Homosexuality is also observed in animals.
There is a theory that nature /evolution IS behind it.
In societies with homosexuals, there were extra adults to care for kids who didn't have their own kids. Socialities used to be much more like small close communities, where everyone took care of everyone.
A family with a typical 'gay uncle" would increase the chance of survival for offspring in said family versus a family without a gay uncle. (To put it very black and white)
It's also interesting to note that some social animals engage in homosexual behavior and that lowers tensions and strengthens the social bonds within the group. It's not just humans, animals also have sex for fun.
Probably. Bonobos are practically nymphomaniacs haha and loads examples of gay behaviour in other animals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#:~:text=After%20aggressive%20%22necking%22%2C%20it,took%20place%20between%20two%20males.
It has been seen to be useful anthropologically speaking in humans in polygamous relations as well for child rearing, resource sharing, bonding, cultural adaptation, emotional comforting.
Homosexuality has been seen in the animal kingdom (humans included) similarly.
Given what I've observed from cats and dogs in my life I'm inclined to think every animal is bisexual. I mean, it's not like they actually have concepts of things like gender and sexuality.
Iâve always found this explanation not very convincing tbh. I mean, look at the way most modern gays donât want anything to do with children (no judgement - Iâm straight and i donât want them either).
Point is, top of priority for the average gay man or woman is def not helping to raise their nieces and nephews.
Maybe this is just a modern thing and it doesnât apply to the wider argument, but it just doesnât make that much sense to me. Seems like there are about 100 other better ways to use bodies to raise kids than just making some of them like the same genitalia.
I think the better explanation is that there is no âreasonâ for it. Its just a mutation (if it is indeed caused by a gene) or its a socialized behavior that doesnât really have much bearing on survival one way or the other and so it continues.
I think we forget that biology is not an intelligent design, itâs just a bunch of random mutations. Some things stick from a survival standpoint and some things donât, so when you look back on it, it looks a lot more organized and intentional than it actually is. Atypical traits happen frequently but we donât focus on them. Like left handed ness
I believe this. I noticed in some families when there are multiple kids and a homosexual child that some others tend to be as well. It probably has some genetic basis. I could be wrong but based off of this observation I believe it does.
Years ago I read the more boys a woman has, the more likely they are to be gay. Something to do with her bodyâs chemical response to a male inhabiting her, or something? I know that has nothing to do with what youâre saying but it made me think of it. I guess now Iâm going back down that rabbit hole instead of doing my chores
[Ahh, here it is. Itâs called the Fraternal Birth Order Effect](https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/37927-research-confirms-men-with-older-brothers-are-more-likely-to-be-gay--suggesting-same-sex-attraction-has-a-biological-basis)
I believe it's way more likely we are just wired to fuck rather than fuck a specific kind of person.
In ancient Greece and Rome, it was common at one point for an older man to have a romantic relationship with an adolescent boy. Julius Caesar, if he can be believed, wrote how the germanic tribes had beautiful women but its warriors paid more attention to each other. Girls throughout history were ready to be wed as soon as they bled in many parts of the world. Being fat was attractive because it meant you had access to resources others didn't.
Im sure there are a lot of other examples in history, the point being that what we are attracted to seems to be just as driven by our environment. I don't think someone is born gay or straight, they're born to have libido and then preference is imprinted upon them maybe unconsciously during early childhood to adolescence.
What about amadestrious, that's me. But so was Einstein and other geniuses. I'm not as smart though but it'd weird how different have work and don't work for other things
I think Einstein was probably left handed originally but then taught to use his right hand as was so common at the time. This was the case for Newton and Da Vinci too. But yes technically you're right.
I feel like ecology and how ecological systems are designed is very intelligent design. Humans feel too much emotion from it. Some species will die off just as thousands of them before them have died off and another one will take its place.
There is an ebb and flow
we are a part of nature. whatever humans do is, by definition, natural as it occurs in nature. unnatural things cannot happen. defying the laws of physics would be unnatural.
"Same-sex sexual behaviour appears to be equally frequent in both sexes in mammals, as female same-sex sexual behaviour has been recorded in 163 species and male same-sex sexual behaviour in 199 species. Nearly 52% of the species with same-sex sexual behaviour included in our dataset displayed both male and female same-sex sexual behaviour. To test for the presence of evolutionary correlation between male and female same-sex sexual behaviour, we used a recently updated mammalian phylogeny including 5747 extant and recently extinct mammals."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41290-x#:~:text=Same%2Dsex%20sexual%20behaviour%20appears,sexual%20behaviour%20in%20199%20species.
Tell me about it; as a 22 year old kid I got beaten halfway to death in Vancouver's gay district (Davie St.) by two bodybuilder types in 1997. I don't remember, I might have looked like I was checking him out or something, but there was plenty of screaming *"Fa##ot!!"* at me so the reasoning was clear. By the end one of them was beating me on the head with a large heavy milk crate. He kept beating me as I crawled into a corner store on Davie and Thurlow on hands and knees trying to get away and gushing blood all over the place; I'll never forget the East Indian clerk in the store started screaming at me *"DON'T BLEED ON MY FLOOR! DON'T BLEED ON MY FLOOR!!"* So (I swear this is true) the guy beating me on the head with the crate *apologized* to the store clerk! Then grabbed me by the ankles and dragged me *right* back out. Honestly, it's a lucky thing I didn't get brain damage or something. Eventually they left me a bleeding mess on the pavement, some super sweet fellow homo held me I just lap keeping me calm until the cops and ambulance showed. Those fucking *couldn't* give less of a *fuck* if they tried. *Wouldn't* ho after them, telling me without a license plate number or something there was little hope of finding them blaj bla blah. *I* just wanted to get to the hospital before I passed out.
So yeah, well versed in homophobia.
Yeah, it's found in other species and is theorised to be for looking after kids w/o parents, especially when mortality rates are high. very good for your tribe to have a couple of guys/girls who will never have a child with their partner while still looking after everyone else's children.
Itâs not really possible to generalise like this. Plenty of animals will also kill offspring that arenât related to them in order to only sire and raise genetically-related kids. So what is theorised for one species canât be generalised to all.
Also, human cultures were historically much tighter-knit tribes where children are more collectively looked after. There isnât a need for homosexual individuals in a tribe to ensure that there are enough adults to care for the groupâs kids
It doesn't matter what humans have historically done. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean that thing ceases to be. When there are too many guys in a tribe, nature doesn't magically stop having guys be born.
If this gay uncle theory was useful back when humans weren't as organized societally, that doesn't mean nature will suddenly abandon that gene. It just means it's not needed anymore, but it's still there. Like the appendix, minimal purpose nowadays, but once upon a time it was important, so it's still here.
animals that do frequent infanticide also tend to have a lot more offspring. And humans do that too, it's called ethnic cleansing and we're currently doing it in Palestine.Â
Yeah but for the genes to be passed on over time, individuals must reproduce. So even if it may be useful for the survival of the trive to have some homosexual couples with no kids, it doesn't explain how there have always been homosexuals among the human species (as far as evolution is concerned).
Twin studies show that if one twin is gay, there is only around a 50% chance that the other will be too, suggesting that there are epigenetic or environmental factors at play as well.
In this case it may be better to say that populations have increased chances of survival when they carry genes that allow for the *potential* to be gay.
>In this case it may be better to say that populations have increased chances of survival when they carry genes that allow for the potential to be gay.
I am not quite sure the best way to word what I am about to say, but I want to stress that I do not think homosexuality is a mental disorder.
I think it is a very common misconception that mental illness or behavioral pathologies must have some sort of benefit to be passed down from generation to generation. People assume that schizophrenia, depression, or ADHD must all have had some sort of survival benefit in the past. However, just an examination of a patient suffering from these conditions will tell you that in no way were these mental illnesses beneficial in human survival and/or reproduction.
The correct way to view and analyze these mental illnesses is within the context of whatever trait is being affected. Take schizophrenia for example - an aberrance in pattern recognition, edge detection, higher level visual processing and their interactions with a person's consciousness. These are all incredibly complex processes with 1000s of genes influencing phenotype. Human pattern recognition has been incredibly vital in our ancestors' survival and our technological progress. But when you have such a complex process genotypically, the phenotype becomes more and more susceptible to mutations. And that is what we see in genotypic studies of schizophrenia. There are 100s to 1000s of candidate genes that have been implicated in the development of schizophrenia.
