10-11% of america is estimated to be gay

[wasteofo2]

Something like 10-11% of america is estimated to be gay, how the hell has a characteristic like this become so prevalent when it's carriers don't breed and it's not contagious? Has there been anything anomolous, such as a lack/over abundance of any hormones or difference in some part/funcion of the brain found constant throughout gays?

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

If homosexuality is the result of recessive genes, heterosexuals can carry the gene and pass it down, right?

MIT professor Steven Pinker, I believe, in his book The Blank Slate, says a unique brain structure is found in homosexuals. Or it was the American Psychological Associations new book "Behavioral Genetics in the Post-Genomic Era." If it's worth it, you can check out those two books, or get reviews of them at http://www.neoeugenics.com/

 

[Another God]

There is also the fact that in the past Homosexuality wasn't acceptable, and so many homosexual people were forced into heterosexual relationships by their society, and so they bred and had offspring.

So the act of denying homosexuality has most likely been the most powerful force of perpetuation for it.

 

[Yahweh]

From TalkOrigins.org:

Claim CB403:
Evolution doesn't explain homosexuality. Traits evolve due to greater reproductive success, and homosexuals aren't big on reproduction.

1. There are several possible explanations for this:
   
   • Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be non-genetic [Kendler et al., 2000; Kirk et al., 2000; Haynes, 1995]. To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it.
   • Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait, but exists as a continuum [Haynes, 1995]. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.
     
     The most extreme heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did non-homophobic heterosexuals [Adams et al., 1996]. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propogated.
   • Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000]. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.
     
     The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The traits exist because, on the whole, they make us better survival machines; the fact that they sometimes combine to create individuals who will not reproduce is no more an indictment of evolution than any of the myriad other genetic conditions that prevent individuals from reproducing.
   • Genes for homosexuality could be spread through kin selection, if the homosexuals care for their siblings' offspring. However, this explanation is unlikely [Kirkpatrick et al., 2000].

 

[one_raven]

Well, historically (especially in homosexually oppressive time such as the las few hundred years in this country) homosexuals do often breed.
How many stories have you heard about husbands/fathers coming out of the closet?
I would say that at least as many people that label themselves homosexuals have had heterosexual sex as people that label themselves heterosexual and have had homosexual sex.
Besides that, your question ignored bisexuals.

I posted an opinion on another forum a while back that I think addresses this topic...

Bear with me here.
I haven't quite formulated a theory here yet, it is more like a jumble of thoughts, and it is 4:30 AM here.

I have never fully accpeted the genetic description of sexual orientation.
In my eyes, there is too much ecidence to suggest social conditioning.
Not conclusively, or exclusively, but enough to not allow me to accept the genetic explanation.

On the other hand, I have never accepted the homophobic arguments that homosexuality is some sort of social disease or disorder.

This has kind of left me standing in the middle looking around me and getting a little dizzy.

I read something on my philosophy forum that, while I have no clue if it has any factual basis, gat me thinking.
Someone said something along the lines of:
"The reason you don't hear about homosexuality in ancient texts, stories and social systems is not because it didn't exist, but because they just didn't have a name for it. It wasn't something that was out of the ordinary at all, it was just the norm, so there was no need to name it. Hell, just look at ancient Greece and Rome!"

"Hmmmmmmm...", thought I, "That is certainly something to think about."
And it stuck with me.

Well.
I HAVE been thinking about it, and I think I have come to a conclusion that satisfies me.

Heterosexuality is a social disorder.
Brought upon by religion and moralists developing and fostering the social stigma associated with homosexual behavior.
Homosexuality is a natural instinctive rebellious response to attempted oppression of natural urges along with other social and developmental factors.

The biggest argument I see people having against this is that homosexuality is not natural.
The strongest instinct in all animals is reproduction (arguably of course, but that is the current scientific explanation of evolution) and humans are an animal that require both sexes to reproduce.
Male + Female = Baby.
Well, I have to admit, they have a valid point in that argument, however, that says nothing about bisexuality.

