The orign of homosexuality?

[Traveller]

I hope that I wont hurt any gay people with this topic.

It is a very hard topic which lead to very serious questions, which are highy compicated. (philospohical,anthropological,historical,biologic al etc.)

It seem obvious that the whole topic is highly controversial.

Lets take for example anthropological facts: the hungarian humanethologist Vilmos Csanyi said in an interview that in most of the huntergatherer societies the people are bisexual,there are some where it is tolerated,and there are only a few where homossexuality condemned.

In the light of this one can say that it is proof that homosexuality always exist,and its existance is necessary,natural,and not bad.

On the other hand there are evidence which suggest that gayness not necessary exist. The cultural anthropologist Nigel Barley writes in one of his book that doajo people who live in the north of Cemeron simply are not able to understand notion of homosexuality because its not exist amongst them anyway.

Calude-Levi Strauss describe homosexuality amongst south-american nambikhwara people as a product partial inequality of in the group. (eg.despite the egalitarian structure of the group,the chieftain somehow approprirate most of the woman.)

The ultra-leftist Jean Barott in his essay, (For a World without moral order) mention the african Sambia people where the little children statisfy the older people,when they became teenager they became bisexual,and when they finally grew up they became heterosexual. A politologist once told me about a tribe where people change their sexualidentity by seasons (!)

I am not sure about this and the last one but I also heard about an ocenian tribe where gay people help those young people who have been victimized for some reason. (Not for their sexuality.)

I suggest that homosexuality has deep genetic roots,but it is not neceserally create gay people.I see homosexuality as an adaptive mechanism which occur when societys not able to handle particular contradictions,and that sexuality is somehow controlled socially.

(Before gay people would attack me,i must mention that i dont exclude neceserally homosexuality from a liberated future (simply becuase even the purest form of communism wont abolish all of the existing constradictions,i advocate conflict theories),but i am also not neceserally advocate it,since the whole topic is not clear enogh.

[Kronsteen]

The cultural anthropologist Nigel Barley writes in one of his book that doajo people who live in the north of Cemeron simply are not able to understand notion of homosexuality because its not exist amongst them

I recall a tribe called the Stalinists who used to believe that only another tribe called the Kapitalists had homosexuality.


I suggest that homosexuality has deep genetic roots,but it is not neceserally create gay people.

The distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity is well known.


i must mention that i dont exclude neceserally homosexuality from a liberated future (simply becuase even the purest form of communism wont abolish all of the existing constradictions,

So homosexuality is in some mysterious way a 'contraduction', a 'disharmony', a 'deviation' from a hypothetical norm. But you don't think it's wrong. That's...an interesting piece of mental gymnastics.

[The Young Pioneer]

I suggest that homosexuality has deep genetic roots,but it is not neceserally create gay people.I see homosexuality as an adaptive mechanism which occur when societys not able to handle particular contradictions,and that sexuality is somehow controlled socially.

(Before gay people would attack me,i must mention that i dont exclude neceserally homosexuality from a liberated future (simply becuase even the purest form of communism wont abolish all of the existing constradictions,i advocate conflict theories),but i am also not neceserally advocate it,since the whole topic is not clear enogh.

Except certain countries carry the death penalty as their "social control" for homosexuality. Bible Belt America has conversion therapy as the "social control" for homosexuality. Being gay isn't much of an "adaptive mechanism" for those folks, eh?

Oh, but thanks for letting us gays integrate with the proletariat post-revolution. Real kind of you not to "abolish all existing contradictions." Do the Nazis and capitalists get to live, too? We homos sure would enjoy engaging in "conflict theory" with those Nazis...

[lombas]

In the light of this one can say that it is proof that homosexuality always exist,and its existance is necessary,natural,and not bad.


I think this is the only thing we should remember from this post.

[Rafiq]

Homosexuality doesn't have an origin. It's a natural occurance among Hominidae. It's not as if some guy one day came and said "Hey guys! I have an Idea! Let's have sex with people of the same gender!"