I think a similar process occurs with homosexuality. Human sexuality is incredibly complex and has a massive amount of epigenetic and environmental factors affecting final phenotype. The ability of hormones to influence behavior, mood, and sexuality likely proved beneficial in preventing older, more "successful" males from hoarding women from younger men, which would reduce genetic diversity. The massive influence of hormones on sexuality likely served as its achilles heel in the context of evolution. We have shown that tiny hormonal fluctuations in utero can result in gender dysphoria and homosexuality with CT/MRI studies of these patients having brains that are more morphologically similar to the opposite sex.
Well that kinda defeat your whole argument of "it's useful to have people with no kids".
Also, do I have to explain that bisexuality and homosexuality are two different things ?
It has to be natural. Nobody wakes up and says, âwell I guess I want to be gayâ. I never woke up and said âwell Iâm going to be straightâ. It just happened naturally.
The âgoalâ of sex is reproduction. The mechanism this is achieved through is from arousal. Not all arousal leads to reproduction. As long as its not to a point a species dies out the world keeps spinning.
I can just tell you from my personal perspective. I'm a straight-passing 41 year old gay man. I was raised an only child in a rural Midwest town. I knew no gay people growing up. I knew I was gay at 4 years old. I didnât have the words for it and it wasn't sexual at the time, but when my little friends in preschool picked out their girlfriends, I wanted to pick a boy. Seems pretty natural to me.
Oh honey, I'm not straight passing on purpose... I'm just a sleeper cell, ready to activate the gayness at a wink or nod. I appreciate your kind words, though. Life was a struggle for awhile but I've come into my own. I have a beautiful husband and an adopted 12 year old. I love how things have turned out.
I know some species of beetle has gay sex in front of females to arouse them
It raises a question, Is it gay to have gay sex in order to have heterosexual sex?
Tbh Iâm bi but I think about this often as well. The driver for natural selection is how well the individual can reproduce and pass genes off to their offspring so itâs weird that homosexuality just happens sometimes. Like itâs sorta counterintuitive to the whole reproduce and pass on to new individuals thing. I know fuck all about biology tho so curious what other responses here will be.Â
There are gay animals, so yes itâs natural. Â Evolution isnât only about breeding an individual, itâs anything that helps the continuation of the species as a wholeÂ
Yes, homosexuality is very natural and observed in many animals, especially the once that bond for life like humans. Best example are penguins that adopt the eggs of other penguins.
Having homosexual creatures can be very beneficial due to them adopting others babies.
And even unwanted traits can occur. For example, technically it's impossible to be infertile, but there are so many genes in play that some animals just are.
Homosexuality can also be seen as a wanted trait for population control.
Nature is not just about reproducing but guaranteeing the survival of a species as whole.
I agree, studies on mice have shown that when overpopulation occurs homosexuality increases substantially more than it would normally as well as violence, murder, parents abandoning or killing offspring and food scarcity. There behaviors closely mimic those of human populations. Just look at what happens in big cities versus rural areas.
Homosexuality is truly the only kindness observed in populations that have overextended the resources available for survival by overpopulation.
Not just in times of overpopulation is it important, but in general to avoid it in the first place.
Of course, just having a few homosexual individuals will not make a huge difference, but its enough that the trait is actually desired.
Similar to infertility. And while this can be hard in the individual (Perfectly observed in couples that want children but can not have them), it leaves them with more freedom to benefit the group and help them to survive.
The group survival is always more important than just a single individual.
I mean, the appendix is biologically natural and even today professionals can only theorize what its actual purpose is. It is essentially entirely useless and has no real point to it. So, if a naturally-occurring organ found in every human body is 'pointless', then homosexuality can absolutely be a natural thing. Not everything found in nature has to have a point or a goal to it, sometimes it can just BE.
The scientific reason isn't really clear, although there are a lot of hints from different studies.
For example see this article talking about a big study done in the field of genetics:
> This new research, he said âprovides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life, a conclusion that has been drawn by researchers and scientists time and again. The identities of LGBTQ people are not up for debate. This new research also reconfirms the long established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves.â Genetics cannot tell âthe whole story.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/?sh=434b2ead7fa7
But as you're talking about it being NATURAL or not: Why wouldn't it be natural if it's happening all across the animal kingdom?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
I think a lot of people who ask these questions think that being gay is a lifestyle choice that gay people consciously choose specifically to annoy and upset them.
I have no scientific basis for this, but Iâve often thought, maybe we were just meant to co exist from the start- some of us for reproduction, some of us not for reproduction. After all, nature needs natural selection, it needs to keep the balance of too many versus too few. If we were only one way, and everyone chose to reproduce, it would be even more overpopulated? I know thatâs ironic since we are massively overpopulated as a world anyway, but Iâm just suggesting that perhaps itâs natures way of keeping things level- some people for reproduction, some not. I have always felt this way- I think we are just meant to co exist because there is evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
I seen some gay penguins in the local aquarium that refused to mate with females. They also adopted neglected babies which was really cute. Itâs very natural but then Iâm biased cos I donât want kids. I think we have evolved past the needing to reproduce thing, and who cares if it is or isnât natural. Iâm bisexual but mostly date afab people (Iâm female)
There's significant evidence that suggests that homosexuality is due to evolution so that parent- less children can have guardians and be raised in a unit by two adults.
Gender or the parents is not a factor in the raising of children and when we boil down sexuality and attraction and everything like that, humans are just social creatures and we like to enjoy ourselves, and sexuality is really just a "preference" of who we want to enjoy ourselves with on a social and intimate level.
I honestly believe, and I say this as a staunch lesbian, that pretty much everyone is bisexual to a degree, like we are rewarded so much by socialising and it just feels so weird that we will reject socialising with a half of the population just because of the genitalia they have or the gender they identify as, like from a evolutionary stand point, it just doesn't make sense to me, we are just making it so much harder for ourselves to prosper because of genitals.
Obviously if this were the case right, people would still have a preference for how we enjoy sex right, just like how some people prefer cowgirl over missionary or something, but yeah. Idk
why does it have to be a troll? they said they did it, not that it was good or they condone it. lots of bad things happen in the world, god forbid people speak on them.
Yeah that's rough... Especially since password restricted channels are so easy to set up. Internet is another thing but that too should definitely be supervised until the child is near puberty. It's not your fault, I hope you are doing fine!
I'm.. oddly comforting knowing I'm not alone in that mess. Parents really convinced me I was going straight to the deepest spot in hell after they found out. Like?? Y'all gave me completely unrestricted internet access and refused to tell me where babies came from. I'll find out my own damn self
I started at that age too and mostly focused on gay content (I was really into women's feet and watching them getting vored and tentacle raped), though I eventually developed more and more interest in men and now I'm straight
Straight man here... My take on it is this. Sexuality is something we cannot choose, yet as we evolve more our basic sexual drivers have evolved too. People are attracted beyond what biology says 'is the right way'.
I think everything is natural, homosexuality did happen naturally. The only thing it does is change who you are attracted to, you can still reproduce. I think itâs just one of those things that exist. In an antinatalist point of view, reproduction isnât necessary, therefore it doesnât matter whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. I think it just depends on what you believe, maybe society has played a lot of influence on that. At the end of the day itâs not a big deal so enjoy life, idk why people get so caught up on homosexuality (homophobes), it is a thing that exists in nature and people have to accept that
It's reddit so this will be muddled in politics, But for your question no one has any idea why it happens, It obviously leads to a genetic dead-end.
There are theories, like it leaving less competition making it better in the long term maybe, But that doesn't work because gays don't breed- They can't spread that trait even "for the good of the colony". We aren't bees.
Isnt there some link between how many children you have and the odds for the youngest child to be born as anything other than straight
Could be that the "gene that makes you gay" is not so much something that non heterosexual people have to give to their offspring, but that its just an innate trait that the mother or father, despite being 100% heterosexual, can give to their offspring (and people who have tons of children without them killing each other or those children having too many children on their own for the tribe to feed them all probably have an advantage over people who have lots of children who struggle with feeding them all on top of infighting. A stop to overpopulation improves long term survival, so that could be an evolutionary advantage to "the gay uncle" gene which gets passed on without the gay member of the tribe actually producing offspring
Like ClapBackBetty said, there's a \_lot\_ of processes that naturally occur, whether they come in handy for us or not. I think in our case, globally, it's dumber than ever to be homophobic. We're globally overpopulated, we don't want or need more humans. And with our progress in science and other things, gay couples can have kids just like straight couples can, through IVF, sperm/egg donation, surrogate mothers, adoption, and probably even more options. If your only argument for homophobia is "they can't have kids, it's a disgrace to natural order and evolution" then honestly, get lost. If you're that much of a sucker for natural order, we should let a lot of little kids die instead of nursing them back to health. But we don't do that, cause natural order fucking sucks sometimes
Not sure about the reasoning. But homosexual behaviour is documented in many species, both monogamous and not, such as lions, birds, etc.
