Just wondering, after reading the same ridiculous, arrogant and patronizing debates on the “cause” or “origins” of homosexuality over and over and over.
Well, in Issue #1 of Gayman, it’s explained as happening when mild-mannered janitor Dave Dearly wandered into an atomic testing range during a lightning storm where he witnessed the murder of his parents by a mutated spider.
Maybe because heterosexuality is a blatant biological need and requirement and no matter how you spin it, homosexuality is not required for race survival.
I am sure you don’t like the answer, but if you are going to ask …
BTW: Where are these patronizing threads? Maybe you could offer a few links?
Jim
Probably for the same reasons people don’t usually start threads on the weird behaviors and socisl customs of white people. It’s hard to remember to ask questions about majority cultures.
Because heterosexuality is an obvious consequence to having two genders. While the question is often hijacked by the bigots, “Why is there homosexuality” is a valid scientific question; it doesn’t have the same obviousness of purpose that heterosexuality does. Is there a purpose ? Or is it a side effect of something else, or an occasional error ( from a Darwinian perspective that is ) ? No one really knows, although there’s various theories.
I agree with the OP, dammit! I want to see threads discussing why we’re not reproducing asexually anymore! What is the “cause” or “origin” of sexual reproduction!? I DEMAND discussion of this pivotal societal issue!!!
I’m summarizing a model for the origin of sexual divergence I’ve been exposed to that I find fairly convincing–
Sexual divergence is a natural consequence of evolution. Let us assume the existence of two identical gametes (reproductive cells) which must fuse to generate offspring. Now let us assume one mutates such that it carries more nutrients (and is therefore larger in size). This is evolutionarily a trade-off, since it is now less mobile and requires a larger initial investment, but provides more nutrients for the zygote it generates. Let us assume a similar mutation that makes the gamete smaller and more mobile (but therefore less nutrient rich). Again, this is evolutionarily a trade-off, since while a smaller initial investment is required and the capacity to induce fertilization is perhaps increased, the resulting offspring gains fewer nutrients.
If sexual divergence occurs such that one organism devotes all of its resources to a few large, immoblile gametes and another organism of the same species devotes all of its resources to many small mobile gametes, the species benefits from both strategies. Therefore, sexual dimorphism (at the level of the gamete) is in most circumstances, the most beneficial reproductive strategy. Hence two sexes, and hence heterosexuality.
Oh, you’re one of those yeast-kissers, are you?
No; I just think the world would be a better place if I could readily create exact copies of myself at an exponential rate.
One has to wonder, if the OP finds debates about the origins of homosexuality “ridiculous, arrogant, and patronizing,” why he continues to read them.
I asked the question way back in Psych 101. The instructor asked the class “Why are some people homosexual?” and each student gave their own opinion. When it was my turn, I asked “Why are more than 90 percent of the population unable to relate romantically with someone of their own gender?”
Because they’re not programmed to?
Because there’s negative selection pressure for that trait?
One theory says that the parasites of our species would love you for it!
Hertereosexuality is constantly presented and justified on the basis of its “real” purpose, reproduction.
Just at a guess, when heterosexuals have sex, what percentage of the time are they doing so in the hopes that pregnancy will occur, and what percentage of the time are they just doing it to have sex, like homosexuals are?
Would it be plausible to assume that maybe 95% of the sex performed by heterosexuals involves no intention to procreate?
Logically, can a result that is only desired about 5% of the time (if that) be construed as the REAL reason for an activity?
Yes!
That is a fool’s game, Miller. If I say I have never read them, you will ask how I know they are “ridiculous, arrogant and patronizing”. If I say I read them, you will ask the above question.
Have you never heard of the ability to briefly scan something and form a valid conclusion without necessarily reading every sentence?
So, just to get this straight, you are denying that sex evolved as a means to reproduce?
Why wonder? If there were something the matter with the way the majority of the population behaved, chances are the behaviour would die out pretty quick.
When I observe that in some animal species the adults sometimes devour their own young, I think it odd. When I observe that in many the adults usually nurture their young, I think it less odd. Silly of me, I know.
It’s funny you should ask. I personally exercise such an ability frequently, sometimes even when there’s only a sentence or two to consider.