Is homosexuality unnatural?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Larv

Well, speaking only scientifically, how do you equate left-handedness with homosexuality? How would you equate left-handedness with any kind of sexuality? They don't seem very equatable to me.

Well, you might be surprised then to find out that the two are similar in more ways than you may have realized.

Scientifically speaking: (See Wiki under Handedness, Sexual Orientation, Homosexuality, and Handedness and Sexuality)

• Each represent a similar percentage of the overall population - approximately 10%.
• Each is primarily an inherited trait, although both show instances of learned behavior.
• Each may be linked to prenatal hormonal exposure.
• Each has been stigmatized and repressed in society throughout history.

According to Wiki regarding the "choice" of sexual orientation, Dr. Angela Pattatucci, a clinical biologist, said "'Lifestyle' is idiotic when applied to sexual orientation – would you refer to lefthandedness as an 'alternative lifestyle"?

So the two have been compared in the scientific community in the past.

To me, the point of the cartoon is not so much to compare handedness and homosexuality, but to demonstrate how one's biases influence their perception of the social stigmas of biological conditions. Most people will think the discussion is about the social stigma of homosexuality until it is revealed that the stigma in this case is directied at left-handedness. That's the twist. It doesn't occur to most people that left-handedness is, and has been, stigmatized in society.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Bigotry is not assigned to anyone based on their questions, it is assigned to people based on their answers.

Please explain. Your statement suggests, to me at least, that I better have the right answers when it comes down to questions of homosexuality, or otherwise I'm a bigot. And, after all, isn't that what the cartoon implied: left-handedness = homosexuality, and therefore no one should question the implied equality, even if it is bogus?

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Larv

Please explain. Your statement suggests, to me at least, that I better have the right answers when it comes down to questions of homosexuality, or otherwise I'm a bigot. And, after all, isn't that what the cartoon implied: left-handedness = homosexuality, and therefore no one should question the implied equality, even if it is bogus?

Not at all. I am sorry if you drew that conclusion as that was not what I was trying to get across.
Read the comic again. Which character comes across as the bigot, and which one is giving the answers?
Also, as mentioned above, the message of the comic is not that left-handedness=homosexuality.
It was that bigotry against left-handedness is no better than bigotry with any other 'target'.
Now, if your 'answers' to questions about homosexuality (or race, or left-handedness, or etc) are intolerant then they MAY be bigotted. Again, I see no difference in a bigot about homosexuality than a bigot about left-handedness. Both are silly and ignorant positions.
Let me put it another way, as I don't want to imply this is any sort of 'test'.
IF a person is bigoted, their answers will reflect this. Their answers do not cause them to be bigoted. The term 'bigot' is a label used to define people who give certain answers. Just as Conservative, Liberal, Profesional, and other descriptions are made based on what people say and do.

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Larv

Well, speaking only scientifically, how do you equate left-handedness with homosexuality? How would you equate left-handedness with any kind of sexuality? They don't seem very equatable to me.

Added by edit:

I know there are good people who want to believe that the cartoon depicts the roots of bigotry, or something like that. But hold on. I would be disappointed if a good scientific forum adheres to the constraining principles of dogma. And that dogma may be operative here in constraining the fresh waters of free thought. Not a good for a scientific forum to do.

I am opposed to all forms discrimination against homosexuality, heterosexual, bisexuality, and transexuality. I am equally opposed to all forms of dogma that are in the business of assigning bigotry to philosophers who are in the business of asking hard questions.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain.

--lemit

[Jway]

Interesting discourse, this thread is.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Larv,

Personally I am hoping that there is no chromosomal "gay marker" or if there is that the scientific community never divulges or tries to use it. Seriously, think of religious-hatred induced abortions of unborn gay fetuses?

Though think of the sociologic paradox such a condition would cause: The folks most hating gays and wish'n 'em all dead, being the folks picketing Planned Parenthood. Ha.

Serves them right, actually. There is something balancing about the notion of haters having gay children and ultimately shifting away from the conservative rote. I saw this with Arlan Spector when his son come out in the late 80's and to some respects even w/ Cheney. I would expect Cheney might be one who would opt for the abortion if given the chance. Good thing he didn't.

Besides, I think that being gay might be tied to the notion of codomenance with some other highly adventageous trait. I say this because of a gay man (or woman) to procreate, then their genes would not get passed on. If their genes were less likely to be passed on, then given well-understood trends of genetic drift, that trait would be wiped out of existence, i.e., it should be a genetic lethal trait and therefore be at no level higher than 0.2%--but this in not what we observe.

So then the question might be: which trait might gay-maleness be tied to. Let's just do a little empirical journey through the stereotypic professions held by gay-men: hair-dresser, fashion designer, author, photographer, sculptor, musician, poet, waiter, and writer. Do these professions have anything in common? Yes, ultra-high degrees of creativity!!!! The value for societies ability to advance over other civilizations is in its levels of creativity. Therefore, the gay-gene would be beneficial for communal advancement. Therefore an abortion-test to rid families of this scourge wound not only be sad, but also it would be to the long-term detriment of society.

Good luck in spreading your message. Tolerance is one thing, but total acceptance will be elusive for some time, I fear. Folks naturally "hate." I don't know why, but they do. I'm no exception. I lived in Indonesia for 3 years where the natives hate the Chinese. Naturally I hung with the natives (since 98% of the town I was in was native Bugis.) Long story short, even though I "thought" I was immune to their culture wars, when I came home to America, when I encountered a Chinese person I felt a previously unknown feeling of disgust. Don't worry, I'm not Sinophobic anymore. When I went off to college at UCDavis I purposely arranged to share an apartment with two Chinese roommates.

