Anti-gay bias is stupid

[Biglose]

So, if having relationships with children is already socially acceptable and has been for a long time... you're going to have to spell out a little more clearly what point you are trying to make about gay relationships (which frequently do involve children ftr) because it is currently not making a whole lot of sense.

That this second step is missing or incomplete in a lot of countries (mine included). That a lot of people say they want to break with "old values" but do not propose a way to move forward.

Acting like those issues do not exist, does nothing to solve them.

[Ser Flowers]

After what I encountered today, I think I want to start taking a more preemptive approach to dealing with regressive people who have views that oppress homosexuals. I ran into a status from a guy on Facebook, and he wanted to know if women would be okay if two men raised a child together. There were two main points that pissed me off:

1. "People are products of their environment and that's why children shouldn't be around gays, because they'll learn "gay ways"".

What a load of bullshit. We are products of our education and our education follows us everywhere. The things we are exposed to in our environment can be flushed out with solid education and the acquisition of resources but not the other way around (IMO).

2. Point one was then used to say that: "Gay is a learned behavior and children should be given a chance to choose for themselves. Being around two gays prevents them from choosing."

What? What about two lesbians? Or a man and a woman couple? I guess the logic doesn't work here. They went on and on about how men have more influence on children than women, so there's an element of misogyny at play here too.

That's to say nothing about the fact that your orientation and attraction isn't a choice: it's chemical. Your only choice is the response to your natural inclinations. Anyways, for those of you that are familiar with these bigoted arguments, what are the typical responses you give that breed positive results?

I agree, its like a person saying they don't want their kids around black people because they're afraid they'll turn black. Makes no effing sense.

[brook]

That this second step is missing or incomplete in a lot of countries (mine included). That a lot of people say they want to break with "old values" but do not propose a way to move forward.

Acting like those issues do not exist, does nothing to solve them.

Which step?

You talk about problems but are yet to actually provide any

[Theda Baratheon]

I was fine debating one of you but not 6. I don't have the time nor the interest to converse in such irrational views, writing out walls of text. Keep thinking you're right and I'm deluded.

Oh, you are deluded and you're also increasingly coming across as a total asshole to boot. To see human beings sole function as reproducing is ridiculously narrow minded; what about heterosexual couples who can not or will not have children? It doesn't matter how much you believe human beings are simply thoughtless machines that need to reproduce to be "valuable" it still doesn't make it true. You can learn something from the intelligent, thoughtful people in this thread (Ormond Terra etc) and understand that okay perhaps your view of human relationships and the importance of what you percieve to be biological fact is pretty damn outdated or YOU can continue to act like the steel wall you mentioned earlier.

[rocksniffer]

ok i have avoided posting in this tread like all serious threads...except why am i drunk, of course...but after reading through these last few pages i just can't help myself....so here goes...

Re: Kika

First, you ask them to give you some examples of "parading" homosexuality. Usually this means PDA, or the gay parade, or the apperance of gay characters in entertainment. You then offer examples of heterosexuality being portrayed similarly, like Mardi Gras or Spring Break, and you should be able to either (1) push them back into the "... because homosexuality is immoral" corner, which gets you back to either nature or Bible, or (2) you get them into the "I am against all PDA" argument. And, in most cases, they are not really against all PDA. They just say they are against all PDA because it's the only winning ground. But if they do retreat there, you need to decide how bloody you want the battle to be, because you can indeed follow up and pursue, but it will start becoming personal because you can only win now by successfully showing that s/he just lied. That's a difficult debate to win because most people don't like being shown to be a liar. So they will dig in their heels and growl. Best approach is to actually let it go at this stage, and then in the future, when there's a PDA of heterosexual couple and they say nothing, and they won't, bring it up to them "Hey, arent' you going to say something to that couple for holding hands and kissing outside of the bar?" or "Can you believe how gross Uncle Joe and Aunt Jane are being for sitting on each other's laps in front of the family?"

