Science and Homosexuality

[frontlemon]

I am a guy from India and unlike most westernized nations, the discussion of sex itself leave alone homosexuality is a taboo in our soceity. Thus from my puberty I faced serious questions that often disturbed me and so I made a detailed study about this topic that I am going to share with you all and hope that it will help many people who are curious and/or troubled with this fact. I have tried to be as impartial to the topic as possible (in fact I learnt that many scientific studies are biased either due to personal prejudices and/or are influenced by certain organization; often religious, who are opposed to the idea of homosexuality).

What Science Says: The theory of evolution plays a very important role in science and has always been accepted as the best "model" that does explain many aspects of biological evolution (though it fails to account certain facts). Yet something like homosexuality in itself is a self destructing mechanism. The main idea is that in animal kingdom homosexuals reproduce less - and thus the genes that account for homosexual traits must have long
been erased from the genetic pool (i.e. all the possible genetic sequences of any species prevalent in this world). Yet it has been found lately that in animal kingdom (including the intelligent animals like the primates,dolphins etc excepting humans) a significant portion of sexual encounters is of homosexual nature (This fact was purposedly suppressed by animal researchers driven by ignorance/prejudice). Thus "neo evolution theorists" (who stresses survival of the most adaptive as opposed to survival of the fittest as proposed by the classical evolutionists) treat homosexuality as a mechanism that prevents same - sex rivalry and thus plays an important role in the survival of the species. But in the case of humans the structure gets more complicated as we are not only lead by our instincts. Our ability to reason has made very complex social structures with its norms (in fact science and religion is a part of it) which are often lead by majority decisions and in most cases we are directly influenced by these norms. But one thing is certain. Just as our genes affect the physical and mental aspects of our body like being male/female, skin tone/color, various mental traits etc so does our genes do dictate our sexual orientation. But unlike the physical aspects and like other
mental impulses, we do have the ability to affect these mental impulses as well, through conscious effort (the amount of which is subjective; for example we have the ability to learn by heart each and every sentence of any average sized book of thousand pages but that we never do it is another fact. Also note that many asian languages had a huge list of alphabets or rules had to be learnt; take traditional Chinese as an example; and try to figure out the amount of effort required to master these). What science cannot answer is why we should influence our traits. It is here that the role of soceity and religion comes into play. To conclude, science tells us one thing with surity; like our individual preferences (like a love for candies) sexual orientation is both instinctive as well as regulative but it is highly natural though not abundant.

My Opinion: I must say that what we know is only a spec in the huge desert. Evolution over millions and millions of years has produced highly efficient creatures highly specialized in certain activities compared to which we humans have produced machines which are highly inefficient specially if we consider the long term effects of such advances on the ecology (Hopefully scientists have now started to mimick nature and has learnt a lot from it). Thus if evolution has nourished homosexuality through ages we must be aware of two things: 1) that there may be more to this particular type of character trait than simply a measure against same - sex rivalry and 2)
it is our duty to protect and preserve something that has been carefully passed on through ages.
We must all remember that nature keeps its balance and diamond - a form of coal is rare but precious.

 

[gb2000ie]

An interesting discussion. I'm not sure that I agree with you 100%, but I definitely stand full behind your core point that homosexuality is a natural thing that is seen throughout the animal kingdom.

I just want to add something else into the mix. It's very easy to focus in too closely when thinking of how genes move from generation to generation and how they compete within a gene pool. Sometimes you have to stand back a little to get a more correct picture.

There are differences between the genders that can make one gender a carrier of a gene they do not express. Colour blindness is a good example of this. Women carry the gene without getting colour blind, but men who have the gene actually are colour blind. If, and this is not really realistic, but go with me here, if being colour blind meant you had a 100% chance of not reproducing before you died then the narrow view of evolution would show colour blindness dying out in one generation, but, the wider view would see it going on for ever, women carrying it but not being affected, and men who get the gene from their mothers falling out of the gene pool. A gene that a narrow view would suggest is un-sustainable can remain happily in the population generation after generation after generation.

Colour blindness does not actually stop men passing on their genes, but it is an example of a gene that is active in men and dormant in women.

