Could homosexuality be a form of natually occuring population control?

Assuming that to be so, it's not evidence of the mutability of "true" homosexuality since young the young boys are more "feminine" both vocally (why do think women nearly always voice male children in animation?) and in appearance than post-pubescent/adult men, of whom it would seem they are not interested in. One way of looking at heterosexuality is attraction to difference since that's what the word hetero means. Adult men and prepubescent boys are completely different in appearance. You only need to look at the other historical cultures that embraced "homosexuality" to see that adult men rarely desired other adult men, as it is today. In Ancient Greece once the boys started developing hair/deeper voices they were by and large no longer wanted for sexual purposes.

This would also seem to explain why there is a large proportion of pedophiles who desire young boys but have absolutely no desire for adult men and claim exclusive heterosexuality. For the Sambia people, I doubt the pederasty is anything but a one-way affair. The men aren't interested in the male genitalia or sexual pleasure of the boys, because that's not what the ritual is for. It's the ends, not the means that matters.

 

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

Surely NOT necessarily so. Procreation is but one possible meaningful aspect of sexual relations. And surely, I (and many others) know this from 'experience'.

Again, not absolutely true; but an interesting perspective among others. In reality, sexuality is made meaningful in different ways by different people. In fact, that which one may take from any given sexual experience is likely made even more meaningful by other aspects of a relationship which ascribe certain qualities to the same.

In other words, it's about the relationship more than it is about making babies or simply trading bodily fluids... etc.

While the thoughts in the quote expressed are worth pondering (to some degree), it leaves seriously-large gaps in the actual/full definition of what sexual expressions likely could or would entail.

 

It likely affects the magnitude of the planet's population to some degree; but I would surely not agree that is its sole purpose or effect.

 

If it is true, then it is not anti GLBT.

If it is false, then it is simply a hypothesis that did not fly.

If you don't like the idea, that does not make the idea anti GLBT.

It's just a hypothesis based on anecdotal observations.

 

In ancient Greece and Rome, bisexuality appears from history to have been the norm. Its incidence seems to have been astronomically high due to those societies' tolerance of it, hence creating more social settings for its influence.

Ergo sexuality one way or the other is simply learned. There is nothing genetic about it.

 

It's based on the anti-gay propaganda talking point (by which I mean shameful lie) that gay men are pedophiles who "recruit" by abusing vulnerable young boys.

In other words, you're not fooling anyone by saying it's just a hypothesis.

 

Revealing, the debate is whether
"attraction to one sex versus the other is learned or conditioned"
and you felt the need to deny any relation between pedophillia and homosexuality.

 

You know, I really am not personally invested in the GLBT lifestyles, agenda, or politics.

My personal view tends to be pro-choice for both abortion and GLBT.

I am liberal enough to live and let live, and scientific enough to realize we simply do not know the answers to a lot of scientific questions.

And I am political enough to know and believe that the 1st Amendment separates church and state.

My personal view on GLBT is that these are choices people make, based on influences by society upon them. That's scientific enough for me.

Until some lab worker finds a "gay gene" I will instead go with choices-and-influences.

As far as shamefulness, if you are ashamed of what you are, whatever it is, then you should just go back into the closet.

 

It is really hard to prove a negative. You need to search every corner of the known universe.

After the entire human genome is mapped, and there is no "gay gene" discovered among it, then we will know there is no genetic basis for GLBT.

Until then people can think or believe whatever they want.

My own hypothesis is that all preference and behavior is taught and learned and chosen.

 

You would be correct in that all behavior is taught, or learned or chosen, however preference, as in sexual attraction, isn't really a choice. I never chose to be heterosexual or to be attracted to men, I just am.

 

I disagree. I believe genetics, biology and physiology all lead to the development of a very powerful attraction to the opposite sex in most individuals. To varying degrees, some do not develope this attraction. And we all have a strong attraction to having our genitals stimulated. Stimulation outside of the context of procreation is where learning comes into play

 

Am I supposed to be impressed by how liberal you are? 'Cuz I'm not. It's not as if I've never encountered anti-gay liberals before.

Actual science > personal views.

The lack of proof for one theory ("gay gene") doesn't prove another ("choices-and-influences"). All you're really telling us is that you prefer to make up an answer for what science hasn't yet explained. Kinda like religion.