Alternatively, you can also point out that religious people are parading their faith whenever they wear signifiers of their faith, like crucifixes, and that in pluralistic society we don't hold it against people for displaying their personalities that are important to them. You can try the empathy route and ask them to imagine how they'd feel if they can't tell people that they're Christian/Muslim/etc. If they're devout Christians, and they often are, it's great because you can use the stories of the early Martyrs, where Christians who were persecuted for their faiths still refused to denounce their faith. This usually get them really pissed off because you're comparing being gay to being Christian, at which point, you segway into choice and the constitutional protection of religious choices as a contrast to the need for respect of people's sexuality choices. Or you can try the angry militant route and tell them that if they want to live in the U.S. they will just have to deal with people who are different, and you're leading by example in actually being nice to an anti-gay bigot so maybe they can do their share by being less of a douchebag, too.

Tell them that most LBGT people prefer cats. :P

No, seriously, gay marriage is even easier to defend than the morality of homosexuality.

Re: Lesbian vs Gay male sexuality

It's one of my old soap boxes where I opine that sexism is at the roots of anti-gay biases. A lot of the visceral reactions that some straight men have against male homosexuality is, imo, rooted in sexism. It goes something like this:

--> Women get sexual/emotional needs satisified by men

--> Women are weak and dependent

--> A gay male couple means that both of them are getting their sexual/emotional needs satisfied by men

--> Gay men make men look weak and dependent

--> Male homosexuality is wrong

Here's another strand of thought, too:

--> I like sex with women

--> I objectify women as sexual targets and think of having sex with them

--> Gay men like sex with men

--> they objectify men as sexual targets and think of having sex with men

--> these gay men are thinking of gangbanging me and jizzing all over my face because that's what I think of when I see some women

--> How dare they

Then there's the stuff that has already been mentioned, which is that female sexuality is seen as something that can be tamed (and sometimes as something that needs to be tamed) and controlled, whereas male sexuality is not seen in the same light. The male gaze in p0rn where female-female sex is depicted in a way to pleasure men is a good example already mentioned.

So yeah, sexism.

:bowdown: i love you Terra Prime...and i am not afraid to say it...not only your intelligence but your ability to make sense and make me laugh...

just one thing i fantasize about jizz and boobs, not face...guess i am more of a deviant that was first assumed by the good nuns that tried to educate me in the proper "ways of the lord"...

It's a good thing imaginary jizz washes off pretty easily.

agreed as long as the imaginary jizz in question doesn't harden...

...cause then you gotta just peel it off...spoiled because the rest of this joke is seriously offensive...

and eat it like a chip

Well, the primary function is to reproduce. You can twist and turn but it remains the same, it is not biologically functional. I have nothing against gays, I support them, but please don't be absurd and argue that point.

if i was a earthworm i might get that my sole purpose in life was to make more earthworms...but as a man (straight, but twisted or as Harold Ramis once said "were not homosexual, but we are willing to learn") who would rather die than reproduce, i guess i should just do my self in...by your example i have no function in society and therefore should not exist...

i find this a difficult theory to marry with gays are cool and i support them...do you support others in society that freely choose to forgo reproduction? i wonder if you really understand that reproductive biology is not the defining characteristic of humans, unlike breathing and eating, functions that without which we would surely die...

...perhaps you are right enmity, people are only born to reproduce...congrats on your gaggle of children and here's hoping you successfully terminate when your childbearing years are finished :cheers:

The idea that homosexuality is necessarily against reproductive success in "biological terms" shows an overly simplistic view of biology.

Modern evolutionary biology is based on what's sometimes (itself oversimplistically) called the "selfish gene" theory. Organisms should be influenced toward behaviors which get their genes into the next generation, but that does NOT mean that one has to reproduce oneself to do this.

There are plenty of examples in other species of individuals foregoing their own chances for reproduction when this greatly enhances the reproductive success of close relatives who share many of the same genes. African wild dogs, for example, have a system where only the dominant male and female in the pack reproduce, and the rest of the pack (who consist largely of siblings, older offspring, or aunts/uncles of the dominant pair) help raise the dominant pair's pups.

So one biological factor in the existence of homosexuality could be that at some point in the past gay men and lesbians made really good uncles and aunts, foregoing their own personal reproduction in order to help ensure the success in that of their own siblings.

And I hasten to add that's only ONE of the many possible paths by which homosexuality can be seen as being biologically "natural".

