RE: Homosexuality
February 19, 2016 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 19, 2016 at 8:46 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(February 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Occams Arrow Wrote: Evolution doesn't mess around. If something is detrimental to a specie's continuance it disappears within a few generations. At least that's how natural selection works. Cultural selection, which seems to take precedence in human reproduction, is too new - it's conceivable that we might select ourselves out of existence. That's doubtful though.
Homosexuality shows up in many species. This makes sense in a way as there are usually a batch of surplus males hanging around. Yes I know there aren't usually batches of surplus females waiting around, except in wolves and hyenas, but brain wiring is brain wiring. Baboons have a matriarchal culture, with, I imagine, the grooming getting a little heavy on occasion. I don't however, remember reading of female homosexuality in other species. This might be because guys do most of the writing. Neanderthals might have split into groups based on sex and only interacted on rare and all too brief occasions. There is some evidence of this. If they did it homo Sapiens might have lived in a similar fashion until recent times. This allows room for all kinds of sexual variation to be hardwired into the gene pool and persist.
I like the Rich Uncle Hypothesis. An extra spear chucker on the old homestead - available for relatively low overhead - would be very handy. One would think a small desert tribe would see the economic and survival benefit of such an arrangement. Just imagine how the book might read if they had.
Unaware of any examples of female homosexuality? Really?
Let's try our closest cousins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeTimRi1liU
As to the "Rich Uncle Hypothesis", I think it's quite right... in our small tribal communities, for the past ~5 million years of evolution, it would certainly have helped to have non-reproducing members of the tribe who could serve either role, as a "male" hunter/defender or as a "female" caretaker and gatherer for the young of the tribe. Whether it be a gay male or female, it would serve the same purpose. The ability for everyone else in the tribe to be able to reproduce without stripping the area of food resources (the limiting factor in tribe size on "normal" exponential growth; the options are high child death rates or low reproduction rates) would have been a competitive advantage for tribes who had the genes and/or the epigenetic factors that produced a small percentage of homosexual members of the tribe. We saw this still extant in the more-nomadic Native American tribes, when Westerners arrived in the New World... look up "Third Gender".
Much of that changed with the relative ability of post-Agricultural Revolution groups to produce food and settle in cities; at that point, availability of land became paramount, and the often-genocidal competition against other nations/peoples seems to have pushed us in the direction of warrior culture and Patriarchy... from that, we get our Wholly Babble and other similar scriptures.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Sadly, a lot of people really think bisexual people are like love free for all, sexually desperate, cheating, threesome addicts with a thirst for attention and no heart. People in the lgbt community (not all, not in general) may make the mistake of not taking the "b" of lgbt seriously, because they feel it's a game. Not real. Easier. Just for fun. Gross. Attention seeking hobby. It's hard when a bisexual person, as a gay person can relate, didn't choose what they are, yet they are constantly being told they need to pick, always have one of each, or are fake. As a pflag member, I can tell you that even in safe zones, bisexual peoples can be outcasted. It's sad. 
