The Nature Of Homosexuality

[Ijustwannateach]

On another board, a discussion with a somewhat right-wing member about sexuality has moved to the topic of the nature of homosexuality, and whether or not western homosexuals should have any sort of minority or protected status [both of us are American]. The right-wing poster was somewhat skeptical on both counts, and I made this reply, which I immodestly think may be of some interest to readers on this section of the board:

I’ve debated this a number of times of the web and on this forum. However, you’re a much more collected and rational person than I *usually* have these type of discussions with, so I’ll go for it again. I’m sorry but I don’t have good access to a research library here in Bangkok- either you’re going to have to give more information about these citations you’re making or provide Internet links.

Regarding genetic evidence of homosexuality, you’re right- currently there’s very little. However, there is also very little genetic evidence of being Asian or Black, despite the fact that no one disputes that genetic influence (of less than .1% of total genetic material, incidentally, according to latest estimates) on racial phenotype exists. Genetics is a very new science at its earliest stages, even today. Saying on that basis alone that there IS no genetic reason for homosexuality at this point would be like saying that the species of beetles we haven’t catalogued yet probably do not exist. The science is complicated by the complex nature of genes, which are not fixed and marked places in DNA- they are human-defined blocks of code which are multifunctional, sometimes multipart, and which have complex interrelationships that are not well understood.

However, just as we can guess from the prevalence and living conditions of black-skinned human beings on the Earth that something more than culture and sociology is making them dark, the universality of same-sex erotic behavior observed among animals (especially mammals, especially our nearest genetic relative the bonobo chimpanzee) and among groups of humans in every nation, every culture, every society, and every historical period about which we have clear data on sexuality, would seem to indicate that something natural is going on there.

[it is true that among humans, at least, the EXPRESSION of same-sex behavior varies considerably, and that what we call a “homosexual” person in the West is not universal. However, it seems inevitable with such widespread activity among “men who have sex with men” and “women who have sex with women,” for lack of better universal terminology, that EITHER all humans are to some extent bisexual [as among the native cultures of some parts of Melanesia and New Guineau], OR that an “orientation” or impression with the same sex is biologically possible among certain groups of people [as according to the “homosexual” model] everywhere- perhaps even both of these are possible].

From the evolutionary point of view, the usual yob response is “hyuck hyuck well those gay people don’t have babies so they can’t pass on their genes so it can’t be genetic hyuck hyuck.” However, more sophisticated students of genetics and evolution realize that evolution, being smarter than most fundamental Christians, hedges its bets. Sure, in a resource-plenty environment evolution favors raising as many children as possible- however, what about a harsh environment? Surely there are conditions in which 2 sets of 3 adults (2 parents, one gay helper) raising 2 sets of 3 children are more successful at bringing more of them up to reproductive age than, say, the same 6 adults (3 sets of parents) raising 9 children. The ratio doesn’t have to be exact, but I can easily imagine conditions in which this would be true. In that case, the gay helper, being related to one of the parents, gets a genetic reward in having part of his genes passed on to his nieces and nephews. [this also nicely suits the anecdotal evidence that gay children often have gay uncles].

Sound hard to believe? Then what about bees? In their situation, you have a whole community of hundreds of individuals who don’t reproduce- only ONE of them reproduces, over and over again. In their case, it is the extremely close genetic relation with their “sister,” the queen, that gives them evolutionary satisfaction. This “altruistic” model applied to homosexual genetic reinforcement is supported by such prominent biologists as E.O. Wilson [i’m sure you’ll find plenty on him on the Internet if you search].

I’m not sure why you raised this point on the nature of homosexuality- it was in the context of minority status, right? What does that mean? A minority must be “natural?” The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t agree with you in this case. They require there to be some form of non-anti-social difference that results in unfair discrimination, especially from the State, in order for some kind of relief. Some examples of “unnatural” minorities in this sense are:

1. Religious minorities: No one “has” to be Jewish. Avoid being discriminated against by changing your religion to suit your neighbors!

2. Ethnic minorities: Why should Gypsies want to stay with their families? And what are those Native Americans complaining about now?

