Female homosexuality partially hereditary, but erotic "plasticity" still unexplained

[The Real]

There is no "homosexuality" in animals. The entire concept of homosexuality is made up by humans. Your article you keep quoting proves that. Yes animals engage in what we humans might call "homosexual" activities. But the actual act of sexual intercourse is for the sole purpose of reproduction. No animal species can thrive on an exclusively "homosexual" lifestyle. Therefore the concept of "being homosexual" is made up by humans.'

What do you mean by homosexuality here? If you're not referring to activity, then would you accept a lifelong same-sex attraction as homosexuality if it happened among animals?

Second you quote all these animals that do these activities but none of them are remotely close to the human species. The article clearly states it is DOMESTICATED sheep that engage in the activities. These are animals that have been taken from their natural environment and bred to be food. This is an abnormal activity in an abnormal situation. The entire event of the dolphin orgies ends up with the females getting pregnant, therefore the dolphins arent homosexual either.

Here is the definition if homosexuality:
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex.

No animal does this. Not one

This is actually not true. There are several species in which males have been known to form lifelong homosexual relationships, or only homosexual relationships their whole lives, and most of these have not been domesticated by humans. Wild geese, bottlenose dolphins, and albatross, to list a few, have all been documented in lifelong, homosexual relationships or lifelong homosexual attractions.

Studies have also shown that being gay could be genetic. And as with every genetic change or difference among a species. If it is an advantage the trait will prevail and pass on to more of the species. If it is a disadvantage it usually dies out or goes dormant within the species. If humans didn't have science to help homosexuals reproduce than they would die out because they can't reproduce. Yes the genes might pop up over time but in no way are they useful or sustainable within the race.

There is most probably a genetic element to some cases of homosexuality, but it can't be genetic alone, because the genes they have identified so far that show up more among gays show up among purely heterosexual men, too. Also, even if all gay people never reproduced (and most don't,) gay people would still be born at the same rates. They come from us heterosexuals, not from each other, and they haven't died out despite being around since the dawn of humanity (and before, as has been shown with other species.)

As for your survival argument, I don't think it makes sense. There is no single goal of life, only tendencies that exist strongly in most organisms, so usefulness isn't a lens that you can use to analyze all behaviors without ending up in functionalism (saying that everything we do is connected to survival,) which is illogical. There is no clear reason to moralize or politicize those tendencies- reproduction isn't inherently good or bad unless you introduce transcendent morals, which usually come from religion, and are thus unconfirmed and impossible to prove one way or the other.

 

[Mr. Pink]

I'm no bleeding heart but I think calling homosexuality 'unnatural' like the dude on the second page with the Bible passages is going a bit too far. By definition anything that can be found in nature or is the result of nature is 'natural'.

I guess you can say it's not normal, but is that really saying much? If "not normal" means a deviation from the norm, from the most common and accepted behaviour, then homosexuality's 'not normal status' doesn't mean much, and doesn't have any moral implications. And normality is not stagnant, but fluid.

 

[zerozero]

we have to be careful about retrofitting social behavior onto genetics. female and male sexuality is constructed in a way in which women are sex objects, on magazine covers, T&A, blah blah, and males (including me) have a sort of psychological 'kick' / revulsion about being in certain types of physical contact for a male that's probably not mysteriously embedded in my blood but learned

that is to say, the fact that I (and the vast majority of people) are straight in the sense of what we're attracting to as mates was probably embedded in us, but the the amount to which we'll 'swing'/experiment is probably very socially determined

 

[MeachTheMonster]

What do you mean by homosexuality here? If you're not referring to activity, then would you accept a lifelong same-sex attraction as homosexuality if it happened among animals?



This is actually not true. There are several species in which males have been known to form lifelong homosexual relationships, or only homosexual relationships their whole lives, and most of these have not been domesticated by humans. Wild geese, bottlenose dolphins, and albatross, to list a few, have all been documented in lifelong, homosexual relationships or lifelong homosexual attractions.



There is most probably a genetic element to some cases of homosexuality, but it can't be genetic alone, because the genes they have identified so far that show up more among gays show up among purely heterosexual men, too. Also, even if all gay people never reproduced (and most don't,) gay people would still be born at the same rates. They come from us heterosexuals, not from each other, and they haven't died out despite being around since the dawn of humanity (and before, as has been shown with other species.)

As for your survival argument, I don't think it makes sense. There is no single goal of life, only tendencies that exist strongly in most organisms, so usefulness isn't a lens that you can use to analyze all behaviors without ending up in functionalism (saying that everything we do is connected to survival,) which is illogical. There is no clear reason to moralize or politicize those tendencies- reproduction isn't inherently good or bad unless you introduce transcendent morals, which usually come from religion, and are thus unconfirmed and impossible to prove one way or the other.

The goal of life is to advance and continue life. Gay sex can't advance or continue life period. No animal engages in EXCLUSIVE homosexual sex. I didn't say everything we do is connected to survival, I said some things are advantages, some things are disadvantages. The desire to have exclusive homosexual sex is a disadvantage because a homosexual can't reproduce and pass on his genes, therefore the adaptation will never thrive and become prevalent within any species.

Again I say if all humans decided to become homosexual, than the human race would cease to exist because there would be no reproduction.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You realize that that those two sentences contradict each other, right?