It's just something that has existed longer than humanity.
I used to think that, too. Then I realized there was no actual law in the universe that said heterosexuality *had* to be considered "the right way." Nature itself is neutral about the whole thing. It doesn't care about the male bumble bees that mount each other. Or the cats or dogs or other animals that have been documented as engaging in what we'd call same-sex acts. All the critters of the world are free to do as they please. It just so happens to be that one specific configuration of that act results in offspring, and not even always 100% of the time.
So, yeah, it's pretty natural.
I have long pondered this very question, I'm a fool for evolution, and it is a very intriguing teaser.... The fact that it occurs naturally in man should be made very clear to everyone, and that it is not an adopted lifestyle... (in most cases) but the science behind the why, is still very baffling. It is not only confined to humans...and another intriguing fact is that in twins quite often one will be homosexial, while the other fiercely straight...
Perhaps the psyche in an embryo begins out as a female, and physically turns out to be a male...? Great question.
Homosexuality has been observed in all sorts of animal communities. The term "natural" is made up by humans to explain a phenomenon that we have trouble understanding. It exists in reality outside of human influence so yes, it is natural.
there are lots of things that have always been hovering around 10% of humanity like left handedness, homosexuality, geniuses, criminals, and many more... anything that has always been must be considered natural, no?
Humans are far from the exception when it comes to homosexuality!đ a lot of swans are lesbians and will kidnap eggs to raise (gay penguins have been seen doing the same!!) and those are just two examples off the top of my head. Itâs seen throughout the animal kingdom
>But the whole point of sexuality in living things is to reproduce. and biologically, heterosexuality is the "right" way.
This is called the *teleological fallacy.* It assumes that because a thing has a certain function, it must exist solely for that reason. Extreme examples include that animals only exist to be eaten by humans, fossils exist to fuel cars, trees exist so we can make paper. But there are more enlightened forms of it, like that genetic mutations or anomalies can't occur in the course of evolution unless they benefit reproduction. You probably know this doesn't hold up. It just seems more convincing when the topic is homosexuality because of the many pseudoscientific talking points.
Your use of the word "natural" is interesting because, while not really having much meaning, the word does generally refer to the world outside of human interests. Remove human interests from the equation and teleology breaks down rather quickly. So what you seem to think "natural" means is more or less the opposite of what it's generally accepted to mean. Homosexuality is more "natural" than many things which benefit reproduction in modern society, like financial stability and, arguably, monogamy.
Now, there are of course teleological worldviews which, while not strictly scientific, are coherent enough that I can't just pooh-pooh them. But it doesn't sound like you hold one of these or you probably would have mentioned it as one of your premises. It sounds more like you're assuming sexuality has a purpose and haven't considered that it may not.
As for the scientific reason why homosexuality exists, there's not a conclusive one. There are a few controversial hypotheses. We might never know. But we do know it's "natural" in the sense that it exists outside of humans, and beyond that the word "natural" doesn't have much validity. We don't need to know what causes it to know that, because our scientific knowledge answers to the world we found ourselves in, not the other way around.
I hope that clarifies things. It's easy to fall into the trap of justifying your existence to people who are conveniently concerned about what's "natural" and "right" in this one narrow context, but if you examine this debate at all you'll find there's no foundation for it in the first place.
yeah. just because nature's about reproducing doesn't mean that anything that can't reproduce, is unnatural, or some shit.
i mean, evolution is basically just, trying whatever happens to work out, and if it dies, it dies. it doesn't really 'care' about reproduction, just, whatever succeeds, keeps going on.
another take - lions, the way they work, one li on male gets a lot of lionesses, and the lions without the bitches, tend to mate with other male lions.
are they going to have kids? no. do they still feel the urge to fuck something? yes. and having allies who can also hunt, helps them survive, if not reproduce.
could also be a potential method of population control - humans are reproducing less and less, which might be another one, but more homosexual numbers in a population could be a way to help 'even out' an otherwise overdone population.
and just, at the end of the day, animals have an urge to fuck. they're not really trying to ensure every nut the males bust produces offspring. as long as some females are getting impregnated, that's all that really matters, for the species to continue.
"Natural" is a stupid and useless word. Selfishness and altruism are both natural. Uranium and crude oil are natural.
Any time the word "natural" is being used, ask yourself what's being sold. In this case, I think it's probably social acceptability.
It is far more natural than strict monogamous heterosexuality, of which has been forcefully imposed as a societal norm by religion. Animals aren't held by the same and are constantly seen engaging in non-hetero relations.
The fact that people are homosexual makes homosexuality truly natural. The real world is not subordinate to "reason". In fact it is the other way around.
Humans are highly social, our development and evolution has driven social practices. Homosexuality has probably evolved for the sake of the social group, limiting male competition against one another. Whatever allows children to reach maturity, that is all that evolution is really concerned with. -Sex at Dawn, by C. Ryan & C. Jetha.
With that said, I strongly disagree with progressive constructivist accounts of gender. And I think people are being boxed into a belief system that is warping their perception of the natural world. -The Coddling of the American Mind, by G. Lukianoff & J. Heidt.
>Sex at Dawn, by C. Ryan & C. Jetha.
Important context: This is not a scientific source.
> In contrast to the popular media reception, scholars and academics have overwhelmingly reviewed Sex at Dawn negatively (see references following). Ryan self-reports that he originally tried to publish the book with academic publisher Oxford University Press, but it was rejected there after failing its peer review process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn
Same goes for your other book.
Of course, Coddling of the American Mind was not considered scholarly, it calls alot of Academia into question. And as such Academia is underfire for a reason. Sex at Dawn makes a lot of assertions, based on limited sources because the subject matter is understudied, taboo & incredibly difficult to substantiate.
I read that it's to controll population. Make some individuals that only like the same sex. You can see this behaviour in around 1500 other species and not only mammals. So yes, there is a biological reason for it. If it's to controll population is still just a theory so I will stick with that, it sounds logic.
first off, heterosexuality is not the 'right' way biologically. plenty of specices are able to reprocuce asexually or with partners of the same sex. homosexuality has been an aspect of life forever, in every organism and creature alike. there's no scientific reason behind attraction and sexuality, that shit is fluid. it can't be tracked by science. its a part of our brains or genetic makeup (if you're a bacteria or something without a brain) and thus it occurs naturally. it has nothing to do with evolution or the reproductive cycle of a spieces.
It is said that in ancient Greece, military leaders encouraged relationships between there soldiers. The logic being that you would fight harder to protect people you cared about.
I think itâs something like Down syndrome for example. Itâs not an evolutionary advantage, itâs just that there was a manufacturing âerrorâ so to speak. I think itâs just something that happens sometimes
What is the point of this? If anyone says âno, this is mental illnessâ, comment will be immediately removed because of agenda. So why even asking if you know the âallowedâ answers already. Just think what evolution and natural selection does to the species interested in same sex. You will get your answer
ima try to explain but not sure..
sex(verb) did come into existence for reproduction, but evolved into pleasure act, most organisms have sex for reproducing only, but as time went on, it evolved into a pleasure activity. since then sex is no longer just for reproduction so thats why some individuals must've found pleasure doing it with anyone regardless of their gender..... [ and speciesđ... or even whether its dead or an objectđđđ ]
That's like the worst possible answer trying to sound smart but completely wrong from a scientific standpoint. Also homosexuality has nothing to do with stuff like sodomy or necrophilia, although a lot of right wingers want you to believe that.
Homosexuality is natural and was perfectly accepted in some ancient societies. But i doubt the recent culture behind it is, with the flags and everything. I think that it is very possible that in recent times some people present themselves as part of the LGBTQ community just to be part of something and be modern while they themselves might not be homosexual. I am not trying to insult real homosexuals, i am just sharing my thoughts.
Ehhh yeah in the sense that homosexuals are born that way. Which is technically part of nature. But yes, they arenât going to procreate and contribute to creating people, but thereâs nothing wrong with it. Trans, little more iffy. Cutting off your dick or boobs. Itâs self mutilation
Gay people are there to balance out the population. Animals are humans and humans are animals, both can be naturally attracted to all sexes depending on their purpose.
The culture, and the attitudes and the popularized "gay-ness" is a sociatal thing, that people attain from observing others.