3. “Racial” minorities: There are no real races genetically, as I’ve pointed out- it’s all about skin color. They just need to put on whiteface!

One could argue that not allowing gays to participate in marriage with their desired partners is a form of state discrimination. Not to mention the military prohibition. Not to mention organized workplace discrimination now and in the past, at times supported by the state. Not to mention violence directed against gays BECAUSE of our being gay. Oh, and not to mention having our sexual acts with consenting adults BANNED and made ILLEGAL in a number of places for a number of years. Well, and those minor things that we’ve found legal workarounds for, like inheritance, hospital access, etc.

Is there any way in which we are NOT a classic minority discriminated against by state and society?

“Steven”

[PvtDick]

On another board, a discussion with a somewhat right-wing member about sexuality has moved to the topic of the nature of homosexuality, and whether or not western homosexuals should have any sort of minority or protected status [both of us are American].  The right-wing poster was somewhat skeptical on both counts, and I made this reply, which I immodestly think may be of some interest to readers on this section of the board:

I’ve debated this a number of times of the web and on this forum.  However, you’re a much more collected and rational person than I *usually* have these type of discussions with, so I’ll go for it again.  I’m sorry but I don’t have good access to a research library here in Bangkok- either you’re going to have to give more information about these citations you’re making or provide Internet links.

Regarding genetic evidence of homosexuality, you’re right- currently there’s very little.  However, there is also very little genetic evidence of being Asian or Black, despite the fact that no one disputes that genetic influence (of less than .1% of total genetic material, incidentally, according to latest estimates) on racial phenotype exists.  Genetics is a very new science at its earliest stages, even today.  Saying on that basis alone that there IS no genetic reason for homosexuality at this point would be like saying that the species of beetles we haven’t catalogued yet probably do not exist.  The science is complicated by the complex nature of genes, which are not fixed and marked places in DNA- they are human-defined blocks of code which are multifunctional, sometimes multipart, and which have complex interrelationships that are not well understood.

However, just as we can guess from the prevalence and living conditions of black-skinned human beings on the Earth that something more than culture and sociology is making them dark, the universality of same-sex erotic behavior observed among animals (especially mammals, especially our nearest genetic relative the bonobo chimpanzee) and among groups of humans in every nation, every culture, every society, and every historical period about which we have clear data on sexuality, would seem to indicate that something natural is going on there.

[it is true that among humans, at least, the EXPRESSION of same-sex behavior varies considerably, and that what we call a “homosexual” person in the West is not universal.  However, it seems inevitable with such widespread activity among “men who have sex with men” and “women who have sex with women,” for lack of better universal terminology, that EITHER all humans are to some extent bisexual [as among the native cultures of some parts of Melanesia and New Guineau], OR that an “orientation” or impression with the same sex is biologically possible among certain groups of people [as according to the “homosexual” model] everywhere- perhaps even both of these are possible].

From the evolutionary point of view, the usual yob response is “hyuck hyuck well those gay people don’t have babies so they can’t pass on their genes so it can’t be genetic hyuck hyuck.”  However, more sophisticated students of genetics and evolution realize that evolution, being smarter than most fundamental Christians, hedges its bets.  Sure, in a resource-plenty environment evolution favors raising as many children as possible- however, what about a harsh environment?  Surely there are conditions in which 2 sets of 3 adults (2 parents, one gay helper) raising 2 sets of 3 children are more successful at bringing more of them up to reproductive age than, say, the same 6 adults (3 sets of parents) raising 9 children.  The ratio doesn’t have to be exact, but I can easily imagine conditions in which this would be true.  In that case, the gay helper, being related to one of the parents, gets a genetic reward in having part of his genes passed on to his nieces and nephews.  [this also nicely suits the anecdotal evidence that gay children often have gay uncles].

Sound hard to believe?  Then what about bees?  In their situation, you have a whole community of hundreds of individuals who don’t reproduce- only ONE of them reproduces, over and over again.  In their case, it is the extremely close genetic relation with their “sister,” the queen, that gives them evolutionary satisfaction.  This “altruistic” model applied to homosexual genetic reinforcement is supported by such prominent biologists as E.O. Wilson [i’m sure you’ll find plenty on him on the Internet if you search].

