Is it offensive to say...

Post Reply New Topic

I have seen a lot of answers in here none that I really agree with

for me, it is offensive because it is the same as asking why I am left handed or I have green eyes, I am lesbian becuae this is how I am.

why are you straight, it is just the way you are. we are attracted to who we are and we just want to have our relationships accepted in the same way everyone else's are. mine have been just as valid as anybody else's.

I don't think it is offensive because I asked a question about something I don't understand, the same as I do with everything I don't understand- how else do you learn? I am not at all homophobic and I believe all people are equal and have equal rights. I was questioning this, as I find it interesting and want to learn the reasons behind it ( for example, being left handed or having green eyes is different as that is a passed on gene, unlike something such as homosexuality), in the same way someone else mentioned "why does autism exist?". I don't understand other people very well at all and I'm just curious as to why people are the way they are.

it is all in the way it is asked and attitude and the problems that have been face

see few people with some problems have actually been killed for having their problem, however I have had hate crimes committed against me form my orientation. Others have actually been killed or even tortured to death, this causes a sensitivity, memories last.

History hasn't exactly been that kind to people with my political standpoint either...

I am so sorry for limiting your right to be hateful and shove me in a closet and make me take reparative therapy having to live with PTSD the rest of my life, or you want to kill people like me and drag them behind you pick up truck - I just don't see that as the same as just wanting to be allowed the freedom of loving the person I was born to love

Every trait has a genetic basis, and many human traits don't have a simple all or none effect. There are varying degrees of bi- and homosexuality, or autism for that matter. And there are genetic predispositions that only come to pass when certain environmental conditions are met, such as certain hormone levels in the womb. These environmental conditions may affect male and female offspring in different ways, resulting in hyper-feminine and more fertile females as well as feminized males. And indeed research shows that particularly fertile women are statistically more likely to have gay sons. This goes to show that a trait that gives one sex a reproductive advantage, and will therefore be naturally selected for, can lead to a reproductive disadvantage in offspring of the other sex.

Another factor is that genetic traits that come in varying degrees can sometimes provide a reproductive advantage if they occur at lower intensities. Think of slightly feminized men who have more maternal instincts than their hypermasculine counterparts and are thus more invested in offspring care. They're simply kinder and less aggressive fathers, and probably more inclined to pair-bond and less likely to "hit and run". Of course natural selection for a low intensity variant of such a trait also selects for the high intensity phenotype, which in this case may not have any sexual interest in women. (Of course I don't mean to suggest that all gay men are feminine, but it is a fact that feminized men are more likely to be gay or bisexual, and/or have a gender identity that doesn't correspond with their biological sex).

Yet another mechanism is kin selection, by which the behavioral traits of non-reproducing individuals grant a reproductive advantage to their siblings and cousins. This advantage can range from babysitting and helping to provide for the offspring of a relative, to warriors who selflessly give their life for the benefit of their clan or tribe. The phenomenon of kin selection has also been used to explain human menopause, which is unique among primates. It seems like a reproductive disadvantage at first glance, but it is actually an advantage for children to have an invested grandmother and thus an increased level of maternal care and provision. In the exact same way, kin selection can favor individuals who don't reproduce at all.

These are just three mechanisms by which non-reproductive individuals can be positively selected for. But there are other explanations. Sometimes, biological traits simply piggy-back on other traits. Think of a Leonardo daVinci, who, for all we know, neither left offspring nor assisted other individuals with childcare. One genetic trait may have led to da Vinci's astonishing intellect, another to his sexual orientation (gay and asexual seem the most likely candidates). If trait A and B are linked and frequently occur together, a selection for trait A will result in an increased incidence of trait B. Even if these traits always occur together and no direct selection through reproduction takes place, it is easy to see why human populations with intellectual geniuses like da Vinci were better off than populations without such thinkers, tinkerers and inventors. In this case, we're basically talking kin selection on a much larger scale.

PS: Please note that I'm strictly talking in a biological sense here. None of this is meant as a value judgement, and I'm not attempting to justify human sexual behavior (or the lack thereof) by means of assigning it a biological role or evolutionary advantage. It simply doesn't have to be justified, since humans exist in their own right and aren't worker ants who live solely for the good of the collective. All I'm trying to do is explain the mechanisms of natural selection in regard to sexual orientation, and as a member of the LGBT community, I don't find it offensive to wonder what made us the way we are. But of course I agree with GivePeaceAChance that it's very important how this question is phrased, and for which reason.

How am I being hateful? Did I ever say I was homophobic?

this will be my last statement I have made my point - wish there was a block feature on this forum, I am about to either self harm or go postal

I have made my position VERY CLEAR and then yo keep coming back at me, and you keep being very vague and using things like ...and stuff leaving me to read into so I get you as the opposite of me - I am clearly on one end so you must be the other so I take what you give I will hit the not read this thread again so I will never see your response OK?

