It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Natural Selection and the Genetic Basis for Homosexuality

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 12:11 PM
Maybe Bi-sexuality is "normal"

That seems to be the case amongst animals of "higher" intelligence (bonobos, dolphins killer whales etc)n who all seem to indulge in homosexual acts during puberty as practice for hetrosexual relationships later in life

maybe exclusively gays and straights are the freaks,

or at least of limited intelligence

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by ToolFanMael

I thought ppl used the term defect as in mental not physical

Yeah but that applies to the logic I used in my other post as well. Gay people are not mentally defected by their sexuality. So either way the term just doesn't make sense, scientifically or mentally.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by Simplynoone

Nothing has been proven as fact ..nothing ..

Every single gay person who is asked if it is a choice will tell you that it isn't.This cannot be ignored by those who want to try and prove it in a lab,and neither can it be ignored by religious people.

Millions of Christians say that every word in the Bible is truth.But there is no proof of that.Yet it is believed and accepted as fact.
Millions of gays say it isn't a choice,their verbal confirmation is proof.Yet it is not believed and is claimed as false.


posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by jakyll

Your post reminded me of a scene from the movie Contact which I thought was kinda profound.

[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.

We all know love is fact when we are in love. I think that's very important, and reason to believe in it.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:24 AM
homosexuality is unatural and disgusting. i look forward to the time when people who practive homosexuality will be wiped from the earth along with rapists, paedophiles, murderers, etc...

wont be long now!

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:03 AM
Wow, 16 pages...

Just like to add this. Homosexuality has not always been the 'in thing' and would have been social suicide throughout much of human history. It is very likely that homosexuals merely went with conventions and married women, had children, and ignored their feelings as 'evil' or whatever.

In fact you will find many famous figures in history who in retrospect may have been gay, yet went about their socially conventional lives as though nothing was up. Alexander the Great? Not sure I believe that one, but there you go.

The first page of this thread answer the rest of the questions. Nuff said.

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:11 PM

So if it's 'unnatural' only in so far as they can't reproduce. Then how does your broken wiring theory rationalize bisexuals? They are half broken?

Yes. A sexual attraction to the same sex has no advantage for the species.

Let's not forget the barren women or sterile men. Is it unnatural for them to have sex?

They are also "broken". Having sex is a choice, its human free-will, but we are naturally programmed to reproduce. If you lack the normal functions of a human being, then you are "broken" (and I only use this term as lack for a better word at the moment).

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by MrAndy

Yes. A sexual attraction to the same sex has no advantage for the species.

How so? Gay people can and do reproduce naturally, so do bisexuals. And each still feels the drive to reproduce, many simply choose to not do so naturally anymore. You assume nature works in ways that do not allow disadvantages? Hm, then why are we all defected in some way? I could be misunderstanding your logic, forgive me in advance.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by MrAndy
If you lack the normal functions of a human being, then you are "broken" (and I only use this term as lack for a better word at the moment).

If you renounce the human being down to purely biological processes then you are ignoring the human condition entirely.

BUT... as Rapinbats has said, homosexuals are physically able to reproduce. So then, they shouldn't be broken according to your theory.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I agree Lucid, it is complete backward logic. Homosexuals do not "lack the normal functions of a human being" yet plenty of straight people are born sterile who do. So are these people not normal while homosexuals are? The reproduction argument doesn't work, people often try to tie it to attraction and it simply doesn't pan out.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:57 AM
My experience suggests that in nearly every case ,people who are aggresively homophobic are just heavily suppresing their own homosexual desires .

My dad ,who was Bi ,pointed this out to me one day.

'Watch all those "real men" down the pub after a few drinks' he would say , 'by last orders they are all kissing and hugging and saying things like 'I love you man ' !

Its true . I have been propostioned MANY times by guys who act it up all tough and hetro .

I just wished the girls would come on to me like that more often .

Cruel Fate , why did you make me hetro ?

Oh well , I suppose somebody has to be the stud muffin .

