|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 17:32] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear!
There's a strong case that can be made that homosexual behaviour, and even a preference for homosexual behaviour, is explicable in terms of 'evolution by natural selection'. Unfortunately, the author dismally fails to make it.
She seems to have read no work on evolutionary biology published since Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. This puts her in precisely the position of someone whose knowledge of physics stops with Newtonian mechanics trying to talk about astrophysics in complete ignorance of Einstein's theories of General Relativity.
I could write several pages. But I'll try to be brief.
"For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn't only about multiplying." Utter crap! As just one example, many species use sexual mounting as an expression of dominance: in a yardful of only female chickens, the dominant hen will often mount subservient hens (and may develop some male secondary sexual characteristics like an enlarged comb). This is pretty basic stuff, known and accepted by almost anyone who has studied any kind of animal behaviour.
"Darwin's hypothesis was typically brilliant: The peacocks did it for the sake of reproduction. The male's fancy tail entranced the staid peahen. Darwin used this idea to explain the biological quirks that natural selection couldn't explain. If a trait wasn't in the service of survival, then it was probably in the service of seduction. Furthermore, the mechanics of sex helped explain why the genders were so different. Because eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap, "Males of almost all animals have stronger passions than females,"" Eggs are cheap compared to parental care! A major sexual dimorphism, where one sex is significantly larger, or has much larger tail / antlers / whatever occurs practically always where one sex carries a much larger burden of parental care than the other. If the male is actively involved in feeding the offspring, he's unlikely to have the spare energy to devote to growing showy bits! Again, this is absolutely basic stuff.
"Roughgarden's first order of business was proving that homosexuality isn't a maladaptive trait. At first glance, this seems like a futile endeavor. Being gay clearly makes individuals less likely to pass on their genes, a major biological faux pas. From the perspective of evolution, homosexual behavior has always been a genetic dead end, something that has to be explained away." Words fail me. There's a basic understanding that ought to be gained in 4th-form biology ... it isn't necessarily about passing on one's own genes, but about genes being perpetrated. So it makes perfect sense in some situations to be willing to die to protect close relatives who share many of one's genes. It makes perfect sense even to be sterile ... as so many of the workers in groups of social insects are: the genes they have are also possessed by the Queen, who they look after in order that she may pass on the genes.
"Since Roughgarden believes that the hetero/homo distinction is a purely cultural creation, and not a fact of biology, she thinks it is only a matter of time before we return to the standard primate model. "I'm convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It's just such hard work." Oh, gee, so I'm campy and flamboyant, am I? And the number of human societies who have in some way recognised and formalised recognition of those who are preferentially attracted to the same sex have all got it wrong? While I'd agree that very few people are really 100% homo or hetero to the point of being unable to function with the non-preferred sex, the list of human societies through geography and history where people were prepared to risk imprisonment, death, or worse in order to have same-sex relationships argues pretty strongly that at least some humans can't just switch to heterosexuality as an option!
"If Darwinian sexual selection—whatever its current variant—is to survive, it must adapt to this new data and come up with convincing explanations for why a host of animals just aren't like peacocks." It has.
I'm sorry, that article really got my goat. The argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is one of the most potent ones used by (non-fundamentalist) bigots and homophobes. It can be effectively countered by reference to contemporary ethology and evolutionary theory. This article does not help!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 17:32] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Michael,
I believe you missed NW's point. This scientist is unable to account for the men and women who are strictly homosexual, even saying that they don't truly exist. "You will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay." If you consider human beings as primates then her assertions are obviously false.
If my strict homosexuality is simply a "cultural creation" rather than a fact, then I should be able to alter my behaviour and engage in sexual intercourse with a woman. I spent the first forty years of my life attempting to do just that, to change my "natural" homosexual tendencies to heterosexual or at least bisexual urges. All that this accomplished was to keep me in the closet all that time and be miserable and to still be gay. Sorry bud, it just doesn't wash.
