Homosexuality

[Eilonnwy]

Okay, time for long winded post, and apparently the first homosexual (More specifically bisexual) to actually weigh in on this thread.

First, to address the comment that homosexuality is natural. Natural has many definitions, just look at dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural But the first and most relevant definition is "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge. " So essentially, if it's found in nature and not "artificial" it's natural. Since animals besides humans have been shown display homosexuality, it is safe to say homosexuality is natural. It's as simple as that.

However, I'm sure the people are more concerned with natural as being "born with" and "evolutionary advantageous". It's fallacious to think in those terms. You could argue that our personalities are natural and yet there is no specific genetic component. It's argued that personality is genetic or that personality is a result of upbringing, or a blend of the two. But at the end of the day, I would say most of us agree that our personality is intrinsic and not subject to change without changing a sense of "self"

Homosexuality is intrinsic to the nature of the person, whether it's genetic or not. There is a quote in the Iowa court decision that legalized gay marriage that talks about that: "Sexual orientation is someone’s identity and is not subject to change without changing a sense of self" This is the basic argument for why homosexuals should have equal rights, whether it's genetic or not.

It has not been definitively pinpointed to a specific gene, but there is evidence to suggest there is a genetic component. It's important to remember that traits physical or not, are not always pinpointed to a single gene. There have also been studies into prenatal care, environment, etc... For instances, if a woman who is pregnant with a female has high levels of testosterone, it's been found that the child will be more likely to be gay. It's also been studied that female relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children that woman with heterosexual relatives which may suggest there is something in the x-chromosome that promotes fertility and could contribute to homosexuality.

For more information on the biology of homosexuality, this page has a decent summery of various studies and the findings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation

The biggest thing to take away from this is that it is not specifically known what causes homosexuality (It's certainly not explained away as a chemical imbalance in the brain) but without knowing the specific cause we do know that is intrinsic to the nature of the person and to try and change that would change one's sense of self. No one should ever have to do that to live by their basic civil right of "pursuit of happiness". Hence, denying gay marriage or segregating it to "civil unions" is fundamentally wrong.

Now, to discuss the whole evolutionary aspect. It's very simplistic to think there has to be an evolutionary advantage for something to have evolved. Evolution does not have a "goal". It simple means change over time and what we have today as plants and animals are the changes that have produced these plants and animals, and that doesn't mean all the evolutionary traits animals and plants have are "good" or "advantageous" Natural selection is not perfect and does not only select "good traits".

Example: Almost every other animal has a gene that can produce Vitamin C. Human's and great apes have a Vitamin C deficiency. It's theorized that genetic mutations continued over time that eventually prevented our ability to create Vitamin C. If I remember correctly, the gene is in our genetic makeup, but it's essentially "broken" for lack of a better word. Why would this trait evolve? It's not very advantageous to no longer produce our own Vitamin C, yet here we are. Simply put, it evolved because we were eating fruits with high Vitamin C, so when the inability to produce Vitamin C came about it didn't get "selected" away. It was countered by our diet.

So, yes, men and women can have children. Gays cannot, but it's doesn't prevent the race from continuing if a substantial amount of the species are still breeding. Thinking of evolution in terms of what is "best" for the race is highly fallacious.

Personally, I know that even if I lived a heterosexual life I would still have attraction to women and vice versa. I could never change that about myself. So for me, it's natural. If people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, that's fine. But it's rather offensive to say things like:

gay people are funny and entertaining.

and

Chemically imbalaced I would say. But, yes they are amusing. Pitty they affect so many people.

Especially without clarification. Do you mean they have good a sense of humor and can be very comedic or that they fact that gay people exist is funny? If it's the latter, then I have some not so nice things to say. And what exactly is meant by "pity they affect so many people." I would like some clarification.

Anyway, hopefully this clarified the "homosexuality is natural" statement.


EDIT: Just read a blog article by Steven Novella, called "Gay Exorcism" because a church in CT tried exorcism the demons out of a young boy for being gay. Interesting article, I recommend reading: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=565 But I wanted to point out a quote from it:

The notion of a demon of homosexuality, of course, also introduces the pseudoscientific notion, promoted almost entirely by religious traditions that frown upon homosexuality, that being gay is a moral choice or something that happens to someone - like a demonic possession. Rather - homosexuality is simply a normal biological variant seen is virtually all species. The evidence also strongly suggests that it is not a choice - any more than heterosexuality is a choice.