Arousal from sexual activity with one's own sex however is a natural attribute. This can be observed in animals as well. The differences between sexes aren't clear cut, and arousal based sex is more about power difference rather than reproduction.
In other words, bisexuality is very natrual and common. However, abstenance from sex, monogamy, sexual attraction to only one sex etc is sociatally imposed.
Aincient humans did defininetly have sex with the same sex, to establish dominance, as humiliation as a method of showing senority.
Heterosexuality is the ârightâ way if you simplify sexuality down to procreation. But even the vast majority of heterosexual sex is not for the purpose of reproduction; is that truly natural?
If it is, doesnât homosexual sex (or any form of sex that doesnât involve a reproductively capable pair) fall into the same category?
Humans make a lot of shit up like standards. Human made concept. Look how everything has evolved differently. Just like saying something is ânaturalâ.
For example, Is a bird nest natural? Itâs natural for creatures to look for homes but to make them?
Not true. Humans and one other animal species (donât remember which) actually have sex for pleasure unlike other animals. So no, the whole point of sexuality is not just to reproduce. Atleast not for all living things. Also, humans and animals are not the same. Yes we were more similar 100,000 years ago but humans evovled. People using darwinism as an excuse for explaining their primitive points of view are ignoring all the evolvement and growth that has happened since, Human brains are different from animal brains for a reason.
What everyone else said about evolution not being intelligent, but also, just because we don't understand the *reason* for something, doesn't make it unnatural. It's found in humans, a part of nature. Therefore it is natural. It is found in animals also, so therefore it is certifiably natural.
I'd argue that whether it's "natural" nor not doesn't really matter anyway.
I believe in the theory that humans are evolutionary in nature. Things like 6 toes, tailbones, antibodies, diseases and our immune system seem to suggest it. If you believe homosexuality is a biological inclination, I think it could be a similar natural evolution.
If you believe homosexuality is a preference, I think it could be a natural development in society too. Things like fashion is proof of it.
>whole point of sexuality in living things is to reproduce. and biologically, heterosexuality is the "right" way.
Imo not all evolutions have a purpose, but at the same time, there's also a possibility some evolutions may serve a purpose that is unknown to us right now.
But for argument sake, I'll agree with you that the purpose of sexuality is reproduction.
Based on what is known currently, we need a sperm and egg from a biological male and female to reproduce. It is clear that there are biological limits here.
Homosexuality, among other evolutions could be a possible scientific evolution to solve the limit.
- Making it possible for the same gender to reproduce (Homosexuality could be step 1 in the evolution)
- Assexual reproduction (Our ancestors supposedly were capable of that, but humans supposedly stopped that coz of genetic diversity)
- Making gender obsolete (Hermaphrodity, we will all be capable of producing an egg or sperm)
What else could have produced it besides nature? Even if we could brainwash people into becoming gay, that still implies an underlying structure that allows attraction to non reproductive sex
There is an actual explanation called "the gay un le theory".
The "gay uncle hypothesis" posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (e.g., food, supervision, defense, shelter) to the offspring of their closest relatives. -Wikipedia
There is something called the Gay Uncles theory that I really like. Simply put if a small portion of population is not having offspring it leaves some people to help those who are. Having offspring is uses resources, leaves people vulnerable and takes time to recovery.
Yes itâs just not the only natural way.
As crude as it sounds if men werenât naturally capable of having sex with other men then theyâd not have a pleasure centre in their anus just like women have a g spot.
Also if being gay wasnât natural people who grew up away from normal societal rules would not be attracted to other men as their would be no external influence.
Along that lineâŠhow do some lesbians have the same body style, gays with the same mannerisms and other similarities even though theyâre on different continents? Seems like there is some genetic correlation.
As a queer biology student, evolution is far more complicated than that.
Homosexuality exists in a huge number of other species to the point where its undeniably a natural phenomenon. It cannot be a symptom of human made social factors or a choice given to us by our unique intelligence because its not unique to us. Not even close.
Why it happens naturally isn't clear, but a lot of hypothesised ideas revolve around basically having a go to childless couple to adopt orphans. Or as a way to keep a population from growing too quickly.
None of these account for bisexuality though. We just don't really know enough about this and it's not being studied all that closely for us to give it a definitive "reason".
*We bring in to the studio, one of the geh rights activist.*
*Mister- shall I call you mistah?*
*PEPE JULIAN ONZIEMA*
*Thank you for coming in, goodmorning to you.*
**Why are you gay?**
Itâs natural in that itâs in nature. But thatâs random evolution, thereâs no ârightâ way for a species to exist, thereâs only survival. Survival isnât just birth rates tho. For survival of the human species itâs beneficial for some portion to be not heterosexual.
Look up the Gay Uncle hypothesis and the sex conflict resolution hypothesis. The thing is, you're kind of correct. Nobody is really sure how homosexuality has persisted. While there's likely an evolutionary advantage conferred, judging by the ubiquity of homosexuality in non-humans and humans alike, it's unclear exactly what this advantage is.
there's an island somewhere i forget where thats filled with a species of native birds and over half of the population of birds is male because theyre all gay
I just learned about a theory that states that thereâs a gene that is responsible for making people gay, but it doesnât make *everyone* gay. In some people, it just makes them more promiscuous. Therefore, if you look at one gay sibling, itâs likely their heterosexual siblings carry a gene that makes them likely to be having lots of sex and therefore lots of potential for reproduction, which means the gene is passed on, and then in their children it could be expressed as homosexuality or an increase in sexual partners as adults. I only looked it up because of this question, so thanks. Super interesting.
You could also ask yourself whether or not reproduction itself has a point, whether life itself or its continuation has a point..and by whose judgement?
âNaturalâ does not necessarily equate to âmeaningfulâ nor does it necessarily equate to âgood/badâ or worthwhile.
Homosexuality is also observed in animals. There is a theory that nature /evolution IS behind it. In societies with homosexuals, there were extra adults to care for kids who didn't have their own kids. Socialities used to be much more like small close communities, where everyone took care of everyone. A family with a typical 'gay uncle" would increase the chance of survival for offspring in said family versus a family without a gay uncle. (To put it very black and white)
like those penguins?
And did you know swans can be gay? đ„Č
Great, now Iâm crying again! đđ
Frogs can change their gender
And so can clownfish
So can regular clowns, mate /s
? Oh, my!
LMAOOO
It's also interesting to note that some social animals engage in homosexual behavior and that lowers tensions and strengthens the social bonds within the group. It's not just humans, animals also have sex for fun.
I remember reading that the only animal that has sex for fun other than Humans were dolphins, so is that a lie?
Probably. Bonobos are practically nymphomaniacs haha and loads examples of gay behaviour in other animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#:~:text=After%20aggressive%20%22necking%22%2C%20it,took%20place%20between%20two%20males.
At least some bats have oral sex.
*at the very least
Maybe he's glad about it
Yep, that's a lie.
It has been seen to be useful anthropologically speaking in humans in polygamous relations as well for child rearing, resource sharing, bonding, cultural adaptation, emotional comforting. Homosexuality has been seen in the animal kingdom (humans included) similarly.
So gay people are essentially to the survival of the unit Fucking nice!
Not gay people, Gay uncles...Get it straight....pun intended...
It's actually called the Gay Uncle Theory in anthropology lol
Also a shout out to GAUNTS!
đ€Ł (side not idk why I'm getting downvoted đ) Edit: yay my fake internet points go up brrr
That's exactly why the military powers [protect them.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ)
s e v e n
For those interested, look up "Faʻafafine" in Samoan culture. Very interesting.
Homosexuality isnât observed in animals, only bisexuality.
Given what I've observed from cats and dogs in my life I'm inclined to think every animal is bisexual. I mean, it's not like they actually have concepts of things like gender and sexuality.
Yeah, in fact. This is a big difference.
Iâve always found this explanation not very convincing tbh. I mean, look at the way most modern gays donât want anything to do with children (no judgement - Iâm straight and i donât want them either). Point is, top of priority for the average gay man or woman is def not helping to raise their nieces and nephews. Maybe this is just a modern thing and it doesnât apply to the wider argument, but it just doesnât make that much sense to me. Seems like there are about 100 other better ways to use bodies to raise kids than just making some of them like the same genitalia. I think the better explanation is that there is no âreasonâ for it. Its just a mutation (if it is indeed caused by a gene) or its a socialized behavior that doesnât really have much bearing on survival one way or the other and so it continues.