I know unfortunately it's way too late to change this in modern culture, but I really wish we could get rid of the word "homophobia." As Terra said in his first post, "anti-gay bias" is a much better and more accurate term. Though there are a few people with anti-gay bias who are afraid of GLBT persons, I don't think the percentage is any higher than that of persons who are biased against any minority being afraid of them. We don't blame all racism, sexism, anti-Muslimism, anti-Semitism, etc. on people being afraid of Blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, etc. The emotion I think most extremely prejudiced persons express toward their targets most often is contempt, not fear. I believe it's been pretty well shown that contempt and fear are two different emotions -- they both have different universal facial expressions, for instance. Constantly using the word "homophobia" to describe anti-gay prejudice really does make it more difficult to counter it, as it is way too easy for the majority of anti-gay idiots who do not feel fearful around GLBT people to dismiss any arguments against their beliefs with the idea that they themselves are being unjustly accused of having a phobia, when they don't. But I know the word is too established in our culture to get rid of, sadly.

:bowdown: thank you Ormond, who like Terra can educate and enlighten, rather than just "blind me with science"...perhaps i find it difficult to follow enmity's point because i study rocks...and fewer folks exercising their biological prime directive would make it easier for me to find the prefect rock to sniff...

You're not getting it and baffling on about irrelevant nonsense. With a stick you are trying to poke a hole through a steel wall, trying to find ''this'' way and ''that''. At the end of the day, I am wasting my time and you're are wasting yours, and the steel wall stands.

i think you are enjoying what you consider to be fools banging their heads against your steel wall of biology...as a scientist, i have not discovered many steel walls...science is fluid, ever-changing and without a stick to stir things up we wouldn't have progressed beyond the cave...which was the last time reproductive biology was the be all and end all of life...

i also find it interesting that your board name means "the state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something." ` webster's online dictionary.

...of course these are just the opinions of this straight, childless, unmarried, rocksniffing asshole...feel free to disagree

:smoking:

[all swedes are racist]

I updated the thread title to "Anti-gay bias is stupid" to respect Ormond's wishes.

[Melphis Amekia]

You guys mostly live in Western Europe, right? Though there are still problems there both smaller and larger, in Croatia last year there was a referendum started by a group called "In the name of the family" after they got enough signatures for our Parliament to have to give in to put "Marriage is always between a man and a woman" in our freaking constitution. They won. Handily.

I remember that I was the only male(out of 9 of us in class) who was utterly against it, and so were four other girls(out of 19 of them). All of those for it are also politically right winged, anti-communist(yes, that's a thing here. Our current ruling party and left-winged people are called commies and yugo-nostalgics) even to the extremest point. Things are looking up a bit - the last parade in Split went through without a hitch, mostly because everyone ignored it.

Anyway, I utterly agree with the OP, and I also learned how to debate a bit better with such people and I thank you guys for it.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

OK, so I was starting to get a little angry when I made my post, so I put down my phone and I haven't checked back in for almost a week. I've been thinking and thinking about this and I have some thoughts.

First, my comment was not meant as badgering. It was a true story of something that happened to me. As I stated I am not homophobic or anti-gay, but this happened to me, and went through a short period where obviously many of you would consider that I was. Yea, I'm sure at the time when telling people and trying to figure out why someone would say this I'm sure I said some ignorant things. But, my point was I never hated anyone who was gay. I didn't even hate the boy who said this, I knew it was an attempt for attention. What I was trying to get across and get some of you guys to think about, is things are not so cut and dry.

We are all human beings, none of us are perfect we've all said things we regret and wish it never came out of our mouth. Does that automatically make us some ist? Let me give you another example. About 6 or 7 years ago, when I just started dating my wife, we was at a bar with friends. I'm at the bar with two of my closest friends whom are black. I look over and another black man is hitting on my wife and puts his hands on her. I knew the guy, I get up and we have some words, and during that I let go the one word you don't say to a black man. We almost came to blows, but my two friends grabbed me and dragged me outside. When we're outside, they asked me what the he'll happened. I told them with my breath held and expecting another fight. One friend looks at me with the most hurt face I think I've ever seen and says, "Why? You have no right to use that word!" Walks away. The other put his arm around me and said, "That's exactly what he is." Now, was I wrong? Of course I know this. But, look at the two separate responses I got from two black men. There was no common ground, one was hurt like he just lost his best friend, the other thought I hit the nail on the head.

