Homosexuals and Evolution

by patio34 21 Replies latest social relationships

Mulan

You may have hit on something there, Jim. I personally think many of those old guys at Bethel are gay men, in denial.
patio34

Skeptic,
Very good reply--thanks. I agree there are probably many more gradations of sexuality, especially since most folks prefer to keep it private or in denial.
The way I understand natural selection (and it is very new to me having left the WTBS only 10 wks ago) is that when a species is stable in their environment, and there are no drastic changes to endanger them, no evolving goes on. What need is there? The species is surviving and procreating.
Very interesting aspect of homosexuality helping to band the hunters together. One 'primitive' society in Africa, I think, has bisexual men that keep 2-story houses: upstairs are boys and young men and downstairs are the wife and kids.
Bisexuality could have been fairly common so that the men could have children.
The WTS has commented before that homosexuality is not present in any other species, but what I've read contradicts that. Anyone know more?
Amazing,
It IS true that the paradigm of evolution as opposed to creation has led to more discovery about genetics. I wonder is the WT has commented on the recent discovery that chimpanzees share 98.__ % of humans' genes? It's just as in the past: religion tends to hinder scientific discovery.
Mulan,
Why I'm interested in homosexuality is prompted by the LA Times article referenced to in the beginning. I have been reading up on evolution and thought it noteworthy (their comment).
Maybe folks who have left the WTBS are trying to see issues like this in a more realistic way. I know I work with a gay man and always viewed him as wicked when I was a JW, but now I'm trying to have a better view. Now my motto is "live and let live."
There is a large part of the population that has been very much maligned and I, for one, want to understand more about it so I can have a fairer view.
Pat
RedhorseWoman

The WTS has commented before that homosexuality is not present in any other species,
but what I've read contradicts that. Anyone know more?

There have been many documented cases of homosexual behavior in various species. I know that the Bonobo monkeys have been mentioned on this and other boards. Within these troupes, homosexual liasons are ways of displaying affection and bonding.
I also remember reading an article in Discover awhile ago about a breeding program for a certain type of endangered vultures. There were two male vultures that bonded in a homosexual pair. The scientists running the program tried repeatedly to separate these two males in hopes that they would mate with a female in order to produce chicks. Every attempt was a failure, however.
What they DID discover was that these two males were excellent parents and loved taking care of the chicks. So, in order to enhance the breeding program, chicks would be removed from their parents nests soon after hatching and would be given to the "boys" to raise. The heterosexual pair would then lay another egg and proceed to start a new brood, while their original chicks were being brought up by the "gay birds", thus increasing the viability of the breeding program.
patio34

Thanks RedHorseWoman,
That was good information.
By finding homosexuality in other species, it would seem to undermine the whole it's-a-sin-and-an-abberation theory.
By it occuring in other species, it indicates it is a naturally occurring 'lifestyle,' if you will. Also, as ExJWBill opined, that it is a trait that occurs randomly like left-handness (ME!) and red hair.
Pat
JanH

The answer is, I think, much to do with how complicated our genes are, and how complex the relationship is between geontype and pheonotype (ie organism). The DNA is not a blueprint to the organism, it is a description of a number of processes that will, in the right environment, lead to the production of this organism. So the idea we should have some specific "gay gene" is, I think, quite unlikely. As others have pointed out, such a gene would be selected against in the wild.
It is worth noting that we receive genes equally from both our parents. Females carry all the genes for how to produce a male and vice versa. It is equally probable a man has inherited his genes for penis size and shape from his mother as from his father.
Also, our sexual attraction is to some degree a result of social processes. Our sex drive is obviously genetic, but what and who we are attracted to may well be the result mostly of social conditioning.
Finally, the physical differences between sexes are not that significant. The traits a heterosexual finds sexually attractive in the other sex, may well be prevalent also in his or her own. Such a person could, given the right social circumstances, end up being attracted mostly to his or her own sex.
In my view, homosexuality simply represents one side of the range of human sexuality. Heterosexual men, for example, are attracted to a range of female body types. I don't see a very distinct line to cross from being attracted to same sex. Obviously, in cultures such as ours, which frowns on homosexuality, people feel that way. But that is social conditioning. Some cultures consider homosexuality for what it actually is: one part of the range of normal human sexuality.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
joelbear

Some answers
Why are homosexuals not weeded out by evolution?
Tribes with the best decorated caves were deemed superior and were not as likely to be attacked by their neighboring tribes or by tasteful wild animals.
Why are heterosexuals so obsessed with homosexuality?
Homosexuals are a super race capable of mind control, kind of like the Jedi. Oooooooh Luke, come here baby and bring that wookie friend of yours.
Why do homosexuals like catching more than pitching?
Your arms don't get as sore.
shugs
Joel
waiting

God created homosexuals so that the truly gifted wouldn't be burdened with children. Author Unknown at the moment (I'm at work.)
I think one reason why this board - being populated with massive amounts of former jw's (who were brought up to believe that the sexual actions of homosexuals were obseen, sinful, and to be abhorred) - is questioning homosexuals and their lifestyle - is because we are now free to question what we were formerly told to believe.
Now we are interested in information, hopefully with our blinders lifted, if not completely removed.
Some of us also have beloved family who we'd like to know more about (not necessarily the graphic details, however) and when we were jw's - we were told to totally shun. Whether we followed the WTBTS's command or not - our conscience and our love were at odds all the time.
waiting
patio34

