FH's Opinion on Homosexuality

[A Thing of Eternity]

It might get you killed though if you ever shout "Go Kevie!" in a Dune convention just to see the reactions.

Don't tell us later it was a joke.

That's beyond even my exemplary abilities of selfassmaking!

[HoosierDaddy]

Googling "homosexuality+evolution", there are many articles that give opinions on why it hasn't been bred out of existence, and examples of homosexual behavior in other species. Everything I read is pure speculation though.

I'm going to stick with my original opinion that diversity is the key to survival, and having various shades of heterosexuality and homosexuality can only be good when individuals/families/tribes/communities struggle for existence.

For a more modern example, where would we be if Christopher Columbus and those other explorers couldn't get a crew assembled, because nobody wanted to live with a bunch of sweaty men, for years, on a small wooden ship?

[HoosierDaddy]

BTW, isn't there a Monty Python thing about that? "Men men men men men men men men"...

[Freakzilla]

BTW, isn't there a Monty Python thing about that? "Men men men men men men men men"...

I never wanted to be on such a shambotic forum...

I wanted to be...

A lumberjack!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clPYfaTvHT0

[nymphitz]

I read about a study recently that suggested the youngest of mutliple male siblings is more likely to turn out gay.

That's interesting... In my family (and extended family), families of 3 or more have at least one gay child.

I do not agree that it is a defect, as Orald suggests, I don’t believe someone chooses to be gay…you don’t choose what you do, and do not like, you try it, know you don’t like it and move on.

[Freakzilla]

I read about a study recently that suggested the youngest of mutliple male siblings is more likely to turn out gay.

That's interesting... In my family (and extended family), families of 3 or more have at least one gay child.

I do not agree that it is a defect, as Orald suggests, I don’t believe someone chooses to be gay…you don’t choose what you do, and do not like, you try it, know you don’t like it and move on.

I think I'll risk not having gay sex to see if I like it, thanks.

[Freakzilla]

I imagine a man could technically give better oral sex to a man than a woman, but as long as a woman is doing it instead of a man the level of her technical expertise does not come into question with me.

[nymphitz]

Sorry my wording, was from a gay perspective. If you know you like women, why continue searching.

[chanilover]

I imagine a man could technically give better oral sex to a man than a woman, but as long as a woman is doing it instead of a man the level of her technical expertise does not come into question with me.

*sigh*

Oh cruel fate, my dreams are dashed.

One thing that always makes me laugh is straight guys assuming that any gay guy will want them bad.

[chanilover]

Sorry my wording, was from a gay perspective. If you know you like women, why continue searching.

Are you gay?

[Freakzilla]

I imagine a man could technically give better oral sex to a man than a woman, but as long as a woman is doing it instead of a man the level of her technical expertise does not come into question with me.

*sigh*

Oh cruel fate, my dreams are dashed.

One thing that always makes me laugh is straight guys assuming that any gay guy will want them bad.

This may be my own personal stereotype but the gay men I've known seem to be more promiscuous than straight women, probably by nature. Men are dogs.

[A Thing of Eternity]

I was a pretty big gay magnet in highschool. Probably just because I was one of the only people in the "macho" crowd that wasn't a homophobe at the time, not because of my looks, I think most gay guys have higher standards than that. I haven't had a gay guy hit on me for probably five years though, must be the shaved head and tattoos (don't really make me look like the most tolerant of people...).

Speaking of gay people, I just found out that my current religion teacher/prof was the first openly gay ordained minister in the United Church of Canada, as well as the first openly gay elected parliment member. Kinda cool.

[Schu]

God this thread is painful to read through.

If you look at it at its very basis, yes, homosexuality serves no obvious evolutionary purpose. Obviously same gender sex does not involve procreation. So if there's any evolutionary explanation, clearly it's not a really obvious one.

Actually, I really like when religious types call homosexuality a sin because of the lack of procreationary purpose, something like "if it ain't for making babies, it's unholy". Then I just ask whether they've ever given or gotten head, or masturbated. Fun times.

I find it amusing that men can only like women and women can only like men, as if XY is purely coded for liking women and XX is purely coded for liking men, and the other 22 pairs of chromosomes have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Clearly any genes that creates a gender preference that goes too far would be bred out out (at least on one side of the family) though.

I've always thought that the sibling birth order thing was linked with the alpha male thing. Calling it a defect caused by age is way off: females do not have the same effect, and it was linked with birth order, not age - if age were the causation, surely there would be a far greater correlation with age than with birth order? Birth order is the only non-social/cultural link with sexuality that has been found (and it holds true for adopted siblings too, so it must be natural).

My guess is that this is some kind of mutation that was found to be beneficial at some point in our ancestry: the first born would traditionally get the alpha-male status and most the women. But we know that having a partner is good for mental health and productiveness, so I figure the birth order thing is a quirk of mutation that got passed down because it makes the woman-less younger brothers potentially more useful to their community. It would be really interesting to see if other animals have this effect.

Also, undirected (towards gender) horniness is something likely to get handed down genetically.

Just for background information, I'm bi, but much more attracted to women. I've been with a couple of guys though. I don't go for the "twinks" though - I like my men to be real men and my women to be real women. If I want someone feminine, I'll go for a woman.

[Omphalos]

There is always the altruistic argument, Schu. Not that I believe in the context of a homosexual lifestyle (or any lifestyle - for anything other than a minor or easily made sacrifice), those who go to extremes with that theory might say agree that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, but rather one that was made subconsciously so that more women would be available for other men. Or something like that. That serves an evolutionary purpose.

