Gilda

At least in gay males.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888

Essentially, when straight men, straight women, and gay men were exposed to male pheremones, the sexual area of the brains of gay men responded like those of straight women, but straight men were unaffected. It seems the basis of gay men being attracted to other men is in the brain.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

snowy

No doubt in my mind that homosexuality is based in biology and there never has been. Good to see there's finally some evidence to support that.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Hanabal

i always thought that scientists found differences years ago, Some gland in gay mens brains was either way bigger or way smaller than those in striaght mens brains. I remember reading this about 10 years ago. But its still useful I suppose, Unfortunately its not going to change anything and radical religious folk are going to proclaim them as the devil (even though god made them that way)

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

timalkin

I'm not really sure what is gained by revealing this type of information. A biological basis for homosexuality simply means that homosexuality is some sort of genetic mutation that is undesirable in the grand scheme of life. Since homosexuals don't bear offspring, they don't pass their genetic material to another generation.

It's not such a big deal in the human world where we set goals other than having children and raising them, but a homosexual animal is very undesirable in nature. An animal's most important goal in life is to produce offspring. It's safe to say that any homosexual animal species died out long ago.

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix

ShaniFaye

What about men who like both men and women?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Cimarron29414

That condition is not based on science. It's based on logic: It's simply the act of doubling one's chances of getting laid!

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Squishor

I think the point of talking about this information is not to deal with any issues brought up by scientifically-minded folk such as yourself. Rather, it is an attempt to rebut claims made by those who would have homosexuality arising from the evil influence of something called "seitan," the wheat gluten-based Japanese foodstuff.

As for what you said, I know I can't be the first one to think of this, but I've wondered whether homosexuality might not be nature's way of dealing with overcrowding in populations? It strikes me that although we have the well-documented cases of "gay" penguins in zoos, for example, I don't know whether this behavior is observed in the wild. Does anyone know if there have been any studies correlating population density with homosexuality?

hannukah harry

as squisher pointed out, knowledge of this information is more important for assuring the gayzilla fearing residents of the country that it's natural, and that (by their very existence) they aren't trying to convert the good god fearing folk.

anyways... when we look at the whole thing about trying to 'pass their genetic material to another generation' we generally think in terms of the individual, which i think shows a bias in the way 'our' society thinks. but what really matters in nature is survival of the species as a whole, not the individual. one possibility (i think i may have heard about it in another thread about this topic, can't remember where though) is the homosexual members of an animal community actually play a beneficial role in that they help care for and raise/protect the pack/gaggle/troop/insert other name for an animal group, leading to an increased chance of the groups young serviving until maturity so they can reproduce. i think this study was actually based on one type of animal in the wild and the role that homosexuals played in certain native american cultures.


doesn't that seem like a lot of work on natures part when it could easily just not let there be enough resources/increase in natural preditors of a population to thin the herd?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Sweetpea

I always knew it was biological, being that i was attracted to both sexes from as young as i can remember.
Great to see even more evidence proving this fact and hopefully certain homophobic and ignorant groups in our society will stop with their flawed thinking that seeing two people of the same sex engaged in a kiss will somehow turn them gay, their kids gay and anyone else who is standing there to witness it gay

Being gay or bisexual is something we are born with in my personal experience, not a trait that is somehow learned or observed. IMHO, Sexuality is something that is hard-wired in our genetics, just like heighth and eye color. It's not a taste we aquire, it's who we are.

thanks,

Sweet Pea

__________________
Having a Pet Will Change Your Life!
Looking for a great pet?! Click Here!
"I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

stingc

While I agree that homosexuality is not learned, this statement is trivially true no matter what. Everything about our personalities is in our brains if only we could look hard enough.

All that this says is that straight women and gay men are turned on by (at least some of) the same chemical signals.

Gilda

Good point. Permit me to rephrase for clarity. Personality comes primarily from higher brain functions. This study provides evidence that sexual attraction, at least some component of it, may be hardwired into the brain.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

streak_56

not my cup of tea but there are some that prefer that.

SecretMethod70

In related news...

(note, the link regarding gay men in the article leads to an article having to do with the original post Gilda made, but it has a bit more detail)

Of course, this kind of stuff doesn't come as a surprise to many people, but it's always nice to have a stronger basis for opinions which are held.

