1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kinsey 6 Gay -- Normal variation or something that went wrong?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by cm81990, Jan 30, 2013.

  1. cm81990

    cm81990 Guest

    Hey guys, first off I like to say that I have accepted myself as gay. It's been a long and I mean long journey to accept myself. It really is difficult trying to accept yourself and go against the grain of heteronormative society. Today, I have no qualms about my same sex attraction. Periodically, I do get depressed at my obvious "lack" of opposite sex attraction. So this thread is to really get opinions on exclusive homosexuality. Is it a normal variation? Or did something go wrong? Maybe I should re-word it and ask, is lacking opposite-sex attraction normal OR did something go wrong? I don't believe there is anything wrong with same-sex attraction (it's normal IMO), but what about the lack of opposite sex attraction? I am open-minded and love debates, especially when it comes to the origins of homosexuality. I know this is a sensitive topic, so I only want people that can respond objectively without getting emotional. Okay so here's my stance on this:

    1. Same-sex attraction is a normal, natural variation. Has been documented in various species.
    2. Opposite-sex attraction ensures the continuation of the species.
    3. Exclusive homosexuality is rare amongst other species outside humans, but bisexuality is very common.
    4. Our closest relatives, the bonobo chimpanzee are bisexual, not gay or straight.
    5. Exclusive homosexuality would be an evolutionary dead-end. Bisexuality would not.
    6. What is the evolutionary benefit of exclusive homosexuality or lack of opposite sex attraction?
    7. Our bodies were designed for heterosexuality. Our primal instinct is to reproduce.
    8. I believe there is a lot of "pseudo-science" in research trying to be as politically correct and sensitive as possible to disenfranchised groups (e.g. gays & lesbians). This does not objectively answer the question on what the evolutionary benefits are of exclusive homosexuality/lack of heterosexuality.

    Basically, I believe heterosexuality and bisexuality to be normal, positive variations of human sexual orientation. However, I am having trouble accepting the viewpoint that exclusive homosexuality/lack of heterosexuality is normal, natural, and beneficial from an evolutionary viewpoint. Before people jump on me calling me a self-hating gay, really think objectively about this. I accept myself and have no problems being gay. Believe me it was a tough road. But I am also open-minded and wouldn't feel that my equal rights or self esteem would be threatened if someone said it wasn't natural from an evolutionary viewpoint.
     
  2. IanGallagher

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I fly as much as Superman
    The evolutionary stand-point really ends with this:

    If that was the case, what is evolutionary about a man and woman who can't have a child?

    As a bisexual, yes homosexuals have a reason to be here. What the reason is. I do not know. Perhaps it might be to help the world continue to go round, keep the population in check, and be among the best possible parents for children who are desperately seeking a home. God doesn't make 'mistakes,' thus there's bound to be a reason for it.

    Also men have been sleeping with other men since the beginning of time. Just people didn't understand it back then, just like some don't understand it now. Thus a different form or 'witch hunt' form of reaction just like to others that are not "perceived" as the norm. So unless the cro-magnons diverged sexually over-time, which doesn't seem to be their way - they seem more likely to be trisexuals - I doubt it was an evolutionary form there either.
     
    #2 IanGallagher, Jan 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  3. Spatula

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Southeast US
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    What you feel towards men is what straight women feel towards men. That is what allows 97% of them to be eager and willing to do things which could lead to getting pregnant and having offspring.

    It is just a random fluke that the genes that caused that attraction were turned on for you. For the vast majority of the species, those are the genes for opposite-sex attraction and they are essential to the survival of the species.

    Evolution just can't eliminate cases where the wrong set of genes for attraction are activated. It's something that happens a certain percentage of the time, and as long as that percentage is low enough for the species to meet its replacement quota, then everything is fine.
     
  4. OMGWTFBBQ

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    Out Status:
    A few people
    l agree with you mostly. Did something go wrong? Maybe.

    Nature has it's funny little ways of doing things. In some families where inbreeding is common, incidents like infant mortality and maternal death at birth are observed, it's assumed these act as a way to end this family line because of the multiple problems that could arise from inbreeding.

