TheBig3

how about I put it this way. If we were having a conversation about the political and cultural situations of homosexuals globally, I'd agree with your statement. But making the title "the problem with homosexuals" seems to suggest that there is one and that its valid we discuss said problems.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

RVCA

To a lot of people, there IS a problem, and that's what this thread intends to hash out.

I think.

boo boo

I don't think the title was meant to state directly that homosexuals have problems.

It's just raising the question. And for us to question why homosexuality is a big deal to people is healthy discussion, not homophobic.

I think people who say "homosexuals can do what they wont lets not talk about it" are foolish and only care about being PC and all that, it's important to talk about the challenges of being homosexual in modern society and the issues people have with it.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Harry

I think the 'problem' is that it is unnatural (which is not arguable, it IS unnatural. And I mean that only in the way that one cannot reproduce homosexually, etc, not that it doesn't occur 'naturally'... just isn't 'supposed' to be, in a way) so that humanity is naturally deterred to it. Just as if you see a person with eight legs, it's unnatural thus naturally repelling. It's just the way we work. Though in both cases, intellectual growth and what ever the hell it is we're trying to foster in human society allows for us to accept things that aren't 'supposed to be'.

So the problem entails that some people are slaves to their gut feeling, and other's aren't. It'll never change. Humans fear different and unknown. They'll only be as accepted as the culture allows for them to be... but even then, there will still be those who persecute.

Guybrush

Ehf, if it's unnatural, then why are there so many *** people?

Homosexuality has a genetic component and is more common in some families than they are in others. Someone (was it Big3?) posted a study which showed that the genetic components (whatever they are) which contribute to homosexuality may also cause higher fecundity in women.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../2217.full.pdf

This is one of many hypotheses which can explain homosexuality and why it's as abundant as it is.

*** people are a minority different from a majority, that's all. Homosexuality is actually common in most species of social mammals. The idea that it's unnatural is relatively ancient in modern biology and was debunked a long time ago. It was based on the assumption that sex is only good for one thing - reproduction - which we now know is wrong.

edit :

You know, this is the kind of arrogance usually only found in the ignorant. What makes you an expert?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Dom

I think by "unnatural" he means more the breeding side of it. Evolution works by reproduction, which is naturally impossible with homosexuals. Also I feel that for a lot (certainly not all) of people being homosexual is a lifestyle choice.

__________________

Guybrush

Yet evolution has resulted in a lot of homosexuality so obviously there are some mechanisms and factors we can discover which explain how that has happened. These explanations are not in any sense likely to be unnatural.

Check out the study I posted for example. That provides an explanation because the *** genetics give higher fecundity (a fitness benefit) to women and this helps perpetuate them. Homosexual behaviour in nature helps smoothen social relations etc, as done so famously by the bonobo chimpanzees.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Harry

Well that link is a nice theory. And the purpose of our existence is to reproduce with genetic variation (which is why males/females are separate entities to begin with). How is that arguable? Being homosexual is an anomaly because it does not complete that purpose. You can say it socially does this and that all you want, but it still does not create darwinian success.

I'm not saying anything against homosexuals, please don't act as if I'm trying to offend them.

Guybrush

For homosexual behaviour, it doesn't have to be directly linked to reproduction to add to darwinian success as you call it or fitness as it's usually known. There are plenty of behaviours that are selected for which is not directly linked to reproduction which still have fitness benefits. Chimpanzees pick lice off eachother. Such a behaviour likely gives fitness benefits in some shape and so can sex for other purposes than reproduction. For example it may dampen conflicts and strengthen social alliances which in turn leads to fitness benefits or greater access to partners etc.

When it comes to being homosexual and not having sex with members of the opposite sex, you're right in that it doesn't sound like a fitness benefit. So why is it here? That's a mystery which modern biology is just starting to explain. The simple notion that it's "unnatural" does not explain this.

If you understood the study in that link up there, you would have understood that it hypothesizes a way that homosexuality - or the genetic basis for it - can have a fitness benefit. In that paper, it says a genetic component which causes homosexuality in men may give a fecundity boost in women. That's what they found based on observational evidence in their study. So, in that case the genes or allelic combination or whatever which causes homosexuality in males does have a fitness benefit in women. And these "successful" women pass their genes on to their sons (who may become gay) as well as to their daughters.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Harry

If the homosexuals "give" them a fecundity, then the trait can't be passed on, so that makes no sense. You cannot pass on an acquired trait.

And although picking lice doesn't increase fertility, those apes can still reproduce, regardless of whether they do that. Not everything can be explained as being beneficial and 'supposed to' be there. Take all other genetic illnesses for example. They aren't exactly there for a purpose.