Homosexuality

[wynlim]

I would like to add that in any organisation to be successful, different roles will need to exist. i.e. in a company, there has to be a leader, as well as people good at executing. The leader might not be good at administrative jobs doesn't mean he/she is a bad leader. The person bringing in top sales might not have leadership skills but that doesn't discount his/her importance to the company.

I am using the analogy to illustrate that in the world we live in, some people like homosexuals do not reproduce doesn't mean they are not supposed to exist.

There are heterosexuals whom by some genetic defect or illness, cannot reproduce too. Does that mean they're also unnatural?

Just because homosexuals cannot reproduce doesn't mean the human race is doomed. Because the reproduction is left to those who can. It's not as if by allowing homosexuals to exist the heterosexuals will cease to exist. They just have different roles.

Be it animals, plants or humans, evolution doesn't occur based on reproduction alone.

Some plants/animals evolve to be asexual. Unnatural? No.

Famous gay people like elton john, ellen degeneres , they have touched lives in different ways. Do they contribute to evolution? Think carefully.

What about a gay scientist who invents some cure to some disease?

People should think on different levels. Evolution does not equate solely to reproduction.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by wynlim

I am using the analogy to illustrate that in the world we live in, some people like homosexuals do not reproduce doesn't mean they are not supposed to exist.

Every characteristic we currently have had played a certain role throughout evolution to help us as a species to survive.

What role had homosexuality played throughout evolution to help our species survive? You haven't answered that.

Originally Posted by wynlim

There are heterosexuals whom by some genetic defect or illness, cannot reproduce too. Does that mean they're also unnatural?

Not unnatural. Naturally handicapped to reproduce. People who are like this come from fertile heterosexuals, so these people didn't genetically inherit this handicap; they just developed it, unfortunately. Same with homosexuality, people who are like that may come from fertile heterosexual parents, but these people just got their inner sexual attraction mechanism a bit screwed up. Same with pedophiles, "beastophiles", and whatever others there are lol.

The reason why homosexuality isn't as bad as pedophile and beastophile people is that homosexuality doesn't do harm to other beings, but it's still an attraction mechanism anomaly, just like pedophily and beastophily.

Originally Posted by wynlim

Just because homosexuals cannot reproduce doesn't mean the human race is doomed. Because the reproduction is left to those who can. It's not as if by allowing homosexuals to exist the heterosexuals will cease to exist. They just have different roles.

Be it animals, plants or humans, evolution doesn't occur based on reproduction alone.

Again, you didn't say what evolutionary roles the homosexuals have in helping our race to perpetuate. Doesn't have to be reproduction necessarily. Tell me a role that only homosexuals -and not heterosexuals- could have had in helping the human race to survive throughout evolution.

Originally Posted by wynlim

Some plants/animals evolve to be asexual. Unnatural? No.

Of course it's not unnatural. Their reproductive mechanism is different.

Originally Posted by wynlim

Famous gay people like elton john, ellen degeneres , they have touched lives in different ways. Do they contribute to evolution? Think carefully.

What about a gay scientist who invents some cure to some disease?

You should be the one to think carefully. The people you mentioned are all great people, but what the heck does it have to do with them being homosexual?? If they weren't homosexual, they would very likely be as great as they're now.

Originally Posted by wynlim

People should think on different levels. Evolution does not equate solely to reproduction.

Certainly not. There are many other mechanisms that help us in evolution like emotions, our senses, muscles, intelligence, etc. But how does homosexuality help us? It's probably just one more one-generation genetic anomaly that anyone with heterosexual parents could be born with.

[cdn2wheeler]

Found a few references (while I wait for my &$*@! printer) relating to homosexuality and evolutionary biology, though I haven't been through them in any detail...

Seed: The Gay Animal Kingdom

Biological Exuberance. Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Theoretical perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality. (may require login/password for full access)

[NotesMaeve]

Oh, all those giraffes and bonobos just got the idea by watching MTV. Don't be ridiculous.