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:55 PM
im just gonna say.. saying homosexuality is wrong, is like saying loving a dog over a cat more is wrong... juust a thought

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:16 PM
I follow the thoughts by Kinsey, that sexuality is diverse, evolving throughout ones life, and that the three labels of gay, bi and straight are too simplistic.

Then you have fetish. A sexual fetish does little (if anything) to further our species, yet they are an integral part of sexuality. Just like preference for blonds over brunettes, so why does any of it exist?

I support the "population control" idea, and also the social concept that it takes people of all natures and leanings to create a stable species. And you need that stability to develop.

Ultimately, it's all far too complex for any Human to grasp, and I don't believe that we have even begun to pin down the basics yet. I'm not sure we'll ever understand the reasons behind these things, because that's when you start getting into the grand question of "why are we here?"

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

If you renounce the human being down to purely biological processes then you are ignoring the human condition entirely.

BUT... as Rapinbats has said, homosexuals are physically able to reproduce. So then, they shouldn't be broken according to your theory.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Well I never stated that homosexuals are physically unable to reproduce, I didn't think I needed to clarify that. Nature's mistake here is developing a creature that is only attracted to the same sex that it cannot reproduce with. Survival and reproduction are the most important things to a species. Other than that theory about homosexuality being an overpopulation response, it would point to it being a natural error. Now I know that we have the technology to bypass sex in reproduction, but homosexuality existed long before this was possible, as well as in animals that are not capable of that at all.

I won't go into a debate about spirituality or intelligent design, since the topic was more about a scientific discussion on homosexuality, but it is biological since it is not a choice and many seem to agree that homosexuality is not formed by outside influence. If you believe that God made you the way you are, I have absolutely no problem with that, I was only trying to look at this from the scientific point of view. If that's not at all what you were inferring I completely apologize.

My experience suggests that in nearly every case ,people who are aggresively homophobic are just heavily suppresing their own homosexual desires .

I disagree with this, at least in most cases. I think that people who stand against homosexuality is not much different than a Christian who stand against other religions (not singling out Christians or anything), or a patriotic citizen who irrationally thinks negatively of another country. For whatever reason, its difficult for many to accept other people's differences.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

You know, if what you were saying were true, then the ideal family unit on a biological basis would be a polygamous one, with one male and multiple females. In addition to the ability to reproduce en masse, this type of arrangment is ideal for children (disregarding of course the stigma attached to such situation by our society) as they have access to the support and love of a large family and multiple adults instead of a paltry selection of just two people. What is the governmental reason for not supporting this type of family (tax repercussions come to mind, but are easily taken care of through the methods of dependant exemption already on the books)? Unlike homosexuality, polygamy is not permitted. Without intention to disrespect your opinion, attempting to justify the lack of support or endorsement by a government of a specific type of family unit on the basis of what is biologically logical is not a rational statement, as it is clearly not true. The fact is that the "family unit" is determined by religions of the past that have remained pervasive to this day.

What you are disregarding is societal evolution. Evolution does not only take place on an individual basis, it also takes place on a group level. From a biological and societal basis, homosexuality is actually beneficial in several concrete ways, and possibly on some more speculative levels. In addition to being a built-in method of population control, has it occured to you that perhaps the "defective" (note my objection to the use of that word - lack of a better term) is not the homosexuality, but rather the homosexuality is a bi-product of the "defect?" Many genetic disorders actively prevent the human from reproducing. Perhaps some cases of homosexuality is a side effect from nature trying to weed out other undesirable traits?

That's pure speculation, and probably not true for the most part, however, it is a legitimate possibility on an individual evolutionary basis.

But the crux of the issue is this:
Populations of all cooperative species (those that rely on each other for survival, like humans) have natural and biological safeguards to protect not only the individual genetic lines, but also the health of the society in general. These types of controls can include methods of population control, and as another poster suggested with the possibility of future asexuality, links in the chain that may develop into beneficial characteristics later. It is only our social structure that causes family units which differ from what we consider "normal" to be harmful, mostly in a psychological way because of the stigma we have attached to those who are different.