I’m not sure why you raised this point on the nature of homosexuality- it was in the context of minority status, right?  What does that mean?  A minority must be “natural?”  The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t agree with you in this case.  They require there to be some form of non-anti-social difference that results in unfair discrimination, especially from the State, in order for some kind of relief.  Some examples of “unnatural” minorities in this sense are:

1.  Religious minorities:  No one “has” to be Jewish.  Avoid being discriminated against by changing your religion to suit your neighbors!

2.  Ethnic minorities:  Why should Gypsies want to stay with their families?  And what are those Native Americans complaining about now?

3.  “Racial” minorities:  There are no real races genetically, as I’ve pointed out- it’s all about skin color.  They just need to put on whiteface!

One could argue that not allowing gays to participate in marriage with their desired partners is a form of state discrimination.  Not to mention the military prohibition.  Not to mention organized workplace discrimination now and in the past, at times supported by the state.  Not to mention violence directed against gays BECAUSE of our being gay.  Oh, and not to mention having our sexual acts with consenting adults BANNED and made ILLEGAL in a number of places for a number of years.  Well, and those minor things that we’ve found legal workarounds for, like inheritance, hospital access, etc.

Is there any way in which we are NOT a classic minority discriminated against by state and society?

“Steven”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, there's not.

[slapdashkitty]

Hey gays, I mean guys, I mean gay guys!

Lighten up it is Christmas time!

Trim those trees deck those halls, spend way to much money at the mall!!! And please do not forget to find me under the mistletoe (cuties only please...)

Bling-Bling, Sparkles, and Spangles, Let us all mix and mingle and fete one Kris Kringle!

[Ijustwannateach]

Thanks, SDK! We needed that!

[joe strummer]

On another board, a discussion with a somewhat right-wing member about sexuality has moved to the topic of the nature of homosexuality, and whether or not western homosexuals should have any sort of minority or protected status [both of us are American].  The right-wing poster was somewhat skeptical on both counts, and I made this reply, which I immodestly think may be of some interest to readers on this section of the board:

I’ve debated this a number of times of the web and on this forum.  However, you’re a much more collected and rational person than I *usually* have these type of discussions with, so I’ll go for it again.  I’m sorry but I don’t have good access to a research library here in Bangkok- either you’re going to have to give more information about these citations you’re making or provide Internet links.

Regarding genetic evidence of homosexuality, you’re right- currently there’s very little.  However, there is also very little genetic evidence of being Asian or Black, despite the fact that no one disputes that genetic influence (of less than .1% of total genetic material, incidentally, according to latest estimates) on racial phenotype exists.  Genetics is a very new science at its earliest stages, even today.  Saying on that basis alone that there IS no genetic reason for homosexuality at this point would be like saying that the species of beetles we haven’t catalogued yet probably do not exist.  The science is complicated by the complex nature of genes, which are not fixed and marked places in DNA- they are human-defined blocks of code which are multifunctional, sometimes multipart, and which have complex interrelationships that are not well understood.

However, just as we can guess from the prevalence and living conditions of black-skinned human beings on the Earth that something more than culture and sociology is making them dark, the universality of same-sex erotic behavior observed among animals (especially mammals, especially our nearest genetic relative the bonobo chimpanzee) and among groups of humans in every nation, every culture, every society, and every historical period about which we have clear data on sexuality, would seem to indicate that something natural is going on there.

[it is true that among humans, at least, the EXPRESSION of same-sex behavior varies considerably, and that what we call a “homosexual” person in the West is not universal.  However, it seems inevitable with such widespread activity among “men who have sex with men” and “women who have sex with women,” for lack of better universal terminology, that EITHER all humans are to some extent bisexual [as among the native cultures of some parts of Melanesia and New Guineau], OR that an “orientation” or impression with the same sex is biologically possible among certain groups of people [as according to the “homosexual” model] everywhere- perhaps even both of these are possible].