To be honest as far as science nows in males at least it is NOT genetic. It's epigenetic, so it all happens because of epigen markers in the womb that are meant to stop the child being seen as a foreign body (I may be wrong about what epigen markers actually do so sorry if I am) and So It wouldn't have anything to do with species evolution and more about a natural process sometimes having side effects. That's why twins are more likely to share sexual orientation.

Also homosexuality is not more prevalent in humans than in animals there just happens to be larger numbers of humans. To be honest no one knows why it's there.

It effect the need for conformity and social cohesion

I assume he was talking about animal populations not just human.

If he was being sincere in asking about that, then I don't see any real offence given. Sure you can take offence from it, as you can take offence from pretty much any stimuli directed at you.

It should be the same as asking why you are left handed, as it is something that you are. The mind of someone who is heterosexual has objective differences from the mind of someone who is homosexual (both people of the same gender). That's what you could say to this person, that your mind is physically different than a comparable mind of someone who is heterosexual. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me why I have brown hair, I would just tell this person that my genes produce the amount of melanin that gives my hair a brownish color.

I can see how someone could take offence to that.. but from a curious aspie pov, I get why you'd ask and not intend to offend.

Moving on.. biochemically it exists due to specific hormone levels during certain stages of fetal development. Too little testosterone at certain stages and bam, a gay human is created.

Also, I've read that homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 species - so it's not just a human thing. It's definitely natural & not a choice. Think about it.. why would anyone choose it w/ the stigma attached, the stress/anxiety, and even the death penalty in some countries. It's just as naturally occurring as heterosexuality.

why would it evolve?

Perhaps so we'd have people like Davinci & other artists/engineers/thinkers/musicians etc focusing on solving humanity's problems and enriching the lives of others vs. expending their energy on raising families.

I think they assumed that you were implying that homosexuality shouldn't exist. Some people read some crazy things in honest questions (though I don't blame them).

I think that either homosexuality works as population control or it's just one of those anomalies you find in nature. But then human sexuality is multi-faceted so I honestly couldn't tell you.

There is no simple answer to whether or not something is offensive. The rule, always, is, "know your audience."

I, for one, find absolutely nothing in the least offensive about the question or its context. I think it is a valuable question that deserves study not merely by the scientific community, but by each and every queer person. We should never be afraid to ask the questions, "Why am I here? What role can I best play in my community?"

On the other hand, GivePeaceAChance clearly is not prepared to hear that question, and not prepared to inquire into it. Which is fair enough.

As for the substantive question, I think that people bringing an evolutionary lens to this question are misdirecting themselves.

First things first--let's assume that homosexuality is grounded in neurophysiology, and that its etiology is linked to particular (if as yet unknown) stimuli. Whether it's endocrine levels in utero or some other origin, let's assume for the sake of discussion that it arises as a function of physical biology.

Now it's not a long mental leap from that assumption to, "So how did this trait appear in human (and animal) species? What aspects of natural selection favour this?". Well, before assuming that this is the correct question, I think we have to unveil an assumption that is buried in that question: that homosexuality is heritable. However, I don't think that this assumption bears scrutiny. The vast majority of queer folk (myself included) were born to heterosexual parents. Meanwhile, the children of queer folk display no greater likelihood to be queer than the population in general.

So if homosexuality is not heritable, why then do we bring the analytical lens of reproductive potential to the question? Yes, the substantial majority of queer folk don't reproduce. But that has nothing to do with where the next generation of queer folk come from.

Why does homosexuality exist? Because animals and human beings are unbelievably complicated biochemical machines which each display individual traits that differentiate one from the other.

I'd go even further than that; I think that questioning the issue through a biological lens at all is misguided. The OP and perhaps other posters seem to conflate heterosexuality with reproduction, and on the basis that reproduction is an instinctive and evolutionarily necessary biological function, conclude that heterosexuality is somehow instinctive, and homosexuality is thus anomalous behavior. But heterosexuality is not reproduction, doesn't require reproduction, doesn't necessarily involve reproduction. Reproduction merely requires ejaculation in the vicinity of a vagina; in contrast, the concept of heterosexuality includes love, companionship, non-reproductive sex, and may exclude sex altogether (if one includes opposite-sex romantic asexuals in the "heterosexual" category).

So, unless the OP clarifies what is meant by these terms (thus illuminating the implicit connection between reproduction and heterosexuality in the original post), the original question is in some sense meaningless. And then what about bisexuals?

As I said before, if the OP is questioning why there exists behavior that opposes reproductive instinct, the appropriate grouping of categories is not gay vs. straight (and I take issue with your conflation of gay or homosexual/lesbian and queer, as there are self-identified queer people who are not interested in same-sex anything) but reproductively favorable behavior vs. reproductively unfavorable behavior. As there are numerous factors that dictate whether or not a person will engage in one or the other, the OP's reproductive-instinct-dictates-coupling-behavior premise is revealed to be simplistic at best.