When, I first got started in the Bakker thread, I knew nothing about the sexism and all of that that was going on. When, it was brought up and I investigated it, I was blown away. I just never thought any of that when I was reading it and I made a comment along those lines. I was told there how ignorant I was and basically attacked. I will never forget what one poster then said to me. I assume they figured out that I was a white male, so the said that if you haven't experienced ism's then you can't see them, and that anything someone perceives to be an ism is because it's their feelings and so justified. Well, then I explained my background how my mother was married to a black man and have siblings whom are mixed. And where I'm from, I've seen and felt ism's all my life. I got a little heated because of assumptions someone made. Then, they said I was overreacting, and I must be trying to convince myself of something. What? Oh, so it's only Your feelings that matter, huh?

So, this made me want to go to general and check out some of the feminism threads, LGBT, and SJW. Ive kept an eye on them ever since, and TBH, I've cried several times hearing some of your stories. Yes, ism's do exist and it's awful, I get it, really. But, another thing I've noticed is, many of the posters don't want to hear the other side of the coin. No, I'm not saying the other side is justified, but truly believe a lot of people are labeled an ist by something they said, and that wasn't their intent. It's like a book, there are layers to everything. Yes, I'm sure it offends and Yes, it's not right, but you can't just make an assumption about someone off of one thing they say. We are just humans after all, not a one of us perfect.

And this brings me to what my post was about. I set and read these threads and so much is inspiring, so much makes me feel so bad for some of you, and then, there are many times I just want to say, "Tighten up your belt, knock that crying off and just move on!" I mean woman gained a lot of rights in the 1920's, Civil Rights was in the 60's, and America has a Black man as president. Women are running Fortune 500 companies, I could keep going and going. It's like some of this shit is just ridiculous, you can't blame all your problems on the ignorant of the world, your just looking for excuses. And, thats a quote from my Step-Grandma, a black woman.

I know I'm having a rough time trying to get my point across, but I want you guys to realize I was just trying to get you guys to stop and think. Yes, every damn one of us has said something in our day to day lives that you could say was some sort of ist remark. Does that label you as a ist for the rest of your life? IMHO, no. We are just humans and we make mistakes everyday and will continue to for the rest of our lives. This got me thinking, you know how people say that Armageddon is really just a new age of human enlightenment? This is it, when everyone can just worry about themselves, wake up everyday and treat others how they would want to be treated, be the best possible person they can be everyday. My Dad used to say the same thing to me everytime I would come to him with a complaint about someone or being wronged in some way or doing something completely idiotic. He'd say, "It doesn't matter, it simply doesnt matter! You don't have to make anyone happy but yourself, your wife when you get one, and your children. Because, everyone else, they don't matter, their opinions don't matter, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one! At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is making yourself and your family happy. When your 50, and look around, they'll be the only ones there, that's all that matters!" I wish I listened to him a long time ago, that's the most brilliant piece of advise I've ever heard, and more importantly, it's the truth.

I don't believe I've ever hated anyone in my life, honestly. Hate is a harsh word, and I don't think I've ever really felt true hate towards anyone. I try and be openminded, and take the feelings of others into consideration. But, every time I've tried to help you guys see that these ism's aren't so cut and dry, you guys fail to be open minded. It seems your feelings are the only ones at stake. I'd like to see a day when this shit dosent exist anymore, it won't be in my lifetime. And, if people don't start trying to see the other side of the coin, well, they probably never will. I truly never meant to offend anyone, if I did sorry! Good Luck to each of you.

[karaddin]

You see doing a wonderful job of proving you don't have an anti gay bias, or any other kind of bias.

With my open mind I can see the other side of the coin, I know people can change and when they do they don't defend their past behaviour, they condemn it. I was kept apart from the only queer woman in my family because she was gay and my Dad was anti-gay. He wouldn't defend that stance now because it was wrong and it took a long time to get him to see it.

