How does one reconcile the existence of homosexual tendencies with a naturalistic framework?

After I hear from a few of this forum's participants I will provide my perspective - along with why I think this issue reveals something of great significance.


quid pro quo

My own view is that homosexual tendencies serve no function and are irrelevant within the bigger picture. Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society.

What do you mean by "naturalistic framework"? Everything is in Nature, so technically speaking, everything is naturalistic.

You can't be serious, Lucid. You sound real prejudice right now. Homos are human beings like all of us. And a lot of famous artists, scientist, and phylosophers were homos: Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Plato, to name a few. How does sexual orientation bare any significance on the big picture anyway?

This needs a view of the wider picture to do with the diversity of sexual gratification, and the meaning and range of love. Homosexuality occurs widely in the animal kingdom, sometimes possibly due to poor aim, sometimes possibly due to a learned gratification process. I suppose gratification (quelling the urge) without procreation could be a way to moderate a growing population, especially in a species without contraception (non-human animals mainly then).

That's a great solution for human population control too!

I contest this claim. Can you produce any proof that Newton or Da Vinci were homosexual?

Heterosexuality leads to propagation of the species and hence fits into the big picture. Homosexuality does not, and only produces sexual gratification for a select few "homosexuals".

You just answered your own question. Naturalism, as opposed to supernaturalism.

www.naturalism.org



I was hoping that participants could keep this thread from getting value laden.

Do you need a Q-tip? I said, how does sexual orientation bare any significance on the big picture anyway? Or stated another way, Does not evolution of the human species need contributions from the human pool at every angle regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, ect? Or stated another way: Is Unity of consciousness, the holy grail of evolution, supposed to be discriminant of certain individual consciusness because the vessels these consciousness wear belong to individuals with the 'wrong' sexual orientation?

You opened the door, but granted, it was gratuitous, unneeded, and only revealed my own biases.

Code buttons, I answered your question the first time.

It's all over the literature. Just google it.

LOL!!! I think you meant something other than what I'm thinking!... Or, didn't you?!

In the context of a potential social condition (who knows yet, if ever) then opinions are important to hear.

Filth!

As a (part) biologist, I reserve the right to use technical terms.

I did and I couldn't pull anything up over Newton or Da Vinci being homosexual. You may be thinking of John Nash. From my understanding and reading of biographies, Newton was a sexually-inhibited, socially inept, psychopath; Principia Mathematica and Opticks notwithstanding.

Corr, didn't you know, the Mona Lisa is a painting of Isaac Newton in drag! Come on, it's Christmas!

My eyes have never worked properly, except with glasses.
One of my ears hears nothing.
I hear noises which no-one else hears.
One of my legs stopped working. (It's ok now with an artificial hip).
I suddenly go dizzy, sweat and vomit at infrequent intervals.


I lead a happy life and feel content.

I feel the greatest sadness for homosexuals, those trapped in wheelchairs and alll the other 'innocent' humans who are afflicted in ways which I am certain Nature did not intend!
If I could see some survival advantage in these production or behavioural defects I might find it easier to accept them.

Most all humans have things go wrong physically or mentally during life.

The vast majority of these ailments are not 'chosen'.

Bullsh*t!!! I don't believe that for a minute!(LMAO!!!)

Homosexualality occurs during gender development. Its the way in which the parents raise children that determines their sexual orientation. In one sutdy there were two twin boys, one had the shlong destroyed in an accident at the hospital. So one boy was raised as a girl and one as a boy, the results were conclusive. The boy who was raised as a girl acted like a biological girl in every way, without any hormones.

Gender is not something you are born with, its something your taught. Homosexuals usually have a sexual identity crisis of sorts, the same sort of thing happens with transexuals. The only major diffrence is that transexuals feel a greater urge to become the opposite gender. Where as homosexuals are usually happier with their gender, but have some identifiers of that with the opposite sex.

Homosexuality is a thing of psychology, not biology.

Im a bigger Leonardo Da Vinci buff than all of you, he may or may not have been homosexual, it was said that he never loved a woman. There are some old texts of him spending time in his youth with boys, there is a theory that the Mona Lisa is Leonardo Da Vinci painted as a woman. Remember this is the Renissance, it used to be normal for men and boys to spend 'time' together, I know that is disgusting but its how History was, this is especially apparent in Rome.

