Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

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.

Let me tackle this one to clear up a couple of misconceptions: Firstly, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically lethal; indeed it may actually be genetically beneficial. And, secondly, homosexuality would not necessarily be a consequence of random genetic drift. Instead it would be a consequence of selection, either sexual selection or natural selection or kin selection, or any combination thereof .

Please bear in mind the credible theory of kin selection. Where homosexuality is concerned kin selection might render it beneficial by providing “altruistic” support to the population, such a non-parental child nurturing.

Genetic drift would be quite a different thing, but if a population bottlenecked somehow in favor of its homosexual members (I’m not sure how this could happen) then this might disproportionately reduce the reproductive members and engage NS. But such a thing could happen only if a population were small enough to allow it.

Personally, I think kin selection is a good argument in favor of the position that homosexuality is both natural and beneficial.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Larv,

I believe we are not in disagreement. Yes, I know of kin selection, but I was talking on a grander scale. Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies. Anthropologists note this village behavior going back many thousands of years. Kin selection considers what happens within the nuclear family. What I’m talking is societal advancement on the village, valley, and nation status.

Going back to the notion of a co-dominance between the gay phenotype and another societally beneficial trait. I put forward that stereotype, although not necessarily true for the individual, are based on global trends. Although I don’t know the first thing about cutting hair, there are a huge number of gay hairdressers, same thing with artists, musicians, designers, and glitzy financial analysts. Now, lets assume the people gravitate towards jobs in which they have some sort of special talent over the general population. Now, consider the job requirements of these various careers. Within those job requirements, are there any common denominators? My answer is yes: creativity, multi-variant thinking, 3D visualization, etc.

Now, going back to society. Does society benefit by having a few, less-likely to reproduce, individuals who possess enhanced ability to create, invent, and produce advancements? Yes. Just look at the 16th century along the old spice route. The societies to invent, copy, and control the weapons of gunpowder first were the ones that advanced, and some of those didn’t embrace the new technology right away have virtually vanished. (I believe the weapons had something to do with that.) My point is that this type of warring is not new to that period. Nor should any believe that Hitler invented genocide, he merely perfected it. My point is the gunpowder was only one kink in a very punctuate human, often violent, evolution. There were many other advancements that caused other kinks in the line. There were also surely a great number of advancements (like the one’s we see in science today) that globally benefit mankind.

--Creativity has turned into an evolutionary variable when it leads to weapon creation.
--The stereotypical professions of gay men have high degrees of creativity.
--Therefore, could the expression of enhanced creativity lead to societal co-dominance?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies.

Ermmm... No.

Chimps, gazelle, dolphins, ants, bees... I could keep going, but your assertion is plainly false.

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Although I don’t know the first thing about cutting hair, there are a huge number of gay hairdressers, same thing with artists, musicians, designers, and glitzy financial analysts.

Errmm... you apparently don't know the first thing about lots of stuff. There are also HUGE numbers of heterosexuals in those same vocations.

What you're doing is using inaccurate stereotypes as the foundation of your speculations, and you are, quite simply, wrong. Try using facts as the base of your argument and you'll do much better.


Sorry, but your whole post was crap, and flat out unmistakably false on multiple fronts.


Parody: Since all black people like fried chicken and watermelon, this explains why they made better slaves, since farming abilities must be innate.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Hassanuddin

Humans are unlike other animals in the we form societies.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Ermmm... No.

Chimps, gazelle, dolphins, ants, bees... I could keep going, but your assertion is plainly false.

And wolves! Don't forget wolves!

[lemit]

I need to repeat the apology I posted on the "Same Sex Marriage" thread:

When I conceded the case could be made that homosexuality was not natural, I was boxing myself into an over-specific use of the word "natural" and forgetting that even I had used the word differently before that.

Sorry.

--lemit

[Hasanuddin]

Oh well, I suppose if serves me right for comparing man to animals at all. I should have just said man forms societies, which would have been perfectly correct. I didn't mean to dis' other city-societies of the animal kingdom, like the termites. But humans are different than swarms of bees, ants, or termites because we are not clones. The other animals don't form semi-static villages, that raid and compete against each other (tho one could make an argument for chimps.)

I also knew that it is dangerous ground to ever talk of stereotypes. I agree, such practice is dangerous, and not applicable to the individual. I guess it is also dangerous practice to suggest that there could be any beneficial aspects being gay could have for the gay individuals themselves, and not just as nursemaids for siblings.

Still nothing on the idea of differently expressed phenotype (I proposed creativity) that would be of benefit to survivability of the clan, village, etc

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

But humans are different than swarms of bees, ants, or termites because we are not clones. The other animals don't form semi-static villages, that raid and compete against each other

Actually, yes... they do. Just look at wolves, for example.
I'd also challenge you to explain for all of us just how precisely you think human groupings are "different" than swarms of bees, ants, or termites, and how cloning has anything whatsoever to do with societal groupings.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi InfiniteNow,

What a great lead-in! I was actually considering your previous sarcasms about wolves, monkeys, and such. The reason I was thinking about those two examples is because both of them display characteristics worth noting. Both types of animals exile young males (the lone wolf or the single-roaming bachelor monkey.) The reason why I think of this behavior is because it does not exhibit kin-supportive behavior. So the question becomes, does lone-wolf/bachelor-monkey behavior relate more to gay men or are they normally doting aides to their sister’s children??