There is no justification for you dropping the n bomb ever, and your one black friend telling you it was OK seems to be displaying an awful lot of internalised racism if he thinks "that's all that man is" is an insult or appropriate. I would never say it either and if I did I would not try and defend it, because when you know what you did was wrong you don't need to defend it.

But I guess we should just shut up and learn to see the point of view of the person who has their foot on our throat, because clearly my moaning offends their ears and is mutually exclusive with getting on with my life.

[Dr. Pepper]

First, my comment was not meant as badgering. It was a true story of something that happened to me. As I stated I am not homophobic or anti-gay, but this happened to me, and went through a short period where obviously many of you would consider that I was. Yea, I'm sure at the time when telling people and trying to figure out why someone would say this I'm sure I said some ignorant things. But, my point was I never hated anyone who was gay. I didn't even hate the boy who said this, I knew it was an attempt for attention. What I was trying to get across and get some of you guys to think about, is things are not so cut and dry.

<snip>

I know I'm having a rough time trying to get my point across, but I want you guys to realize I was just trying to get you guys to stop and think.

MSJ,

I think you have completely misunderstood the point. First, as far as I know, no one was actually attacking you for sharing your experience. I won't speak for others, but it is admirable when someone can speak up and admit a wrong they committed at some point. It's difficult to do. Your story was a reaction you had to someone bullying you. Thanks for sharing your story

Where the disconnect came in is the way you have gone about trying to justify certain cases of bigotry. It's not justified. It's understandable to have a strong reaction to being bullied or attacked in some way. I feel safe in saying that we've all experienced that sort of reaction and we can empathize with how you felt when your bully did what he did. Bigotry is not justified. I am not justified in hating white people if I were attacked by a white person, though people will understand my fear-based reaction. You were not justified in having an anti-gay bias just because you were bullied by a gay person.

We have stopped and thought about this. A lot. It seems like you have also thought about this. I don't think it would be a bad idea to keep thinking about it. Your experience is valid, it's something that happened to you. Your reaction to that experience was understandable. The ignorance and bigotry you took away from that experience was not justified. There is no rational argument that justifies homophobia. There are clear differences in understanding something and attempting to justify something.

In closing, you keep trying to say that not all cases of homophobia are stupid, and this is what is being criticized. All forms of bigotry are stupid, and yours is no exception. I'm glad you've moved past it, but part of truly moving past is to acknowledge that it was stupid.

[TerraPrime]

I am in no mood to mollycoddle someone's past offense. I don't even know what he wants from us, other than to offer validation that his past anti-gay thing doesn't define him today. Well, we already did that, and so I don't know what more we can do.

If you're going to be an ally, then be an ally. We welcome you. But please, stop bringing the drama llama with you.

Some allies take a lot more work to keep than perhaps is worth it.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Im not trying to justify anything at all, that is the point everyone is missing. The more I think on it, what I'm trying to get across is Hate begets Hate! I would love everyone that has the mental capacity, to understand when they are ignorant. So many times over the years on these types of threads, I've seen people voice their experience, and while doing that they do not do it in the most polite/political way. Then they are attacked with "Well that right there is racist/sexist/homophobic." And, IMHO, when that happens to someone your not educating them, your pushing them to the wrong side. And you can't tell me that doesn't happen, I see it all the time.

Look, we should all be striving for progress. Yea, there are bigots that you'll never turn from their ignorance. But, you should just ignore them, don't even give their opinions the time of day. But, when someone is not educated in a way to fully understand your plight, why not try and help them? I know this for a fact, many people would love to know more about all of these subjects, but are scared to ask the tough questions for the fear of the responses.

Look, I'm just gonna leave at this, I feel as if I'm not getting across what I want to, or, you guys just don't want to hear it. I really do not wanna cause strife, when all I was doing is trying to show you a different POV.