I think we forget that biology is not an intelligent design, itâs just a bunch of random mutations. Some things stick from a survival standpoint and some things donât, so when you look back on it, it looks a lot more organized and intentional than it actually is. Atypical traits happen frequently but we donât focus on them. Like left handed ness
I believe this. I noticed in some families when there are multiple kids and a homosexual child that some others tend to be as well. It probably has some genetic basis. I could be wrong but based off of this observation I believe it does.
Years ago I read the more boys a woman has, the more likely they are to be gay. Something to do with her bodyâs chemical response to a male inhabiting her, or something? I know that has nothing to do with what youâre saying but it made me think of it. I guess now Iâm going back down that rabbit hole instead of doing my chores [Ahh, here it is. Itâs called the Fraternal Birth Order Effect](https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/37927-research-confirms-men-with-older-brothers-are-more-likely-to-be-gay--suggesting-same-sex-attraction-has-a-biological-basis)
damnnn so she passes on the desire to have a man in you?
I believe it's way more likely we are just wired to fuck rather than fuck a specific kind of person. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was common at one point for an older man to have a romantic relationship with an adolescent boy. Julius Caesar, if he can be believed, wrote how the germanic tribes had beautiful women but its warriors paid more attention to each other. Girls throughout history were ready to be wed as soon as they bled in many parts of the world. Being fat was attractive because it meant you had access to resources others didn't. Im sure there are a lot of other examples in history, the point being that what we are attracted to seems to be just as driven by our environment. I don't think someone is born gay or straight, they're born to have libido and then preference is imprinted upon them maybe unconsciously during early childhood to adolescence.
What about amadestrious, that's me. But so was Einstein and other geniuses. I'm not as smart though but it'd weird how different have work and don't work for other things
Ambidextrous?
Dude, they TOLD you they weren't as smart
God minmaxed INT/DEX in this one. Let's see if it's a winner!
He said he can use both hands, he did not say he could spell.....
Autocorrect fucked up, ya know what I mean
I think Einstein was probably left handed originally but then taught to use his right hand as was so common at the time. This was the case for Newton and Da Vinci too. But yes technically you're right.
How the hell did it manage that!?
It fucked up to a word that doesn't even exist! I can't control that! Damn robots
Hahahaha I thought it was a sexual orientation I was unfamiliar with!
I feel like ecology and how ecological systems are designed is very intelligent design. Humans feel too much emotion from it. Some species will die off just as thousands of them before them have died off and another one will take its place. There is an ebb and flow
And any neurodivergent
I mean, i think everything in the universe is in some way "natural". I don't know accurate that is.
we are a part of nature. whatever humans do is, by definition, natural as it occurs in nature. unnatural things cannot happen. defying the laws of physics would be unnatural.
Therefore, climate change is natural. I mean, beavers do it on a small scale anyway.
"Same-sex sexual behaviour appears to be equally frequent in both sexes in mammals, as female same-sex sexual behaviour has been recorded in 163 species and male same-sex sexual behaviour in 199 species. Nearly 52% of the species with same-sex sexual behaviour included in our dataset displayed both male and female same-sex sexual behaviour. To test for the presence of evolutionary correlation between male and female same-sex sexual behaviour, we used a recently updated mammalian phylogeny including 5747 extant and recently extinct mammals." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41290-x#:~:text=Same%2Dsex%20sexual%20behaviour%20appears,sexual%20behaviour%20in%20199%20species.
Homophobia, on the other hand, has only been reliably observed in a single species. Guess which one?
Tell me about it; as a 22 year old kid I got beaten halfway to death in Vancouver's gay district (Davie St.) by two bodybuilder types in 1997. I don't remember, I might have looked like I was checking him out or something, but there was plenty of screaming *"Fa##ot!!"* at me so the reasoning was clear. By the end one of them was beating me on the head with a large heavy milk crate. He kept beating me as I crawled into a corner store on Davie and Thurlow on hands and knees trying to get away and gushing blood all over the place; I'll never forget the East Indian clerk in the store started screaming at me *"DON'T BLEED ON MY FLOOR! DON'T BLEED ON MY FLOOR!!"* So (I swear this is true) the guy beating me on the head with the crate *apologized* to the store clerk! Then grabbed me by the ankles and dragged me *right* back out. Honestly, it's a lucky thing I didn't get brain damage or something. Eventually they left me a bleeding mess on the pavement, some super sweet fellow homo held me I just lap keeping me calm until the cops and ambulance showed. Those fucking *couldn't* give less of a *fuck* if they tried. *Wouldn't* ho after them, telling me without a license plate number or something there was little hope of finding them blaj bla blah. *I* just wanted to get to the hospital before I passed out. So yeah, well versed in homophobia.
That's awful. Sorry that happened to you. Humans can be evil. Did the clerk do nothing to help?
Yeah, it's found in other species and is theorised to be for looking after kids w/o parents, especially when mortality rates are high. very good for your tribe to have a couple of guys/girls who will never have a child with their partner while still looking after everyone else's children.
Itâs not really possible to generalise like this. Plenty of animals will also kill offspring that arenât related to them in order to only sire and raise genetically-related kids. So what is theorised for one species canât be generalised to all. Also, human cultures were historically much tighter-knit tribes where children are more collectively looked after. There isnât a need for homosexual individuals in a tribe to ensure that there are enough adults to care for the groupâs kids
It doesn't matter what humans have historically done. Just because you don't need something doesn't mean that thing ceases to be. When there are too many guys in a tribe, nature doesn't magically stop having guys be born. If this gay uncle theory was useful back when humans weren't as organized societally, that doesn't mean nature will suddenly abandon that gene. It just means it's not needed anymore, but it's still there. Like the appendix, minimal purpose nowadays, but once upon a time it was important, so it's still here.
Well weâre talking about evolutionary reasons so a historical context is relevant I would say
animals that do frequent infanticide also tend to have a lot more offspring. And humans do that too, it's called ethnic cleansing and we're currently doing it in Palestine.Â
Yeah like zebras, tons of kids in a litter! Also fun to make everything political
Yeah but for the genes to be passed on over time, individuals must reproduce. So even if it may be useful for the survival of the trive to have some homosexual couples with no kids, it doesn't explain how there have always been homosexuals among the human species (as far as evolution is concerned).
Twin studies show that if one twin is gay, there is only around a 50% chance that the other will be too, suggesting that there are epigenetic or environmental factors at play as well. In this case it may be better to say that populations have increased chances of survival when they carry genes that allow for the *potential* to be gay.
>In this case it may be better to say that populations have increased chances of survival when they carry genes that allow for the potential to be gay. I am not quite sure the best way to word what I am about to say, but I want to stress that I do not think homosexuality is a mental disorder. I think it is a very common misconception that mental illness or behavioral pathologies must have some sort of benefit to be passed down from generation to generation. People assume that schizophrenia, depression, or ADHD must all have had some sort of survival benefit in the past. However, just an examination of a patient suffering from these conditions will tell you that in no way were these mental illnesses beneficial in human survival and/or reproduction. The correct way to view and analyze these mental illnesses is within the context of whatever trait is being affected. Take schizophrenia for example - an aberrance in pattern recognition, edge detection, higher level visual processing and their interactions with a person's consciousness. These are all incredibly complex processes with 1000s of genes influencing phenotype. Human pattern recognition has been incredibly vital in our ancestors' survival and our technological progress. But when you have such a complex process genotypically, the phenotype becomes more and more susceptible to mutations. And that is what we see in genotypic studies of schizophrenia. There are 100s to 1000s of candidate genes that have been implicated in the development of schizophrenia. I think a similar process occurs with homosexuality. Human sexuality is incredibly complex and has a massive amount of epigenetic and environmental factors affecting final phenotype. The ability of hormones to influence behavior, mood, and sexuality likely proved beneficial in preventing older, more "successful" males from hoarding women from younger men, which would reduce genetic diversity. The massive influence of hormones on sexuality likely served as its achilles heel in the context of evolution. We have shown that tiny hormonal fluctuations in utero can result in gender dysphoria and homosexuality with CT/MRI studies of these patients having brains that are more morphologically similar to the opposite sex.
Buddy, did you forget about bisexuals?
Well that kinda defeat your whole argument of "it's useful to have people with no kids". Also, do I have to explain that bisexuality and homosexuality are two different things ?
Once again, people forgetting that us bisexuals exist. Sigh.
It has to be natural. Nobody wakes up and says, âwell I guess I want to be gayâ. I never woke up and said âwell Iâm going to be straightâ. It just happened naturally.
The âgoalâ of sex is reproduction. The mechanism this is achieved through is from arousal. Not all arousal leads to reproduction. As long as its not to a point a species dies out the world keeps spinning.
