we never hear about it from those who don't voice what it is like to be a homosexual, since they are such a minority?

What if those who voice out are those who could only bring the image of homosexuality down, e.g. gay men who always brag about their sex life?

On the topic of what is wrong. I will try not be too philosophical here - what is wrong is totally a personal thing, and should be dealt as so. Someone could kill without good reason and think it's right and it's their right to think it is right.

So I think what is wrong is a unproductive thing to ask. Especially when nobody is killed or hurt in the phenomenon.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;155833 wrote:

So I think what is wrong is a unproductive thing to ask. Especially when nobody is killed or hurt in the phenomenon.

I think not just ethics but also aesthetics comes in to play here. The idea of two men getting each other off or two women getting each other off or for that matter a man and a woman getting each other off may be extremely repulsive depending on ones preferences.

And I think our sexual likes and dislikes have a degree of intensity that make such feelings of disgust of quite a bit more importance than say hating the taste of tomatoes or the sight of chartreuse.

I mean if you can't help but feel a little disgusted by a particular lifestyle does that make you a bigot or is it just a matter of taste?

@platorepublic,

Actually from what I have seen, homosexuality is both, something that can be chosen and also it has connections with genetic predisposition. I have seen cases where homosexuality was chosen because of rejection and acceptance issues. For example a male who is repeatedly rejected by women, but accepted by gay males. The same has happened with women, who were rejected by males but accepted by gay women.

So not every case is the same. There are some who chose to be gay and others who did not chose it. As far as the argument that Christians want to make about accepting gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriages is completely bogus. Do you see a lot of father and daughters out picketing to get married?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Homosexuality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know