It has been proposed that a genetic pre-disposition towards homosexuality in men is carried in the same way. Firstly, not all genes from the mother are passed on to all offspring so a mother with the hypothetical gene would not have to produce all gay sons, and genes are often not black and while like those for hair colour or eye-colour, but much fuzzier, pre-disposing you to something without guaranteeing it will be so. So even if a man were to be born with that gene it would not mean that he would be gay, but that he would be more likely to be gay.

You could easily imagine such a gene living happily in the gene pool for millennia, keeping a low level of gay men in the population generation after generation.

What could be the advantages? There could be many. It could be a way of introducing extra carers into a family group. Men who are attracted to women invariably make more members of the tribe, but men who are attracted to men don't, so you get a greater number of adults to the children so it would make a tribe stronger and help it to raise more healthy babies.

In some animals, a species of rats if I am remembering this right, homosexuality occurs when ever the population gets too high for the available food. It seems that being hungry during pregnancy somehow turns on some sort of homosexuality gene in the offspring so as to put the brakes on the population until there balance between rats and food stabilises again. The human race could sure do with a brake like that!

Ultimately though, whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not is not important, what matters is that homosexuality is real and natural. Gay men exist, they do not choose to be gay, they just are. Homosexuality harms no one in society, and since sexuality is not a choice it can't spread to 'infect' straight people. Hating people for being gay is no different to hating people for being black or blond or having different coloured eyes or for being deaf or blind. I no more chose to be gay than I chose to have brown eyes. We all know it's wrong to persecute people for what they are, so it really is an open and shut case morally. Only organised religion muddies the water, and that's very much a man-made institution.

B.

 

[frontlemon]

Indeed a very nice and interesting addition.
I would also like to add the fact that not all ill genes (as one may define it) are really ill for example - there is a gene that makes us anemic but quite interestingly it is the same gene that makes us resistant to malaria - thus I totally agree to the fact that we must look into the whole issue from a wider prespective.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

To be honest I have not taken the time just now to read the full post (it's late). My views on sexual practices though can be summed up pretty well as follows: if people are doing something they enjoy, and no one is getting harmed by it, let them be and mind your own business. There is all this discussion about whether homosexuality is "natural" or not - whatever that means, I can't see how anything can be unnatural if people and animals do it - but I don't think it matters whether it's "natural" or not. How natural is chocolate? How natural is playing video games? How natural is skiing?

I simply do not care whether there is a "gene for homosexuality" or not.

 

[hawtsean]

Science and sex don't mix well together, unless you're fucking a scientist. There have been numerous phony "scientific findings" that are debunked by serious peer review. Those include the 'gay gene', determining homosexuality by counting the rate of eye blinking and facial movements, and other nonsensical crap. Any scientist (so-called) who tries to find the answer to the 'nature or nurture question' is merely trying to rationalize their own orientation. Humankind will not be better served by knowing how sexual orientation is determined. That road leads to the dangerous edge of eugenics.......selecting the ideal master race by engineering so-called 'perfect people'. That whole crapload sounds very much like some of the filth spewed by those phony bible thumpers who hang around Fred Phelps and his bunch.

Who really cares about why someone is something or has a set of preferences and orientation? We are what we are. I personally don't spend any time wondering about the why of my being gay and preferring to play with other boyz in BDSM scenes. I get off on what I do, I express love, lust, and all the other powerful emtions that come with sex, and I am very comfortable with it all.

 

[frontlemon]

The best we can do

People who tend to demoralize homosexuality does so based either on logic (which may be termed as science) or on beliefs (which may be termed as religion or ethics). While one can argue with logic one doesnt stand a chancee with belief because in most cases we do not have the necessary means to disprove it (imagine proving life after death). The purpose of this thread is to focus primarily on the fact that what science teaches us may not necessarily be the whole truth and in fact science has never answered the "why".

 

[gazz]

Animals are not homosexual, in the same sense humans are. That's because they don't label themselves as such. They don't have a "sexual identity" and are more relaxed about doing "natural things".

So I am wondering if many animals which are described as homosexual, don't actually mate with females, sometimes. This would help answer the question, how can homosexual behiaviour survive during evolution.

Seems to me that vagina rejection (or hate or phobia or disgust, however you call it) plays an important role in human male homosexuality (but only for certain individuals). This factor probably isn't encountered in the animal kingdom.

P.S. I am surprised that sex is taboo in India, since I saw many pictures with Indian temples, depicting sex scenes.