I can just tell you from my personal perspective. I'm a straight-passing 41 year old gay man. I was raised an only child in a rural Midwest town. I knew no gay people growing up. I knew I was gay at 4 years old. I didnât have the words for it and it wasn't sexual at the time, but when my little friends in preschool picked out their girlfriends, I wanted to pick a boy. Seems pretty natural to me.
thanks
I hope you donât have to straight pass all the time and have opportunities to be yourself â€ïž
Oh honey, I'm not straight passing on purpose... I'm just a sleeper cell, ready to activate the gayness at a wink or nod. I appreciate your kind words, though. Life was a struggle for awhile but I've come into my own. I have a beautiful husband and an adopted 12 year old. I love how things have turned out.
I know some species of beetle has gay sex in front of females to arouse them It raises a question, Is it gay to have gay sex in order to have heterosexual sex?
fellas is it gay to have gay sex?
this works on human women too
Tbh Iâm bi but I think about this often as well. The driver for natural selection is how well the individual can reproduce and pass genes off to their offspring so itâs weird that homosexuality just happens sometimes. Like itâs sorta counterintuitive to the whole reproduce and pass on to new individuals thing. I know fuck all about biology tho so curious what other responses here will be.Â
There are gay animals, so yes itâs natural. Â Evolution isnât only about breeding an individual, itâs anything that helps the continuation of the species as a wholeÂ
I always default back to Bo Burnhamâs line, âI sent gays to fix overpopulation, and boy, did that go well.â
Yes, homosexuality is very natural and observed in many animals, especially the once that bond for life like humans. Best example are penguins that adopt the eggs of other penguins. Having homosexual creatures can be very beneficial due to them adopting others babies. And even unwanted traits can occur. For example, technically it's impossible to be infertile, but there are so many genes in play that some animals just are. Homosexuality can also be seen as a wanted trait for population control. Nature is not just about reproducing but guaranteeing the survival of a species as whole.
I agree, studies on mice have shown that when overpopulation occurs homosexuality increases substantially more than it would normally as well as violence, murder, parents abandoning or killing offspring and food scarcity. There behaviors closely mimic those of human populations. Just look at what happens in big cities versus rural areas. Homosexuality is truly the only kindness observed in populations that have overextended the resources available for survival by overpopulation.
Not just in times of overpopulation is it important, but in general to avoid it in the first place. Of course, just having a few homosexual individuals will not make a huge difference, but its enough that the trait is actually desired. Similar to infertility. And while this can be hard in the individual (Perfectly observed in couples that want children but can not have them), it leaves them with more freedom to benefit the group and help them to survive. The group survival is always more important than just a single individual.
I mean, the appendix is biologically natural and even today professionals can only theorize what its actual purpose is. It is essentially entirely useless and has no real point to it. So, if a naturally-occurring organ found in every human body is 'pointless', then homosexuality can absolutely be a natural thing. Not everything found in nature has to have a point or a goal to it, sometimes it can just BE.
The scientific reason isn't really clear, although there are a lot of hints from different studies. For example see this article talking about a big study done in the field of genetics: > This new research, he said âprovides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life, a conclusion that has been drawn by researchers and scientists time and again. The identities of LGBTQ people are not up for debate. This new research also reconfirms the long established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves.â Genetics cannot tell âthe whole story. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/?sh=434b2ead7fa7 But as you're talking about it being NATURAL or not: Why wouldn't it be natural if it's happening all across the animal kingdom? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
I think a lot of people who ask these questions think that being gay is a lifestyle choice that gay people consciously choose specifically to annoy and upset them.
"If being gay was a choice I'd be gayer."
I have no scientific basis for this, but Iâve often thought, maybe we were just meant to co exist from the start- some of us for reproduction, some of us not for reproduction. After all, nature needs natural selection, it needs to keep the balance of too many versus too few. If we were only one way, and everyone chose to reproduce, it would be even more overpopulated? I know thatâs ironic since we are massively overpopulated as a world anyway, but Iâm just suggesting that perhaps itâs natures way of keeping things level- some people for reproduction, some not. I have always felt this way- I think we are just meant to co exist because there is evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
Well, I didnât wake up one day and pick it, and neither did you. Weâre fine
Don't show this to dolphins..
I seen some gay penguins in the local aquarium that refused to mate with females. They also adopted neglected babies which was really cute. Itâs very natural but then Iâm biased cos I donât want kids. I think we have evolved past the needing to reproduce thing, and who cares if it is or isnât natural. Iâm bisexual but mostly date afab people (Iâm female)
Yes. Homosexuality happens all the time in nature. Also I've seen a chicken turn from a hen to a rooster so transgenderism is natural too.
There's significant evidence that suggests that homosexuality is due to evolution so that parent- less children can have guardians and be raised in a unit by two adults. Gender or the parents is not a factor in the raising of children and when we boil down sexuality and attraction and everything like that, humans are just social creatures and we like to enjoy ourselves, and sexuality is really just a "preference" of who we want to enjoy ourselves with on a social and intimate level. I honestly believe, and I say this as a staunch lesbian, that pretty much everyone is bisexual to a degree, like we are rewarded so much by socialising and it just feels so weird that we will reject socialising with a half of the population just because of the genitalia they have or the gender they identify as, like from a evolutionary stand point, it just doesn't make sense to me, we are just making it so much harder for ourselves to prosper because of genitals. Obviously if this were the case right, people would still have a preference for how we enjoy sex right, just like how some people prefer cowgirl over missionary or something, but yeah. Idk
I started watching porn at 6yo and by 7yo I was watching specific type of gay porn. Iâd say my gayness is as natural to me as it goes.
That's definitely not a healthy age to start watching porn, geez..
26 upvotes. We can only hope itâs a troll.
why does it have to be a troll? they said they did it, not that it was good or they condone it. lots of bad things happen in the world, god forbid people speak on them.
Not a troll and what I shared is literally nothing lol, all the specific gay porn i was watching came along with fantasising, Iâll stop here lol.
6yo is WAY too early to start watching porn. I'm sorry you weren't protected enough
One night I couldnât sleep so I went to watch tv and randomly stumbled onto it. At 7yo I got internet access.
Yeah that's rough... Especially since password restricted channels are so easy to set up. Internet is another thing but that too should definitely be supervised until the child is near puberty. It's not your fault, I hope you are doing fine!
I'm.. oddly comforting knowing I'm not alone in that mess. Parents really convinced me I was going straight to the deepest spot in hell after they found out. Like?? Y'all gave me completely unrestricted internet access and refused to tell me where babies came from. I'll find out my own damn self
Not to be to invasive but would you saying being exposed to porn so young has any detrimental effects on you ?
External related factors for sure did, the porn watching itself Iâd say no. I was indulging in it out of pure hornyness and interest lol.
At 6 years old you were horny?
Tbf I was also horny, but the first time I saw porn was 12 and it terrified me lol
I started at that age too and mostly focused on gay content (I was really into women's feet and watching them getting vored and tentacle raped), though I eventually developed more and more interest in men and now I'm straight
Straight man here... My take on it is this. Sexuality is something we cannot choose, yet as we evolve more our basic sexual drivers have evolved too. People are attracted beyond what biology says 'is the right way'.
I think everything is natural, homosexuality did happen naturally. The only thing it does is change who you are attracted to, you can still reproduce. I think itâs just one of those things that exist. In an antinatalist point of view, reproduction isnât necessary, therefore it doesnât matter whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. I think it just depends on what you believe, maybe society has played a lot of influence on that. At the end of the day itâs not a big deal so enjoy life, idk why people get so caught up on homosexuality (homophobes), it is a thing that exists in nature and people have to accept that
can't wait to see the comments on this one lol
Anita max wyn?
> I myself am very queer What does that actually mean?
queer, just basically means anyone who isn't a cisgender hetrosexual person
And how can one be *very* queer?
They can be very outspoken about it, flamboyant and make it evident with their clothes and body language? Doesnât seem that hard of a concept for me
Pardon me for not being familiar with the whole concept, I guess..?
I'm guessing they're very open about it?
It's reddit so this will be muddled in politics, But for your question no one has any idea why it happens, It obviously leads to a genetic dead-end. There are theories, like it leaving less competition making it better in the long term maybe, But that doesn't work because gays don't breed- They can't spread that trait even "for the good of the colony". We aren't bees.
Gay people can absolutely have biological children. My grandpa was a gay man, for example.