    There are various forms of population control in nature, including disease. The population control argument for strict homosexuals makes enough sense to me. l'm not offering it as proof and l'm sure there are aspects of it l haven't considered.

    Interestingly, left hand people are very often at an increased rate of certain autoimmune diseases as well as mental illness(frequently more severe disorders like schizophrenia and various learning disabilities), left handedness is seen more frequently among LGBT.

    l have many of these issues within my own family, more specifically the side of the family with other gays on it.

    lt might be an easy theory to accept because it makes you think you don't have to really consider if something environmental made you gay but the more that l do observe other families like mine now, most specifically those with one distinct disorder that keeps recurring and isn't super common among the population, l do see a similar pattern in their family with one(or more) of the children of an affected parent or grandparent being totally gay.

    lt might also explain why one twin out of a set is homosexual at a pretty high rate.

    Obviously some people who are totally gay come from families without these issues but more often l meet ones who do, or have some genetic oddity that you wouldn't expect.

    That's my situation and the more l read about certain rates of disorders within LGBT and other odd traits that seem to pop up more frequently l don't discredit it.
     
    #4 OMGWTFBBQ, Jan 30, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  5. ForceAndVerve

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do also believe that deviation from heterosexuality is something similar to a person being born with eczema or being left handed, only the proportion of those being born with such traits varies.

    I'm no expert but clearly our biology is geared, like every other species, towards procreation and the continuation of the species. Therefore it makes little sense for nature to WANT a number of us to be incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex.

    As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is just a hiccup in the photocopying process. Something that occurs completely naturally but is, alas, unintended.
     
  6. OMGWTFBBQ

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Yea, this could be just as true. lt makes me a little more sad because in this case if scientists ever figured out a way to correct this, our kind would be gone forever :frowning2:

    So, it isn't as validating in the sense that it provides no real justification for our existence and implies that we could be straight if not for one tiny, genetic tweak and that we aren't at all different from them, or special :roflmao:

    But, l am pretty serious about keeping an open mind toward any of the theories and trying not to cling to the ones that are the most validating.
     
  7. ForceAndVerve

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes! I mean what I posted was what only made most sense to me. I am also completely open to any theory that has some weight behind it. :icon_bigg
     
  8. cm81990

    cm81990 Guest

    I do agree with this mostly, but not so much the left handedness comparison. Left handedness does not limit you in anyway. However, exclusive homosexuality in an early primitive human society would (e.g. spreading your genes to the next generation).

    Personally, I do not believe people are 100% born with a sexual orientation. In fact, they have failed to even find a "gay" gene. There appears to be a very complex interaction between nature and nurture going on. For example, when I started puberty, I was sexually attracted to the opposite sex. By the end of puberty, that attraction faded away and was replaced by same sex. If I was born gay, why did I experience crushes on girls as a kid and thought of them sexually around puberty? This kind of goes off topic but I guess it relates back to where does exclusive homosexuality come from and what in the world are the advantages of it?

    ---------- Post added 30th Jan 2013 at 12:22 PM ----------

    Being open minded it great! But people do get very sensitive and uptight on this subject. This has nothing to do with equal rights or trying to eliminate gay people. We're humans. We're curious for answers. They tried to find a gay gene back in 1993... no success. The brain studies by Simon LeVay in 1991 have had several flaws and did not answer the question on whether or not the brain differences between straight and gay men existed at birth or developed throughout life. Neuroplasticity of the brain is a very interesting topic. For example, some people who felt they were 100% straight their entire lives one day falls for someone of the same sex.
     
  9. ForceAndVerve

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ye I guess using left handedness as an example for my argument wasn't the best idea. I guess what I was trying to say is that sexuality is a deviation from the norm or what has preceded. Things like hair/eye colour, inherent health problems etc?

    And yes, I think the same can be applied to varying or "fluid" sexualities that can change over time. Although I will concede that there could very well be some environmental factor that is causing your sexuality to change.

    Again, this is just what makes the most sense to me. I'm not saying I'm right.
     