I hope you're joking about this. It can be very difficult to be bisexual, especially since it is not uncommon for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to look down on it. Not to mention, if it were based on logic I could just "choose" not to be turned off by the prospect of having sex with a man, just to "doubly [my] chances of getting laid." I don't think so.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ratbastid

Well, unfortunately, it actually doesn't quite say that, much as we might wish it did. Although there's room to quibble over the definition of "hardwired".

What these articles say is that the brains of homosexuals respond to a chemical derived from various human hormones similarly to the brains of the opposite sex.

Now, the nature of the brain is: it's highly plastic, especially in childhood, but even to some degree in adulthood. The fact that adult homosexual men's brains respond in a certain way to a certain something in a particular, though interesting, does NOT imply that it was that way from birth. That may very well be the result of brain structure changes brought on by behavioral factors--and these studies don't present any evidence on that one way or the other.

This first article is slightly irresponsible in its portrayal of this research--particularly in the subhead "Biological basis to sexual orientation?". The body of the article uses the more responsible phrase "biological involvement", which doesn't indicate causation. A "biological basis" for sexual orientation doesn't seem to be implied by the body of the article. I presume that if such an implication was made by the study, this article would have proclaimed it loudly, rather than couching it in an interrogative-softened subheading.

The second article quotes the researcher saying (and pay close attention to exactly the words she chooses here): "The important thing is to be open to the likely situation that there are biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation." She's not implying that they've discovered innate causal factors. She's not even implying that there ARE innate causal factors. She's not saying whether the biological factors that contribute to sexual orientation are innate or developed. It's the kind of statement that scientists really labor over to get exactly right, which then get misunderstood by the press and the lay public all the time.

So... Regrettably, this news isn't the gay missing link.

Toaster126

Sure they do.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

dd3953

I was talking to a friend the other day and we were talking about gayness and population control. (I am not really sure how we got on the topic.) But what she said stuck in my head. "Gay people are a type of population control because they do not reproduce." And I can't help but think, on some level, that is true. Just the same as the woman who can not have babies are a form of population control.

It is also a little amazing to me, that while we can, now, say that homosexuality is breed from a biological (as you put it) "mutation", we can not say what it's source is. It is not as you say "passed down" from mother or father to child.

I am a little nervous, that if we do find a cause for homosexuality it will become one of those things that most be fixed. And, to be honest, I am not sure that it needs to be fixed. That is because I am not sure it is "undesirable in the grand scheme of life."

Most animals have a form of population control, and don't need help keeping their numbers in line with their surroundings. Humans are not one of those animals.

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

filtherton

As toaster pointed out, homosexuals do reproduce. They have the same gametes as the heteros and they do often mix them with somebody from the opposite sex's gametes.

dd3953

Yes, some do. But some don't. I think that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

Free feel to correct that statement if it is wrong.

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

filtherton

I don't know if it's right or wrong, i was just sayin that your friend is wrong about homosexuality as population control. Perhaps it works as population control in a species that doesn't have as much of a conscious choice over when and where to reproduce. Humans don't even need to have sex to reproduce. Homosexuality isn't a barrier to reproduction; pretty much anyone who wants to have a child can have a child.

Gilda

Why is it undesirable? At a species level, it has little effect on the population. One in 20 men and one in 40 women is homosexual, yet we're still growing our population.

And it's not a genetic mutation. The best evidence available right now seems to indicate that male homosexuality is a result of variant gestational hormone levels. The cause of female homosexuality is more difficult to determine, but there does seem to be a stronger environmental influence. It's still natural.

This presumes a species that is 100% homosexual. Since we're talking about humans, where homosexuality is 5-6% for males and about half that for females, it's hardly an issue. As someone else suggested, it may be an adaptation to population density, though I see no evidence to support this and think that there is some good evidence on the other side. If it is, it wouldn't make it good or bad, it would make it evolutionary. In other words, natural.

I suspect that dd3953 is right about homosexuals reproducing less often than heterosexuals, primarily because homosexual couples cannot produce accidental pregnacies, while that's quite common among heterosexuals. It's not really an issue, though, as we don't reproduce true. Children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual themselves than those of heterosexuals, and nearly all homosexuals come from heterosexual parents. We don't need to reproduce, because you folk are gonna keep making more of us.