My point is, the idea of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle was created by humans, because without human scientific advances homosexuals couldn't reproduce.

 

[714562]

.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

My point is, the idea of homosexuality as a viable lifestyle was created by humans, because without human scientific advances homosexuals couldn't reproduce.

Not everyone wants to reproduce, and you're telling me they can't seed up some brawd and still be fukkin dudes in their asses? Thats how the romans did it. Women were for taking care of babies and the house, Man sex was considered the highest form of sexuality.

homosexuality is natural, because it happens in a large variety of species across the planet. They aren't hurting anyone, let them live their life and try to be happy and you live yours.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

That's a non sequitur, bro. You're claiming that homosexuality wouldn't exist without scientific advances in reproduction...but homosexuals don't need to reproduce to exist.

I didn't say it wouldn't exist. I said it could never be a viable lifestyle for an entire species. No homosexuals don't need to reproduce to exist, but they do need to reproduce if the homesxual genes are to take hold and become prevalent in the human genome. Random mutations happen all the time. If random mutations can produce a gay person once than they can do it again. But those genes will never be passed on and fully assimilated into our species because homosexuals cant reproduce.

Put it this way, homosexuals are basically sterile. If you dont have sex with the opposite sex you can't reproduce. We all know what happens to animals when they become sterile for whatever reason. Being sterile is not I viable lifestyle UNLESS you have human scientific advances. Therefore the idea of being exclusively homosexual is only possible within humans who posses these scientific advances.

 

[The Real]

The goal of life is to advance and continue life.

This seems to be the bottom line for you, but again, this is not true. Life has no transcendent, absolute goal. There are only tendencies, some of which are stronger than others. When you turn those tendencies (for example, the tendency among the majority of beings to reproduce, or to feel an urge to reproduce) into a goal, you are making a number of logical errors. Even the very existence of people who are not interested in reproduction, whether straight or gay, is evidence that there is no such goal of life.

No animal engages in EXCLUSIVE homosexual sex.

I already stated that this was not true, and gave you some examples of animal species in which individuals do engage in exclusive homosexual sex. If you mean that there is no species that engages exclusively in homosexual sex, then obviously, that's true, but that doesn't prove that homosexuality is opposed to the goals of life, since you are working backwards from a logical point (homosexuals don't reproduce, therefore, no homosexual species can exist) and making logical leaps from there.

I didn't say everything we do is connected to survival, I said some things are advantages, some things are disadvantages. The desire to have exclusive homosexual sex is a disadvantage because a homosexual can't reproduce and pass on his genes, therefore the adaptation will never thrive and become prevalent within any species.

This stuff would only follow if survival and reproduction were established as a transcendent, absolute goal for life, which is an issue we still have to get past, as I stated above.

Again I say if all humans decided to become homosexual, than the human race would cease to exist because there would be no reproduction.

This is true, but what does this hypothetical have to do with the reality of things, especially since homosexuals will never be the majority? You could substitute any manner of minor statistical abnormality for homosexuals in this case, and come up with a similarly debilitating scenario.

 

[714562]

.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Not everyone wants to reproduce, and you're telling me they can't seed up some brawd and still be fukkin dudes in their asses? Thats how the romans did it. Women were for taking care of babies and the house, Man sex was considered the highest form of sexuality.

homosexuality is natural, because it happens in a large variety of species across the planet. They aren't hurting anyone, let them live their life and try to be happy and you live yours.

This is the definition of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex

No animal does this in the wild. Yes they engage in what humans consider homosexual activites. But they are not Homosexual, they still need to mate with the opposite sex to advance their species.

I never said it wasn't natural, I said abnormal. I never said they shouldn't be able to live their life.

And you are correct not everyone WANTS to reproduce. But in order to continue to exist we HAVE to reproduce which means as a whole the human species cannot go homosexual or we would go extinct.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

...why is that even an issue? No one is talking about having the entire human race be gay.



...again, WHY is that an issue? Are you paranoid of homos breaking into your house and snatching you away in the night?



...okay, but what point are you trying to make? None of that has anything to do with what The Real was saying. He never argued that an entire species could be homosexual. No one in this thread did. So what are you talking about?

This is what happens when you try to debate with an imbecile. Their train of thought is never on the tracks. He just starts imagining homosexual scenarios and pukes them out into little paragraphs that we read and subsequently become dumber for having read said paragraphs.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

This is the definition of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by esthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for another of the same sex

No animal does this in the wild. Yes they engage in what humans consider homosexual activites. But they are not Homosexual, they still need to mate with the opposite sex to advance their species.

I never said it wasn't natural, I said abnormal. I never said they shouldn't be able to live their life.

And you are correct not everyone WANTS to reproduce. But in order to continue to exist we HAVE to reproduce which means as a whole the human species cannot go homosexual or we would go extinct.

No. You're wrong. Homosexual behavior is widely displayed throughout the animal kingdom.

I know how having babies works in mammals, you don't need to remind me. It doesn't change the fact that homosexual behavior happens in the wild just because to reproduce offspring they have to mate with a female.

Okay, then what are you even arguing here? I think we all agree an entire species could not exist strictly having homosexual sex unless men could somehow have babies.

 

[714562]

.

 

[RadaMillz]

Victor the fakkit always reporting about sodomites, disgust.

who said this guy was straight?