  10. cm81990

    cm81990 Guest

    Hmm, I wonder if both exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality are caused by environmental factors? Maybe someone can be born with a "predisposition" to lean gay or lean straight, but it's the environment that pushes it to the extreme polar ends. We may actually all been born as some variation of bisexual and the environment could have pushed many of us to the extreme ends. I don't want to get into the Freudian domineering mother/distant father psychobabble lol. Although I fit that story sort of haha. Just a theory.
     
  11. ForceAndVerve

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well that is quite the theory! :lol:

    And ye, as much as I hate to admit it, I too have an overbearing mother and an distance father. :dry:
     
  12. pirko

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Straight
    (First of all, greets from Croatia...)

    I am stucked in my argumentation with friend and I am in need of fresh perspective... :slight_smile:
    It seems to me he made some convincing arguments which left me contemplaiting about it...

    So here it is;

    Basic function of sexuality is reproduction (in Marxist terms its base) and everything else about our sexuality is superstructure. He acknowledges sexual pleasure as motivation for reproduction in evolutionary sense and does not condemn non-reproductive sex as something wrong or not permissible. "Nature vs. nurture" is not point of despute. Also he points out that on level of human anatomy we evolved to reproduce in penile-vaginal way (matter of compatibility).

    As result he see homosexuality as misdirected object of sexual attraction toward member of same sex because if basic function of sexuality is reproduction, homosexuality is in some sense disfunction or disorder of attraction. To quote him; "How can it be (normal), when it direct person to have affection toward member of same sex."

    To put it shortly; it is not variation, its disfunction.

    Any thoughts?
     
  13. PrinceOfAvalon

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Missouri, U.S.A.... in a town no one knows of lol
    There are a few recent-ish reports that say for Homosexual (exclusive) males, it has been shown to be Sexually Antagonistic, in that the attraction to males can cause a high fecundity (reproduction rate sort of) in females.(which is a seperate matter, now there's more evidence linking it to Epi-genetics and not Genetics)
    Its kind of a benefit one, "hurt" the other sort of thing.

    Of course, its just 1 study

    There is also the idea of romantic orientation to consider. Personally, I think a ton more people than would admit are biromantic. As far as I know, there is nothing in our genes that actively Limits a person from being attracted to anyone of the same sex (even remotely, romantically only, or sexually if you'd go there). You can only want to have sex with women as a man, but still be able to be very close to another man romantically. It wouldn't change your orientation per say as well.

    I personally wouldn't say homosexuality is a "misdirected object of sexual attraction" scenario. Homosexuality is defined as the romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex (or gender)

    You don't necessarily need to be sexually attracted to a woman to reproduce. Gay men reproduce with women even today, and they did in the past. (albeit for different purposes sometimes)

    I think yes, Penile-Vaginal evolution was key because literally, only women can have eggs and men with sperm. Sperm -> Egg = Baby, so thats simply how that works. For the record, I don't think Orientation is something related. The ability to reproduce is important, but the drive to do so is not as important. Typically males have higher sex drives in general, so there's the "drive" - with pleasure as an incentive for reproduction. This is where the fact that homosexual males have a drive to have sex - with other men. The want to have sex is normal, and on a seperate level, the attraction to a male is normal. Whether or not a man wanting to have sex with another man seeing as it does not lead to reproduction is "normal" or not is imo (lol) an opinion.

    The fact that sex among certain creatures has evolved to become pleasurable as an incentive might be part of the "problem". Homosexuals are attracted to males, either romantically, sexually, etc. etc. and combinations are possible ofc. Sex is pleasurable, we as humans know that. The male instinct to have sex is still there. So yeah, gay men can "naturally" have sex with other men because they are driven to do so by their own instincts. The only part that really doesnt add up is that it doesn't lead to reproduction.

    Then again if some sort of plan works, but there are skewed, neutral or positive "side-effects" of this said plan happening... Does that make them unnatural? Unintended? yes, but unnatural is a bit of a stretch to me, especially when the phenomenon is documented in nature. Further more, is there a point? Does unnatural necessarily equate to "Not Good"? In the case of homosexuality, it doesn't really harm people who are not homosexuality.(if so, its their problem, im talking biologically here lol) It's a neutral thing, which creates a bit of variation (a good thing... even though its not a new species or anything lol) in the world.

