The Couch

An Interesting (and different) Take on Homosexuali

Comments on An Interesting (and different) Take on Homosexuali

cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
Posted 08/05/11 - 9:15 AM:
Subject: An Interesting (and different) Take on Homosexuali
I understand some of what appears to be a large and ever growing LGBT community is due to the fact that the 'Closet Doors' have been opening, but the question of Homosexuality itself lingers with me. I found the following article insightful even though it's not solidly proven as of yet.
So with all necessary caveats against reductionism and misappropriation, we can ask: should human societies conceive of themselves in terms of group-level selection? Have we already developed aspects of eusociality? And — just to make matters really interesting — could non-reproducing humans, such as (most) gays and lesbians, as well as heterosexuals who choose not to have kids, actually be a manifestation of this emergent eusociality?


Citing eusociality in defense of any lifestyle choice, even theoretically, could backfire: it implies a subservience of individual well-being to the greater good. But at least it suggests that certain unorthodox lifestyles might not be so "unnatural" after all

www.wired.com/wiredscience/...homosexualit/#previouspost
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/05/11 - 7:36 PM:

It's a bit of synchronicity - I had a dream last night about homosexuality. In it, I was discussing with my friend the fact that I believe her younger brother (5th child born out of 9) is gay. Someone told me that some scientists theorize that families will begin bearing gay children usually after at least one or two straight children are born (thereby assuring that at least part of the family will reproduce). That's hearsay though, I don't know what I could google to find some more details on that theory. Anyway, this sounds like a very interesting topic and I will check out the article this weekend and post my thoughts.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/07/11 - 10:43 PM:

Most of the gays I've met do not seem collectivistically inclined, or devoted to the notion of a greater good. This doesn't mean that eusociality is not at work on the human species, however. I think that certain groups of individuals may unwittingly serve the greater good of a species, which can only be revealed in sufficiently large enough contexts in which one species is competing for survival against another, and demonstrating via eusociality a definite evolutionary advantage. It's an interesting theory, but I don't know if we'll see in our lifetime any substantial evidence to support its existence in humanity.
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
Posted 08/08/11 - 2:21 AM:

We definitely will not see this in our lifetime but it is an interesting thought.

Also, I don't see species' competing against each other as much as I see them competing for resources. I think the idea of 'competing against' is uniquely human.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 08/08/11 - 1:42 PM:

it's interesting, for sure.

by the way, i found this information on wikipedia pertaining to the birth order thing:

The fraternal birth order effect is the name given to the observation that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known predictor of sexual orientation, with each older brother increasing a man's odds of being gay by approximately 33%.[12][13] Even so, the fraternal birth order effect only accounts for a maximum of one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men. There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect of the number of older sisters.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 08/11/11 - 10:17 AM:

Apart from the 'gay as eusocial' (I have no opinion on that), I'm pretty certain the whole 'slouching toward superorganism' idea is valid...maybe as a natural function of things, maybe as a function of a agenda...irrelevant either way.

Aberrations WILL be eliminated...'WE' will be ascendant...'I' is a dinosaur that doesn't know its *dead.

*shrug*





*Lord knows: I ain't feelin' too well... wink
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.