You state "She believes that it is our culture that has driven men and women to behavior indicative of the extremes [homo or hetero]." How does culture create a strictly homosexual man or woman? Our culture is adamantly anti-homosexual - at least it was when I was growing up. Culture would seem to want to force homosexuals into bi-sexuality, in order to adapt.
By the way, NW, I am in total concurrence with your statement that..."it makes perfect sense in some situations to be willing to die to protect close relatives who share many of one's genes. It makes perfect sense even to be sterile ... as so many of the workers in groups of social insects are: the genes they have are also possessed by the Queen, who they look after in order that she may pass on the genes." Bravo... well put.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fingolfin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Slovakia
Registered: August 2008
Messages: 265
|
|
|
Well, my educational background is not connected with biology, but what seems logical is, that most people are naturally bisexual with their own tendencies to act either gay or straight. That would make several percent of exclusive gays(lesbians) and exclusive straights with the majority somewhere inbetween. I think I can agree with her (him?) that the culture or the conditions we live in push many natural bisexuals towards living an exlusively straight life. Therefore it seems that GLBTs are a minority, somehow different in this "straight" world.
Marek
It is better to switch on a small light than to curse the darkness.
- Vincent Šikula, Slovak writer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I totally agree with Michael and the sentiment of the original article.
I believe you are wrong in thinking a hetero-dominant society is inclined to push homo-preferring people towards bisexuality rather than homosexuality. I see it as the total opposite.
For straight, Christian society to survive it can't acknowledge people as bisexual. Gays have to either be immoral, sinners; or in recent times, outliers- a small part of society that most people have no connection to. The argument that we are somehow biologically different is one that actually ostracises us and helps keep us different, rather than leading to integration.
For a while I've been adamantly against the argument that being gay is biological. I think that is an argument that has been put forward by the queer community to try and justify being gay. If being gay is biological, then it can't be something we should be judged for! But I think homosexual activity definitely IS a choice and it's not even a wrong choice! It's a fun, great and wonderful choice- I don't want to have to justify my lifestyle. It's what I prefer for WHATEVER reason, and I live the way I want to live.
I want to have kids. My own kids. I would have sex with a female if it meant having children. Yes, I like living with a male and sleeping with a male. But I'd have sex with a female to reproduce and have kids of my own. That bisexuality as the author is talking about. I don't know if you have kids or not, Paul, but I think even most gay men still want to pass on their genes, not just be sterile worker ants...
As for how someone could be bisexual rather than homosexual when for years they have tried and failed to be attracted to women? I think it's kind of like when you're a kid, if you are forced to eat broccoli you will hate it the rest of your life; but if you grow up without your parents forcing you to eat it, then you'll be more receptive to it as an adult.
I think perhaps, Paul, you don't like females because you've felt for so long that you had to. If you'd felt "allowed" to be with guys from the start you might be more like me and have had some level of bisexuality grow naturally. I'm still attracted mainly to guys, but I don't feel averse to females, indeed if it was for the sake of having my own children, I could definitely tolerate being with one, at least sexually.
Bisexuality seems to be the norm in the animal kingdom and even throughout human history it is only post Victorian-era homosexuality that has shown itself to be more about the hetero-homo binary. The current model of sexuality definitely seems to be the anomaly.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Michael,
I've read your post and others' and certainly can see how having a proportion of homosexuals in a community can give a advantage.
I'm also quite sure that if people behaved as their instincts urge them to there would be a lot more people admitting to bisexuality - when I was in the navy, many heterosexuals had fun with other men.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the book by Bruce Bagemihl, "Biological Exuberance", in which he documents a great many instances of animal and bird homosexual observed behaviour and speculates on how it must be something naturally selected for.
And, of course I am an animal too and if you include birds and fish and insects then who else is there to have sexual fun?
It' only mad people who think people aren't animals!
Love,
Anthony
PS No, I've never pleasured a sheep!
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