Huff yores and cluck yew berry munch.

 

Hahaha I love the way you worded that.

I don't see how anyone can think that there are societal influences pressuring people to be gay, and because of it there are gay people. That theory is so far flung from common sense. Society is pressuring people to be straight--the exact opposite. That is why gay people are not initially open about their sexuality. Being gay or straight involves as much choice as being born male or female. The reason so many people refuse to accept that is because it means their hatred toward gays is completely unjustified. It means they have to face their wrongs--and people just don't like doing that.

 

And the best science out here, surely tends to back you up.

 

EXACTLY!! You nailed it!!

 

Actually they did not nail it, Let me explain why, Liberalis states we refuse to accept "gay" because we hate it, as soon as someone starts assuming everyone who does not accept something solely because they hate it they lose the argument. I do not accept "gay" because it killed my brother, he died of AIDS. Was he born gay, no way. Absolutely not, but that is my private story this person knows nothing about. When someone stereotypes, as in we do not accept something only out of hate, that stereotype may be either out of ignorance or because this person is a bigot. So you see, I do not know this person so I do not know so I am not going to say, hey, you said that because your a bigot.

With all the propaganda going on, its no wonder people are falsely stating why other people do things.

Billions of people in the world, do I state its impossible to be born gay, no, absolutely not, the simple law of averages states there will be some born that way, hell fish get born with three eyes, people get born with one limb, all kinds of abnormal things are born.

At the same time I can state I know my brother better than anyone in this forum and unequivocally, he was more than abused.

It is a closed mind that does not look at every possibility.

You people do the homosexual community more harm then good by stereotyping homosexuals. Funny really, Liberals are acting as bigots when they stereotype sexuality.

 

Link to that best Science if you know it back them up, I would bet you can not link to the Scientific paper, I bet at best you come up with a one paragraph abstract but most likely an article.

show us the best science, I really do not need a link, just a name your familiar with, for if you know the best science it should be on the tip of your tongue. Sounds like your informed so kindly inform us.

 

Yeah, they did boil it down to where it needs to be.

And really, I don't see why anyone should be promoting or putting up with homophobia.

 

YOU look it up man. I've been at this awhile. One thing I won't do, is pretend that you should not know what is generally accepted by most who have kept up with the topic.

Look things up and stop assuming that others should necessarily be agreeing with YOU. I'm not making any sensational claims here, but the homophobic ones amongst us... very often do.

There is no good reason to persecute or oppress homosexual people... as many try to do. And try to accept the reality that it won't be 'tolerated' (at least not as much as it used to be).

 

Kotcher I am very sorry that your brother died of AIDS. But the existence of HIV/AIDS isn't reason enough to oppose homosexuality. A comparison would be someone whose friends or relatives died in a car crash but weren't wearing their seatbelts blaming car-ownership for their deaths instead of their own decision to not use an essential safety feature. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this... Obviously the vast majority of car owners wear their seatbelts and will never have an accident, much less be injured or killed on the road. The majority of gay people will also wear condoms and take precautions, and as a result will NEVER catch HIV. (Note I'm not saying being gay and owning a car are identical, but the specific comparison holds significant weight).

I understand of course how much personal tradegies affect our world-views, and you may say that you can't help but blame homosexuality as a phenomenon for the death of your brother, but that's such an oversimplification of the issue it's rather sad really. The chances of a homosexual person contracting HIV when safety is observed 100% is next to nothing. It would be less than that of a heterosexual women whose only form of protection is the pill (which seems to be the case a lot these days...). But my point is that homosexuality and indeed heterosexuality alone cannot be said to cause people to catch HIV/AIDS - it would be the decisions they make as individuals as to whether or not to be safe.

Not sure of your stance on gay rights since I haven't read all of your posts, but if your opposition to homosexuality extends to the point where you have jumped on the bandwagon in opposing LGBT equality, it would be safe to say you are being extremely unfair to the vast majority of gay people who will never catch HIV. And let's face it, given advances in medicine and research even the majority of those who have the infection are unlikely to progress to AIDS and actually die from it. The situation now compared to the 80's/early 90's is one of a completely different set of circumstances. People really don't die from it provided they stick to their medicine regimines. Additionally total and "functional" vaccines are just around the corner. The likihood is a person born today will never be faces with the risk of HIV later in life.