Is it offensive to say...

Post Reply New Topic

I asked a boy at school (we're kind of friends. He is gay) "Why does homosexuality/Why do gay people exist?" and he said that was offensive, but I don't understand why. The reason I asked is because although accept its not a 'choice' as such, I don't understand why it exists. I always thought that one of the main natural instincts of every species is to reproduce and carry on the species/family line, so why would homosexuality exist, as this goes against that? If it is a natural thing, why would it evolve? It isn't as prevalent in other animal species, so why humans? The boy said that comment was homophobic, but I didn't mean it to be at all, as I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I just simply don't understand the idea of it, it seems illogical (unlike most other things in animal nature).

It's offensive because you asked the wrong person, and possibly because he wasn't prepared.
A mature person, in the right setting, and if you phrase it carefully, might give a better answer.

Asking an honest question like that here on WrongPlanet is fine.

I'm not gay, so I don't really know.
But homosexuality in animals is common.
Maybe it's related to overpopulation -- we don't need to do any more procreating.

I think it may be a measure in the human DNA for population control, maybe.

I think, like Autism, doesn't need to exist for an evolutionary reason, but that doesn't make it wrong. It creates diversity

Near as science can tell, it's related to maternal hormones that are released not-on-schedule during pregnancy; we can replicate it fairly accurately in several animal species.

Why does autism exist? How about Asperger's? Do you see the parallel in those questions?

I don't think they are parallel because autism doesn't really affect one of the main instinctive drives in any animal population.

Well, homosexuality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the instinct to reproduce. Some gay and lesbian people reproduce. And some heterosexual people purposely do not. If it's a disruption in what you consider to be humans' reproductive instincts you wonder about, then your question applies to other things as well: why do people mate with people they know are infertile? Why do elderly couples (who cannot conceive) exist or continue to have sex? Why do people use birth control or get vasectomies or tubal ligation? Why do asexual people exist? All of those things "go against" the instinct to reproduce.

However, animals have instincts other than reproduction. Humans instinctually seek companionship and pleasure as well (both physical affection and non-reproductive sex), and homosexuality is merely another source of companionship and pleasure. So it is not unusual in that sense because people who are not homosexual also have non-reproductive sex. All non-reproductive sex is in some sense unusual when you compare it to the behavior of other animals, however.

Last edited by starkid on 13 Jan 2014, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It affects socialization. That seems like a main instinctive drive.

I also doubt that homosexuality necessarily affects a main instinctive drive.

We don't know what the goal of evolution is, but we do know it's getting there.

I don't think what you asked was wrong or inappropriate from your description, unless you disrupted him while doing something. At that point it's more a social dynamic than content that could be wrong.

Our intrinsic human social structure, at its base, is formulated around dealing with a tribe of around 24 humans, 12 of each gender, which constituted the ideal tribe size for survival and sustainability, back when we were a tribal species. Statistics say that around 5-10% of men are gay, which, as it turns out, is very close to 1 in 12.

So, assuming that being gay is an evolutionary trait, why would we want 1 out of those 12 males in our ideal tribe to be a fan of his fellow men?

As best as evolutionary anthropologists can figure, because that one man will be unimpeded by the need for procreation. As an individual without any direct offspring of his own, if another member of the tribe that has children is struck dead, the gay man is by default unattached to any children and can fill the void left by the dead father or mother by raising the orphaned children as his own.

In short, surprisingly, homosexual adoption is intended by human nature, and is likely the entire reason homosexuality exists in the first place.

That has to be one of the most convoluted, nonsensical attempts to pseudo-logically rationalize something that I have ever heard.

In nature you find there is a higher occurrence of homosexual creatures in populations that are overgrown or saturated. So to me its just a natural population curb. I'm gay and its why I'm not having children, my instincts tell me to mate with someone I can't bear children with. I wouldn't mind adopting but I won't be passing along my DNA, that would be arrogant to think I know better than the powerhouse that is Nature.

Why yes, it is easy to dismiss an opinion with THAT WRONG. Care to elaborate on why THAT WRONG?

Here's some educational reading. While not the exact tree I've been barking up, they point out some other evolutionary advantages of being gay in a primal, tribal structure:

www.cavementimes.com/social-matters/224 ... homosexual
http://www.livescience.com/33987-gay-men.html

I'd wager that comes from bisexual members of the species not feeling inclined to HAVE to reproduce when the species' survival is not on the line. So, in a roundabout way, yes, but genetics still don't work that way. It's correlation, not causation.

Genetics never takes into account the balance of a species in the world. All lifeforms will expand to fill up all possible and available space, they just generally are struck dead by any number of things before they can repopulate with the magnitude that humans have.

Except that some gay and lesbian people do want to procreate, and do so. That explanation only works if gay men are (or were) significantly less likely than men who are not gay to desire to procreate. I don't know that they are.

Also, it seems quite doubtful that a 50/50 split in the sexes is ideal. Isn't the birth rate of females typically slightly higher than that of males?

There's at least one simpler explanation: Overpopulated areas tend to be cities. Cities tend to have a relatively liberal atmosphere, and hence more people feel free to act on same-sex desires. Add to that the people who move there specifically because of this liberal atmosphere that allows them to be out.

One can't legitimately assume that there is a greater (or lesser) occurence of homosexuals in any given place, because one never knows who has homosexual desires until those desires are spoken of or acted upon, and that is unlikely to happen until there is a relatively large homosexual population to begin with.

The want for progeny is there - that's why gay men in the tribal structure would be inclined to adopt. They could father children, but again, that requires mating with someone they are not attracted naturally to, and would likely only occur when the need for the tribe to have children outweighs the gay man's own personal, sexual needs.

Again, this is all inclination, but that's what genetics deal with. Individuals can differ, but genetics creates the larger trend that directs the species.



It is, but it's something like 51% to 49%, making a 12/12 split still the probable outcome. Still, it's important for females to have a slightly higher probability of birth than males, as the reproductive role they fill is significantly more vital for the survival of the species.