FH's Opinion on Homosexuality

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 24 Apr 2008 12:55

GamePlayer wrote:I thought homosexuality was evolutionary. I've always understood it as a tendency toward population control, a way in which the human species adapts to overpopulation so as to ensure it's long term survival. Environmental stimuli tells us there are too many people and thus we adapt to survive by increasing the occurrence of homosexuality to control population growth.

This might have a slight effect, but have we ever heard of a homosexuality "outbreak" in overpopulated areas?

Male homosexuality should have little effect on population growth, even if you assume that they don't breed (they do). Assuming female homosexuals don't breed means that they have no maternal drives (they do). Maternal drives surely trump homosexuality in the desire to breed.

That's why this is such a complicated subject. The roots of sexuality, procreation, and survival of the species are a very complex set of equations IMO.

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 24 Apr 2008 13:16

Omphalos wrote:
I have always thought that if there is a "purposeful reason" (again, work with me) for homosexuality, it must be for something else. I wish I could remember the name of the theory we tossed around in law school in teh one fluff class I took third year. It is concerned with genetically driven reasons for being altruistic, or giving things to other people. One of the theories we discussed was that homosexuals were driven to members of the same sex as a result of this impulse, which had the effect of freeing up more members of the opposite sex for procreation with others. It sounded like flip-flop to me. Why would one person be driven to a place that keeps them from passing on the most valueable thing that they have (DNA) so some other schlep that they dont even know can do just that? Anyway, that was a side discussion. We were talking more about altruism in the context of farm subsidies, jury verdicts and the like, but this came up too.

Interesting point.

Here is another example of altruistic behavior in nature. I can't remember the study, but researchers found that only 40% of males of a certain bird species that "nested" with the female were the actual father.

A conclusion one could make is "survival of the fittest" extends well past the individual in evolutionary scales.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 24 Apr 2008 13:17

I didn't mean to suggest there is some outbreak or epidemic of homosexuality in response to overpopulation nor that homosexuals don't breed, only that they are less likely to so. It's one more way to keep in check overpopulation, one of many ways but not the only way. After all, the species would never tend toward homosexuality in any large degree such that it endangers or completely stops procreation. But I do think it very likely the prevalence of homosexuality increases, in whatever small proportionality in which it ultimately remains, as environmental conditions impact the population. But anyway, it's just a thought.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 24 Apr 2008 13:20

HoosierDaddy wrote:
Omphalos wrote:
I have always thought that if there is a "purposeful reason" (again, work with me) for homosexuality, it must be for something else. I wish I could remember the name of the theory we tossed around in law school in teh one fluff class I took third year. It is concerned with genetically driven reasons for being altruistic, or giving things to other people. One of the theories we discussed was that homosexuals were driven to members of the same sex as a result of this impulse, which had the effect of freeing up more members of the opposite sex for procreation with others. It sounded like flip-flop to me. Why would one person be driven to a place that keeps them from passing on the most valueable thing that they have (DNA) so some other schlep that they dont even know can do just that? Anyway, that was a side discussion. We were talking more about altruism in the context of farm subsidies, jury verdicts and the like, but this came up too.
Interesting point.

Here is another example of altruistic behavior in nature. I can't remember the study, but researchers found that only 40% of males of a certain bird species that "nested" with the female were the actual father.

A conclusion one could make is "survival of the fittest" extends well past the individual in evolutionary scales.

Let's hear it for step-dads!

YEA!

inhuien · Post by **inhuien** » 24 Apr 2008 13:44

fantomas wrote:
orald wrote:
fantomas wrote:Orald, wake up! Give me hug.
You were wrong, CL, now I'm suicidal too.
I want to dedicate a Police song to you. Invisible Sun!

Be thankful it wasn't Sally Orald

Fantômas · Post by **Fantômas** » 24 Apr 2008 13:56

GamePlayer wrote:I think it's possible Frank Herbert disliked gays. Sure he was forward thinking and obviously part of the sexual revolution, but he was a product of his times nonetheless. Personally, I don't care if Frank Herbert did or did not demonize gays. There's numerous writers I adore throughout history that have all had some pretty lousy personal opinions. It doesn't diminish their work in any way. I'm for gay rights but that doesn't make me a better person than Frank. Frank made a great, lasting contribution to literature. What the hell have I accomplished?