Gilda

3Z3VH

I don't see how this proves the ORIGIN of their homosexuality is based in Biology. I mean seriously, just by seeing the brain react to a situation in gay males and not in hetero males, doesn't mean that it was always like that since they were born. I would have to say that is more of a pavlovian response to the pheromone. If you ring a bell, a dog who wasn't trained to go get a treat isn't going to know what the heck the bell is for. If you watched the brains of a dog who was trained to go get a treat when a bell rang, vs one who wasn't, you will see the same sort of results as this "biological homosexuality" test where only one dog's brain would trigger that response.

I don't see this "evidence" as being evident of anything other than the test subject wasn't lying about their homosexuality. It by no means has any bearing on how the person became homosexual at all.

I am not saying it is an entirely learned behaviour, or that it's roots aren't biological, I am just saying this test doesn't conclude anything.

dd3953

I wanted to laugh when I read this, becuase it so true.

I think this is one of those things what people will not accept. I mean, if there is something wrong there has to be a reason for it. And since this is as close as they have gotten they will use this as a reason until they find something better. I mean, that's what the APA did, and by making it a biological issue it hasn't moved too far away from where it started.

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

stevie667

Firstly, i would like to point out i subscribe to the genetics point of view when looking at behaviour, and my opinions are based upon the idea that your genes want to replicate (which i will ramble on about another time no dobut), not any sociological hoo-ha that some people may want to attribute to me, and have a bitch about.

Homosexuality is the genetic equivilant of throwing oneself off a cliff onto lots of pointy sharp rocks, far away from anyone to help. Thinking that it is a method of population control is also incorrect.
Population control is external factors influencing the survival of the induviduals e.g. famine, disease, overcrowding e.t.c. There is no methodology to it, just trial and error, unless one happens to believe in divine control.

Saying it is biologically based is also a misdirection, by definition all behaviour is biologically based, you don't have a personality because the universe just happened to fancy doing something interesting. You have a personality because of the way your brain is wired up.

If your brain is wired up wrong (from a standard point of view) it will be due to one of two reasons. Firstly your genes are faulty for whatever reason. Secondly, your development has caused your brain to wire itself in such a way as to deviate from the norm.

When looking at homosexuality, there is evidence of a genetic trait in some parts of the population, a mutation that arises because of X, Y and Z (no pun intended). If the person choses to become homosexual, the odds are the gene will eliminate itself within the generation. Siblings may be carriers of a faulty gene, so the actual propencity towards homosexuality may be carried down the generations.

The interesting thing to it is whether we will see a reduction in the genetic anomolies that cause homosexuality. With more people chosing to follow their desires, and society becoming more acceptive, will those genes find themselves extinguished before they can spread? It follows the same factors of a genetic disease propogating through the population if all the fully affected decide not to reproduce, with carriers and afflicted.

The human body is pretty much the same in male and female, infact we all start off as females in the womb, developing into our respective sexes during pregnancy (hence the clitoris in females, and nipples in men, both throwbacks to a comman divergence). Minor differences lead to the sexes, so it doesn't take at all much tinkering by whatever to change the way our brains respond to input from the same sex.

That is a highly simplified view, there are many many different genetic factors that can cause one to deviate from whatever set norm, so its kinda hard to comment without doing a phD in the subject.

Now, if we move onto behaviour, which is really where things start to mess about. The human body is designed by genes, genes work by pulling strings, which pull other strings, which pull more strings and so on and so on until we finally get to our puppet.

We are essentially cavemen at heart, or mind as it would be, so the brain is only built to coding, which causes it to respond to inputs.
Lets say our inputs, for a happy induvidual, is love, a healthy amount of sexual pleasure, companionship, and whatever else we fancy throwing in. All of those cause hormonal responses in the body.
Love releases endorphins, oxytocin (sp), seratonin, dopamine and a horde of other happy drugs. The brain sees it is getting happy drugs, and continues with that behaviour.
With sex, pretty simple really, sex is fun because you are more likely to have babies if you have lots of sex just by playing the numbers game. Sex input releases more happy hormones, which is what your brain is looking for.
It goes on and on with all kinds of behaviours. Your brain is wired to direct your actions depending on the feedback it gets. It doesn't have a clue if your getting those feedbacks from someone of the opposite sex, or someone of the same sex. Your are considerably more disposed to respond to the members of the opposite sex (e.g. men find large breasts and curved hips attractive because of the signs of fertility, the gait in the female walk is because of a larger pelvis, which is better for childbirth, all interesting stuff when seeing the design of sexuality), but behaviour can be overriden, modified, its what has allowed us to adapt so well to our surroundings and flourish as a species.