[wynlim]

Sam:

"Every characteristic we currently have had played a certain role throughout evolution to help us as a species to survive."

Hmm. I wonder how does race help us as a species to survive? I would be very interested to know how you perceive race in this equation.

"The people you mentioned are all great people, but what the heck does it have to do with them being homosexual?? If they weren't homosexual, they would very likely be as great as they're now."

Who could have really known that? The fact that they have the courage be out in the public makes them very special people. Their struggle to be accepted by the mainstream has given them a lot of strength and foundation to being the personalities they are today.

But can 'special qualities' or what makes unique individuals be scientifically documented? Is there a specific gene that makes a person smarter? Or more inspirational?

I am just trying to point out that 'helping a species to survive' is just not as black and white as procreation. Perhaps homosexuals have some unique qualities that cannot simply be attributed to science.

From my personal standpoint I see it more on a spiritual level. Homosexuality, like race, are just different characteristics belonging to people. One purpose of diversity is such that people can learn different lessons from each other.

I don't see why just because of the inability to produce, it makes homosexuals unnatural.

Who gives the definition of 'natural'?

I find it amusing that these questions came from a reader of Erin's blog.

I apologise, because I think we're both trying to speak from different levels.

From a spiritual perspective it doesn't make sense to me to explain the existence of a certain characteristic just by science.

Everything happens for a reason, everyone exist for a purpose.

[wolverine]

A while ago I found information relating overpopulation to an increased percentage of homosexuality in a population. It generally hovers around 10% (don't shout at me if I get the numbers wrong, this is purely remembered!) but goes higher if there's too many individuals in the population. Whether it's because of food availablity or land area or stress between members, I can't remember.

Anyway, the gist of it was that homosexuality, above the general level existant in all the populations/societies it has been observed in, could serve as a population 'cap' or limiting factor at least. Heaven knows, we've got billions of people on this Earth and many people think that we can't sustain that. Here in Australia, our water is running out in many places -- coincidence? I dunno. Maybe too many people have been using too much of it. (That is purely my own theory, no objective info there.)

The suggestions others have made about homosexuals being evolutionary peacekeepers and childcarers also make sense. If a mother (and/or father in some species') dies, then if there are non-mother females around then the young could still be taken care of and survive. And any large group encounters stress and disagreements; if there are members who are not concerned with the heterosexual dance of being powerful and 'the best' etc, then that can only be good for the entire group in deflating tensions.

Or it could just be that we're meant to love everyone equally and it manifests as love for one person only (or a few, in polyamorous relationships) for whatever reason. Culture, maybe, or existential restrictions such as hunting, eating, sleeping, protecting the group etc.


Wolverine

[Dooby]

This is a very interesting post.

Just some general observations. Reproduction doesn't guarantee the survival of the human race (or any other for that matter). Of course, it helps, and is required, but at the same time, hinders if it becomes out of balance with the resources available. I believe this is starting to happen.

It's only partially useful to compare reproduction/extinction in the animal world with that of the human world. The reason for this is although we share certain commonalities with the animal kingdom, we're very different.

I believe there is a bigger threat to the human species than homosexuality. Science, and Technology. I love technology when it's used correctly, but, used wrongly, it would be quite easy to bring about Human extinction in an instant.

[Nimbrethil]

The latest research now indicates that the majority of people are bisexual, with relatively few being exclusivly hetero- or homosexual. So ultimately people are attracted to whatever they are attracted to, with actual gender bearing only minor relevance. And it is a fact that most societies culturally indoctrinate people to be heterosexual. I suspect that many of us who identify as heterosexual very likely simply grew up so steeped in the societal assumption that opposite-sex attraction was how we are "supposed" to be that we internalized it at some point. That many people who identify as straight have nevertheless experienced attraction to someone of their own gender speaks to this.

I am also going to add that it is incorrect to claim that people who are infertile can only "become" this way at some point in their development because of the erroneous notion that fertile couples cannot pass on the genetic handicap of sterility. There are all manner of genetic defects that can occur in the offspring of unaffected parents, and infertility is one of them.