 

[XMan101]

It does happen in the animal world. This is an example from wikipedia but I've read it in more reliable places too (which is probably where this came from )

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks

Taking that as read, it happens for a stronger survival record.

 

[gazz]

That's techincally bisexual MMF

 

[hawtsean]

People who tend to demoralize homosexuality does so based either on logic (which may be termed as science) or on beliefs (which may be termed as religion or ethics).

True. I would go further and say that regardless of their basis (logic or religion), anyone who demoralizes any sexual orientation or practice is doing so as a judgmental decision from their perspective. Since no one has the lock on what is "right or wrong" or "better or worse" when it comes to sexual orientation, it's all opinions and not empirical fact. My opinion is definitely NOT the same as some bible thumping jerk who postures and pontificates about what his god says. Likewise, his opinion will never admit to the viability of mine - same sex intimacy, rough play, BDSM and so forth (although the bible thumper is probably titilated by it all).

And, opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

 

[hawtsean]

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual

We should remember that the word 'homosexual' was derived and first used in the 1800's to describe human behaviour, not that of animals. It's from genetic jargon - homo loosely means the same and hetero means opposite or different.

The common example from genetics is homozygous - cell structure from identical genes. Heterozygous denotes the cellular structure from two different genes. (my apologies to geneticists for the generalization) The hetero/homo terms applied to human sexuality were coined (apparently) around 1869 in German writings. So in the animal world, various pairings might occur for survival or mutal aid. Aniimals don't worry about what other animals think, since that level of rational thought only exists in humankind. Whatever works for a couple, swans or people, is good with me.

 

[ritsuka]

It is no coincidence that the type of "science" discussed here tends towards seemingly substantiating authoritarian, conservative, mainstream views. I don't think it is up to straight people, religious or "peer reviewed" to decide what homosexuality is. There are a lot of presumptuous, pretentious idiots who think their freshman biology course proved that vegan, homosexual, genderqueer people like myself are fundamentally wrong while they are evolutionary, ultra-natural wonders who should have the world at their feet.

Personally, I believe that it is up the individual to define themselves, we are not each locked in cement based on what a few people with phds think took place to our ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. Aside from religion and science, we have the humanities; art, literature, and philosophy where we can throw off these chains in the absence of totalitarianism, as the gay community has for hundreds of years. "Logic" in this case is a crux that people are using to hide the fact that they are just expressing the bigoted views they grew up with and yes, were schooled under.

 

[topdog]

Anyone who wants to point out the ridiculous conclusions that gay haters have extracted from their skewed view of the world certainly has my blessing. But, science? Really? We are now tarring scientists with the same brush?

...I don't think it is up to straight people, religious or "peer reviewed" to decide what homosexuality is...

Personally, I believe that it is up the individual to define themselves, we are not each locked in cement based on what a few people with phds think took place to our ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. ... "Logic" in this case is a crux that people are using to hide the fact that they are just expressing the bigoted views they grew up with and yes, were schooled under.

... Any scientist (so-called) who tries to find the answer to the 'nature or nurture question' is merely trying to rationalize their own orientation. Humankind will not be better served by knowing how sexual orientation is determined...

Who really cares about why someone is something or has a set of preferences and orientation? We are what we are...

True. I would go further and say that regardless of their basis (logic or religion), anyone who demoralizes any sexual orientation or practice is doing so as a judgmental decision from their perspective. Since no one has the lock on what is "right or wrong" or "better or worse" when it comes to sexual orientation, it's all opinions and not empirical fact...

And, opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

Yes, everyone has an opinion, but not all views are equal. For example, the opinion of a homosexual person who has first hand experience with the subject has more value than the opinion of a non-homosexual person (all other factors being equal), who's information is second hand at best. Even more valuable is the information derived from empirical studies that can isolate certain qualities and reproduce the results.

Scientists are not interested in any simplistic "nature or nurture" discussion. That's a topic that the media and general public toss around. They want to know what makes up sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, and everything in between).

• Behavioral neuroscience has recently published some interesting work using brain scans and seeing some differences in how hetero and homo brains react to stimulus.
• Social psychology has used experiments to study how homosexual members fit into communities. They also have covered the topic of how having homosexual parents affects children.
• Genomics have cataloged several genes that appear similar in some (but not all) homosexual men. The more interesting coincidence is that they are all passed from the mother.