[dodger]

Now what to think. I kept wildfowl as a hobby, in natural surroundings. Each year, as with other breeders I would always have males who I observed to be homosexual. The pattern was always the same2 males would be constant companions and at courtship time any female who tried to catch the eye of any of the 2 would be driven off by the other. This bond would last a good number of years, although I never actually witnessed sexual attempts. Experts in animal behaviour I found later indeed described the behaviour as homosexual. I dare say there must be other examples in higher(animal) forms too.

Homosexuality here in Mindanao, just from what I observe is very open. Not as I remember, if memory serves, I first heard of it in school about 14yrs old. At that time of course it was illegal. Here my 4yr neice will walk over to a gay boy hanging the washing out and say "Te(aunty) open crisps please". This seems a much more natural and civilized form of behaviour. Inclusive. Seemed strange to my ears at first, my grand son like all children when greeting adult visitors will take the adults hand and place it on their forehead to bless the adult.He will say "ma'am or te according to the age" No prompting from anyone.....they just seem to know. May well be the voice of the gay man that is the trigger. Who knows. As I say it is inclusive and in addition respectful, one cannot expect much more from children.....adults too...that must be a minimum surely?

[lombas]

Homosexuality doesn't have an origin. It's a natural occurance among Hominidae. It's not as if some guy one day came and said "Hey guys! I have an Idea! Let's have sex with people of the same gender!"

Yes, but isn't this the case for all kinds of sexual behavior?

[NewLeft]

The social construction of the homosexual comes from a hundred years ago, according to Foucault.

[Goblin]

Homosexuality has always been around. Your sexuality is something your born with, this has been scientificly proven. It has nothing to do with the enviorment around you.

You also have to remember that not only humans can be attracted to the same sex, it`s known to happen to animals as well.

[lombas]

The social construction of the homosexual comes from a hundred years ago, according to Foucault.

This is very important. Not the notion that homosexuality is naturally occuring in humans - that is the scientific background - but how the social construction of "the homosexual" came to be.

Like all gender, political, religious &c. roles in society --- the way how homosexuality is interpreted and defined by the homosexual community itself and "others" (from apathic people to religious nutcracks) has a massive influence on how "the homosexual" feels and finds his way in the world (just like "the woman").

[Rafiq]

Yes, but isn't this the case for all kinds of sexual behavior?

Yes.....And?

[lombas]

Yes.....And?

And nothing, I was merely being philosophical.

[l'Enfermé]

I was under the impression that homosexuality is the result of a mix of hormonal changes in the womb and genetics.

[Hit The North]

Homosexuality has always been around. Your sexuality is something your born with, this has been scientificly proven. It has nothing to do with the enviorment around you.




I was under the impression that homosexuality is the result of a mix of hormonal changes in the womb and genetics.

If you guys are going to quote from scientific certitude you should at least reference the evidence.

If one's sexuality is something you're born with, if scientists have located the genetic predisposition to different sexualities, why can't it be predicted in individuals before birth?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

All sexuality has some basis in nature. Even pedophilia has its basis in a natural phenomenon: mental illness. There is no such thing as unnatural sexuality, perhaps just unhealthy or immoral sexuality (I will never accept pedophilia or beastiality).

[l'Enfermé]

If you guys are going to quote from scientific certitude you should at least reference the evience3.

If one's sexuality is something you're born with, if scientists have located the genetic predisposition to different sexualities, why can't it be predicted in individuals before birth?
I was just saying that I'm under that impression. I have never been particularly interested in homosexuality so excuse my ignorance if I was wrong.

[Garret]

why can't it be predicted in individuals before birth?
Why would you need to predict it? And what would show in the fetus?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Homosexuality as a separate "category" of being has only existed since the 1870s or so. It was described in medical journals for the first time around then, it came to popular attention as a "kind of person" around that time with things like Oscar Wild being arrested.