And why is everyone suggesting that homosexuals are somehow exempt from reproduction? Of the five homosexual friends I have, three of them are parents. And this is not always due to mis-identifying as straight and attempting to make a family with someone of the opposite gender. Homosexuality was commonplace amongst the ancient Greeks and they reproduced all the time. In fact the philosophy generally was "Men are for pleasure, women are for babies." And surely it is well known that homosexual men and women often yearn for their own children to the point where personal arrangements between a lesbian and a male friend, or a gay man and a female friend, are made so that the homosexual can raise a child of their own. Homosexuality is no danger at all to the existence of a species. Never has been. And it is completely normal.

[raphnix]

Homosexuality is the sexual orientation of a person "chosen" or "been grown up with or to" by an individual, so for me, it is their choice. I don't like the idea of them having an intercourse(especially men) with each other.

[Nimbrethil]

Originally Posted by raphnix

Homosexuality is the sexual orientation of a person "chosen" or "been grown up with or to" by an individual, so for me, it is their choice. I don't like the idea of them having an intercourse(especially men) with each other.

Except that, no, it isn't a choice, and your opinion on the matter doesn't change that. And what does it matter whether or not YOU "like" the idea of people of the same gender having sex with each other? Why is that important enough for you to mention it? Answer: it's not. I don't like the idea of a person pleasuring themselves with fruits or vegetables, but what someone else does is a) none of my business and b) has no effect on me whatsoever, and so my opinion on the subject is of so little consequence to someone else's sexual life that I have no business talking about it as if it does matter.

The fact that you even admit that you "especially" have the problem with gay men having sex indicates that it is an emotional bias on your part, not based on anything rational.

No human being chooses who or what they are attracted to. We choose only whom we pursue. No one would honestly believe that a person chooses what physical traits one person finds attractive in another---a man no more chooses to prefer blondes over brunettes than a woman chooses to prefer thin, lanky men to beefcakes. These attractions are innate, and beyond conscious control. But, despite attraction, a person can choose to pursue someone whether they "like" that person or not.

It is no different when the question is what gender a person is attracted to. A homosexual man doesn't choose to be attracted to another man any more than a hetero man chooses to be attracted to a woman. Now, the homosexual man can CHOOSE to sleep with a woman or a man. Therein lies the difference.

[fatandugly]

I'm not aware of ever having made a choice about my sexual attraction. I have to wonder whether those of you who think it is a choice can point to a time of having chosen to be heterosexual? But what would it matter if it is a choice or not? Why would that choice be unacceptable? It isn't a choice that harms anyone. As far as the continuation of the species, as others have noted, "homosexual" is not synonymous with "infertile". I think being able to express love and bond with others in any mutually fulfilling and consensual way is beautiful and helpful to the human race.

As far as anyone making the "natural" argument, why are you using a computer? That's a completely artificial construct.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by fatandugly

I'm not aware of ever having made a choice about my sexual attraction. I have to wonder whether those of you who think it is a choice can point to a time of having chosen to be heterosexual? But what would it matter if it is a choice or not? Why would that choice be unacceptable? It isn't a choice that harms anyone. As far as the continuation of the species, as others have noted, "homosexual" is not synonymous with "infertile". I think being able to express love and bond with others in any mutually fulfilling and consensual way is beautiful and helpful to the human race.

As far as anyone making the "natural" argument, why are you using a computer? That's a completely artificial construct.

Spot on points.

I love to hear at exactly what age straight people "chose" to be straight.

[backpocket]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I love to hear at exactly what age straight people "chose" to be straight.

12. I woke up and said to myself, "You know, I'm only ever gonna get a boner from a woman, goddamnit, and that's my choice!"

jk, of course.

[raphnix]

Originally Posted by Nimbrethil

Except that, no, it isn't a choice, and your opinion on the matter doesn't change that. And what does it matter whether or not YOU "like" the idea of people of the same gender having sex with each other? Why is that important enough for you to mention it? Answer: it's not. I don't like the idea of a person pleasuring themselves with fruits or vegetables, but what someone else does is a) none of my business and b) has no effect on me whatsoever, and so my opinion on the subject is of so little consequence to someone else's sexual life that I have no business talking about it as if it does matter.