I had to write a paper on crop subsidies and altruism in my third year of law school. You have no idea how far the people that beat on that particular drum go. They can find an altruistic purpose behind everything.

[Schu]

So the argument is that some men (and reverse all genders here on second reading) feel that their engaging with women is unfair to everyone else that want women too? That doesn't makes sense to me.

Shame too, most of the men that I would think should remove themselves from the gene pool are straight.

[SandChigger]

And women are invariably drawn to the jerks.

[Schu]

OH wait, I know this one!!

and the girls keep on saying they want the nice guy but they never go out with me, and I always show how nice I am. The bitches!



(I find the trick to avoiding this is to be nice but not a complete pussy. Works well for me!)

[Omphalos]

So the argument is that some men (and reverse all genders here on second reading) feel that their engaging with women is unfair to everyone else that want women too? That doesn't makes sense to me.

Shame too, most of the men that I would think should remove themselves from the gene pool are straight.

No. Very simplistically he theory is that some men forego mating with women so as to reduce competition for others. That makes it more likely that the "worthier" men will mate with them. Those that forego women either become gay or are asexual. But the "reason" that they do it is said to be altruistic, although the theory holds that people do these kinds of things for some other kind of advantage. Like this:

That guy helped me out, so I'm going to help him or his family out.

The theory, IMHO, holds some water in small transactions, but loses its logic when applied to large scale choices like this. I'm also explaining the very bare bones here; there is a lot more to this particular scenario.

[Omphalos]

OH wait, I know this one!!

and the girls keep on saying they want the nice guy but they never go out with me, and I always show how nice I am. The bitches!



(I find the trick to avoiding this is to be nice but not a complete pussy. Works well for me!)

Apparently it helps to have hair too.

[Schu]

So the argument is that some men (and reverse all genders here on second reading) feel that their engaging with women is unfair to everyone else that want women too? That doesn't makes sense to me.

Shame too, most of the men that I would think should remove themselves from the gene pool are straight.

No. Very simplistically he theory is that some men forego mating with women so as to reduce competition for others. That makes it more likely that the "worthier" men will mate with them. Those that forego women either become gay or are asexual. But the "reason" that they do it is said to be altruistic, although the theory holds that people do these kinds of things for some other kind of advantage. Like this:

That guy helped me out, so I'm going to help him or his family out.

The theory, IMHO, holds some water in small transactions, but loses its logic when applied to large scale choices like this. I'm also explaining the very bare bones here; there is a lot more to this particular scenario.

But being gay for that reason would assume that the person is not "worthy to mate" in the first case, right? I think I'm still not getting it.

[Omphalos]

So the argument is that some men (and reverse all genders here on second reading) feel that their engaging with women is unfair to everyone else that want women too? That doesn't makes sense to me.

Shame too, most of the men that I would think should remove themselves from the gene pool are straight.

No. Very simplistically he theory is that some men forego mating with women so as to reduce competition for others. That makes it more likely that the "worthier" men will mate with them. Those that forego women either become gay or are asexual. But the "reason" that they do it is said to be altruistic, although the theory holds that people do these kinds of things for some other kind of advantage. Like this:

That guy helped me out, so I'm going to help him or his family out.

The theory, IMHO, holds some water in small transactions, but loses its logic when applied to large scale choices like this. I'm also explaining the very bare bones here; there is a lot more to this particular scenario.

But being gay for that reason would assume that the person is not "worthy to mate" in the first case, right? I think I'm still not getting it.

Its not an objective standard, and the worthiness of the other guy is not always the reason. Its an altruistic move done only to secure an indebtedness; to get some other advantage from the guy who gets to mate.

[Schu]

But there's a difference between backing off from a woman so some other guy can have her, and being gay. Why would anyone feel indebted towards someone who isn't even attracted to his mate?

(whether that be for subconsciously altruistic reasons or otherwise?)

[Omphalos]

But there's a difference between backing off from a woman so some other guy can have her, and being gay. Why would anyone feel indebted towards someone who isn't even attracted to his mate?

(whether that be for subconsciously altruistic reasons or otherwise?)

Schu, this is a social theory, not a lab experiment. There are ten million permutations of how this could work, so if you want to understand it stop trying to lock yourself into one or two.

Personally, I think its crap. But the theory does have some merit in less life-altering situations. Haven't you ever given somebody something, or done something for someone else, hoping or expecting to get something in return? That is the gist of the theory. Start from that point, not some ham-handed conclusion.

[Schu]

But there's a difference between backing off from a woman so some other guy can have her, and being gay. Why would anyone feel indebted towards someone who isn't even attracted to his mate?

(whether that be for subconsciously altruistic reasons or otherwise?)

Schu, this is a social theory, not a lab experiment. There are ten million permutations of how this could work, so if you want to understand it stop trying to lock yourself into one or two.

Personally, I think its crap. But the theory does have some merit in less life-altering situations. Haven't you ever given somebody something, or done something for someone else, hoping or expecting to get something in return? That is the gist of the theory. Start from that point, not some ham-handed conclusion.

ah, ok. So the theory is that it's an attempt (probably subconscious) to act "altruistically", rather than anything that's specific to homosexuality. I think I get you now, unless that last sentence made you cringe in frustration

[chanilover]

God this thread is painful to read through.

I thought it was hilarious.