Of course same sex relationships and sexual acts have existed since the first puberty any human ever went through (human homosexual acts, that is). Since basically a little before the 20th century same-sex intercourse was a sexual act, not a category of people. Sodomy laws were applied to hetero- and homosexual intercourse - it was probably mostly seen as a bad thing in feudal Europe and early capitalism, but it was the act, not the person that was outlawed and unacceptable.

Where we have records from, the upper classes, there was a great deal of evidence for same-sex relationships and for aristocrats it was often quite open. There was no same-sex marriage as far as I know, but it wouldn't have made sense to them anyway because marriage was a political and social arrangement, not a mutual love commitment. So people who only like intercourse with people of the same sex probably got married to someone of the opposite sex in order to have a family and meet other social obligations such as property arrangements and so on and then continued to have same-sex relationships with other people just as many people then would have continued heterosexual relationships with people other than their spouse.

For the pesants, I'd imagine it was the same thing - you needed kids and a family for labor so you'd get hitched to some man or woman, but then find sex and relationships with people you wanted to elsewhere. There isn't much evidence for this that I know of, so it's more of a guess.

With the industrial revolution though, suddenly the feudal family structure was weakened or made irrelevant and so with laborers all packed together and living in cramped houses and not needing a family in order to get wages, it was suddenly possible for women sent to work in mills to have same sex relationships and for groups of men in other occupations. In fact, the gender segregation of labor in that time as well as the isolation of these groups of workers was probably a boom to same-sex relationships. Men were not allowed in female-worked mills (and they lived in company housing bunking with other women) and so I have no doubt most had some level of homosexual experience and the same goes for all the men camped together building canals or railroads or on ships.

But in the Victorian era there was also the push to create a more stable class system by not working laborers to death (or to the point of strike and rebellion too obviously) and so there was a huge push around proper (bourgeois) morals. This is when more modern conceptions of gender were created and what was proper (moral and "natural") behaviors for men and women. Men were to be breadwinners with stiff upper lips (don't complain about your job, don't care about your fellows, just your family) and women were "natural" nurturers with a compulsion to help their children and their bread-wining husband. In this context homosexuality began to be categorized and examined - as first as a "third-sex". I think that's telling because it shows how the construction of the idea of a "homosexual" was created in contrast to the constructed ideas of inherent gender behaviors and qualities.

[Kenco Smooth]

If you guys are going to quote from scientific certitude you should at least reference the evidence.

If one's sexuality is something you're born with, if scientists have located the genetic predisposition to different sexualities, why can't it be predicted in individuals before birth?

There's a difference between identifying a genetic factor in the variance of sexuality and identifying specific genes involved in the process. The former has pretty conclusively been done (if I remember to I'll come back and add in some sources here later) whilst the latter has produced nothing conclusive yet (although some interesting preliminary work has been done). It's perfectly possible to identify a genetic contribution and not be able to use that for prediction.

That said the genetic influence shouldn't be overstated. There's also a clear influence from the state of the womb (homosexuality is significantly higher in males with older maternal siblings which most people link to hormonal differences, again will try and add sources later).

Not to mention that due to the complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors that the best we're likely to be able to do for a long time is give a probability that an individual would be homosexual. Even that would be fraught with issues though.


All sexuality has some basis in nature. Even pedophilia has its basis in a natural phenomenon: mental illness. There is no such thing as unnatural sexuality, perhaps just unhealthy or immoral sexuality (I will never accept pedophilia or beastiality).

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here but to say that a nice clean natural category of 'mental illness' exists is simply wrong. Even if there was it'd be damn tricky to call paedophilia this. I see no evidence that paedophiles experience dissociated thinking or a fractured perception of the world. Their position is simply one that society is repulsed by (rightly so in my opinion I should add) and that alone is very shakey ground on which to claim it is a mental illness.