This theory comes from the fact that when x-rays were taken of the Mona Lisa, there was an underpainting which is a picture of Leonardo Da Vinci. So it is very possible that Leonardo painted himself onto the Mona Lisa in come ways. However we do know that the Mona Lisa was based off of The Duke of Milans wife, so it is also possible that the underpainting was simply a sketch and he re-used the canvas.

Was Leonardo homosexual? Maybe, maybe not, its true he did not love a woman, but remember he was also a very private and solitary person, he may just of not wanted a relationship. The overall view of Leonardo in the art world is that he probably was homosexual, I guess well never know for sure. But hey, why does it matter anyways?

That's an opinion. Subject to scientific scrutiny.

More than an opinion - it is many opinions, you find me one sociologist or psychologist who says it is Biological. Every book on the subject directly relates it to Sexual Development, I have never seen any proof that Homosexuality is caused by Biology.

A recent study:

June 26, 2006

Homosexuality may have sibling factor
Men have an increased chance of being gay if they have several older brothers from same mom, study says.

One of my pet peeves. Proof is deductive, evidence in inductive.

No, the story was from a book on Sexual Development and Gender Identity, at the time of the writing the child was still an adolecent. The study was conducted by a group of Psychologists. He was planned for HRT at puberty but had not yet recieved any hormones.

Sorry, I don't mean to come off as a prick, but...

No I was actually wondering when someone was going to post that. Ive said the exact same thing you just said, in so many situations - we are arguing a scientific thing though, so general scientific conscensus has weight.

If were talking purely philosophy then duck for cover.

Its like saying there is no gravity - yes its possible that there may not be gravity, however the general agreement is that there is. Actually by what you posted I could say whatever the hell I wanted to and if every other person on the planet disagreed with me - my opinion would have the same weight as all of theirs. I could say you a purple elephant and if you disagreed with me, no matter what you or anyone else said, my opinion would still be equal. But you have forgotten the most important point..

Truth is an opinion.

Killer avatar, Dianah. And welcome back!

Hehe, no I don't think I have forgotten. After all, that is one of my common mantras.

But Maximus, are we talking about the prerogative of the intellectual, or the standards of science as a meta-entity? From my perspective there is a big difference between the two.

Another study that argues for a strong genetic correlation:

6/16/2005

Genes Exert Powerful Effect On Sexual Behavior

and humans are just like fruit flies?

The standards of science are ever changing, as for your excerpt on the genes.. I used to have a wide assortment of material that disproved such claims, I will have to see if I can dig it up again. The prerogrative of the individual sets the standards of science - even as a meta-entity.

Ah Lucid, that is such a good question and thinking about it, yeah I suppose humans are just like fruit flies.

There is so little substance in this world, everything is illusion, so at least create the illusion that you want right?

Yes, virtually identical.

There's nothing wrong with trying to impeach the reliability of fruit flies as a model organism, but you'll need to do better than just appealing to our basic "folk" intuitions.

I'm not appealing to folk intuitions, just noting the fact that fruit flies are not good organisms for extrapolating to humans. Mice would be better. Non-human primates would be better yet.

btw, I agree that fruit flies aren't the best model organism, but it's certainly fair to count the study I provided as a source of evidence.

Here's a question.

If homosexuality is culturally determined, then why does it exist in species that lack culture?

They do not nessecarily lack culture, wolves have complex family organizations and hunt in patterns - each working with the other. Lions lay around all day while the females do the hunting and take care of cubs.

They do have culture, its just a diffrent sort

I make a distinction between culture and sociability.

even if it exists in some species that lack "culture", that doesn't imply that human homosexuality is not, in part, determined by culture. It's like arguing that echolocation exists in some species that lack culture, therefore humans echolocate. That's the problem with specious cross-species comparisons!

Looking at the issue of human homosexuality, and speaking with homosexuals, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that there are cultural and environmental factors at work, which doesn't necessarily rule out a genetic component, but only underscores the premise that not everything is black or white and that often there are complex interactions involved which defy attempts at over-simplification.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7498/1033

even if homosexuality has a genetic basis, that does not imply the phenotype is determined in lieu of environmental conditions. It is often the case that genotype specifies "potentials" that can only be realized through appropriate environmental conditions.

This is the old "genes versus environment" debate all over again, but this debate was settled years ago, and the short answer is what I said above.