I don't see Baron Harkonnen as some sort of gay benchmark. Who could? The character was so evil and depraved in so many ways, his penchant for raping young boys was merely one more reason to despise him; one reason among so, so many.

The only people that have a serious problem with the "supposed politically incorrect" parts of Frank's work are the equally despicable PC Nazis currently strangling our society. They are like religious fundamentalist groups damning Nabokov's Lolita. It's just the flip side of the same ugly extremist thinking. Tip to the clueless of the world: Frank Herbert was human, with all the faults and baggage that entails. He was also one of the greatest writers of our time. Those who can't reconcile those two and accept Frank Herbert for the great man he was don't deserve my time but instead my scorn.

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 24 Apr 2008 13:57

GamePlayer wrote:I think it's possible Frank Herbert disliked gays. Sure he was forward thinking and obviously part of the sexual revolution, but he was a product of his times nonetheless. Personally, I don't care if Frank Herbert did or did not demonize gays. There's numerous writers I adore throughout history that have all had some pretty lousy personal opinions. It doesn't diminish their work in any way. I'm for gay rights but that doesn't make me a better person than Frank. Frank made a great, lasting contribution to literature. What the hell have I accomplished?

I don't see Baron Harkonnen as some sort of gay benchmark. Who could? The character was so evil and depraved in so many ways, his penchant for raping young boys was merely one more reason to despise him; one reason among so, so many.

The only people that have a serious problem with the "supposed politically incorrect" parts of Frank's work are the equally despicable PC Nazis currently strangling our society. They are like religious fundamentalist groups damning Nabokov's Lolita. It's just the flip side of the same ugly extremist thinking. Tip to the clueless of the world: Frank Herbert was human, with all the faults and baggage that entails. He was also one of the greatest writers of our time. Those who can't reconcile those two and accept Frank Herbert for the great man he was don't deserve my time but instead my scorn.

Agreed

A Thing of Eternity · Post by **A Thing of Eternity** » 24 Apr 2008 15:57

GamePlayer wrote:
The only people that have a serious problem with the "supposed politically incorrect" parts of Frank's work are the equally despicable PC Nazis currently strangling our society. They are like religious fundamentalist groups damning Nabokov's Lolita. It's just the flip side of the same ugly extremist thinking. Tip to the clueless of the world: Frank Herbert was human, with all the faults and baggage that entails. He was also one of the greatest writers of our time. Those who can't reconcile those two and accept Frank Herbert for the great man he was don't deserve my time but instead my scorn.

I definitly don't have a problem with any of his "politically incorrect" work. Even if some of it goes against my personal thoughts, I have no issue with his (or anyone else's) opinions. Just makes for an interesting discussion. Without literature taking unpopular positions the world of writing becomes dangerously stagnant.

orald · Post by **orald** » 24 Apr 2008 16:50

Wow, wow, wow! What is all this PC bullshit about "homosexuality's purpose in nature"? Purpose? There's not purpose.
Unless you mean to tell me diabitis or hemophilia have a purpose too.

Homosexuality is a defect, a flaw, a glitch in the system- don't try to make it some altruistic choice or a wierd, ineffective, disproven by history and current observations means of birth control.

There's nothing altruistic about birds guarding eggs which are not their own- look at the cuckoo's victims. Those male birds think it's their own chicks in the eggs.
I'm sure the study never even suggested any altruism or adoption, as those are quite rediculous concepts for this phenomanon.

Adoption in humans isn't quite so altruistic as some might think- it only plays on the parental instincts most humans have.
Heck, I have a dog, he's my baby, I've adopted him. Am I doing this for altruistic purposes? No.
Is a little girl playing ith a baby doll being altruistic? No, she got it hardwired to her system to like babies.

There's no true altruism anywhere in nature, just parental instincts gone awry(or parasitical symbiosis). Only humans show some very rare altruism, such as with charity works.