Homosexuality is so fascinating because of the fact humans are so basic in our behaviour, still governed primarily by our genes, that having such a poor choice of mental development (from a genetic reproduction point of view) as homosexuality in the population is such an anomoly. Like i said before, the interesting bits come when we factor in how society views being gay, how in the future it will most likely become far more accepted.
Will this lead to rises in the percentage population of homosexuals, will it lead to a decrease or will we just all end up liking pink?


But anyways, i've just rambled on for hours, and my brain hurts from biology exams all day, i'm going to bed. Please excuse any completly odd stuff, i'll have a read through and edit tomorrow.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Gilda

Homosexuality is a normal, healthy variant of human sexuality. It isn't a disease, doesn't mean that you have faulty genes or a brain that's wired wrong, and it isn't in the least harmful to the individual organism. It also isn't harmful on a species-wide level unless it reaches the prevelance that makes it so that the population cannot be maintained at a healthy sustainable level.

There is evidence that the likelihood of homosexuality is increased if one has a homosexual sibling (anectotally, in my family there we have one lesbian, one bisexual woman, one transsexual woman out of nine children; in Grace's family two lesbians out of seven children). However, this does not indicate an exclusively genetic cause, as siblings also tend to share, to some extent, both a natal environment and a social environment, both of which can have an effect on sexuality.

Twin studies have found roughly a 50% correlation among identical twin boys. If one boy is homosexual, the other has a 50% chance of being homosexual. This indicates that there are at least some environmental factors at play here, as the boys in these cases share all of their genes, and all of them are active. There's a slight difference in female identical twins, in that thought they'll have all the same genes, a small number will differ in which is active. The human body needs only one active X chromosome. Since women have two, one from the father and one from the mother, one of these gets switched off in each cell. This happens when the zygote is at about 100-120 cells, half the maternal and half the paternal genes are deactivated and then reproduced true for the remainder of the development, resulting in small genetic differences in terms of which genes are active in which systems.

The most common explanation for the difference in identical twin boys is that of gestational hormones, which can vary even between identical twins, same womb, different hormonal environment. Because these hormones have a profound effect on brain development moreso in males than in females due to the fact that female is the default format and male requires active changes, variant levels can have life-long effects on later behavior.

Gilda

Frosstbyte

This is why the whole conversation gets messy. Humans can think and organize ourselves into more categories and into more complex social structures than animals. Thus, as far as the human condition is concerned, homosexuality is neither harmful to the society nor to the individual biologically because we can compensate for it.

That being said, the purpose of an organism's existance from the most fundamental of perspectives is to pass on its genetic material to the next generation. As you pointed out Gilda, homosexuals can and do still have children, but that's purely a mechanism of humanity's mastery of science. Good or bad, humans have done a lot of things that can't and aren't supposed to happen naturally. In a perfect scenario, without human tinkering, there is no way for two gay organisms to reproduce. They can't mate with one another, and they can't/don't want to mate with a member of the opposite sex.

Biologically speaking, keeping in mind that the biological imperative is to pass on genetic material to another generation, homosexuality does mean that the brain is wired wrong. The organism does not want to do the single thing that it exists to do: reproduce. A gay male fly that won't mate with a female fly has failed to do one of the few things it's capable of doing (mating, eating, pooping, sleeping), and since eating, pooping and sleeping all exist to keep the fly alive long enough to mate, he's kind of failed at all of them. From a purely biological standpoint, something is wrong with it because it's not passing on its genes and propagating its species.

The question with humans gets messy, because it all kind of boils down to how much you think humans are animals who think too much of themselves and how much you think we really are a meaningful evolutionary step beyond animals and should think of ourselves as such. The whole point of the article is that, biologically, gay men and women are wired differently than straight men and women. How much of that is innate and how much is learned is not at all clear at the moment, but we do know that there is a biological difference. If the point of a life is to reproduce, then it's wired wrong. If the point of a life is more complicated than that, it's wired differently and it's simply an unexplained variation in human behavior.

