Just a thought: Why homosexuality exist and why all that hate?(EDIT NOTE: Check the testosterone theory in this topic for update)
Hi guys. So I was wondering, if Darwin was right, why homosexual people exist?
Is it some form of "cleaning up spieces from genes"? Or a new form of Altruism or Egocentrism or something else? It´s even a new form of something? So I decided to take a deep look into this topic, ponder about some theories and take a look on the hating principle or mechanism that is around the world.
(yes, there are people out there, that still didn´t know what is homosexuality)
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. "It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them. Also sexuality as itself is viewed more like a spectrum than something exactly defined. There are many theories out there why homosexuality occures, but from my personal opinion, there is no only the one true answer to it, as because human nature is complex and even we (Human psychology and neurology mainly) are studying ourselves wrong as I stated in my previous topic "Is Déjà vu based on the same mechanics as prophecies themselves?".
Evolution is "Cleaning us Up" ?
This theory suggest that it occurs in species because ,as homosexuals can not reproduce naturally, to put to an end the entire genetic information of one indvidual and his line of ancestors. Some suggest that this is because of overpopulation, or because of "dumping out" some genes that the individual has. This theory is the main domian of some pantheist or panentheist that slightly or strongly (only few are in the middle as I know) agree with evolution.
My opinion is, that proposing such a theory would mean that evolution is linear and determined, or even planned, but I think it´s not. People are linking things that seem to be logcially linked, but they forget that world is based on causality. And yes, there is distinction between logic and causality, because logic is above the other thing, while causality is more graunded and only takes steps from A to B to C and so on. Logic is more like a free bird because it can see why A leads to B, but also sees why X1 leads to X2, and also sees similiarities between those two groups, while causality is like an ant, only calculating with A and B to make C, and it dosen´t bothers with other things.
What I wanted to say, that evolution is rolling dices, and applies new genome whenever is not deadly to indvidual. Those changes aren´t appearing slowly, like tuning up opacity on photoshop, but they appear instantly on indvidual, and than the change appear sometimes (or not), on his grandchildren, until it´s statiscaly more probable that the change genome would appear more and more, until it´s start to appearing every time. So as you can see, homosexuality is not a respond from evolution, because evolution as a process, is adaptating future descendants of an indvidual on the surroundings around him. Some people say that homosexuality is a causality thing because of society, but than again, people did not decided to be gay, or they weren´t forced by psychology or laws into it. They began being gay already before birth, as studies are inclining.
It´s more probable for evolution that it would destroy genders, and make everybody an hermafrodit, than making a such thing as "cleaning up". If you look at it statistically, there are more women than men and men are slightly becoming an exctinct "spieces", so I think that evolution will step in here. People even need to realize that evolution at itself doesn´t exist, because it is our biological response, and message, for future generations. So evolution is part of us.
If this theory even was true, consider one fact. Homosexuals can not reproduce naturally, but we as a human race, we developed genetic enginering, so it became possible for homosexuals to have kids. We did it because of our inteligence which derives from our consciousness, which "nature" or evolution, gave us, too. So at the end, it is a battle between inteligence and"nature"? No. Because we are the nature, like heart and liver are our organs which are basically "us". Life has this basic dogma of survival, and anything else doesn´t matter. Inteligence is an another "non-vegetative way", to support vegetative side of an individual for survival, so they aren´t againts each other, because if they would, it would be destructive for an indvidual. I don´t want to turn it into a pure philosophy, so I stop here, before we even try to figure out the meaning of life. I Kant explain that. :D (inside joke for philosophers, that´s why Siri on iPhones answers like that if you ask her what is the meaning of life, sometimes she answers 42, as reference to a novel and movie "Hitchhikers guide through galaxy", litteral translation from slovak language by the way, so in USA and around the globe the name could be different.)
Againts this theory is the fact that scientist couldn´t discover the "gay gene". There was a theory about "sneaky gene" that when young boys were raped, they become more likely homosexually orientated in their adulthood. But because of no evidence of some sort of gene, they started to look at psychology. This "sneaky gene" theory falls on the fact, that it doesn´t explain lesbians, as many theories about homosexuality. If look on it psychologically, it occurs logical for us, that maybe this varriant is possible, but as said, it doesn´t explain lesbians, because this phenomena didn´t occured in raped girls by womans, and even some of the boys only had psychological trauma, similiar to kids, that switched genders by some mad doctor in the USA. Couldn´t find it on the internet, so, search for yourself (Update: youtube channel alltimes10s mentions one of them in ths video "10 disturbing child experiments" at 2:15 ). All I know, that some of them even developed schizophrenia, and every child had an anger problem of some sort, later some of them commit suicide. There may be some sort of "Psychologicall gay/lesbian", but it would be explained further down in this topic.