    If you believe in the Sexually Antagonistic Selection theory I posted briefly at the top of this post, then it is even more natural, as it serves a purpose. Epi-genetics also talks about how the epi-marks that pass on the gene from the opposite sex parent through generations keeps them safe from under/over exposure to testosterone in the womb, which again, is beneficial.

    The birth order theory also says that the more children a woman has, the more her body builds protection from the foreign "non-female" object, and attempts to feminize it. That doesnt mean it would make them be into "girly" stuff like shopping and what not, but rather the attraction and actual natural female impulses can be apparent.... Obv, it various immensely. Things like shopping, getting your hair done, wearing heels etc. etc. aren't in our DNA, but are simply social constructs we've created.

    There is a little truth to all of these theories, but the epi-genetic one seems to have the most backing and is the most recent from what I read.


    Im probably way over thinking this, but I've got one more thing about the biromance idea :slight_smile:

    I know several straight men who have had very close relationships with other guys. They were never sexual, or "romantic" in the sense of dating, but still its an attraction. What we interpret as a romantic attraction can simply be a "bromance" between guys as in theres not anything sexual involved. Homosexuality is any sort of romantic or sexual attraction (this depends on your definition of Romantic and Love. Friends can be romantic and not be in love.) between the same sex, where as Gay or homosexual as an orientation is about having a predisposition to these attractions compared to those to the opposite sex. (And sometimes, the lack of attraction to the opposite) You can have "homosexual" feelings towards another man, and not be Gay (orientation). Same with women, sorry there are a lot of theories that support male sexuality... its not fair, but some day, sorry guys.. (or should I say girls )

    In this romantic sense, I actually think "Romantic" attractions to all people are perfectly normal. In that i mean, a straight man can fall in "Love" with another straight man. Neither of them are gay, and its perfectly normal. Society has made us think that "Love" is for two people of opposite genders, or two creatures, so we like to think "We are just very very close friends - bromance like lol" But I've known plenty of guy friends who have been in "Love" and are straight. They never had wants to experiment with the other sexually, or try dating. Just a very intense, close friendship with no sexual tension or romantic. I would almost go to say that those sorts of relationships are possible for any gender/sex and between any gender/sex.. That is if your emotionally capable of being that close to someone.

    Im ranting now, I hope you found an answer somewhere in here, I was tired and losing track of my thoughts if you couldn't tell here :slight_smile: I'm going to sleep now, good night! ^_^
     
    #13 PrinceOfAvalon, Jun 20, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2013
  14. Linthras

    Linthras Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Leeuwarden (FR), the Netherlands
    Ok just to clear this one important thing up:
    Nature doesn't do teleology.
    There is no function or purpose for things.
    Evolution is not a concious entity working towards any goals.

    Hence any questions about the purpose of homosexuality or whether it's an error, is nonsensical.
     
  15. Fiddledeedee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    Exclusively male members of a species which cannot reproduce asexually would be an evolutionary dead-end. However, that doesn't mean that being male is bad -- it just means that you need females as well.

    Exclusively homosexual members of a species which cannot reproduce asexually would be an evolutionary dead-end. However, that doesn't mean that being homosexual is bad -- it just means that you need heterosexuals as well.

    This is. Mothers with gay male relatives generally have more children than mothers without gay male relatives.

    They haven't failed completely at finding a gay gene, it's just that it's complicated and more research is needed. Here are a couple parts of the puzzle.

    This study looked at female mice, breeding ones with a certain mutation that meant that they lacked a gene. The result was that female mice exhibited masculine behaviour, including acting sexually with other female mice. Again, this was a study about a gene, so it's fairly clear that there are some genetic factors.

    Interesting. This is a much more recent study from a Stockholm group. It found brain differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and concluded that these could not be primarily ascribed to learned effects.

    Hi there!