Anecdotal evidence has long indicated that being gay or straight isn't a choice like some people would like to believe. Nor do I think they'd really care or be persuaded if there were a clear biological basis for homosexuality either. For the moment, some people have convinced themselves that it's morally abhorrent for whatever reasons. No amount of scientific evidence about its origins will change that belief.

Gilda

"Wrong" is a value judgment, and thus has no place in describing the behavior of animals in natural environments. Some behaviors and charactersitics are better adapted to survival and others are not, and those that are not adapted to survival tend to be eliminated or reduced through natural selection. In many mammal species, only the biggest, stronges male gets to mate. This does not mean that those that are not mating are engaging in behaviors that are "wrong", just that it is not necessary for them to do so to propagate the species. In many insect species, only one female in many generations is capable of reproducing, and only one male in each generation reproduces. This does not mean that behavoirs that do not promote reproduction are wrong, just that they are not necessary to propagation of the species.

Homosexuality does not promote reproduction, but that does not make it wrong either biologically or morally, it just means that homosexual behaviors are not necessary to the propagation of the species. So long as the reproductive members of a species reproduce sufficently to maintain the species population--the queen in insect hives, the alpha male in many mammals, heterosexuals in humans--the species continues.

Homosexuality is nothing more than the far end of the spectrum, and is harmless at both the species and individual level.

Gilda

stevie667

The whole issue of morals and society standards is why i like to keep to a genetics point of view. I am unashamedly a Dawkinite.
All your genes want to do is propogate, and they have developed increasingly more complex ways of doing that.
We are simply here because our genes have managed to survive in us better than they have done in neanderthals for example. They propogate by making babies. The mind is just another way of ensuring babies happen, put bluntly. From that point of view, homosexuality is 'wrong', and heterosexuality is 'right'.

Please understand, there is no species thinking by your genes, they are only interested in themselves. They arn't aware of the species, they're not aware of anything. Species arise because genes progogate, species mating choice arises because that just happens to be the path those genes took because it worked for them. Ants got the idea of a queen, armadilos have triplets, severums mate for life, and so do humans (most of the time). Theres no going back to the drawing board, you either succeed, or go die taking your genes with you. If a problem is bad enough, everyone dies and the species becomes extinct

I'm not saying that from a society point of view its wrong, far from it, it can be healthy (from a mental standpoint) behaviour.

The whole concept of homosexuality is, as i previously said, because of the fact we have minds to understand our behaviours.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Gilda

Genes don't "want" anything. They aren't "interested" in anything. As you say, they're not "aware" of anything. Ants didn't get an "idea" of a queen. All of that is ascribing human motives to animals incapable of them.

Homosexual behaviors don't function to produce offspring. This does not make them wrong, it means that they do not have that function. What is the evolutionary function of homosexuality? Hell, I have no idea, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

A great many natural behaviors don't function for reproduction or survival, but that does not make them "wrong". Honeybees will sting animals percieved as threats, in the process killing themselves. This is a behavior that does not promote survival or reproduction but does aide in propagation of the species
There is no thinking of any kind by genes, they aren't interested in anything. They carry information. If the information they carry produces in the organism of which they are a part a behavior or characteristic that promotes survival and reproduction, they're more likely to be passed on and thus increase in prevalence in the species. If they don't, they're less likely to do so. There's no motivation of any kind.

Right and wrong don't come into it.

Sure. The same is true of all concepts, they exist due to the ability of the human mind to conceptualize and categorize qualities and characteristics and behaviors. The fact of homosexuality, however, that some animals mate with others of the same sex, exists independant of whether we can conceptualize it, whether we understand its origin or function. Not promoting reproduction does not equate to "wrong."

Gilda

genuinegirly

What an excellent thread. thorough analysis, personal perspectives, interesting articles. For those of us who know little about the homosexual and bisexual world, this is an excellent resource. Thank you for taking the time to write such a clear analysis.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

quicksteal

Gilda, you're right to point out that "homosexuality is wrong" is a value judgement, but it's apparent that you have made your own value judgements about the issue:

"Normal" and "healthy" are both value judgements on your part in the context of today's society. So I hope that you do not use these terms to describe homosexual behavior in the natural environment of humans, since you don't want our fellow poster to use the term "wrong".