Post by **Omphalos** » 24 Apr 2008 17:20

There is another side to altruism, orald, and even if its opposite to what you said above, they are not mutually exclusive. People make decisions that go against their interest all the time because they weigh the options, and realize that there is good and bad that can come from them. But people rationalize taking the bad with the good not only because the good is desirable, but because the bad can be recharacterized to do some good. For example, a man may forget his intentions on a certain girl if a rival is vying for her affections as well for the main reason that he doesnt think that he can win. But he also may realize that giving up on the girl and telling her that she can be with the one she really wants and he wont make things hard for her, so that he can get at all her friends that think hes the just the dreamiest.

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 24 Apr 2008 18:56

orald wrote:Wow, wow, wow! What is all this PC bullshit about "homosexuality's purpose in nature"? Purpose? There's not purpose.
Unless you mean to tell me diabitis or hemophilia have a purpose too.

Homosexuality is a defect, a flaw, a glitch in the system- don't try to make it some altruistic choice or a wierd, ineffective, disproven by history and current observations means of birth control.

There's nothing altruistic about birds guarding eggs which are not their own- look at the cuckoo's victims. Those male birds think it's their own chicks in the eggs.
I'm sure the study never even suggested any altruism or adoption, as those are quite rediculous concepts for this phenomanon.

Adoption in humans isn't quite so altruistic as some might think- it only plays on the parental instincts most humans have.
Heck, I have a dog, he's my baby, I've adopted him. Am I doing this for altruistic purposes? No.
Is a little girl playing ith a baby doll being altruistic? No, she got it hardwired to her system to like babies.

There's no true altruism anywhere in nature, just parental instincts gone awry(or parasitical symbiosis). Only humans show some very rare altruism, such as with charity works.

Equating homosexuality to a disease doesn't make sense to me, and is a key factor in human diversity IMO.

If I were to make a parallel to homosexuality, it would be to something like nearsightedness. In stone age times, nearsighted males were lousy hunters/fighters, but they made the best arrowheads and spears because of their excellent up-close vision.

orald · Post by **orald** » 24 Apr 2008 19:01

Charitable actions are altruism most of the time, though I think if we analyse most of them deeply we'll find it's not that much against the self interest.

Anyway, homosexuallity is defenitely not altruism, population-control or anything other than a simple defect.
This is not to say gays are bad of course. Gays are awsome.
Especially the pretty, young ones.

Regarding that study about chances to become gay depending on order of birth, I did hear about it, and they say that as your order of birth increases, so do your chances of being gay.
By how much? IDK.
This looks to me more like the defect it is, with the parents getting older their sperm and eggs deteriorate, or the pregnancy is harder.
I'm sure they can find some fancier medical reason for it.

Post by **Omphalos** » 24 Apr 2008 19:05

I don't know orald. I'd of course defer to your opinion on this, if I didn't think that there were something larger than homosexuality at issue here.

I looked through Amazon today. The book I was talking about earlier is The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. Its about evolutionary psychology and while I dont recall it dealing with homosexuality specifically, he did theorize that choices are made, especially with regards to kin selection, with a quid-pro-quo in mind.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 24 Apr 2008 22:42

(Orald...I love it when people feel comfortable enough to start bringing out their really-fucked-in-the-head pet ideas. Huevos Raunchyros for the house!

)

bryanvdk wrote:likewise, homosexuals aren't good at fighting but good at playing with sticks?

Yes...and especially at making fashionable little fur clothes for the sticks and arranging them in dramatic poses.

This topic always seems to lead to fun threads, wherever it comes up!

HoosierDaddy · Post by **HoosierDaddy** » 24 Apr 2008 23:41

SandChigger wrote:(Orald...I love it when people feel comfortable enough to start bringing out their really-fucked-in-the-head pet ideas. Huevos Raunchyros for the house! )

bryanvdk wrote:likewise, homosexuals aren't good at fighting but good at playing with sticks?
Yes...and especially at making fashionable little fur clothes for the sticks and arranging them in dramatic poses.

This topic always seems to lead to fun threads, wherever it comes up!

