Cliff LyonHomosexuality is Natural and Normal
By popular demand from this post.
The very question about a biological basis for homosexuality is motivated by social and religious conservatives who simply cannot deal with it. Further exacerbated by media and politics, the homosexuality-is-a-choice crowd has produced an explosion ‘armchair’ scientists not seen since The Church threw Galileo in prison.
Is it fair to point to the dearth of biological evidence for same sex preference? Only since people started coming out of the closet has there been ANY real research surrounding sexual preference, gay or straight.
So lets all be straight if only for a moment. There is no scientific correlation, genetic, statistical, social, behavioral, or otherwise that predicts heterosexuality. Therefore, to simply insist that a significant, though minority variation (gay) within our species must be ‘learned’ is bad logic.
Think about it. At the same moment science finally proves the biological origin for same-sex attraction, so too will science, FOR THE FIRST TIME, have shown a biological predictor for heterosexuality.
Here’s what we do know. At least 450 species exhibit homosexual traits. Some species can even CHANGE their sex. At least 1% of human babies are born with inconclusive gender. A passing glance at the subject of human gender identity should be sufficient to conclude that all those gay kids coming out of good, red-blooded, American Mormon families has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘CHOICE.’
That said, my strong and probably correct conviction that homosexuality is a perfectly natural expression of human sexuality comes from my study of a radically unpopular subject known as social biology, or evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology (Ev Psych) is the process of looking at human behavior and emotion through the lens of our zoology. This book changed the way I understand myself and others.
Here’s a quick primer:
Darwinism posits that selection for reproductive advantage is the driver of adaptation. This includes behavior a well as physical traits. As politically incorrect as it may be, there is for example, a reproductive advantage for love.
Keep in mind, it takes 10,000 years for new evolutionary traits take hold in our species, therefore, humans today are pretty much as we were prior to civilization (the ancestral environment). Please also understand, Ev Psych is just a starting point. I am not suggesting we do not sometimes act in ways that contradict our instinct (free agency/enlightened behavior).
Among all mammals, women are disproportionally weaker than men and human children are born more prematurely (and helpless for years against predators including other men and older children). Therefore, the male parental investment to raise a human baby is the highest among mammals. Therefore kin selection must have been primary determinate of survival. Since our reproductive adaptations evolved BEFORE we understood the direct connection between intercourse and babies, it is more likely that immediate family members of the mother played a critical role in the survival of all kin. Sociological studies prove this is still true today. i.e I will defend my siblings, nieces and nephews (even if I don’t like them) before I will defend a friend or stranger.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is advantageous because homosexuals will care for their nieces and nephews.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
At any moment, R.O. or The Enlightened Mr. Mero will chime into this thread with an overly wordy rationale for congenital pugnifiscent lameness.
Wait for it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
RO actually asked for the Darwinian theory in a fairly genuine way. Paul Jesus Mero however is another question. He’s a tough cookie to crack what with his world class expertise in sex ‘in all.
You know, if we lose this one (Prop 8) they gonna try to take away masterbation. Who wouldn’t vote for THAT?
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
My apologies to R.O.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Thank you for this. So…1) sexuality is a choice and 2) human beings and animals are different. That’s all I’ve been saying.
But maybe “cav” would like me to bust into a lenghty recap?
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“Keep in mind, it takes 10,000 years for new evolutionary traits take hold in our species”.
Don’t wish to disagree, but frankly humans really don’t know anything solid and conclusive from 10,000 years ago about ourselves. It certainly isn’t definitive, and is largely speculative.
With the advent of genetic manipulation, we will see incredibly rapid changes in our “evolution” though, if not in this restrictive country, but in others that cannot control it.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
It’s ok Paul.
While evolution has been taking taking up an incredible amount of time, I, for one am getting a little impatient.
Cain’t hep mahsef.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Let me qualify that to say that we don’t know squat about human social arrangements from 10,000 years ago.
We can only only make assumptions, about how people lived, and how the oriented found their places in that society, which, point in fact, is described only by the remnants of buildings, and works, and piles of bones, worked into archeologists and social theorists suppositions.
Comparisons with animals just do not suffice.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Rialto,
May I apply your standard for proof to the existence of God? God is less than an assumption. God is by accepted anthropological fact, an invention.