Some scientist claims that an unused gene will perform itself in other way. As fact, our genome structeres our characteristic, and some of our abilities. Because of life of individual, the original genome slightly transformes even by new abilities we learn throughout the life, or by the change of our surroundings. Epigenetics claim that this fact may be slightly true. The genome of parents is passed down on their children, but the "tags" that every gene has, to determine what is for, are "torn" down before the descendant of the individual is created. But some of them are strongly adjoint to the gene so they pass on descendant instantly. If you for example, drink coffe your whole life at 8am every day, your child would have a disposition for coffe addiction, or if you go for jogging every day, your child will have a strong structure of muscles, so homosexuality is based on some unused disposition. What I want to say that they fail to realize (from here, this is my opinion), that there are many types of genomes, and I am not talking about mitochondrial genome and other stuff like that. If you look into the nucleus of a cell of a human body you know that you would find the information of how to build the whole human body, and it doesn´t depend of what type of cell with nucleus you have. It´s because the "blueprints" are about the organelles of a basic cell, with addition how to diffirenciate by the type of cell, wheter is a bone, muscle, tissue, neuron, or, skin cell.
Those blueprints didn´t have a gene about "how coffe would taste to you" as a whole information. Instead that information is transcirbed about how many proteins and enzymes was needed during your life for digesting coffe, and what organelles were over used, so the next generation could "survive" a such thing. By reproduction as a whole body of an individual, the genital cells, copy the "blueprints" of other cells in your body and make a sex cell. So the copied information is about the structure of the body and it´s abilities to survive, not romantic affection because it´s not "biological mechanics". Yes, affection can be fatal for survival, but it´s not a purely genetically determined thing, and at the end and it´s a hormonal response, based on us as something beyond body instincs. Because if there would be a body instinct for having kids, than it would be to found in our unconscious part of brain, which is like a goverment or CEO for all of our body cells to function in harmony with each other. But because, we have an affection for someone based on hormonal reaction form our cells, it dosen´ explain why young homosexuals are often confused, where they should be assured from the begining who they are and what they like, because the "blueprints" are exact, and didn´t need to be externally assured later by society or something else. So I say that being gay/lesbian is not a genetic thing, because genes are more like designers of us as products. Even abilities we have gain from our parents, is just a design of a part of a brain or other part of our body. So even having kids is not a manufacturing thing of evolution but something beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. And yes, I am preapered to be burned alive, or making laugh of me because I am contradicting Freud, but fuck it. Copernicus beat down Ptolemy, and after they burned him alive, everyone was like: "Mah baaaaad." If you want to know more about Epigenetics, click here, or watch the video bellow, done by Hank Green, from youtube channel scishow:
Some scientist came with and idea, that homosexuality is an Altruism thing. Scientist discovered that some male penguins often become life-partners, and they find a female, only to infertilize her, and then they raise their child with their male partner. I often use this fact for my theory way before, this fact was even discovered, that until we define history of consciousness and how what it is itself, we cannot answer questions like: Why homosexuality exist? Is there a free will? Is there a soul? When and how exactly human fetus starts thinking?... and so on. For the record, I am not saying that being gay is a choice. I am saying that everything that works is based on causality, not logic, and causality as itself needs a stable, unchangeable ground that can work on. So homosexuality and even sexuality itself, is in my opinion, derived from the same "ground beyond unconsciousness" as consciousness itself, at the same time, not deriving each other, just existing side by side, only changing the "ground" they are based on equally. But still what is the mechanical cause, if there´s any?
Some scientist based on the fact that we all start as girls before we are born. So the theory goes, that when the penis develops, mothers body starts to create antibodies, because the penis of the fetus is an artificial object for her body. So the stronger the antibodies, the greater the chance that the unborn son would become gay. They based on the fact that the latest sons have higher chance of being gay, and bonus percentage is for having many older sisters. I personally am not convinced that this theory is true, because as a unconventional personality, I like when theories explain more than one thing, because it is probable that the theory can be true. First of all, this theory doesn´t explain lesbians. Second of all, as I stressed in my previous topic "Can be personality of your future child be seen on behaviour of it´s pregnant mother?" There is a strange connection, or a bond between the pregnant mother and her future child, and if the antibodies theory was true, than it would violate the basic Darwin rule for survival of spieces. I think that this theory can be possible, as there are many factors from biology, (many theories that aren´ true are possible, because natur doesn´t have a definition, but a spectrum of posibilites, because if not, there wouldn´t be quantum physics for example), but not ultimately true.
Testosterone theory: (UPDATE: New paper published by Neuroscience Research Techniques suggests that because of recent findings, this theory may be true, check it out here http://www.news.wisc.edu/22367)
If some of these theories will become true, I will bet my money on this one, if I am wrong about what I just wrote above the Hanks video. Some scientist based on the fact that for develping a man fetus, she needs testosterone. The thing is, that testosterone needs to be absorbed by body of fetus, and also it´s brain. If there is a deficit in absorbtion of Testosterone, the fetus woul look more feminime, but it could be heterosexual, or be more masculine but being gay, and you can figure out the rest posibilities for yourself. This theory even explaines why some of the women are lesbians. But than once again, scientist are always blindfolded by their field of study. If I am wrong with what I wrote above Hanks video, the "problem" could be in Testicles and development of sperm, and I am not trying to be feminist here. The study of possibility of being gay concernes mainly around development of fetus, so automatically by logic, the causes are in the pregnant mother. But she isn´t the only one that caused pregnancy, so what I am saying that becoming gay can be "done" by various ways, or because of both parents or only the male part (because studies haven´t shown absolute evidence that the mothers are the cause, though it even isn´t explained that if the heterosexuality isn´t a deviantion, because it´s logical, but once again, causality is actuall to this world, not logic ), but still, if I am wrong.