Sure, rate and successfulness of reproduction is the most important factor in the survival of a species, but bisexuality would not threaten that at all.

Think about this:
Males are sexual, even when females are not menstruating.
Stimulation of the prostate feels gooood.
Females are sexual even when they are not menstruating.
Pheremones seem to be asexual (meaning that female pheremones arouse both males and females and vice versa).
I had other reasoning, but I can't quite conjure them up right now.

If males have sex with males AND females it does not inhibit the reproductivity of teh species.
Nor does it if females have sex with both males and females.

I can think of no physical scientfic argument against bisexuality being natural.

Maybe there is some truth to the notion that all people are born bisexual, and whether they sway to homosexuality, heterosexuality or stay bisexual is a direct result of social conditioning.

The most open minded people I have ever met have been bisexual.

Most heterosexuals have, at one point, either experimented with, fantasized about or wondered about homosexuality.

Many of the lesbians I have met (probably most) have had some traumatic sexual experience(s) involving men in their past (more often than not, during their early developmental stages).
(this is MY personal experience. I am not purporting it to ring true for all or even most people)

I am too tired to take this further right now.

This could be a well established theory already that I have just not heard.
Or I could be completely off my gourd and loopy from lack of sleep and too much time at the philosophy forum.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[NateTG]

Old/Crackpot theory

One of the theories that I've heard is that a causal factor for homosexuality is having the foetus exposed to testosterone. This can occur if the mother is under certain types of stress during pregnancy.

Under widespread chaos, this would lead to a more androgynous population, while maintaining strong gender roles during good times. Which can make sense from a species survival point of view.

 

[Monique]

Homosexuality and exposure to testosterone.. are you sure? Wouldn't that cause a more masculine phenotype?

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Monique
Homosexuality and exposure to testosterone.. are you sure? Wouldn't that cause a more masculine phenotype?

Well, it isn't my theory, I just wanted to throw it out there as a variation. The notion of altered foetal environment in general having a correlation with homosexuality is something that can be tested with good numbers about homosexual population, but those are hard to come by.

 

[Monique]

Yes, but in that case it is a little nuanced: an offset balance of testosterone/estrogen would probably be the cause and not just the exposure to testosterone :P

Testing foetal expression levels is not that unambigious and you'd also have to follow that individual for life and hope it comes out of the 'closet'.

As an individual the hormone levels of homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, but there IS evidence that certain areas of the brain have developed slightly differently..

 

[nautica]

Certain females expose themselfes to extremely high testosterone levels, even up to 10 x's as high as a normal male and they are no more or less of a male then they were before the exposure. Mentally speaking of course.

Nautica

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by nautica
Certain females expose themselfes to extremely high testosterone levels, even up to 10 x's as high as a normal male and they are no more or less of a male then they were before the exposure. Mentally speaking of course.

Nautica

There is a mental change. New research have show that a female expose to testosterone equivalent to male will have mental changes. They did some brain scan with mental exercise and some other mental/physical excercise. The brain pattern and exercise results are becoming more equivalent to the male after about 6 months.

 

[nautica]

Trust me on this one. Mentally, they are still very much female.

Nautica

 

[Andy]

It sounds like you are discussing homosexuality like its a disease.

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by iansmith
There is a mental change. New research have show that a female expose to testosterone equivalent to male will have mental changes. They did some brain scan with mental exercise and some other mental/physical excercise. The brain pattern and exercise results are becoming more equivalent to the male after about 6 months.

i think you are talking about congenital adrenal hyperplasia which does increase the inutero exposure to testosterone in women as well post birth exposure to testosterone if not diagnosed early and treated in time.

These women do have higher rates of homosexual or bisexual tendencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1438641&dopt=Abstract

http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

Thus suggesting prentatal hormonal environment affects sexual orientation.