I'm glad that you posted the original article...it is interesting and insightful. It should not surprise anyone if there is some genetic basis for homosexuality. There have been homosexuals for at least 2000 years--the behavior was common enough to be mentioned in the Bible multiple times. This would suggest to me that it is in the nature of some people to be sexually attracted to their own gender. Whether or not we choose to act according to our nature is what makes humans so beautiful. Humans are naturally selfish--we lie, cheat, steal, etc. to our own advantage--yet we are also able to come together and forsake what is in our nature in order to be unselfish for the benefit of others.

My argument about homosexuality is that it may be perfectly natural for some, but that doesn't mean that it is appropriate to engage in homosexual behavior. I believe that it is a self-serving sexual act that is done in the exclusion of love (I make the same argument about heterosexual sex outside of marriage). But then again, these are my values, and while I stand by them, they have no bearing on the scientific understanding of homosexuality.

And getting back to that, if there is some "gay gene" (or five of them), it would take many, many generations for it to be taken out of the population if most homosexuals chose not to reproduce. But it's only been socially acceptable to be gay for maybe 50 years...and that's in America. If I was gay during the Spanish Inquisition, the first thing I'd to is find the first woman who would marry me whether I liked her or not and start making babies as fast as possible to keep anyone from being suspicious of my sexual orientation. So, really, there may have been a sociological incentive for homosexuals to reproduce until recently in a limited part of the globe.

stevie667

I do conceed the point that the genes have interest and ants had an idea is a misdirection, but it is hard to describe something like a gene without elements of personification. And about conceptualisation, that was a bit of a fumble. My apologies.

Lets strip this down to a basic level. Day one, primordial goo, a nucleic acid is floating around one day, when some other components come bumbling along and fix to it, forming another nucleic acid, with a slightly different configuration. Then they split apart, and go bumbling off elsewhere. They both impact with more components, forming copies of their previous attachment. Thus we have a peice of DNA replication.

As time goes on, strings of nucleic acids pool together, forming complex molecules, which occasionally split apart, float off and grab other nucleic acids to make more copies. That principle remains the same throughout history. Your DNA wants to make copies of itself, but because it simply can't just go making a big ball of gloop anymore, it happened across a way of making things for it to live in and replicate. Those things become more and more complex, to compete with other DNA strands that want to do the same thing. One has to reproduce to compete, simply because if you don't, someone else will, and beat you to food/home e.t.c

The proverbial arms race if you will. The base of ALL life is to make your DNA continue so that it can out manouvre another peice of DNA. Nothing more, nothing less. From that point of view, homosexuality is wrong, in it does not conform to this viewpoint. Your correct there is no motivation, there is just the extinction of that particular set of DNA when something goes wrong. I doubt there is an evolutionary imperative for homosexuality, but science may yet say definitivly one way or another in the future.

Now, DNA is interesting (i know, i keep using that word, but i can't think of a synonym thats any good) because it is not too picky about what parts of it survive, as long as some of it does. When one looks at bees, the entire hive is descended from one queen, so everyone has her genes. Workers have only half a set of genes, they cannot have offspring, but still function normally. Their genes best bet of genetic survival is to increase the chances of survival of the one thing that can pass on the genes, the queen. Thats where the hive mentality comes from, genetic continuation by proxy.


Humans are unique in our higher levels of consiousness allowing us to master our enviroment. The brains that our genes have built to keep them going are very basic machines, easily thwarted by even simple problems, and highly suseptable to crashing and generally going a little by cockeye. Can it really be said that all homosexuality comes from abnormal changes within the brain, or from conditioned responses based upon life experiences. Like i said before, and you've pointed out, your genes don't know what is going on either way, they just tell your brain to respond to stimuli in a certain way, which can be obtained by either sex. When they go kaput however when you die, then will we see the gradual extinction of homosexuality, or its flourishment as a social phenomenon?

I can't particularly speak of other species, not being a geneticist by trade, but the same as above applies input is input, there is just a reason behind one being more prevelant over another.


Edit: in response to the above post, maybe i should rephrase wrong as incorrect or abnormal, for clarities sake?

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

abaya

Hey man, at least you're honest, and you don't claim to justify your values with science. A lot of people can (and will) do worse.

Still, I confess that I find it hard to believe that you think extramarital sex (of either hetero- or homosexual persuasion) is in the "exclusion of love." i.e., that love can only exist within marriage, and certainly only heterosexual marriage for that matter. The corellary is that love MUST exist in all marriages, since all are "sanctioned" by your values. Have you never seen a loveless, yet legal marriage? And have you never seen lifelong, unselfish love between two people who were legally unmarried?