Wow I was pretty supprised by some of the opinions expressed on this topic~ I thought people on this forum promoted free thought--how can you claim to promote free thought, yet judge others decisions (to love someone of like sex).

I could give my opinions on this matter, but seeing as I am neither homosexual, nor have ever extensively studied the matter, I will refrain. But I will leave you with this thought: If diversity is concidered a good thing for biological evolution, diversity of beliefs should be concidered a good thing for social evolution~

Well this dialog evolved very differently from what I was expecting. I guess that is the beauty of internet forums.



Allow me to pull things back a little bit.

If this exchange were focused on an issue such as *intelligence* then I believe there would be general accord between us. In fact, every time I look back on The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray I am reminded of that scene from Ghostbusters:

"Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!"

Although there has been some recent evidence to contrary, I am still of the opinion that humanity originated from an exceptionally small founder population - and that this bottle neck has produced a level of genetic homogeneity rarely encountered in the natural world. I remember reading in a popular science magazine that the genetic variance between prairie dog populations living on opposite sides of the mississippi is greater than what is present in the whole of humanity.

Anyway, my point is that I tend to view large differences in intelligence among the various socio-economic groupings as indicative of historic cultural inequalities. So I am anything but a genetic determinist since memetics is a conceptual framework that I seriously entertain.

However at the same time I do believe there are portions of our behavioral repertoires that are largely uninfluenced by cultural pressures. I can see no reason why cognitive subsystems which are instinctual should necessarily come under the influence of memetics. For example, I wouldn’t expect my cultural upbringing to in anyway affect my reflex response when touching a burning stove, or my gag reflex when choking, or sneezing, etc etc.

Baseline sexual preferences and behavior aren’t any different from a multitude of cognitive subroutines that get us through our day to day lives. Naturally, culture can and often does ritualize (ie, build off of) many aspects of the phenotype – and sexuality is no exception. Even if we put aside homosexuality for a moment, there are still a multitude of sexual acts performed by heteros that serve no reproductive purpose. But this reality doesn’t address whether the basic underlying drive (and its correspondence with gender) is strictly determined by genetic programming.
-----------------------------------------------

Now, just to briefly address my original motivation for creating this thread... if one did operate under the assumption that basic sexual preference is genetically determined there would still need to be some explanation provided for why 100% fecundity isn't present. (I believe that someone mentioned this earlier).

My logic is that sexual preference is produced by a unified cognitive subsystem whose correspondence with gender is held in place by group level selection pressures on *optimal* fecundity. Deviation from 1:1 correspondence is indicative of lower optimal level fecundity, with the resulting aberrant behavior defined as a phenotypic spandrel.

A better way to define this may be *information entropy*. Traits that aren't held in place with sufficient selection pressure will gradually drift towards a disorderly equilibrium. In the case of homosexuality, the trait experiencing entropy is not sexual preference, but the *bond* between preference and gender. Or as I have referred to it previously, *correspondence*. In stark contrast to "cultural" explanations, this is an elegant and relatively straight forward account of why homosexuality exists.

I agree that a number of sexual behaviors resemble reflexes and are innate behaviors, but that does not change the fact that sexual preference is determined primarily by cultural and psychological factors, and minimally by genes.


Despite its possible uses in sociobiology the idea of "group selection" is on its way out. Perhaps you meant "interaction selection". And there's still the problem of precisely defining "*optimal* fecundity".

Why? What is the mechanism underlying this cultural/psychological influence? I've yet to see you elaborate on your position.




Perhaps I didn't get the memo. I meant precisely what I said. Group selection plays an important role in evolution and I think there are good reasons for this opinion. However, as I'v estated in my OP, I plan on this remaining a quid pro quo arrangement. Being that you merely provided me with your opinion, and no evidence or argumentation to substantiate said opinion, my rebuttal need not be more than my opinion to the contrary.

By "interaction selection" perhaps you mean "multilevel selection theory". If that is the case then yes, I strongly support this more refined framework, while at the same time acknowledging the ease with which group level selection can be incorporated into it.



Of course. We can get to that at some point if you'd like but again, I'd prefer to keep things quid pro quo.

I'm not sure if anyone at brainmeta is a fan of Pinker, but here is an interesting opinion piece by him in the NYT.

