5 ms·
There was a study on rats that found homosexuality arose when there was overpopulation or overcrowding. This would make sense of non-procreative coupling from
by joshuaheard 11y ago
There was a study on rats that found homosexuality arose when there was overpopulation or overcrowding. This would make sense of non-procreative coupling from an evolutionary standpoint. More recently, there was a study that found a biological basis for homosexuality where there was a genetic misfire during fetal development that caused too much of the wrong hormone to be released for that gender: too much testosterone for a woman, too much estrogen for a man, resulting in the person adopting traits of the wrong gender. I see no reason why these causative factors cannot be found in the animal world as well.
When people describe homosexuality as unnatural, I don't believe they are claiming homosexuality is not found in nature. I believe they mean that the homosexual sex act is not how our sexual organs are supposed to work biologically.
- acqq 11y ago> I believe they mean that the homosexual sex act is not how our biological sexual equipment is supposed to work. And that's provably wrong, as we have enough examples in nature of "sexual equipment" working on whatever.
- lintiness 11y agosure. you can stick your dick in a loaf of bread and say it's "working". his point was "reproductive" work.
- jklinger410 11y agoSo what were sex organs evolved for other than procreation?
- acqq 11y agoAs you'd see in other comments here, in our closest relatives, they even evolved to be used to support group dynamics, even to perform kind of "greeting." We have also evolved, so our organs also evolved to do what they do. Just like dog's organs evolved to even copulate with your leg. The nature is not "exclusive" the way human religions are.
- jklinger410 11y agoIs it not unfair to say that just because animals use their genitals in certain ways that means those genitals were evolved for that purpose? There is more logic than "you put the penis in the vagina" that implies that the two are designed for procreation. All you seem to have here is that animals touch eachother's genitals sometimes. Not sure how that has any evolutionary implications. Even less sure that there is more than some reactionary evidence to show otherwise as well.
- acqq 11y ago> All you seem to have here is that animals touch eachother's genitals sometimes. Not sure how that has any evolutionary implications. Dogs regularly lick genitals of other dogs. Do you really think they didn't evolve to do exactly that, that it's "unnatural"? Edit: Licking genitals as behavior is actually something that provably evolved, not less than anything else that any animal does. That's how evolution works. jklinger410, I warmly suggest reading some books about evolution.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jklinger410 11y agoI'm talking about biological evolution, not social. Not sure how you missed that in my comments since you seem to read so much.
- jklinger410 11y ago@acqq I do not think that dog's penises evolved so that other's can lick it, no.
- mfisher87 11y agoThat's not what he's arguing. I don't think anyone's arguing that any penises have evolved some features that make them more lickable. These are claims that non-procreative sexual behaviors have naturally evolved. A counter-argument to the idea that the only natural sexual use of the genitals is penis-in-vagina-sex. Claiming anal sex is unnatural because you can't produce babies is the same as claiming that masturbation or oral sex are unnatural because they can't produce babies. Seeking pleasure is NATURAL, evolved behavior. I don't think you're genuinely reading people's claims carefully.
- notlisted 11y agoThe sites I never visit (ahem) and discussions with people younger than myself seem to indicate that "inappropriate use" is no longer a taboo or an exception for heterosexual couples, but the rule (or at the very least tried once). This makes the stance of it being "unnatural" extra hypocritical. PS Don't even get me started about saddlebacking 'virgins'.
- acqq 11y agoWow, didn't know about that expression for that practice, thanks: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saddlebacking http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saddlebacking The religions often depend on sacrifices.
- tedks 11y ago>supposed to By whom? >homosexual sex act Which specifically? >wrong gender According to whom?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dTal 11y ago> This would make sense of non-procreative coupling from an evolutionary standpoint How would it? Someone has to reproduce. If you just go "welp, awful crowded in here, guess I'll give up and go gay" then it certainly won't be you, and your go-gay-when-crowded genes die with you.
- wrsh07 11y agoRight, but if there's overcrowding, and animals in the overcrowded population stochastically [eg with 10% probability, perhaps at conception] became homosexual, then it does make sense. Continuing to reproduce in an overcrowded situation [eg limited food / shelter] doesn't make sense -- this could serve to help the species.
- dTal 11y agoWhat possible advantage to the individual could that convey? You don't get to say "it's good for the species" because that's not how evolution works.