Worked like a charm. But that's the point, familiarity helps people understand that societally induced stereotypes should not be used to access others. This type of argument is inherently fallacious.

The point is that more people understand a subgroup, the less they are afraid of that subgroup. The problem is that straight folks know tons of gay ones, but the subject is never broached. Why not? If you're a devote Catholic, eventually everyone's going to know that you're a devote Catholic sooner or later. However, many gay men and women are often quite tight lipped about their orientation around the non-gays in their lives. I can totally understand that.

BTW, I am a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of "Don't tread on me." Do I make an issue of it, I try not. Everyone I work with knows, and many of the students do--all of the gay ones do. Why do I know? Because they all came out of the woodwork last year after the wedding. It was funny how they all knew. Yes, it was good to get our eleven year relationship validated in front of 200 of our friends and family. It is different than before. But at the same time, this is New England and people are to-themselves: they don't wanna know your business because they don't what you knowing theirs. But like I said, it's like religion. All my good friends know that I'm Moslem and will not eat pork. People who aren't close, need not be bothered with discussing such fact. It's the same way with being gay, the restrictions are just a bit different. Past a certain stage of friendship, how can you keep such central parts of your being hidden...and still consider that friendship to be valid?

Then again, there is always a downside of outing ones' self to acquaintances--rejection. Ouch does that hurt. back in the 80's two "friends" replied that they could never talk or look at me again--for religious reasons. Actually, I prefer their in-your-face honesty. The worst is the false saccharine, "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin," BS, which is accompanied by false thin scared smiles. I'm just glad that the Bible-thumping part of my family from Southern Ohio showed up to the invitation of our P-Town wedding on the deck of the Boat Slip.

I wonder how outing myself will affect the controversial debate going on on the "Dominium" threads in the Alternative Theories board. If you think I care, 'dey got'ta 'nother thing com'n. Good luck with this thread... hopefully you'll change hearts. Though I still believe that the most hearts are changed by being open, out, unapolegtic (God, after all, made you that way) and just free to follow the inspiration in your heart to the fullest potential. Take care

[Larv]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...Science appears to be working under the false assumption that natural is better in all cases, because this is a cultural buzz word that sells soap and snake oil. What we should do is an objective study, to see if new instinct in more advanced, relative to natural instinct, based on tangible cost. This will take it out of subjective opinion and turn the subject into objectivity.

I mostly agree. But I think the question "Is homosexuality natural?" is awfully close to the question "Is homosexuality yuckie?"

I'm not exactly sure what is or isn't natural. Are nuclear weapons natural? Why not? Are hate and aggression natural? Why not? Are humans natural? Is the Mona Lisa natural? What about Buicks?

The only things I can think of that are unnatural are concoctions of religious beliefs: virgin births, resurrections, and the general run of miracles.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Natural and unnatural is not really a good argument, when it comes to human behavior, because all that is natural human may not be progressive for humans. For example, it is natural for animals to relieve themselves of body wastes, where they stand.

You made this same exact point in this thread back at post #19, and it was addressed in post #21. It was silly, tangential, and unrepresentative of reality then, and it still is now.

Moderation Note: The recent posts in this thread have been moved as they were off-topic for the biology forum. They can be found in the new thread "Same-sex Marriage". Please post any sociological discussions of marriage in the new thread.



EDIT FROM INOW:
The below is a post I made after this one which was mistakenly moved. I'm adding it to this post in this edit so it appears in the correct order. Sorry for any confusion.



I thought this was interesting:


Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study - Telegraph

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.

Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.

Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.

He said same homosexual behaviour was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.

Dr Bailey said: "It's clear same-sex sexual behaviour extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies.

"Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said.

"But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

[Hasanuddin]

It was probably good to move those comments. I apologize for contributing to causing the discussion to slide from science to politics. It is such a razor thin delineation.

Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic. As such, rules of population dynamics would suggest genetic drift would have wiped it out of the population eons ago. But that didn't happen. Apparently all human populations, regardless of religion/culture, have approx the same proportion of gay phenotypes as each other. This homogeneity of statistics between isolated group would suggest that this gene expression (assuming genetics) that has some sort of codominance aspect of benefit to the overall survivability of the group.

From a cursory view of stereotypes professions predominated by gay men (florist, designer, writer, painter, hair-dresser, fashion, etc) a common denominator is creativity and three-dimensional thought. Now, if either of these two traits are tied to the genes resulting in the gay phenotype, then you have a solution to your question.

(Which leads directly to politics, if there are gay-genes, would you regulate/allow/stop abortions by bigoted families who think that bringing a gay child into the world would be either a family dishonor or too difficult for that child to bear.)

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Back to the Biology. No-one commented on the notion that by definition, being gay is a "genetic lethal" characteristic.

I disagree, Hasanuddin. Perhaps you should read the thread again. In fact, many of my own posts brought forth information as to why homosexuality CAN exist and continue to propogate genetically.

I did so as recently as yesterday, but it looks like that post was mistakenly moved with the thread split to the same-sex marriage discussion. More here. [EDIT] I've put the original back into this thread at post #158 [/EDIT]

Either way, the simple fact is that if homosexuality were "genetically lethal," then it would never survive past a small handful of generations. Really, 'nuff said.

Again, check out earlier posts in the thread. Many of my own have already addressed that specific misperception you've raised. Enjoy.