The fact that you even admit that you "especially" have the problem with gay men having sex indicates that it is an emotional bias on your part, not based on anything rational.

No human being chooses who or what they are attracted to. We choose only whom we pursue. No one would honestly believe that a person chooses what physical traits one person finds attractive in another---a man no more chooses to prefer blondes over brunettes than a woman chooses to prefer thin, lanky men to beefcakes. These attractions are innate, and beyond conscious control. But, despite attraction, a person can choose to pursue someone whether they "like" that person or not.

It is no different when the question is what gender a person is attracted to. A homosexual man doesn't choose to be attracted to another man any more than a hetero man chooses to be attracted to a woman. Now, the homosexual man can CHOOSE to sleep with a woman or a man. Therein lies the difference.

From the way you defend the issue...mmm... I think you're homosexual too, right?

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by raphnix

From the way you defend the issue...mmm... I think you're homosexual too, right?

Please clarify at what point in life you conciously chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. Not when you noticed the attraction, but when you either

a. were attracted to both, and decided on one over the other, and the same sex attraction magically went away

or

b. you conciously decided one day "Hey, it sure would be cool to be sexually attracted to girls!" and then just magically achieved an erection at the next girl you saw

which of course leads to at what point you conciously chose what traits in the opposite sex turn you on.


I never once decided to be only into the opposite sex, it just happened that way. Nor did I one day decided I'd rather be more turned on by a nice butt/pair of legs than big breasts, I just gradually realized that I am (not that I don't like big breasts as well, don't get me wrong!).

Please clarify at what point in life you specifically chose all of the above.

[Ninja]

A species that has homosexual members, has much better survival chances. This is because gay couples don't procreate, thus contributing to a better child/adult ratio. Because they don't have offspring of their own, there will be more adults for every child that is already here. This is especially crucial for humans in an environment with many predators, since human infants can't even walk, let alone run for their lives when a hungry lion steps onto the scene. They are utterly helpless and the more adults are watching over them, the better.

[raphnix]

Originally Posted by Ninja

A species that has homosexual members, has much better survival chances. This is because gay couples don't procreate, thus contributing to a better child/adult ratio. Because they don't have offspring of their own, there will be more adults for every child that is already here. This is especially crucial for humans in an environment with many predators, since human infants can't even walk, let alone run for their lives when a hungry lion steps onto the scene. They are utterly helpless and the more adults are watching over them, the better.

Its a good point but somehow the homosexual "species" might be dominating already (of numbers) in the "ecology" there would happen the so-called "ecological imbalance" where they might go extinct because of their dominance.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by raphnix

From the way you defend the issue...mmm... I think you're homosexual too, right?

I'll defend the issue, and I'm not gay. Explain that.

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by raphnix

Its a good point but somehow the homosexual "species" might be dominating already (of numbers) in the "ecology" there would happen the so-called "ecological imbalance" where they might go extinct because of their dominance.

Pink cockatoos have a 'gayness ratio' of 50% (yes, HALF of them are gay! ) and they seem to be doing fine

[raphnix]

Originally Posted by Ninja

Pink cockatoos have a 'gayness ratio' of 50% (yes, HALF of them are gay! ) and they seem to be doing fine

What do you mean about "they seem to be doing fine?

[Ninja]

Originally Posted by raphnix

What do you mean about "they seem to be doing fine?

That they haven't died out

[ssandra]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents..

Just because somebody is homosexual doesn't mean that they cannot reproduce. Who you have sex with is a choice, so even without modern medicine gay people in the old days (from whenever there where gay people) always had the choice to have children.

It is perfectly possible to raise children with their father, when being in a good and friendly relationship, while being in a romantic relationship with a woman.

So... there goes the argument that gay people are not natural because the cannot reproduce.. because they can!