We cannot assume that because we don't see the benefit in a traditional evolutionary sense that it is not helpful or even detrimental. Don't you think that the dinosaurs would have treated those first species with feathers as outcasts (in an animalistic way, of course)? That doesn't mean that the traits didn't produce something later that was useful (ie, birds).

Assuming that the trait is intended to be passed down or die off is not proper when dealing with evolutionary change on a population level. What is good for the society may not necessarily be apparently good for the individual, but evolution, like society, tends to consider the good of the group over the good of the one.

From a psychological and societal perspective, communities are preferred for humans, and communities in which all members are treated fairly are the best for the good of the species as a whole. Thus, the differences inherent in us all are good for the group, as tolerance and acceptance are vital to a cooperative society.

Perhaps it trait is neither good or bad, but rather a part of the overall balance that all species have to maintain in order to sustain themselves.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:12 PM
I think homosexuality is simple. People are attracted to whoever they want to be attracted to. Im attracted to women sometimes. So what. Is it really so hard to see why there are so many gay people, when in this day and age its more acceptable than ever, and there are gorgeous people every where you look?

I know a lot of gay people. And they just are more attracted to the same sex, then they are to the opposite sex. They almost always have dated both sex'es, but preferred their own, over the other.

Why must we think of theories why they are that way? just let them go about their business and enjoy their lives.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by calihan123]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by MrAndy

Nature's mistake here is developing a creature that is only attracted to the same sex that it cannot reproduce with. Survival and reproduction are the most important things to a species.

If the gay community had to rely on each other for children they would still survive,either through unpleasant sex or artificial insemenation.

And that community wouldn't stay all gay for long because not all of the children they have will be gay too,there would be plenty of straight children.

Then there's bisexuals who can happily procreate with each other,and they would produce straight,gay and bisexual children.

If an all male/female community had to rely only on themselves then,no matter their sexuality,they would die out.

Where there are males and females,there will be the ability to procreate,no matter their sexuality.

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:00 PM
Sure it's genetic and we must appreciate the great realisations of the gay peoples in the history.
Gays and lesbians are always on the edge of the mod and society models!

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 03:04 PM
I believe homosexuality might be a genetic thing. The reason it exists even with 'natural selection' is simple. With the human species, there is no such thing as natural selection. We would have FAR fewer people than what we do now if NS was occurring. THink about it. We have first aid, medicine, doctors, surgery, housing, grocery stores, etc, etc.

Any IDIOT can survive nowadays. Natural selection was survival of the fittest. Even a hundred years ago, people with cancer, the flu, small pox, whatever would die off, those who were 'immune' to it or whatever would survive. The weakest die, plain and simple.

Natural selection for the human population went bye-bye once we started living in communities thousands of years ago. People began taking care of the weak, the weak lived off the fat of the land, and reproduced. IMHO, the human species is done for when it comes to evolving. We've screwed ourselves in that respect. I think we might have been able to become smarter, but thats not gonna happen due to the crap we ingest and such. As for diseases and such, we will not fix that through natural selection any longer, we will have to wait for a cure from medicine now.

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:44 AM
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Regardless of the nature vs. nurture debate, I *was* walking around in my mums high heels when I was six. You may make of that what you wish..

One of the studies that was quoted at the beginning of this thread regarding the 33% rise in chance for every male child born also holds water for me. I am an only child, but my mother had two miscarriages before I was born. So.. well, I could just be supporting that theory because it suits me, but I have no other way to apply it to myself so that's all I got.

I never grew up around gay people.. so if it was social trends, I.. can't think of what they were. If anything I grew up in an environment where homosexuality simply did not exist, and I was bullied mercilessly. It was a confusing year of time I spent trying to figure out what the # my hormones were doing.

So yeah. I still don't know, though. I am sure that different degrees of the N:N apply to different people. It would be rather silly to think that it's the same for everyone.

Just my two cents there =)

Peace out.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by comawhite015]

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in