[baxus]

Look, we should all be striving for progress. Yea, there are bigots that you'll never turn from their ignorance. But, you should just ignore them, don't even give their opinions the time of day. But, when someone is not educated in a way to fully understand your plight, why not try and help them? I know this for a fact, many people would love to know more about all of these subjects, but are scared to ask the tough questions for the fear of the responses.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

[Theda Baratheon]

If someone is going to be 'pushed to the wrong side'' because someone on the internet told them the terminology they may use is problematic then I highly doubt we want that person around anyway. Get over your persecution complex. We really, really don't care very much about your whole backstory or walls of text you've written trying to justify yourself when you were a stupid 17 year old. Seriously, you were anti-gay for a couple years when you were 17-19, you now say you aren't. Fair enough, cool. What's not cool is trying to justify why anyone else might be anti-gay. ''WELL THEY MIGHT HAVE A SUPER LEGIT REASON LIKE I DID, LET'S NOT HATE THEM'' well, 1) your reason isn't super legit. It's stupid. But that'd be okay if you just accepted that, you were a teenager and now apparently realise the error of your ways and 2) telling us to just ignore bigotry because the bigot might have REASONS is about the least helpful bullshit you could bring to a thread like this.

You know, I am so tired of trying to be nice and friendly to every single person that comes BLAZING in to a discussion like this wanting people to hold their hand and forgive them all their past sins and let them get away with problematic words etc. I am so tired of the whole persecution complex people like to use against ''social justice warriors'' when they go on about how HURT *they* are that someone would tell them they have certain privileges and are maybe a bit problematic.

And ohhhhh, don't get me STARTED on the snide little remarks about intelligent that just float around alongside these people; ''oh if only you UNDERSTOOD what i was trying to say'' ''oh, be rational'' yada yada.

I encounter this a lot with people walking into feminist discussions with ''OH I KNOW IM THE DEVIL BECAUSE IM A STRAIGHT WHITE MAN BUT'' and I'm like ''dude, seriously?'' if you're gonna be deliberately provocative in your language don't even pretend to want to learn anything.

you are the one that's making a mountain out of a molehill here maester tbh.

[aceluby]

If you make a change from the dogma that you need to have kids, espacially as a respected member of society (Middle and upper class), you will have to compensate.

Raising kids costs money and they are needed by the state. Simple as that.

So if you make the idea about relationships with no children socially exceptable, well you will need to compensate. Raising taxes and giving tax breaks to families with children. Using that money for childcare and education.

Every change in society is a challange. If one fails to understand that, failure is quite probable.

Relationships w/out children is socially acceptable. Nobody 'needs' to have kids, and really, more people shouldn't have kids.

Frankly, this is one of the worst arguments against gay marriage I've ever seen. Because your taxes might get raised? Really?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Isn't the general idea that eventually people will have to pay more in taxes to have kids? Instead of a tax credit for having them, a tax credit for the unchilded? I mean look at China.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Purpose of the species and reproduction

Let's take apart this argument piece by piece.

1. The purpose of the species is to propagate itself

1A. Sexual reproduction is required for (1) to happen

1B. Homosexuality does not promote 1A

1C. Therefore, homosexuality is against nature/defeats the purpose of life/an aberration of the natural order/etc.

The premise itself is problematic in the way it is phrased, because it bespeaks a "purpose," as if there is a grand design to nature. There is none. Evolution is as value-neutral as gravity. We would no more say that the purpose of a rock is to fall from high mountains or that the purpose of our orbits is to be slightly eliptical. Nature doesn't care, in the end, whether a species perishes or thrives, because Nature is not a sentient force with an intellect.

The struggle for each species to compete for limited resources is real, but that does not create a purpose for our existence. As the only species with demonstrated (note the word demonstrated) capacity to grapple with abstract concepts and to communicate those to others, the purpose of our existence is whatever school of philosophy you wish to follow. The biological imperatives are facts of nature, not fonds of existential justification.

The link from 1A to 1 is the weakest, on two fronts:

First, propagation of a species does not require every member of the species to reproduce in order for the population to continue, safe for unrealistic doomsday hypotheticals where the total population for humans have shrunk below a critical level. As it stands, we have resource distribution problems so that many human lives are not adequately sustained and are lost due to preventable causes, such as simple malnutrition and treatable diseases like malaria.