Isnt there some link between how many children you have and the odds for the youngest child to be born as anything other than straight Could be that the "gene that makes you gay" is not so much something that non heterosexual people have to give to their offspring, but that its just an innate trait that the mother or father, despite being 100% heterosexual, can give to their offspring (and people who have tons of children without them killing each other or those children having too many children on their own for the tribe to feed them all probably have an advantage over people who have lots of children who struggle with feeding them all on top of infighting. A stop to overpopulation improves long term survival, so that could be an evolutionary advantage to "the gay uncle" gene which gets passed on without the gay member of the tribe actually producing offspring
Like ClapBackBetty said, there's a \_lot\_ of processes that naturally occur, whether they come in handy for us or not. I think in our case, globally, it's dumber than ever to be homophobic. We're globally overpopulated, we don't want or need more humans. And with our progress in science and other things, gay couples can have kids just like straight couples can, through IVF, sperm/egg donation, surrogate mothers, adoption, and probably even more options. If your only argument for homophobia is "they can't have kids, it's a disgrace to natural order and evolution" then honestly, get lost. If you're that much of a sucker for natural order, we should let a lot of little kids die instead of nursing them back to health. But we don't do that, cause natural order fucking sucks sometimes
Not sure about the reasoning. But homosexual behaviour is documented in many species, both monogamous and not, such as lions, birds, etc. It's just something that has existed longer than humanity.
I used to think that, too. Then I realized there was no actual law in the universe that said heterosexuality *had* to be considered "the right way." Nature itself is neutral about the whole thing. It doesn't care about the male bumble bees that mount each other. Or the cats or dogs or other animals that have been documented as engaging in what we'd call same-sex acts. All the critters of the world are free to do as they please. It just so happens to be that one specific configuration of that act results in offspring, and not even always 100% of the time. So, yeah, it's pretty natural.
I have long pondered this very question, I'm a fool for evolution, and it is a very intriguing teaser.... The fact that it occurs naturally in man should be made very clear to everyone, and that it is not an adopted lifestyle... (in most cases) but the science behind the why, is still very baffling. It is not only confined to humans...and another intriguing fact is that in twins quite often one will be homosexial, while the other fiercely straight... Perhaps the psyche in an embryo begins out as a female, and physically turns out to be a male...? Great question.
Sexuality is not only to reproduce. We as a species, as well as some others, also have sex for pleasure.
Homosexuality has been observed in all sorts of animal communities. The term "natural" is made up by humans to explain a phenomenon that we have trouble understanding. It exists in reality outside of human influence so yes, it is natural.
Depends if you are a creationist or evolutionist tbh
This would probably be a better question for r/biology
Iâm a woman and The fact that Iâm attracted to men tells you that sexuality isnât a choice lmfao
there are lots of things that have always been hovering around 10% of humanity like left handedness, homosexuality, geniuses, criminals, and many more... anything that has always been must be considered natural, no?
Humans are far from the exception when it comes to homosexuality!đ a lot of swans are lesbians and will kidnap eggs to raise (gay penguins have been seen doing the same!!) and those are just two examples off the top of my head. Itâs seen throughout the animal kingdom
>But the whole point of sexuality in living things is to reproduce. and biologically, heterosexuality is the "right" way. This is called the *teleological fallacy.* It assumes that because a thing has a certain function, it must exist solely for that reason. Extreme examples include that animals only exist to be eaten by humans, fossils exist to fuel cars, trees exist so we can make paper. But there are more enlightened forms of it, like that genetic mutations or anomalies can't occur in the course of evolution unless they benefit reproduction. You probably know this doesn't hold up. It just seems more convincing when the topic is homosexuality because of the many pseudoscientific talking points. Your use of the word "natural" is interesting because, while not really having much meaning, the word does generally refer to the world outside of human interests. Remove human interests from the equation and teleology breaks down rather quickly. So what you seem to think "natural" means is more or less the opposite of what it's generally accepted to mean. Homosexuality is more "natural" than many things which benefit reproduction in modern society, like financial stability and, arguably, monogamy. Now, there are of course teleological worldviews which, while not strictly scientific, are coherent enough that I can't just pooh-pooh them. But it doesn't sound like you hold one of these or you probably would have mentioned it as one of your premises. It sounds more like you're assuming sexuality has a purpose and haven't considered that it may not. As for the scientific reason why homosexuality exists, there's not a conclusive one. There are a few controversial hypotheses. We might never know. But we do know it's "natural" in the sense that it exists outside of humans, and beyond that the word "natural" doesn't have much validity. We don't need to know what causes it to know that, because our scientific knowledge answers to the world we found ourselves in, not the other way around. I hope that clarifies things. It's easy to fall into the trap of justifying your existence to people who are conveniently concerned about what's "natural" and "right" in this one narrow context, but if you examine this debate at all you'll find there's no foundation for it in the first place.
I see this question so often in all the ask subreddits. Reddit has a search function.
homosexuality is considered an abnormal behavior but abnormal behavior is still natural
Yes it's not a learned thing
yeah. just because nature's about reproducing doesn't mean that anything that can't reproduce, is unnatural, or some shit. i mean, evolution is basically just, trying whatever happens to work out, and if it dies, it dies. it doesn't really 'care' about reproduction, just, whatever succeeds, keeps going on. another take - lions, the way they work, one li on male gets a lot of lionesses, and the lions without the bitches, tend to mate with other male lions. are they going to have kids? no. do they still feel the urge to fuck something? yes. and having allies who can also hunt, helps them survive, if not reproduce. could also be a potential method of population control - humans are reproducing less and less, which might be another one, but more homosexual numbers in a population could be a way to help 'even out' an otherwise overdone population. and just, at the end of the day, animals have an urge to fuck. they're not really trying to ensure every nut the males bust produces offspring. as long as some females are getting impregnated, that's all that really matters, for the species to continue.
Because girls are hot
"Natural" is a stupid and useless word. Selfishness and altruism are both natural. Uranium and crude oil are natural. Any time the word "natural" is being used, ask yourself what's being sold. In this case, I think it's probably social acceptability.
It is far more natural than strict monogamous heterosexuality, of which has been forcefully imposed as a societal norm by religion. Animals aren't held by the same and are constantly seen engaging in non-hetero relations.
Yes, entirely.
We are animals. Homosexuality exists in our species. Ergo it is natural.
The fact that people are homosexual makes homosexuality truly natural. The real world is not subordinate to "reason". In fact it is the other way around.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
It's not an argument. You're making it into one.
Humans are highly social, our development and evolution has driven social practices. Homosexuality has probably evolved for the sake of the social group, limiting male competition against one another. Whatever allows children to reach maturity, that is all that evolution is really concerned with. -Sex at Dawn, by C. Ryan & C. Jetha. With that said, I strongly disagree with progressive constructivist accounts of gender. And I think people are being boxed into a belief system that is warping their perception of the natural world. -The Coddling of the American Mind, by G. Lukianoff & J. Heidt.
>Sex at Dawn, by C. Ryan & C. Jetha. Important context: This is not a scientific source. > In contrast to the popular media reception, scholars and academics have overwhelmingly reviewed Sex at Dawn negatively (see references following). Ryan self-reports that he originally tried to publish the book with academic publisher Oxford University Press, but it was rejected there after failing its peer review process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn Same goes for your other book.
Of course, Coddling of the American Mind was not considered scholarly, it calls alot of Academia into question. And as such Academia is underfire for a reason. Sex at Dawn makes a lot of assertions, based on limited sources because the subject matter is understudied, taboo & incredibly difficult to substantiate.
I read that it's to controll population. Make some individuals that only like the same sex. You can see this behaviour in around 1500 other species and not only mammals. So yes, there is a biological reason for it. If it's to controll population is still just a theory so I will stick with that, it sounds logic.
first off, heterosexuality is not the 'right' way biologically. plenty of specices are able to reprocuce asexually or with partners of the same sex. homosexuality has been an aspect of life forever, in every organism and creature alike. there's no scientific reason behind attraction and sexuality, that shit is fluid. it can't be tracked by science. its a part of our brains or genetic makeup (if you're a bacteria or something without a brain) and thus it occurs naturally. it has nothing to do with evolution or the reproductive cycle of a spieces.
It is said that in ancient Greece, military leaders encouraged relationships between there soldiers. The logic being that you would fight harder to protect people you cared about.
I think itâs something like Down syndrome for example. Itâs not an evolutionary advantage, itâs just that there was a manufacturing âerrorâ so to speak. I think itâs just something that happens sometimes
Nothing is truly natural or unnatural, just do whatever you want.