In my opinion, humankind will be better served by following up this data with more exploration and experiments. It's all part of finding out what it means to be human. And my hat is off to all the folks who train and study for years, and then spend their time asking new questions and carefully crafting experiments that can be reproduced and verified by others in their field.

 

[gb2000ie]

I couldn't agree with you more Topdog.

Science is an organised quest for truth and understanding, and I think we could do with a lot more of that. It's very hard to argue for gay adoption if no one has done the studies of how that affects the kids. In adoption, it's the kids that need to come first, not the parents, so facts are a good thing to help make informed decisions.

Some people may not care about how sexuality works, but I do, I'm the curious type, and I want to understand. I'm not alone in that, and that's why science will always drive forward.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

Anyone who wants to point out the ridiculous conclusions that gay haters have extracted from their skewed view of the world certainly has my blessing. But, science? Really? We are now tarring scientists with the same brush?

Someone has to fund research, and the vast majority of genetic scientists work for organizations and companies which attempt to validate a social/political point of view by using science to prove their contentions, or they have a vested financial interest in marketing a genetic test for 'gayness'. Much of this so-called research seeks to prove a prejudicial and skewed viewpoint. I am very skeptical about the genetic markers that are claimed to have been isolated in some homosexual men. Like all the other psuedo-scientific "proofs", it has been media-energized far beyond the basic facts - and has not been repeatedly validated by other independent researchers.

I am concerned that all this discussion (in the media, etc.) of gentically identifying homosexual humans will lead back to a resurgence of the eugenics movement of the past century.

 

[hawtsean]

I couldn't agree with you more Topdog.

Science is an organised quest for truth and understanding, and I think we could do with a lot more of that. It's very hard to argue for gay adoption if no one has done the studies of how that affects the kids.

Gay adoption falls under social science, not genetics. I am in favour of more data collection on the welfare and progress of adopted kids in a gay parenting situation. That can only happen when more gay partners are permitted to adopt children, providing they meet all the other necessary norms of financial and social stability and suitability. That has little or nothing to do with determining gayness via genetic research.

Science USED to be simply about truth and understanding. It is now essentially a quest for "who can patent the next wonder drug and how fast can they get it approved and on the market".

 

[hawtsean]

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual

So, to inject a lighter note to this serious discussion, may I postulate that - among the famed 'seven swans a-swimming' in the "12 Days Of Christmas" song......there were at least two gay swans closeted among the rest?

Would wikileaks be attacked for outing these swans?

And who were those 'six-geese a-laying'?

Do gay bears do it in the woods?

 

[gb2000ie]

Someone has to fund research, and the vast majority of genetic scientists work for organizations and companies which attempt to validate a social/political point of view by using science to prove their contentions, or they have a vested financial interest in marketing a genetic test for 'gayness'.

You may be right in America, but thankfully not in Europe. We have not commercialised our entire academic world, we still have universities doing research for the sake of knowing, as well as blue-skies research.

It is true that there is ever more commercialisation creeping in, but it's not yet the case that even half of all research is funded by people with an agenda.

I fear for the future, but for now, there is still real science out there.

And yes, I am indeed implying that 'science' carried out by people with an agenda and a pre-conceived answer is not real science. It's a fraud that's impersonating science.

B.

 

[larzo]

I do believe more people fall within the bisexual range of the spectrum than self-identification would suggest.

Identity psychology leads many "straight" people that are truly bi to decide they are 100% straight.

Similarly there are gay people who are actually bi, but identify themselves as being gay.

 

[hawtsean]

You may be right in America, but thankfully not in Europe. We have not commercialised our entire academic world, we still have universities doing research for the sake of knowing, as well as blue-skies research.

It is true that there is ever more commercialisation creeping in, but it's not yet the case that even half of all research is funded by people with an agenda..

So I guess that the British researchers who tried to prove that they could identify gay men by their frequency of eye-blinks were a blip on the otherwise untarnished radar of legitmate British science without hidden commercial agenda? That was the Hamer study, conducted at University of East London and at King's College in 2003, and was discovered to have been funded and instigated by conservative Christian (sic) patrons.

With due respect to you personally, I doubt that any country on this planet can assert that their science research is mostly pure and unadulterated by special funding with an agenda.