Second, there are other ways to ensure success of the species as a whole without adding to the reproduction pool. For full-blooded siblings, we each share half of the genetic material, though not the same half between each sibling pair. To put another way, the sum of my genetic material is recapitulated in my siblings partially, and with enough siblings, almost nearly entirely. So for a person from a family of 10 siblings (not that uncommon for Catholic or Mormon families), s/he has just as much to gain to ensure that their nieces and nephews survive well into adulthood and continue to reproduce successfully as they do to reproduce themselves. The pay off will depend on the number of siblings who are reproducing, the number of offsprings per sibling, and the likelihood of success of one's extended family measured against limited resources devoted to raising your own children. So if you have 4 other siblings, and each of them produce 4 offsprings, you will hae 16 nieces/nephews. Each of them is 1/4 related to you, so you have, on average, 4 sets of your whole genome propagated to the next generation. In comparison, if you yourlsef create offsprings, you will need 8 offsprings to achieve that. So if your siblings are resource-starved, you can potentially gain more by helping your siblings raise their youngs, on an evolutionary scale.

This is somewhat similar to the kin selection that Ormond had mentioned earlier. Kin selection is most clearly observed in social insects like ants and bees, where the workers are sterile and instead contribute labor to raise the offsprings of their half-siblings. Closer to home, social mammals such as wolves and primates, have a mating hierarchy where less-dominnat males are sometimes denied chances to reproduce in order to conserve resources.

However, there are problems in evoking kin selection to explain human sexuality, despite the nice fit. First, we would predict that incidence of homosexuality should increase in resource-poor communities. But we don't. We would also predict that human sexuality might be malleable to influences of resources, and that's also not true. I think the sharing resource explanation is valid, it is not the cause of the appearance of homosexuality, but an unintended consequence, much like left-handedness is not the cause, but the consequence of a right-dominant brain. This can be a bit of a slippery argument to handle because I am arguing that homosexuality does bring some evolutionary benefits in some restricted scenarios, but that is probably not the driving force for the variations in human sexuality we do see. But, then again, the fans of evolitonary origins of human social behaviors will no doubt be all over this like (insert your own favorite folk saying).

Moving on to 1B, we can say that while it is factually true, i.e., homosexuality does not promote reproduction, the statement is, in practice, minimally relevant, for 2 distinct reasons. First, very few people are 100% homosexual. The percent is probably no more than 5%. In the flawed but still great study by Kinsey, strict homosexuals were about 2% of the men he surveyed. The often-quoted 10% figure is actually a combination of Kinsey 6 (exclusive) and Kinsey 5 (predominant). That percent is certainly lower than the rate of natural infertility amongst heterosexual pairings. Second, the statement ignores the practical issue of many gay men and women actually reproducing because they either were in heterosexual marriages due to social pressure or they desire offsprings and have taken steps to procure them through IVF or surrogate pregnancy.

Statement 1C is the most ludicrous of the set, and usually belies a level of ignorance about biology. Homosexuality is a part of nature, because we can observe and document it happening across multiple species and lineages, ranging from birds to mammals. It simply is. There's no other way to state it other than to say that nature produces homosexual individuals, and it is wrong-headed to assign purposes to this (see first 2 paragraphs). A successful species is a diverse one that can adapt to changes of various kinds, not the one with the larger number. If numerical supremacy were the key, we would all be slaves to bacteria (each human body contains more bacterial cells inside and on surface than there are human cells). And to be successful and adaptive, one needs variations, in both genotype and phenotype. Homosexuality, and bisexuality, is one of the many variations in nature, with no more need to justify its existence than one might need to justify left-handedness or albino individuals or very short people.

Life doesn't have a biological purpose, but species that are varied and diverse will, in the long run, do better than species that are monotonous and undifferentiated.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

That's enough whinging for a while. Let's move on to things that are actually productive.

Thanks.

[/mod hat]

[Biglose]

@ TerraPrime

If you "believe" in evolution 1 is kind of given.

Survival was the metric of our creation.

The only "out" is the creation of a "god" a imperative beyond the natural world.

We should be honest about it, at least.

[The guy from the Vale]

@biglose: Only if you believe there are purposes in nature. I believe purpose only ever stems from sentient beings. Nature doesn't care about the survival of any one species.