By comparison, we know more about our species 10,000 years ago than anything in your bible…whichever one you subscribe to…cuz we are the pretty much same now as we were then.
But I think you are being dishonest. We know a shit load about how we were 20,000 years ago, 40,000 even. Of God, we have nada.
Does that trouble you?
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Report Card
Name: Paul Mero
Reading Comp F (flunk)
November 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Name: Cliff Lyon
Writing for Clarity: F
Logic: F
On the other hand:
Ideology: A
Hatred of the LDS Church: A
Cliff, regarding your other comment about God…this was one of my earlier points…”gay science” is no more substantiated than a faith in God. IOW, gay stuff=your religion.
Unfortunately for you and yours, your religion (i.e. gay stuff) leaves you comfortless and out of sync with the universe. But, what the heck, keep up the good fight.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
STOP IT Paul! I do not ‘hate’ the LDS Church. And it cannot possibly be good for The Church to have its Priesthood holders running around saying that.
I’m beginning to wonder if you are not someone using Mero’s name.
The LDS Church is not as anti-science as you appear to be. I’ll assume this is where you depart from Church Authorities.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
paul. you are a prime example of why people get slaughtered in the name of religion.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
When you run out of arguments, you resort to superimposing your own angst onto others. I’m sorry for you, Paul.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Homosexuality may not be a choice, but it isn’t unchangeable either. In The Human Zoo, Desmond Morris, a zoologist, writes about (among other things) an experiment wherein some birds were made homosexual. By only having male birds around them during their critical period, they developed a sexual imprinting towards males. They retained this throughout their whole life, ignoring females of their species.
So, while there are biological components in someone’s sexual orientation, there are also post-natal environmental components which determine it. Not every homosexual was born that way.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
As an aside, just so I am clear…so it’s okay for you all to fire zingers at me, call me any name you wish, make any sort of demeaning or derogatory remark about me…and then when I fire back, all of the sudden I am mean-spirited and out of bounds? Is that right?
When your argument evaporates and you turn to simple-minded zingers, and I respond with (actually very smart and funny) zingers to close down a conversation that lost its steam days ago, I’M all of the sudden the bad guy. (Well, I understand from your perspectives that I am ALWAYS the bad guy.)
You know, it’s your blog. Do what you wish. Just remember you invited me into this group. I am okay to withdraw if that makes your lives more comfortable.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
sniff, sniff
will you be taking your hate-toys with you back to the mouthpiece of hate, the si?
November 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I guess so. Check with the owner.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Thought you would all appreciate this post by Marshall at Wasatch Watcher.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Interesting comment at WW.
I appreciate Paul’s willingness to fight the good fight, but I also take comfort in his realization that he is losing the fight - no one as intelligent as Paul need resort to the twisted logic Paul uses in his arguments about gays unless he or she were losing the debate on the facts and law that matter.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Jesus Paul, don’t go!
Don’t let them drag you to their level.
This morning, I actually deleted a really rude comment to you…so I’m watching out for ya.
Of course you’re a target. Thats your chosen role and you perform it well.
The more crap you take, the stronger you become!
Obama the Paul can be a real asshole. He might even be qualified as a hater.
Please allow me to apologize on behalf of management for the un-called-for rudeness of some commenter’s. As you know, we are an exceptionally open and not well-moderated blog.
I honor you.
Cliff
Behold the vagaries of the open forum.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 am
snif, snif …
i miss tonight’s diatribe already. just one more …
November 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Well Cliff, the biblical story and archeological suppositions of social activities of societies 10,000 years ago, are all the of same rather baseless conjecture to me, and many others.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Derviations of how we now percieve societies of archaic times to have operated, their standards, social norms, etc. based of science and study, falls into the same category as myth. The proof is subjective and inconclusive. Until there is a time machine, we just really don’t know. In fact the presentations are very similar to the biblical variety, seemingly often mimicing the preferred social desires of a history of the contemporary times. Just like the bible.
Did neanderthal breed with our kind? Did we wipe neanderthal out? What about the hobbit people that made tools and existed in the same time frame as us? Did we perhaps breed with them? Did they tolerate homosexuality? We just don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.
Your argument Cliff, is wholly irrelevant to the subject matter. We are not them, we may not even be from them. What matters is what happens now, and no looking back to primitives will aid in the social struggle that lies ahead for any kinds of deviancy in the human race.
As it ever was, and no doubt shall be.