How about moving to the best gay jokes thread?

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » 25 Apr 2008 01:03

i am not against homosexuality..i think its gross to see 2 hairy assed men pumping the others hairy ass...but at the same time i contradict myself by loving to watch 2 beautiful women do what seems completely natural (pass the popcorn........popcorn = lube & rag) .... but i also disagree with the theory that gay people are born gay ...i dont think people are born gay..i think it has something to do with what happens to them in their early part of life..something that pschologically inplanted itself in the persons brain .... this can happen really young..or maybe even in the older years of young adulthood .... i dont think very much of sex in any kind of intelligient civilization is natural .... we are constantly being told what is sexy and what isnt .... their is way too much thinking in sex .... sex used to be instinct...but i dont think thats the case anymore ...we're far too intelligient and know too much for it to be

orald · Post by **orald** » 25 Apr 2008 01:10

HoosierDaddy wrote:Equating homosexuality to a disease doesn't make sense to me, and is a key factor in human diversity IMO.

Have you noticed you're contradicting yourelf in your very next paragraph?

HoosierDaddy wrote:If I were to make a parallel to homosexuality, it would be to something like nearsightedness. In stone age times, nearsighted males were lousy hunters/fighters, but they made the best arrowheads and spears because of their excellent up-close vision.

Nearsightedness is a malfunction in the eye, ask anybody. I should know, I'm nearsighted myself.

KJA's dad wrote:(Orald...I love it when people feel comfortable enough to start bringing out their really-fucked-in-the-head pet ideas. Huevos Raunchyros for the house! )

Not sure what you mean.
Are you refering to my ideas? Are my claims untrue somehow?
Is homosexuality, from an evolutionary PoV, not a malfunction or a failure(not talking about gays that hve children of course)?
It contributes nothing new really, and is, from a purely efficient, logical PoV a waste of resources.
Now every time you, say, use contraceptions, your sperm is also wasted the same way as in gay sex.

I'm explaining this because the subject of homosexuality in the eye of evolution has come up, and it is simply put- a waste of resources.

chanilover · Post by **chanilover** » 25 Apr 2008 02:02

Tyrant wrote:i am not against homosexuality..i think its gross to see 2 hairy assed men pumping the others hairy ass...

So do I, but that's a matter of personal tastes. Orald is the one who's into hairy arsecracks.

but i also disagree with the theory that gay people are born gay ...be

I think straight guys choose to be straight at an early part of their lives, because they know deep down they haven't got what it takes to live a life of fabulousness.

Nah, people are born gay, just like they're born straight. I've never met anyone who chose their sexuality.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 25 Apr 2008 02:53

Tyrant wrote:i think its gross to see 2 hairy assed men pumping the others hairy ass

Well...I don't know what it's like where you live, but I have never seen anything like this happening on the street, in any eating or entertainment establishment where I have been a patron, or even on TV. If you've seen it, you must have been looking for it.

sex used to be instinct...but i dont think thats the case anymore

When was that exactly, again? When we were kids? The 1800s? Ancient Rome? Lucy's times?

I'm just fooling with you, Tyrant. I think there's probably not one simple cause and that it's more likely a combination of biological and environmental factors.

The increasingly obnoxious bisexual(?) Israeli (Can we stop this kind of bullshit right now?) wrote:Are you refering to my ideas? Are my claims untrue somehow?

Sorry, but I don't see you making any substantive claims or bringing up any real research. What I see you doing is waffling on about old eggs and poo-pooing theories based on nothing more than opinion.

Sure, from a biological point of view homosexual activity is a "waste of resources" because it doesn't lead to reproduction. But what percentage of all human sexual activity does actually lead to viable offspring?

I'm sorry, I just don't see that as a particularly profound or insightful observation. (I'm with Omphalos here and kinda wondering what the agenda is, if there is one.)

Your choice of language (emphasizing the "defect/disease" aspect) also brings in a negative bias that doesn't really have any place in a serious discussion.

(Of course, if this isn't supposed to be a serious discussion, ignore all the above.