    Hm. First of all, just because something has evolved with one function doesn't mean that it can't be used for another; same-sex sex, whilst not beneficial to reproduction, is not invalid. Secondly, see above about mothers with gay relatives having the benefit of more children. Although the attraction itself might be considered dysfunctional for the individual gay man, when taken in a wider context it is not a bad thing.
     
  16. pirko

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Straight
    Hi Fid,

    I argued that while homosexual orientation steer person to person of same sex, it doesn't automatically mean person doesn't have (or that it somehow overrides that) urge to reproduce and spread his gene and that person have sexual urges. He agreed with that point but still leaves me with problem of ones "object of desire\attraction"; like he said, attraction toward member of opposite sex is evolutionary mechanism developed (not with intention from higher conscience, it stayed because is evolutionary beneficial) for reproductive purpose and in that sense, attraction to member of same sex is malfunction of that mechanism. If so..then attraction is not variation but malfunction. As I see it, I could argue that it is not beneficial, rather it is not detrimental and that is why it stayed present in our species.

    I suppose for his argumentation to be so effective, it must pre require that I accept one of his premises that basic (or even sole) purpose of sex is reproduction and rest is "mean to an end".

    I am familiar with that hypothesis but we are arguing on level of individual.

    (Hope my grammar and spelling is not bad that it makes impossible to understand what I mean, I speak English as third language. :slight_smile: )
     
  17. King

    King Guest

    Evolutionarily, I agree.

    I won't get into the specifics of why lesbians and gay men are an evolutionary dead-end. But in terms of how lesbians and gay men have a role in evolution, I've been told that we help raise the children of a group. Because back in the caveman days when there were children and the father wasn't really around (because there wasn't really a need for him to be), gay men would help raise the children with the women so it was generally less work for a woman to raise a child single-handedly. Gay men also (apparently) helped to keep things running smoothly in that since they weren't having kids (as our instinct is to reproduce), they were just sort of... there, so they would help and tend to the sick and help build shelters and stuff.

    So gay men (and lesbians) sort of moderate things from an evolutionary standpoint. In one way, we're just there to help make sure our species stays safe/healthy/etc.
     
  18. Linthras

    Linthras Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Leeuwarden (FR), the Netherlands
    Homosexuality is a variation.
    Everything is a variation of the original model.
    It isn't a dysfunction either.
     
  19. LionsAndShadows

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Various bits of Europe
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    I agree with Linthras, its variation not dysfunction. Even if the primal drive is to reproduce it would be very odd if there was never any variation from that primacy in a very large population.

    Statistically Kinsey 6 exclusive homosexuals make up a pretty small proportion of the population of both genders.

    Speaking from personal experience - and I believe personal experience counts for more than statistical analysis or evolutionary theory - I consider my exclusive homosexuality to have developed in a highly complex way in early childhood from a unique mix of genetic and environmental factors. The mix that makes me gay is not necessarily the same mix that makes you gay.

    Another observation: I have never felt any sense of a need to reproduce.
     
  20. BudderMC

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I agree and disagree, based on what I've learned from my human sexuality class. I guess you could say I agree with the general idea of what you're saying, but disagree in some of the reasoning (or rather, wish to elaborate).

    The evolutionary theory says that all creatures want to reproduce with the best mates possible in order to have better offspring, so their genes can be superior. Easy enough for heterosexuals - many of the physiological facets of attraction between men and women are developed to help humans identify the "best" mates from a reproductive standpoint.

    For homosexuals, those physiological signs of attraction are meaningless because two people of the same sex are unable to produce offspring. Studies show that homosexuals are more likely to engage in altruistic behaviour for their kin than heterosexuals are. It's been theorized that by helping their kin (ex. in raising children), there's some instinctive drive to help "pass on their genes". The genes of their nephews and nieces may not be the exact genes of the homosexual person in question, but they do still share a lot of the genetic features in question, making it their best chance of carrying their genes forward into future generations.

    Of course, a lot of this is resolved nowadays since there are technologies in place (beyond using a simple surrogate) for homosexuals to have their own children. But since we're discussing an evolutionary standpoint, that's how it is, AFAIK.