I believe that LOVE is important and that as human we should love the person (spirit, soul, brains, whatever) and not the body.

Besides that: A dirty mind is a joy forever, and if my body is my temple, everybody is welcome to worship!

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Nimbrethil

The latest research now indicates that the majority of people are bisexual, with relatively few being exclusivly hetero- or homosexual.

Hmmm why does this just sound wrong to me? Where is this "research" of which you speak?

I know very few people who are actually bisexual. I know a few who have been "bi-curious" but not actually bisexual.

Don't get me wrong... I have no problem with bisexuality or homosexuality at all. I just know I am 100% hetero I have know this since I was about 3 years old (of course I didn't know there was an alternative until I was much older!!).

I have read that under some circumstances people will choose a partner of the same sex when there are few of the opposite sex "available" but I can't imagine doing it myself. Honestly I'd rather be single for the rest of my life than have sex with a girl

As for the rest of the discussion... I don't really think it matters one way or the other whether or not there is a "reason" for homosexuality, it just exists. People, for whatever reason, are simply attracted to those of the same sex rather than those of the opposite sex, end of story.

[dali]

Originally Posted by Sam988

I just can't see how homosexuality helps the human race, evolutionarily speaking.

If someone has a theory to how homosexuality could possibly help a race to survive, please share because i want to get some other ideas here.

I have heard people ask this same question in relation to flies, wasps, snakes and a variety of things that they have some trouble understanding! Its sort of logical I suppose. Our race hopefully has to more than just survive. Each of us has personal challenges in our life. Learning how to meet them creates an energy which hopefully contributes not only to our survival but to our evolution as persons. It certainly has a very powerful impact on an individual when they come to terms with their own personal challenges and transcend them. The individual becomes empowered and an impetus to move forward is created! They say each one of us affects the whole so self transformation I would suggest is a major contributing factor to the spiritual progress of the whole human race.

Homosexuals have a lot to face during their lives. As with flies and snakes and things , a lot of people do not understand them and in certain instances that is putting it mildly. There are people who develop phobias to homosexuals!! For me personally the journey has been quite "normal" so far , starting with the quetion "Why me?". That question took me on a fascinating road to discovery not just about me and my sexuality but a lot of things: human nature, the human spirit, the nature of the soul, humility, acceptance, forgiveness, pain and its effects on myself and others, oppression and its results, the nature of internalised oppression, compassion. Homosexuality has given me insights into areas like these and many more. These insights once gained by one of us -and I do not presume heterosexuals do not make the same discoveries!!!- have a beneficial impact on the rest of us. We all are asked to contribute simply by being here on this planet but if an individual is challenged eg in his sexual identity it can be a powerful impetus towards discovering through this a unique way in which TO contribute. I think homosexuals can help make a difference just as we all can and each according to her own nature.Sorry I am in a bit of a rush so not giving your question justice, but thanks for asking it. Its a good one!

I value the theory that we each choose our life prior to arrival. We each have lessons to learn for the benefit of our individual souls and for the whole agreed upon before birth and this includes for me questions of sex, religion and freedom et al. Personally I think its quite a contribution from my soul to the race I have incarnated into this time around! Does that give a hint of a clue as to our value?

As to normal. PLEASE!! Thats not a choice I made!!

[Ace22]

Some people just aren't meant to procreate.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Ace22

Some people just aren't meant to procreate.

Homosexuals can procreate just as easily as anyone else, as has already been stated several times throughout this thread. I personally know several homosexuals who have biological children.

Is your post intended to be insulting towards homosexuals? Your comment comes off as a rude, one-liner potshot towards the entire group..

[bluemoon]

As for my 2 cents, I would love it if everyone who's so terribly worried about the extinction of our species would run out and start adopting and properly caring for children who are hungry, without proper medical care, and have nowhere to go. I've seen plenty of those.

As an alternative point- why are there heterosexuals? Gay people CAN have biological children, but I would argue they generally have to plan for it. If we could guarantee every child was a conscious decision and not just a whoops, maybe our species would have a better chance for survival.