New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Homosexuality in nature.

Corruptbuddha

Corruptbuddha

Governor
Yesterday I started a thread on the moral center of America and got a huge numbers of great responses. One of which intrigued me. Craig (bless his heart) mentioned that homosexuality occurs in nature in hundreds of species.

The question is...why?

Nature doesn't normally do things for no net gain. But homosexuality itself appears to be an evolutionary dead end. According to some scientists " It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."

Unless it isn't a dead end. There is a train of thought that this behavior is a form of conflict reolution or even a prepubescent phase leading up to normal sexual maturity.


Some questions that I have, though, is that if it is beneficial, why does it seem to effect only a small portion of any species...including humans? Also, is this behavior in animals learned or innate? And if it is a side effect, what could it be a side effect of?

Could it be a form of population control? A genetic response that keeps members of a species from mating? I wonder if homosexual behavior goes up in times of drought or famine and goes down in time of plenty.


Fascinating.
 
I'm just your friendly neighborhood chemist/chemical engineer, CB. I'm no expert. However, intuitively I find it an intellectual hazard to attribute what is natural across differing species, extrapolating it to man, and calling that "normal", "natural", or "beneficial".

A common trait of many dogs is that they...well...like to, uhh, "engage" your leg. It is not a rarity, nor is it limited to just a certain age, breed or temperament. Is this an extrapolative criterion by which we should declare that leg-humping is natural and an individual choice or lifestyle? I think not. My intent here is not ridicule or belittle anyone. I do admittedly have a very specific moral view regarding homosexual conduct that derives from my larger valus system and faith. That is my view, I affix it to the living of my life and that of my family, and do not seek to legislate it. Setting aside my personal view, the assertion that it is "natural" or "normal" cannot be objectively made - and certainly not on the extrapolated basis of other creatures. I intend no slight or equivalence between the behavior of leg familiarity with homosexuality. I use it only to illustrate that what occurs in part of nature cannot necessarily be projected across all of it.

We ought to concern ourselves with the basic pragmatic consideration of whether or not laws are properly made by government to specifically forbid, grant, allow, and/or promote specific behaviors - and consider policy based on that alone. If you can't tell, I don't much fancy the notion of a governor, flanked by legislators, ceremonially signing leg-humping legislation.

Let us keep our heads clear. :)
 
Perhaps I should take another tack. I'm not interested the societal version of the homosexual debate. Rather the scientific and evolutionary reason for it's existence. Like you, I mean no insult to anyone of any sexual proclivity.

The question I have is simple. What is the evolutionary purpose of homosexual behavior in animals and humans in a pure biological framework?

(God forbid someone should come along in the next few posts and accuse me of being homophobic.)
 
RickWA said:
I'm just your friendly neighborhood chemist/chemical engineer, CB. I'm no expert. However, intuitively I find it an intellectual hazard to attribute what is natural across differing species, extrapolating it to man, and calling that "normal", "natural", or "beneficial".

A common trait of many dogs is that they...well...like to, uhh, "engage" your leg. It is not a rarity, nor is it limited to just a certain age, breed or temperament. Is this an extrapolative criterion by which we should declare that leg-humping is natural and an individual choice or lifestyle? I think not. My intent here is not ridicule or belittle anyone. I do admittedly have a very specific moral view regarding homosexual conduct that derives from my larger valus system and faith. That is my view, I affix it to the living of my life and that of my family, and do not seek to legislate it. Setting aside my personal view, the assertion that it is "natural" or "normal" cannot be objectively made - and certainly not on the extrapolated basis of other creatures. I intend no slight or equivalence between the behavior of leg familiarity with homosexuality. I use it only to illustrate that what occurs in part of nature cannot necessarily be projected across all of it.

We ought to concern ourselves with the basic pragmatic consideration of whether or not laws are properly made by government to specifically forbid, grant, allow, and/or promote specific behaviors - and consider policy based on that alone. If you can't tell, I don't much fancy the notion of a governor, flanked by legislators, ceremonially signing leg-humping legislation.

Let us keep our heads clear. :)
Click to expand...

Well...leg humping is all too often a public display of affection...and we can agree we don't need to see too much of that.

I do believe one can take what occurs in nature and consider it natural. Possibly because that what the word means. You admit your view comes from your faith. I lack that, so my view must come from elsewhere. So...it comes from observation. If 1,500 species engage in the behavior, it would appear to me conclusively natural.

Indeed, homosexuality is so normal...it had to be condemned thousands of years ago...
 
Corruptbuddha said:
Yesterday I started a thread on the moral center of America and got a huge numbers of great responses. One of which intrigued me. Craig (bless his heart) mentioned that homosexuality occurs in nature in hundreds of species.

The question is...why?

Nature doesn't normally do things for no net gain. But homosexuality itself appears to be an evolutionary dead end. According to some scientists " It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."