I realize that these are your values, and thus it isn't much use to discuss them (and may be a threadjack as well), but I would like to know more about the sociological context in which you were raised (country, culture, religion, and languages spoken). That is the only way for me to understand ethnocentrism (understandably a very human characteristics, but one that bothers me all the same)... because in traveling and seeing other cultures, exposing oneself to other worldviews, one cannot help but see that marriage guarantees nothing about love, and love certainly exists outside of marriage.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Frosstbyte

I very specifically defined my terms in my post. As stevie and I have pointed out, we're talking strictly about the propagation of DNA and genetic material, not about any social or moral basis. I don't know what other word would appropriately describe it that is appropriate other than wrong. I don't mean it's bad, I don't mean I think it's morally reprehensible, I very honestly couldn't care less who people have sex with, love or with whom they want to spend their lives. I have gay friends, I have gay relatives. I don't think they are sick or wrong or messed up or anything else. It's not a single attribute by which I define people I know, it's just part of who they are. And that's not really even the point.

Homosexual wiring, assuming it exists innately and isn't a learned biological phenomenon is neither the biological norm (as defined in your terms by the fact that it occurs in only 5-6% of males and 2-3% of females) nor is it a conducive condition to passing on genetic material. You are correct that not all animal social phenomena requires all members of a species to reproduce, but the examples you describe either have a completely alien reproductive fashion or are designed to ensure that the biggest, strongest genes are passed on to the next generation.

Human society does not select for survival of the fittest. We've engineered our world both in terms of social norms and technology to all but ensure that survival of the fittest has pretty much nothing to do with which genes get passed on and survive, since we've created a system that attempts to allow everyone to survive for as long as possible, even if "naturally" their genetic material is not conducive to survival. It is unclear how, if at all, homosexuality fits into that biological schema. I'm not saying it's immoral. I'm saying, biologically, it makes the same amount of sense as a pride of lions having a weak, sickly male mate with the females. Which is to say, it doesn't. Are different or aberration or anomoly or deviation better word choices than wrong? I don't know, since they all kind of mean the same thing in this case.

I don't mean it's wrong in some grand sense of "what should people do with their lives" I mean it's the wrong way for an organism to act in order to pass on its genetic material which, in my opinion, is the baseline purpose of an organism's existance.

stevie667

Fine, go and some up all my posts in one nice neat package why don't you, make me look like i'm rambling

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

Frosstbyte

We'll call it a joint effort, since I certainly was doing as much condensing and rephrasing your points as I was making my own.

Gilda

How about, "Homosexual behaviors don't function to successfully pass on genes."

The problem with saying that it's "wrong" because it doesn't lead to reproduction is that that word, along with others that you have been using, especially something like "abnormal" is that language like that is the same language used by moralists to attack homosexuals and homosexual rights. You may carefully define your terms to try to make a fine distiction, but such distinctions are rarely made when discussing the moral and ethical issues.

"It's wrong because it doesn't lead to reproduction" is a very common argument used against legalization of gay marriage, and in the past laws against sodomy, which still were on the books in many states prior to 2003. You define "wrong" as meaning "not successful at passing on genes", but it's very easy to shift the meaning of that word slightly to the moral connotation and use the very argument that you see as a simple explanation of "the selfish gene" to support the oppression of homosexuals on moral grounds. Likewise, it's easy to shift "abnormal" or "unhealthy" in the sense of not promoting propagation of genes to mean "perverted" or "harmful to the individual" even though those may not be the intended meanings.

Gilda

shakran

I must say I'm somewhat mixed on these findings. On the one hand, it may finally help silence the idiots that insist homosexuals choose their sexuality.

I've always thought it stupid to believe a homosexual would choose to be homosexual when that would also be choosing to be ostracized, belittled, and sometimes attacked, perhaps even killed.

However, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that we have to use the argument that homosexuals did not choose to be homosexuals.

Who cares if they did? I thought America was about freedom of choice. Seems absurd to toss that concept out the window just because it's a choice you don't like, when that choice won't effect you in any way. A random homosexual is not going to threaten my sexuality or my relationships. Even if he did choose to be homosexual, why should that disturb anyone.