NYT - Sniffing Out the Gay Gene



Pinker's How the Mind Works had a major impact on my views of consciousness when it first came out. And even though I in large part disagree with the Meaning of Life section of that book, I do still utilize "mind modules" as a conceptual framework. And no, just in case anyone was wondering, I am not some wacko advocating phrenology. Functionalism would dictate that mind modules are, to varying degrees, distributive rather than localized. So I guess that would make me a modular connectionist.

I just came upon this forum after searching the net and just couldn't resist...I've have read this entire thread and find it quite interesting as to the many theories. I am not a scientist, but I am a fascinated by the mind which is how I came upon this website.

What is interesting is none of you are, or at least have admitted that you are homosexual so I figured it was time that someone did. I am a homosexual and while I am totally open to the many theories as to "why" we homos exist in the way that we do, my own philosophy says "who cares why?". If I try to argue my "right" to be homosexual with the genetic theory or behavioral or a mixture of all or something else - it doesn't matter to me because just as you have all proven - everyone will attach themselves to the theory that best fits them and their beliefs. In fact, I get really sick of hearing homosexuals say "It's genetic" in an attempt to make themselves feel better and prove to everyone that they are "natural" and therefore, should be accepted. By arguing the "why", it makes it important. You can't expect ten people in the same room to be alike in all ways let alone the over 6 billion people on the planet. People are going to be different whether by choice, by genes, by environment, whatever. That is natural, that is nature. It will always be that way

And while the "why" homos are homos, isn't important in my philosophy, just for giggles I will say that I know that homosexuality is sometimes caused by genes, sometimes environmental factors, sometimes choice. We can't put even us homos in one box....although someone has done it again with:

"Homosexuals often appear overly-preoccupied with their own sexual and identity issues, are often narcissistic hedonists, and rarely contribute anything of significance to society."

All I can say is who in heck do you know that is gay? This is truly limited thinking for someone who is part of a forum like this. What t.v. shows do you watch to get this idea? Homosexuals are a very diverse crowd my friend. We are everyone and everywhere including your kids, your parents, your teachers, your doctors, your government, your mechanic - everywhere and everyone.

Just like you can use scientific theories to try and determine what a fruit fly is up to and why, you can use sciencific theories to try and figure out what and why a homosexual is what it is. That is the beauty of theory based on scientific research. That part makes talking about the subject interesting and stimulating. However, this comment you expressed in the above quote has no science to back it up - just pure and blatant ingnorance. I would expect much more from people who sound so smart otherwise. It is not stimulating or creative in the least, it is regurgitated prejudice you learned on t.v., church or some other ignorant person.

And I have to throw in....yet another website/forum I come across where heteros are talking about homos...there is some sort of obsession with us homos..any theory on why that is, why heteros are so interested in why homos are the way they are and why some heteros are so terrified...is it purely beliefs, genes, choice, environmental factors or a mixed bag? I say let's accept the diversity factor as part of nature and get on with something more important, but then again I'm a homo.

Granted, it was somewhat judgmental, but note that I specifically did not generalize to say "all homosexuals", but only that they "often appear" such a way. I know homosexuals who have maintained that, for them, everything (every act, every thought) is sexual! Everything being sexual?! Personally speaking, most of my waking thought is not preoccupied with sexually-related thoughts, and all of my hetero friends who I have such similar information over are also not so overly-occupied with sexual matters, so I infer that homosexuals appear to be overly preoccupied with their own sexual issues relative to heterosexuals. My other remarks have similar bases in reality and, specifically, in my actual dealings with, observations of, and conversations with homosexuals. On the plus side, homosexuals are often spirited people who are fun to be around, but their seeming excessive preoccupation with sex overshadows that.

Note that this is not homophobia on my part. It is a recognition that homosexuals appear to spend much more of their waking thought on sex than heterosexuals do, and an implicit disapproval of so much wasted thought when the human mind is capable of much loftier things.

the mechanism is the same underlying that of many of our taste preferences, which are acquired tastes. If we examine our own acquired tastes, it should be straightforward to convince yourself that these are based on cultural and psychological factors. Thus, sexual preference is an acquired taste and as such, is determined largely by cultural and psychological factors.


http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=170


Yes, it would be nice if this was addressed since it seems the crux of your argument!

By defintion an *acquired taste* is something which first must be experienced.

So you are still begging the question...