Homosexuality, Homophobia and Evlolution

[CORed]

This post is related to the thread on the Massachusets gay marriage ruling, but I am making some more general points, so I decided to start a new thread. What I am about to say will likely annoy people on both sides of the gay rights issue.

What is homosexuality? We can make one broad breakdown here. There is homsexual behavior, i.e. acts of sexual gratification between members of the same sex, and homsexual orientation, i.e. a person with homsexual orientation is sexually attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex. When I refer to homsexuals, or homosexuality, I am referring to orientation, although as a practical matter, homosexual behavior nearly always goes with homseexual orientation.

Homosexuality is a harmless disfunction. I know that in calling it a disfunction, I am annoying the gay rights purists. So be it. Sex serves many funtions in human beings, but the primary function is reproduction. Homosexual behavior not reproductive. So, I am saying that homsexuals are disfunctional, abnormal people. On the other hand, I also said it is harmless. Therefore, I don't think that discriminating against homosexuals, whether by passing laws against homsexual behavior, or denying them employment or housing, is in any way excusable, nor do I see any great harm in allowing them to get married, if they so desire.

What causes homosexuality? The only rational answer at this time: We have no idea. There is some evidence to suggest that it may be biological, possibly genetic in origin, but it is by no means conclusive. Human behavior is a complex interaction between biology and environment. Most likely, there are biological factors that cause a prediposition to homsexuality, that may be triggered by something in a person's upbringing or experience.

Should homosexuals be "cured"? Well, as a practical matter, though there are some people (charlatans, IMO) who claim otherwise, we don't know how to "cure" homsexuality. Suppose, hypothetically, that science finds a surefire way to cure homosexuality. In that case, for adults, I would leave it up to individuals whether to accept or decline such treatment. Would a homsexual adult in a long-term loving relationship want to be cured? Would you (assuming your are heterosexual and married) want to be "cured" of loving your husband or wife? For young children, assuming that homosexuality could be diagnosed and cured at that stage, I would leave it to their parents to decide. Of course, risks of undesirable side effects (all medical or psychological treatments have some risks of undesirable side effects)

Homophobia: This is what gay rights advocates accuse anybody that disagrees with them of having. However, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear, I think they they may not be too far off the mark.

Evolution: Those who oppose tolerance of homosexuality and equal rights for homosexuals mostly do so on religious grounds. In this country, they are mostly Christian fundamentalists. They believe homosexuality is sinful, primarily on bilical grounds. However, there seems to be an underlying fear, usually unstated, that homosexuality, if not vigorously repressed will run rampant. There seem to be a belief that discriminatory laws and the disapproval and intolerance of our peers is the only thing preventing a large portion of the population from turning gay. Relax, folks, it ain't gonna happen. The vast majority of us are "wired" to be attracted to the opposite sex, just as we are "wired" to love and care for the children that are produced as a result. Homosexuality, regardless of the cause, is self limiting. Yes, gay people sometimes have children. Gay people sometimes have heterosexual relationships, and marriages, because they are trying to conform to the expectations of society. Lesbian women may have themselves artificially inseminated, or have sex with a man, because they want children. Nonetheless, gay people are never going to be as good at reproducing as heterosexual people. They have to make a determined effort to have children. Heterosexuals have to make a determined effort not to have children. The "invisible hand" of evolution will always ensure that the vast majority of human beings will be heterosexual. Any factor, be it bioligical or social, which promotes homosexuality, will tend to be selected out. Of course, Christian fundamentalists don't like the theory of evolution. It doesn't agree with their strict interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Nonetheless, it is just as much a proven scientific theory as the "Round Earth Therory" or the "Heliocentric Theory" (which Galileo got in trouble with the Catholic church for espousing). Christian fundamentalists see homosexuality in terms of sin and temptation, and fail to realize, that for the vast majority of humans, homosexual behavior simply isn't a temptation.

So, I'm going to offer a suggestion to everyone who believes gay people are sinners. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Let God punish the sinners. You may not approve of their behavior, and that's OK, but tolerating their behavior isn't going to cause civilization to collapse.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
There is homsexual behavior, i.e. acts of sexual gratification between members of the same sex, and homsexual orientation, i.e. a person with homsexual orientation is sexually attracted exclusively or primarily to people of the same sex

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that there is a bell curve of sexuality from exclusively heterosexual on one end and exclusively homosexual on the other end. There are probably very few people who are at either end of the spectrum.

My wife and I decided to make a chart one time and "plot" the people that we know as to where we thought they would fall (okay it was a boring car ride from Minneapolis to Chicago). The chart had on one end of the Y axis Sexually disinterested on the other Nympho; on one end of the X axis completely Heterosexual on the other completely Homosexual. When we started putting people that we knew in the chart, very few people were on the edges of the graph.

[ QUOTE ]
Sex serves many funtions in human beings, but the primary function is reproduction

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be the primary biological function, but if you think reproduction is the primary function of sex in humans, you're crazy.

[ QUOTE ]
What causes homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm one who thinks it is probably an inherent trait. What I can't yet figure out is why hasn't natural selection gotten rid of homosexuality entirely (I would suspect that the answer lies somewhere in my first point which is that sexuality is better viewed as a spectrum than an either/or proposition).

[CORed]

I think your point about there being a spectrum between hetero and homo is valid.

As far as the hypothetical "homosexuality gene" not being selected out, it may be something like a lethal recessive. It takes a long time for lethal recessives to be selected out because they are only lethal if an individual is homozygous for the lethal version (both copies of the gene are the lethal version). Also, it turns out that some lethal recessives have survival value for individuals who are heterozygous (one copy is the lethal version, one copy is the normal version). For example, the sickle cell gene: Heterozyougs individuals are more resistant to Malaria. Cystic fibrosis: heterozygous individuals are more resistant to water-borne diahreal diseases.

What the survival value of the hypothetical gay gene might be for heterozyogous heterosexuals (that's a mouth full) might be is anybody's guess. Maybe better fashion sense helps them attract women. Maybe they keep their living quarters cleaner while single, and are less likely to succumb to bacterial infections before they have children.

[brad]

what about aids?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
What about aids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a nasty virus. However, one of two things will eventually happen: Either medical science will find a cure or preventative, or, as humans and the AIDS virus co-evolve, it will become less virulent. The latter will take thousands of years, thought, and it could be bad in the mean time.

If you are suggesting that AIDS somehow justifies discrimination against gay men, then you have a very poor understanding of the disease.

[brad]

'If you are suggesting that AIDS somehow justifies discrimination against gay men, then you have a very poor understanding of the disease. '

so u think having hundreds of 'lovers' and blood contact (eg anal sex) has nothing to do with it?

you think gay men get aids at rate only seen by iv drug users is just a coincidence?

[CORed]

Certainly, promiscuity and unprotected anal sex increase one's risk of getting AIDS. If people (of whatever orientation) indulge in such risky behavior, they have only themselves to blame if they get AIDS, or some other nasty disease.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
so u think having hundreds of 'lovers' and blood contact (eg anal sex) has nothing to do with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...all gay people have hundreds of lovers. No wonder they're gay.

You should probably support gay marriage then because it encourages monogomous relationships.

[brad]

so u dont think gays are more promiscuous than heteros ?

(i mean lets face it its the women who r the limiting factor [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
so u dont think gays are more promiscuous than heteros ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's likely that, on average, gay men are more promiscuuos than heteros, but as with everything, there's a lot of individual variation. Also, a lot of gay men eventually "settle down" into a monogamous relationship.