[Discussion] What is the reason for homosexuality?

[Elio]

I gain pleasure from ****ing men.

 

[Kyoto Samurai]

These type of threads are always a cluster**** ~_~

 

[Dave]

That doesn't make sense. It would make more sense if you turned bisexual because in a survival point of view homosexuality is a disadvantage. Also what does it mean by "sexual behavior a means to an end for reproduction".

You didn't read this properly then. What this article is trying to get at is that even know you cannot reproduce there still advantages in that family unit. The person with the professional degree from the University is trying to state that it is trying to strength in the family through bonds. You don't only see this in humans but this is also very relevant dogs primates and such other social creatures that live in families or packs.

 

[Son Ryuto Uzumaki]

Well first off the first tactics White invaders used were sexual to disrupt the moral standards of the people they conquer, so in saying that during Slavery the slave master would force the sons to **** the mother since the term Mother****er (yes it came from slavery), friends forced to have *** with each other wives, men being penetrated my instruments and other men, to men and the slave master raping the little boys and making them act like girls to prevent a uprising, so for black people homosexuality is a mental conditioning stemming from a form of oppression. But for some reason White people have always been very sexual, whether it's ****ing goats to marrying horses

 

[Multiply]

Well I find it funny how you are bringing up evolution and then complain about "white privellage" bad police. Supporting the phrase "black lives matter" if we add evolution to this we should say oh well survival of the fittest.

You must be registered for see images

What do we exist for? What on earth makes you think we need a reason to exist? If we all died out tomorrow the universe would not notice. Humans are still here because enough of them have *** in a way that makes children yes but there are many things we do that does not make children and yet we are still here.

Condoms, oral ***, abortion and homosexuality have been around for a long time and yet our population growth is getting faster not slower.

The general reason for our existence is to reproduce. That is why we are here. How can you argue this?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

It sounds like you do not understand evolution. It's not like every single part of every single creature needs to have a positive effect in some way for evolution to allow it. What is the benefit for the human wisdom teeth? There is no benefit, it's just a relic from our ape ancestors... But as it does not get in the way of us surviving the trait is carried on along with everything that does work.

I never said it was a choice, but what is the evolutionary reason for it? Evolutionary population control?

Guys, guys! You gotta wait for a Biologist to answer these questions (edits will happen in this post)

Homosexuality has been identified mostly in tribal, societal creatures, and more rarely in solitary, polygamous creatures. Obviously the issue with heterosexuality in tribes is competition, and that is almost always the case with Evolution. Those who dared to come upon another's mate or hopeful mate will be subject to competition, which may result in death or excommunication from a tribe. Those who succeeded in heterosexual unity may have had jealous hopefuls who did not succeed, and thus excommunicated or killed the offspring.

So what does homosexuality have in store? No competition from others who may kill you for attempting to come upon their mate. So how does homosexuality become a benefit in a society? Homosexuals obviously will support their clans, excluded from this so-called competition, not allowing any harm to come to the offspring of those who aren't homosexuals. This is mostly the case of the sisters of homosexuals, the uncles will protect their sister's offspring while the father hunts, as was the jobs of the men in the Hunter-Gatherer days.

How did this turn out well for society with homosexual family members in tow? The families survived longer and the heterosexual swingers survived long enough to reproduce (I think that was one of the questions someone was asking). Thus the families with homosexual members passed on through the generations, as is the creed of Evolution. Ergo, the gene(s) for homosexuality passed through the generations because it has been a benefit for the entire clan/tribe.

Editing finished!

 

[King Kendrick]

I believe homosexuality is a mental condition. Just a theory for now.


Some heterosexual females and males can't have babies or reproduce... So saying they "benefit" society weakens your argument.

People are looking for excuses for homosexuals to not engage in one another when they are other factors that "benefit" society like adoption or sperm donor.

Why do we accept homosexuality? It is because we are all human and all complicated beings.

Science somewhat agrees with your theory .

In the 1991 study by neuroscientist Simon LeVay finding that a region in the hypothalamus related to sexuality known as INAH3 is smaller in gay men and women than it is in straight men. The following year, investigators at UCLA found that another brain region associated with sexuality, the midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure, is 18% larger in gay men than in straight women and 34% larger than in straight men.

In 1993, one small study suggested a connection between sexual orientation and a section on the X chromosome called Xq28, which could predispose men toward homosexuality. The small size of the study—only 38 pairs of gay brothers—made it less than entirely reliable. But a study released just last year expanded the sample group to 409 pairs of brothers and reached similar conclusions.

Source - TIME Magazine .