I can only speak from my own personal experience and observations, but the gay-community I’ve known (Sacramento, Hartford, and Boston) is made up of a bunch of true lone-wolves. True, many gay-men are employed in health, education, and human services… but ask them where their “parents” or “family” live, and it’s usually far away. And if there is family nearby, the last thing the majority would what to do is “mind” the kids of their siblings. Sure, I’ve known gay parents who do good jobs raising children, but that is not the norm. And, those that are raising kids, are not raising nephews or nieces. But my point is, gay men, or at least the one’s I’ve known, are not hardwired to raise their siblings’ kids, or at least I have never seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

There is also other evidence that being gay is more akin to the lone wolf, versus a nuclear familial help-maid. Just look at modern demographics, gay men ghettoize. To do that one must leave the family. Even within small villages in places like Indonesia, gay men self-segregate into a house of their own. The Bugis culture is an extremely established tradition-run society. I met an anthropologist in Bugis-country who was studying the transvestite tradition of that culture. As mentioned, the transvestites had their own little house in the center of town. Apparently, in the days before the Dutch conquered them, that was a mighty kingdom and the transvestites served as counsel to the sultan. To this day, remnants of that ancient tradition still exist in remote villages.

This all brings me back full circle to the question (which has not been addressed yet) of codominance and/or the expression of the gay phenotype to inject greater degrees of savvy (e.g., transvestite counselors) which thereby protects and enhances the survivability of all members of the village, not just of the family. If the village’s chances are improved, then ultimately the survivability of one’s siblings and of their children, be improved.

Interesting aside: The Bugis culture was thousands of years old when the Dutch arrived with the unfair advantage of gunpowder. Even so the Bugis gave the Dutch the greatest battles of their 350 year occupation. The Bugis had a kingdom that spread across much of modern Indonesia and the southern Philippines. Their culture has always valued shipmaking and dagger-smithing. Even today, the Bugis of Bulukumba build custom boats for international clients. At the time of the initial battles with the Dutch, they had the fastest ships on Earth at the time (the proto-type of the schooner.) They would swarm slow moving Galleons, kill everyone on board, loot, and then burn. After the bloodiest battles destroyed the Bugis main land-based “homeland,” they took to the sea in search of revenge. For the next 300+ years, the Bugis hijacked, ambushed, and killed any foreign vessel. Between tribes of Caucasians, they could not differentiate… nor did they truly care. Piracy became a way of life. Therefore, all ships fated to pass between the Indian and Pacific oceans were always warned of the dreaded Bugis men, because if you’re not careful, the Bugis men will get you. To keep children in line… a sailor could have made the mistake of making the tribe singular to scare kids into line, “Watch out, cause if you’re bad the boogieman will get you." At least, the same anthropologist recounted to me, that is one scenario considered to account for this word/concept.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Interesting aside: The Bugis culture was thousands of years old when the Dutch arrived with the unfair advantage of gunpowder. Even so the Bugis gave the Dutch the greatest battles of their 350 year occupation. The Bugis had a kingdom that spread across much of modern Indonesia and the southern Philippines. Their culture has always valued shipmaking and dagger-smithing. Even today, the Bugis of Bulukumba build custom boats for international clients. At the time of the initial battles with the Dutch, they had the fastest ships on Earth at the time (the proto-type of the schooner.) They would swarm slow moving Galleons, kill everyone on board, loot, and then burn. After the bloodiest battles destroyed the Bugis main land-based “homeland,” they took to the sea in search of revenge. For the next 300+ years, the Bugis hijacked, ambushed, and killed any foreign vessel. Between tribes of Caucasians, they could not differentiate… nor did they truly care. Piracy became a way of life. Therefore, all ships fated to pass between the Indian and Pacific oceans were always warned of the dreaded Bugis men, because if you’re not careful, the Bugis men will get you. To keep children in line… a sailor could have made the mistake of making the tribe singular to scare kids into line, “Watch out, cause if you’re bad the boogieman will get you." At least, the same anthropologist recounted to me, that is one scenario considered to account for this word/concept.

fascinating! if i may take things further aside without sinking this topic, (although homosexuality & Greeks go hand in hand in many accounts), i recall that in the Odyssey Homer has Penelope warn her kids to behave or the boogy man would get them. now i don't recall if it was Chapman's Homer, but in any regard there may be various translations of whatever word Homer used that ended up as 'boogyman' in the version i read. something to maybe look into for someone versed in Greek.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Actually, yes... they do. Just look at wolves, for example.

LOL A nod to my man, Zyth (? what IS going on here)

I'd also challenge you to explain for all of us just how precisely you think human groupings are "different" than swarms of bees, ants, or termites, and how cloning has anything whatsoever to do with societal groupings.

me too
Gay people are in all occupations politics, literature, army, navy, teaching, medicine, football, the arts, etc Stereotypes are just that. Not all gays "mince" like those on TV shows.

Were the Indonesian Boogy Men the ones the Phantom was fighting?
Were they gay?

"The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery and the lash."
(Winston Churchill)

That’s not to say sailors spent all their time singing sea chanteys and tying knots. As in any environment in which males live in close quarters for extended periods (prison and boarding school are the other well-known venues in this respect), both consensual and nonconsensual homosexual behavior did and doubtless does occur aboard ships — see for example Barry Burg’s Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition (1995), which lends vivid new meaning to such expressions as “shiver me timbers” and “thar she blows.”

The Straight Dope: Rum, sodomy, and the lash: Did the Royal Navy supply ships with "peg boys" for sex?