I'm personally ready for Americans to stop acting holier-than-thou regarding other nations, and spewing bullshit about freedom and liberty, but then turning around and trying to keep everyone from doing anything that they wouldn't do themselves.

Gilda

Sorry, no. That homosexuality is normal and healthy is the consensus conclusion of the medical and psychological community in the US.

Context. In the context of the biological imperative to reproduce and pass on genes, I don't think that "right" and "wrong" are appropriate. Successful and unsuccessful are better suited, I believe.

In the context of what the laws and social mores should be concerning homosexual behaviors, what the physical and psychological effect homosexuality has on the individual and on society, normal and healthy are entirely appropriate descriptors.


Though I don't believe that the bible is an accurate source of historical information, I'm in general agreement so far.

I think humans also have in their natures a great capacity for love and generosity, but otherwise, I agree. Choosing to act unselfishly for the benefit of others is one of the great qualities of humanity.

Self serving? Often, but it is also often done in for the benefit of another, and most often, if done right, for mutual benefit. To the exclusion of love? Not even close. I can assure you that I love my wife and she loves me. What we do with each other is an expression of our love for each other, not to the exclusion of it. Also because it's fun.

I'm paraphrasing from my therapist this afternoon on the causes of homosexuality:

We know almost for certain that male homosexuality is fixed at birth and is caused primarily or exclusively by variant hormone levels during gestation. Most gay males tend to identify as such prior to puberty, often as early as four or five. All of the evidence, both biological and psychological, is consistent with this explanatiion. The evidence is not quite as strong, but points to a similar, though different, cause for MTF transsexuality.

Female homosexuality has been less studied, and thus much less is known at this point about the origins, but it seems to be a case of multiple causes leading to the same effect. The most common correlation is that lesbians as a class tend to be much more likely to have had at least one male abuser in their pasts, usually in childhood, than straight women. In at least some cases lesbianism seems to be chosen, while in others it seems to have been present from puberty or earlier. Multiple factors influencing and leading to the same result. It's all natural, though.

Gilda

Frosstbyte

yes, Gilda, I readily concede that point. I'm making an ultra-specific point about homosexuality and its place in organism reproduction and development and I've tuned my terminology based on that specificity.

Outside of that admittedly limited scope, none of those are words I'd use to describe homosexuality in any sort of social, moral, political or sexual context. I'm not sure either that I want to blow the door wide open on the greater context of how everyone feels about homosexuality or that this thread is the best place for it. The topic is the biological basis for homosexuality, so I've tried to constrain my discussion to the biological aspects.

To stray slightly, I think people who are against homosexuality and gay marriage are simply against gays and gay marriage. Whatever reasons they use are rationalizations, but their hate is as learned and irrational as racism. That's what they say because they're trying to make "I've been told by my parents and social groups that gays are bad and god doesn't want them to exist" into an argument that holds some weight. That gays can't reproduce is one of many misdirections that attempt to turn their irrational beliefs into a meaningful argument they can use to persuade other people.

Responding to such an argument only justifies its legitimacy. Even if you could successfully refute it by showing something like gays being equally adept parents if they adopt/use surrogates, they'd simply replace it with another reason why gay marriage is an invasion of their sacred institution. It's a straw man, and should be treated as such.

Their argument is actually, "My faith teaches me that homosexuality is wrong and because of that I don't think my government should implicitly support a gay lifestyle by allowing for gay marriage." For obvious reasons, people don't like to make that argument, so they come up with ways that attempt to get around it. This isn't to say that people can't believe things based on faith, I just don't see any point in responding to a fake, but more palatable argument instead of acknowledging what is actually at issue.

stevie667

Homosexuality is normal, and it is healthy, no argument there, i wouldn't in a social context use the words abnormal, wrong e.t.c because it simply isn't. If its what works for you, and it isn't hurting anyone else, knock yourself out as far as i'm concerned. Some people are stupid in their views, but its the times we live in unfortunatly.
From a genetics point of view, which is the only way i use the words, it is wrong to be homosexual. To say a gene is sucessful or unsucessful would imply that it is affecting something that does or does not mean it survives over the course of generations, not rather an induvidual extinction at the end of the induviduals life.

I wouldn't say causes of male homosexuality are related to hormonal levels, the human brain is suprisngly adept at doing odd things. It is interesting the reasons you state for female homosexuality, its never really occured to me to think about the causes.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.