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

You didn't read this properly then. What this article is trying to get at is that even know you cannot reproduce there still advantages in that family unit. The person with the professional degree from the University is trying to state that it is trying to strength in the family through bonds. You don't only see this in humans but this is also very relevant dogs primates and such other social creatures that live in families or packs.

I'm still not following. It's not giving advantages to those who cannot reproduce, it's taking away the drive to reproduce. If only infertile people were gay what you are saying would make sense but that's not the case.

It doesn't strengthen any bonds in the family. How is a man only interested in having *** with men gonna have stronger bonds with a family he can't have then a man interested in having *** with women and being able to have kids?

 

[Multiply]

Guys, guys! You gotta wait for a Biologist to answer these questions (edits will happen in this post)

Homosexuality has been identified mostly in tribal, societal creatures, and more rarely in solitary, polygamous creatures. Obviously the issue with heterosexuality in tribes is competition, and that is almost always the case with Evolution. Those who dared to come upon another's mate or hopeful mate will be subject to competition, which may result in death or excommunication from a tribe. Those who succeeded in heterosexual unity may have had jealous hopefuls who did not succeed, and thus excommunicated or killed the offspring.

So this is all to say, those who did not find a mate resorted to homosexuality to pleasure themselves?

 

[Dave]

I'm still not following. It's not giving advantages to those who cannot reproduce, it's taking away the drive to reproduce. If only infertile people were gay what you are saying would make sense but that's not the case.

It doesn't strengthen any bonds in the family. How is a man only interested in having *** with men gonna have stronger bonds with a family he can't have then a man interested in having *** with women and being able to have kids?

I am sorry but I cannot answer this question. I can understand what they are trying to get at because I am in the sciences also but you would need to read the article to find all the answers. This is done by a university so the research is solid. This media station just wrote the basics but it should be more then enough

You must be registered for see links

 

[Umari Senju]

Looks like someone's going for a hot thread :snick:

On Topic: there is no sound explanation for why we do what we do or why we are the way we are. I'm a big believer in the chaos theory. the birth of this planet, from an evelutionary standpoint, is one big chaotic series of event that spawned us and everything that exists here:

so what eveleutionary significance does homosexuality have? Perhaps it is something so benefitial we just haven't discovered it yet. Perhaps it's an evelutionary dead end. Or perhaps there just isn't one. Keep in mind not every heterosexual male or female have children. Does that mean that they too have no evelutionary significance as well?

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Guys, guys! You gotta wait for a Biologist to answer these questions (edits will happen in this post)

Homosexuality has been identified mostly in tribal, societal creatures, and more rarely in solitary, polygamous creatures. Obviously the issue with heterosexuality in tribes is competition, and that is almost always the case with Evolution. Those who dared to come upon another's mate or hopeful mate will be subject to competition, which may result in death or excommunication from a tribe. Those who succeeded in heterosexual unity may have had jealous hopefuls who did not succeed, and thus excommunicated or killed the offspring.

So basically it saves their own skin from competition but they don't continue their legacy with kids. There is no point to that.

Also, there is still competition and jealousy with homosexuals. It's seen with humans.

 

[Multiply]

Looks like someone's going for a hot thread :snick:

On Topic: there is no sound explanation for why we do what we do or why the way we are. I'm a big believer of the chaos theory the birth of this planet from an evelutionary standpoint is one big chaotic series of event that spawned us and everything that exists here:

so what eveleutionary significance does homosexuality have? Perhaps it is something so benefitial we just haven't discovered it yet. Perhaps it's an evelutionary dead end. Or perhaps there just isn't one. Keep in mind not every heterosexual male or female have children. Does that mean that they too have no evelutionary significance as well?

Literally yes. If you aren't passing on your traits, you have no significance on an evolutionary stand point.

I do like the idea that perhaps homosexuality is so beneficial that we have not discovered its benefit. I doubt that's the case, but that could be interesting.

 

[Power Bottom]

You must be registered for see images

The general reason for our existence is to reproduce. That is why we are here. How can you argue this?

What is the reason for it? It doesn't benefit society or humans as a whole.

a human concept that has nothing to do with evolution.

Do you not remember what you posted? You brought up evolution I brought survival of the fittest. Read carefully

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I am sorry but I cannot answer this question. I can understand what they are trying to get at because I am in the sciences also but you would need to read the article to find all the answers. This is done by a university so the research is solid. This media station just wrote the basics but it should be more then enough

You must be registered for see links

They say if you can't explain something to a 6 year old then you don't understand it yourself. It's a simple question. How does it strengthen bonds more so than straight families? Especially considering being gay means there is no family to start with naturally.

What you and the article said would make sense if it was applied to bisexuality but it is not.

 

[King Kendrick]

This might be an answer to OP .