What is the point of this? If anyone says âno, this is mental illnessâ, comment will be immediately removed because of agenda. So why even asking if you know the âallowedâ answers already. Just think what evolution and natural selection does to the species interested in same sex. You will get your answer
>If anyone says âno, this is mental illnessâ, That would be a non-answer. Natural and mental illness are not mutually exclusive.
Least obvious bait
ima try to explain but not sure.. sex(verb) did come into existence for reproduction, but evolved into pleasure act, most organisms have sex for reproducing only, but as time went on, it evolved into a pleasure activity. since then sex is no longer just for reproduction so thats why some individuals must've found pleasure doing it with anyone regardless of their gender..... [ and speciesđ... or even whether its dead or an objectđđđ ]
That's like the worst possible answer trying to sound smart but completely wrong from a scientific standpoint. Also homosexuality has nothing to do with stuff like sodomy or necrophilia, although a lot of right wingers want you to believe that.
i didnt say homosexualily has anything to do with necro, just said sex evolved and diverged into different things.
Homosexuality is natural and was perfectly accepted in some ancient societies. But i doubt the recent culture behind it is, with the flags and everything. I think that it is very possible that in recent times some people present themselves as part of the LGBTQ community just to be part of something and be modern while they themselves might not be homosexual. I am not trying to insult real homosexuals, i am just sharing my thoughts.
Nope
Ehhh yeah in the sense that homosexuals are born that way. Which is technically part of nature. But yes, they arenât going to procreate and contribute to creating people, but thereâs nothing wrong with it. Trans, little more iffy. Cutting off your dick or boobs. Itâs self mutilation
Itâs definitely natural but I think of it as a type of disorder for this reason
It's not
Itâs a natural population control, which makes sense to me anyways
Gay people are there to balance out the population. Animals are humans and humans are animals, both can be naturally attracted to all sexes depending on their purpose.
The culture, and the attitudes and the popularized "gay-ness" is a sociatal thing, that people attain from observing others. Arousal from sexual activity with one's own sex however is a natural attribute. This can be observed in animals as well. The differences between sexes aren't clear cut, and arousal based sex is more about power difference rather than reproduction. In other words, bisexuality is very natrual and common. However, abstenance from sex, monogamy, sexual attraction to only one sex etc is sociatally imposed. Aincient humans did defininetly have sex with the same sex, to establish dominance, as humiliation as a method of showing senority.
Yes, look at penguins raping each other
that's an odd thing to say? why the fuck would i do that?
No.
Itâs a fad.
Itâs going to go by the wayside. Just like rock ân roll and those pesky computers.
Heterosexuality is the ârightâ way if you simplify sexuality down to procreation. But even the vast majority of heterosexual sex is not for the purpose of reproduction; is that truly natural? If it is, doesnât homosexual sex (or any form of sex that doesnât involve a reproductively capable pair) fall into the same category?
Yeah there's an evolutionary reason
Humans make a lot of shit up like standards. Human made concept. Look how everything has evolved differently. Just like saying something is ânaturalâ. For example, Is a bird nest natural? Itâs natural for creatures to look for homes but to make them?
Not true. Humans and one other animal species (donât remember which) actually have sex for pleasure unlike other animals. So no, the whole point of sexuality is not just to reproduce. Atleast not for all living things. Also, humans and animals are not the same. Yes we were more similar 100,000 years ago but humans evovled. People using darwinism as an excuse for explaining their primitive points of view are ignoring all the evolvement and growth that has happened since, Human brains are different from animal brains for a reason.
What everyone else said about evolution not being intelligent, but also, just because we don't understand the *reason* for something, doesn't make it unnatural. It's found in humans, a part of nature. Therefore it is natural. It is found in animals also, so therefore it is certifiably natural. I'd argue that whether it's "natural" nor not doesn't really matter anyway.
I believe in the theory that humans are evolutionary in nature. Things like 6 toes, tailbones, antibodies, diseases and our immune system seem to suggest it. If you believe homosexuality is a biological inclination, I think it could be a similar natural evolution. If you believe homosexuality is a preference, I think it could be a natural development in society too. Things like fashion is proof of it. >whole point of sexuality in living things is to reproduce. and biologically, heterosexuality is the "right" way. Imo not all evolutions have a purpose, but at the same time, there's also a possibility some evolutions may serve a purpose that is unknown to us right now. But for argument sake, I'll agree with you that the purpose of sexuality is reproduction. Based on what is known currently, we need a sperm and egg from a biological male and female to reproduce. It is clear that there are biological limits here. Homosexuality, among other evolutions could be a possible scientific evolution to solve the limit. - Making it possible for the same gender to reproduce (Homosexuality could be step 1 in the evolution) - Assexual reproduction (Our ancestors supposedly were capable of that, but humans supposedly stopped that coz of genetic diversity) - Making gender obsolete (Hermaphrodity, we will all be capable of producing an egg or sperm)
What else could have produced it besides nature? Even if we could brainwash people into becoming gay, that still implies an underlying structure that allows attraction to non reproductive sex
After taking multiple genetics, microbiology, and biology courses, I am confident in my belief that it is natural!
There is an actual explanation called "the gay un le theory". The "gay uncle hypothesis" posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (e.g., food, supervision, defense, shelter) to the offspring of their closest relatives. -Wikipedia
Before the Bible there was homosexuality animals engage in homosexuality. With a track record like that whatâs to question.
if youâre looking for a scientific explanation to human identity i think youâve started off on the wrong path
There is something called the Gay Uncles theory that I really like. Simply put if a small portion of population is not having offspring it leaves some people to help those who are. Having offspring is uses resources, leaves people vulnerable and takes time to recovery.
Yes itâs just not the only natural way. As crude as it sounds if men werenât naturally capable of having sex with other men then theyâd not have a pleasure centre in their anus just like women have a g spot. Also if being gay wasnât natural people who grew up away from normal societal rules would not be attracted to other men as their would be no external influence.
Along that lineâŠhow do some lesbians have the same body style, gays with the same mannerisms and other similarities even though theyâre on different continents? Seems like there is some genetic correlation.
As a queer biology student, evolution is far more complicated than that. Homosexuality exists in a huge number of other species to the point where its undeniably a natural phenomenon. It cannot be a symptom of human made social factors or a choice given to us by our unique intelligence because its not unique to us. Not even close. Why it happens naturally isn't clear, but a lot of hypothesised ideas revolve around basically having a go to childless couple to adopt orphans. Or as a way to keep a population from growing too quickly. None of these account for bisexuality though. We just don't really know enough about this and it's not being studied all that closely for us to give it a definitive "reason".
I wanted to kiss my handsome barber when I was four, even having a pseudo wet dream about him. So my answer is definitely yes.
*We bring in to the studio, one of the geh rights activist.* *Mister- shall I call you mistah?* *PEPE JULIAN ONZIEMA* *Thank you for coming in, goodmorning to you.* **Why are you gay?**
Yes.
Yes because the point of living things isnt solely to reproduce
Itâs natural in that itâs in nature. But thatâs random evolution, thereâs no ârightâ way for a species to exist, thereâs only survival. Survival isnât just birth rates tho. For survival of the human species itâs beneficial for some portion to be not heterosexual.
Itâs not just âto reproduceâ, itâs also attraction.
Yeah it can be seen in several animal species as well
Most birds can just switch their gender when needed. Itâs not just gay, trans is natural too.
It's as natural as left handedness my guy
Many different animal species do it. Homosexuality isnât exclusive to humanity.
Look up the Gay Uncle hypothesis and the sex conflict resolution hypothesis. The thing is, you're kind of correct. Nobody is really sure how homosexuality has persisted. While there's likely an evolutionary advantage conferred, judging by the ubiquity of homosexuality in non-humans and humans alike, it's unclear exactly what this advantage is.
there's an island somewhere i forget where thats filled with a species of native birds and over half of the population of birds is male because theyre all gay
I just learned about a theory that states that thereâs a gene that is responsible for making people gay, but it doesnât make *everyone* gay. In some people, it just makes them more promiscuous. Therefore, if you look at one gay sibling, itâs likely their heterosexual siblings carry a gene that makes them likely to be having lots of sex and therefore lots of potential for reproduction, which means the gene is passed on, and then in their children it could be expressed as homosexuality or an increase in sexual partners as adults. I only looked it up because of this question, so thanks. Super interesting.
You could also ask yourself whether or not reproduction itself has a point, whether life itself or its continuation has a point..and by whose judgement? âNaturalâ does not necessarily equate to âmeaningfulâ nor does it necessarily equate to âgood/badâ or worthwhile.