Unless it isn't a dead end. There is a train of thought that this behavior is a form of conflict reolution or even a prepubescent phase leading up to normal sexual maturity.


Some questions that I have, though, is that if it is beneficial, why does it seem to effect only a small portion of any species...including humans? Also, is this behavior in animals learned or innate? And if it is a side effect, what could it be a side effect of?

Could it be a form of population control? A genetic response that keeps members of a species from mating? I wonder if homosexual behavior goes up in times of drought or famine and goes down in time of plenty.


Fascinating.
Click to expand...

I believe you hit on the main reasons, but we don't know. We just know it happens. Primates definitely use it for conflict resolution...Bonobos lives are just one big orgy...
 
Another COOL subject.

My wife is left handed...is it just a random genetic glitch? And what purpose does it serve?

Do these glitches come up as part of the whole natural selection process as Nature decides what works and what doesn't'?

Or could left handedness be beneficial in mate selection?
 
While I was reading this stuff last night, I discovered that Bonobos are actually our closest living relative...not chimps.

Who knew?
 
Once the government starts making "special" laws regarding homosexuality, it relegates that behavior as something that's not normal, since normal behaviors receive no "special" laws.
 
Again, Jen...we're talking about evolutionary reasons for this behavior...not it's impact on politics. (That's why I posted in General)


*Is this self moderating? I hope not*
 
Since your post isn't gushing lovingly about the merits of homosexuality, I'm sure that someone will find it homophobic. That's just what happens.

The scenario I see as most logically reached is that it is a prepubescent phase that is (for some unknown reason) never progressed beyond. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's an environmental reason, a chemical reason or something else. But children almost all go through the phase that dictates that the opposite gender has kooties. If someone remains at that age.......... homosexuality occurs. Maybe there is a scientific need for it for population control.... so a portion of every species doesn't progress beyond that prepubescent phase. It would make sense.


Corruptbuddha said:
Perhaps I should take another tack. I'm not interested the societal version of the homosexual debate. Rather the scientific and evolutionary reason for it's existence. Like you, I mean no insult to anyone of any sexual proclivity.

The question I have is simple. What is the evolutionary purpose of homosexual behavior in animals and humans in a pure biological framework?

(God forbid someone should come along in the next few posts and accuse me of being homophobic.)
Click to expand...
 
Understood, CB. And I spoke to that in another response (at least I hope I spoke to that). But sometimes a political/ legal status needs to be established in order to go forward. I wasn't trying to change the subject.

Corruptbuddha said:
Again, Jen...we're talking about evolutionary reasons for this behavior...not it's impact on politics. (That's why I posted in General)


*Is this self moderating? I hope not*
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, there's a vid on YouTube that mentioned the population control aspect.

Julie mentioned that perhaps it's like being left-handed...just something that 'is' with no real explanation.
 
Fascinating indeed. What behavior, specifically, is Craig claiming that nature (or animals) endulge in? Sodomy?

If so, that's news to me.

I'd like to see some proof....VISUAL proof....of that claim. Anything else is just BS and speculation, IMO.
 
Very interesting subject. I feel it has to do with the devolpment of the brain just like being left handed does. I also feel homosexuality is nature way of making some of us differnt from the pack just the colouring of our skin.

Decent thread mate.
 
Well...leg humping is all too often a public display of affection...and we can agree we don't need to see too much of that.
I do believe one can take what occurs in nature and consider it natural. Possibly because that what the word means. You admit your view comes from your faith. I lack that, so my view must come from elsewhere. So...it comes from observation. If 1,500 species engage in the behavior, it would appear to me conclusively natural.

Way to cherry-pick, Craig. The totality of my argument is that what is natural to part of nature is not properly extrapolated to other parts of nature. Why can we not discuss things in good faith, at face value, without direct context-mutilation. We are too smart for that. What's more, we are too good for that. :)

Indeed, homosexuality is so normal...it had to be condemned thousands of years ago...

Apparently it is "natural" and "normal" to a distinct tiny subset of the population. As is it's vehement opposition. Make of that what you will. I'm not arguing for it or against it. I am arguing for pragmatic state policy which relies on practical and constitutional consideration of state power rather than "legitimizing" or "de-legitimizing" behaviors and values. We should make law based on reason.
 
Actually it's been observed by scientists. Granted only in a small set of the species listed in the links. But it has been observed.
 
Why does it matter in the first place? Most people are straight. Few happen to be gay. THE WORLD KEEPS MOVING.
 
As I understand it, some differences (like left handedness and blue eyes) are attempts to make a person more attractive to the opposite sex. What gets me is that if homosexuality is an example of mate selection differences....how is it suppose to work?
 
The same reason we seek to discover why some people have one green eye and one blue.

Because of intellectual curiosity if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top