)

chanilover wrote:I think straight guys choose to be straight at an early part of their lives, because they know deep down they haven't got what it takes to live a life of fabulousness.

That must be it.

orald · Post by **orald** » 25 Apr 2008 04:05

what word do you want to describe it then? It's not a beneficial condition in terms of evolution*. If you think because I recognize it as such that I'm against it, then you're wrong.
People are(usually) much more than biological automatons and have a variety of irrelevent stuff to do before, after and during procreation.

It was instinct during Lucy's time. Probably(well, the footprints may have been her giving a BJ in the bushes but I doubt it somewhat).

Yes, bisexual. Actually I like women much more, having quite a broad taste in them, whereas I only like men that are twinks.
But don't let that discourage you in your fantasies about me.

chigger wrote:What I see you doing is waffling on about old eggs and poo-pooing theories based on nothing more than opinion.

Someone made the point that alot of male birds are raising youngs that aren't their blood, claiming it was altruism.
I corrected that. It's called "the girl bird is cheating on ya!".

chigger wrote:Sure, from a biological point of view homosexual activity is a "waste of resources" because it doesn't lead to reproduction. But what percentage of all human sexual activity does actually lead to viable offspring?

You can't "blame" nature when your sperm fails to impregnate, but obstructing it deliberately would be, in biological PoV, a waste of your resources.
What's so hard to understand?

*The claim was that maybe FH saw homosexuallity as a failure of evolution since it doesn't contribute to passing genes. That's when some people started praising homosexuallity as an altruistic thing and that's when I interfered to correct them.
Or do you think it IS some wierd altruism?

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 25 Apr 2008 09:11

SandChigger wrote: Well...I don't know what it's like where you live, but I have never seen anything like this happening on the street, in any eating or entertainment establishment where I have been a patron, or even on TV. If you've seen it, you must have been looking for it.

Damn, beat me to it

I always like using this one against the homophobic shitheads. Really? You've seen two gay men having sex with each other? Where was this and what we're YOU doing there?

orald · Post by **orald** » 25 Apr 2008 09:34

I wish I had stuff like that in the streets.

Tleilax Master B · Post by **Tleilax Master B** » 25 Apr 2008 10:25

In my studies, I have never read or seen anything scientifically reputable that claimed the phenomena has anything to do with evolution. And I'm certain it has nothing to do with population control. In order for homosexualtiy to be an evoluationary response, you would have to demonstrate a change in the frequency of occurrence and identify the environmental factor (i.e overpopulation) that stimulates that change in frequency. Not bloody likely.

Homosexuality has likely been occurring at the same frequency for many, many years now. The difference is culture. Culture deems whether or not being gay is "acceptable" or to what degree it crosses beyond the "social norm." Thus, in some societies, at different times, it is OK to be openly gay and it appears there is a higher frequency of this. However, at other times in other societies its a very big no-no, and thus seeing openly gay individuals is rare.

Homosexuality IMO is likely to be both a biological and cultural phenomena. I have no doubt that some people are born gay. While others, choose to live a gay lifestyle for any variety of social or cultural reasons.

SandChigger · Post by **SandChigger** » 25 Apr 2008 10:37

^^^ At last, something from an expert.

In anthropology and evolutionary biology, I mean, not sex. Er...well, I'm sure he's good at that, too, two kids and all...er...never mind.

orald · Post by **orald** » 25 Apr 2008 10:40

TMB wrote: I have no doubt that some people are born gay. While others, choose to live a gay lifestyle for any variety of social or cultural reasons.

Choose? I wouldn't call it choose, TMB.

The only choice gays have is whether or not to follow their orientation or to hide and pretend they're like the rest.

You do not choose to have a hard-on from a guy the same as you don't choose to feel heat from a fire.

I only started feeling for men around the age of 18-19. I'd probably have ignored it for long if I haven't had half a crush(more like lust, desire w/e) for a neighboor of mine.

This goes for pedo's as well- people seem to think they're evil just because they like younglings(oh dear God I hate that word

).
The only problem IMO comes when they try to fulfill their desire, and only because their subjet of their affections is unable to decide for him/herself properly due to young age.