How an individual will lessen his own survival or reproductive opportunities for the benefit of the herd or group. One cockatoo (Cacatua galarita) in the Australian bush will keep watch from a tree while the remainder of the flock eat the farmer’s wheat on the ground. He lessens his survival prospect by screeching loudly when the farmer with shotgun approaches. Such behavior may be entirely instinctive, the result of an inherited pattern of reaction. The concept was formalized by the late W. D. Hamilton in the form of a mathematical formula, known as ‘Hamilton’s Rule’, which may be loosely stated that intrinsic behavior will increase in frequency where the benefit to the total number of related recipients exceeds that of the cost (survival or reproductive cost) to the altruistic individual. This action is seen and is explained in the extreme example of the eusocial insects such as bees and ants where reproduction is entirely forgone by one cast in favor of the reproduction by selected members of the colon.

Homosexual behavior in early human societies may be shown to conform to Hamilton’s Rule. If the reproductive fitness of one individual is sacrificed (say from four offspring to nil) and the surviving offspring of 20 related others is increased from four to five from improved hunting return and nutrition, then there is clearly increased inclusive fitness in that individual’s group.

 

[Multiply]

Do you not remember what you posted? You brought up evolution I brought survival of the fittest. Read carefully

What are you even talking about. You're talking about my views on black lives matter when you don't know my views on black lives matter. :lol.

Humans that don't pass on their traits don't contribute to human evolution. Am I wrong? Is it bad they don't contribute? No. I even stated I had no problems with gays and I actually support them.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

So this is all to say, those who did not find a mate resorted to homosexuality to pleasure themselves?

This is not correct, as the individual does not adapt to their condition, the population does. As generations pass does a situation get adapted to, not immediately.

So basically it saves their own skin from competition but they don't continue their legacy with kids. There is no point to that.

Also, there is still competition and jealousy with homosexuals. It's seen with humans.

You gotta wait for the rest of my post, man I answered the benefits with this outcome later in my post.

As for competition among homosexuals, this is true. However, did any new offspring come from said competition? It did not, not directly, anyways.

 

[LordRaikage]

This might be an answer to OP .

How an individual will lessen his own survival or reproductive opportunities for the benefit of the herd or group. One cockatoo (Cacatua galarita) in the Australian bush will keep watch from a tree while the remainder of the flock eat the farmer’s wheat on the ground. He lessens his survival prospect by screeching loudly when the farmer with shotgun approaches. Such behavior may be entirely instinctive, the result of an inherited pattern of reaction. The concept was formalized by the late W. D. Hamilton in the form of a mathematical formula, known as ‘Hamilton’s Rule’, which may be loosely stated that intrinsic behavior will increase in frequency where the benefit to the total number of related recipients exceeds that of the cost (survival or reproductive cost) to the altruistic individual. This action is seen and is explained in the extreme example of the eusocial insects such as bees and ants where reproduction is entirely forgone by one cast in favor of the reproduction by selected members of the colon.

Homosexual behavior in early human societies may be shown to conform to Hamilton’s Rule. If the reproductive fitness of one individual is sacrificed (say from four offspring to nil) and the surviving offspring of 20 related others is increased from four to five from improved hunting return and nutrition, then there is clearly increased inclusive fitness in that individual’s group.

BS!!!

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

This is not correct, as the individual does not adapt to their condition, the population does. As generations pass does a situation get adapted to, not immediately.

Gay people have competition too and how would that trait even pass if they weren't breeding and going against their competition?

This might be an answer to OP .

How an individual will lessen his own survival or reproductive opportunities for the benefit of the herd or group. One cockatoo (Cacatua galarita) in the Australian bush will keep watch from a tree while the remainder of the flock eat the farmer’s wheat on the ground. He lessens his survival prospect by screeching loudly when the farmer with shotgun approaches. Such behavior may be entirely instinctive, the result of an inherited pattern of reaction. The concept was formalized by the late W. D. Hamilton in the form of a mathematical formula, known as ‘Hamilton’s Rule’, which may be loosely stated that intrinsic behavior will increase in frequency where the benefit to the total number of related recipients exceeds that of the cost (survival or reproductive cost) to the altruistic individual. This action is seen and is explained in the extreme example of the eusocial insects such as bees and ants where reproduction is entirely forgone by one cast in favor of the reproduction by selected members of the colon.

Homosexual behavior in early human societies may be shown to conform to Hamilton’s Rule. If the reproductive fitness of one individual is sacrificed (say from four offspring to nil) and the surviving offspring of 20 related others is increased from four to five from improved hunting return and nutrition, then there is clearly increased inclusive fitness in that individual’s group.

This is the only logical answer posted on the thread but I still doubt it.