JanH,
Thanks for the erudite answer to my query. It made a whole lot of sense.
I have recently run across the fact that offspring inherit genes from each of their parents. Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" makes that point and also that since 'mother' preferred a certain kind of 'father' for kiddies, the offspring can tend to prefer the same type. Not quite the big Freudian mystery of marrying someone like your mum or dad. And some studies have indicated that people prefer to select people just like the ones they were exposed to in the 1st 6 yrs of life.
And it is credible that homophobia is a social occurrence. Thanks.
Joelbear,
I don't think anyone said 'weeding out' homosexuality. That seems to be a derogatory term. The term was 'selected' out because of no offspring. The rest of your comments were over my head, I guess.
Waiting,
It's true in my case that I'm trying to overcome the 'homophobia' that has been bred in me thru the Bible. I guess some may choose to call that 'obsession' but their dictionary must be different than mine.
Thanks for your thoughtful posts.
Pat
Abaddon

Being gay does NOT mean you are less likely to have children, and historically never has, unless you don't want children, and not wanting children has NOTHING to do with being gay or not.
Quite a few gay couples would love to have kids, and if there was less prejudice against the idea of gay parents there would be more.
What further proof do you need that homosexuality and having kids are NOT LINKED? Many homosexuals today would love to be parents.
In the past where there might have been less freedom of sexuality, well, for thousands of years a male homosexual would be in a marriage of convenience and/or social expectation and would have had children.
For thousands of years many female homosexuals would have to be married no matter what they managed to get up to behind their husbands backs (or wanted to), and would have had children.
Thus the old chestnut about 'why hasn't homosexuality died out because it's genetic and gays don't have kids' just is not proven.
Also, it's not JUST genes. Yes, some evidence indicates a genetic link, such as twin studies.
However, the level of hormones in the womb at various points in the pregnancy can also influence ones development.
This happens specifically at two seperate points, one where the area that corresponds to our sexual identity develops, and the other where our centres of sexual attraction develop. These areas can be either male-like, female-like, or inbetween.
If the hormone levels are 'abnormal' a female can end up with a male-like sexual area, or a male-like behavioural area, or have both areas show male characteristics. Thus you have the stereotypical types, straight (female-like in both areas), tomboy (male-like in the behavioural area, female-like in sexual area), 'butch' (male-like in both areas) and 'femme' (female-like behavioural area, male-like sexual area).
The same is true of male homosexuals; different levels of hormones can result in brain development that can result in straight, camp-straight, straight-acting gay and camp-gay.
The above is a very simplified explination, and one has to remember it is rarely as clearly cut, but is rather illustrative of the spectrum of behaviour present due to brain chemistry in the womb. Terms like camp, femme and butch are used simply to illustrate in simple terms and are not meant to be taken as any insult or slur, just as labels for polar opposites. In practise I know that for every stereotype butch-femme couple there are more where the stereotypical terms have no relevance.
Then of coure, we have the people who are as gay as fuck and who have no descernable physiological difference in the brain to account for it.
So we have people who have a genetic tendancy, we have people who have their tastes influenced by fetal development, and people who apparently choose.
Amazing; I have great admiration for the clarity and thoughtfullness of your posts but I think there is no evidence to suppose that homosexuality is a genetic 'defect'. It would be like saying the people in the top 5% of height have a genetic defect. Homosexuality is part of the wonderful spectrum of behaviour that has been and will be with us for millions of years. Perhaps the nervousness of some homosexuals over discussing the possible genetic link to their homosexuality is that some people (not you specifically) would see this, not as proof that it's a normal part of human behaviour enshrined in our DNA, but as in indication that it can be 'cured'.
We may as well try to cure the human race of perfect pitch!!
I would agree with what several people said regarding the prevelance of this topic; we have had to rebuild our lives and that means we question everything.
Born again three year-olds!! That's us.
JanH

Abaddon,
Being gay does NOT mean you are less likely to have children, and historically never has, unless you don't want children, and not wanting children has NOTHING to do with being gay or not.
Quite a few gay couples would love to have kids, and if there was less prejudice against the idea of gay parents there would be more.
What further proof do you need that homosexuality and having kids are NOT LINKED? Many homosexuals today would love to be parents.

That is obviously true.
Also, since many gays are insecure about their preferences, especially in early years, it is no surprise they end up in a relationship with one of the opposite sex, and having children. Hence, they produce offspring.
However, it is still a valid point. If a homosexual is just a tiny bit less likely to produce children, then a so-called "gay gene" would have tended to become less prevalent for each successive generation, resulting in it disappearing alltogether. And I don't think that is such an unlikely idea, considering that for men especially, the sex drive is arguably more important than a desire to have children in actually producing them. Just a tiny bit lower birth rate for offspring of gays would have deleted the "gay gene" long time ago. If this is true, no such thing exists, and that is my position. (I thought of one counter argument: If a gene "for being gay" also had another quality, that might offset this effect.)
I wonder if anyone actually bothered to do research on this question: does gays tend to have more, fewer or as many children as straight people?
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

Homosexuals and Evolution

Share this