From the evolutionary point of view, the usual yob response is “hyuck hyuck well those gay people don’t have babies so they can’t pass on their genes so it can’t be genetic hyuck hyuck.”  However, more sophisticated students of genetics and evolution realize that evolution, being smarter than most fundamental Christians, hedges its bets.  Sure, in a resource-plenty environment evolution favors raising as many children as possible- however, what about a harsh environment?  Surely there are conditions in which 2 sets of 3 adults (2 parents, one gay helper) raising 2 sets of 3 children are more successful at bringing more of them up to reproductive age than, say, the same 6 adults (3 sets of parents) raising 9 children.  The ratio doesn’t have to be exact, but I can easily imagine conditions in which this would be true.  In that case, the gay helper, being related to one of the parents, gets a genetic reward in having part of his genes passed on to his nieces and nephews.  [this also nicely suits the anecdotal evidence that gay children often have gay uncles].

Sound hard to believe?  Then what about bees?  In their situation, you have a whole community of hundreds of individuals who don’t reproduce- only ONE of them reproduces, over and over again.  In their case, it is the extremely close genetic relation with their “sister,” the queen, that gives them evolutionary satisfaction.  This “altruistic” model applied to homosexual genetic reinforcement is supported by such prominent biologists as E.O. Wilson [i’m sure you’ll find plenty on him on the Internet if you search].

I’m not sure why you raised this point on the nature of homosexuality- it was in the context of minority status, right?  What does that mean?  A minority must be “natural?”  The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t agree with you in this case.  They require there to be some form of non-anti-social difference that results in unfair discrimination, especially from the State, in order for some kind of relief.  Some examples of “unnatural” minorities in this sense are:

1.  Religious minorities:  No one “has” to be Jewish.  Avoid being discriminated against by changing your religion to suit your neighbors!

2.  Ethnic minorities:  Why should Gypsies want to stay with their families?  And what are those Native Americans complaining about now?

3.  “Racial” minorities:  There are no real races genetically, as I’ve pointed out- it’s all about skin color.  They just need to put on whiteface!

One could argue that not allowing gays to participate in marriage with their desired partners is a form of state discrimination.  Not to mention the military prohibition.  Not to mention organized workplace discrimination now and in the past, at times supported by the state.  Not to mention violence directed against gays BECAUSE of our being gay.  Oh, and not to mention having our sexual acts with consenting adults BANNED and made ILLEGAL in a number of places for a number of years.  Well, and those minor things that we’ve found legal workarounds for, like inheritance, hospital access, etc.

Is there any way in which we are NOT a classic minority discriminated against by state and society?

“Steven”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sick! Sick! Sick!

[erasmus]

Sick! Sick! Sick!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're on a rampage, aren't you...?

[ChrisP]

Umm, I hope you weren't expecting an "In-Depth" conversation here, S...

'cos you obviously ain't gonna get one.

ChrisP

[erasmus]

Umm, I hope you weren't expecting an "In-Depth" conversation here, S...

'cos you obviously ain't gonna get one.

ChrisP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyway, with Joe, do not expect ANY conversation...

[Family Values]

List of people far more discriminated against than "Gays"

1 Left-handed people

2 Ginger haired people

3 Short people

4 Tall people

5 Communists

6 Nationalists

STOP WHINING

[davethailand]

List of people far more discriminated against than "Gays"

1 Left-handed people

2 Ginger haired people

3 Short people

4 Tall people

5 Communists

6 Nationalists

STOP WHINING

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, especially the ginger nuts and shortasses

[Family Values]

[RamdomChances]

List of people far more discriminated against than "Gays"

1 Left-handed people

2 Ginger haired people

3 Short people

4 Tall people

5 Communists

6 Nationalists

STOP WHINING

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, especially the ginger nuts and shortasses

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave, i'm not ginger, but am verticaly challanged, any more shortass remarkes, I'll have to come down and sort you out

[Ijustwannateach]

You're right, Chris- just the usual peanuts from the gallery...

[ChrisP]

Ok..

Does anyone want to pick this ORIGINAL Topic back up...

or maybe its time just hasn't come yet..? (Sorry "Steven"...)

If not, I'll just close it off... ('coz I hate logging on just to read inane comments...)

Chris P

[Ijustwannateach]

yeah, seem just to have picked up the trolls...

[ChrisP]

Ok.. Thread Closed due to lack of contructive interest..

ChrisP