response 215 of 404:

Nov 2 04:39 UTC 1998

Well, if the people living in an area double their population every 100
years (extremely easy if food, etc. is somewhat plentiful), then the
population will grow by a *factor* of something over 1,000,000,000 in
3000 years.  Obviously starvation/disease/war/etc. would (rather brutally)
cut off population growth LONG before there were 50,000,000,000 people 
on the land that once supported a little tribe of 50.

Simplistic?  Yes.  But this little example illustrates fairly well the
fact that humans need ways to keep their population growth in check.  
Esp. in the small tribal situations that humans are adapted for, homo-
sexuality is good for that.  Male homosexuality reduces tensions in the
tribe involving male competition for females.  Etc.  Given more time to
evolve in primitive small tribes, i suspect that homosexuality would 
become much more common in humans.  

Most other social species have more restrictive ways of keeping population
growth in check - usually involving suppression of sexual activity by non-
dominant individuals.  Some human societies use such strategies, but i
don't think it's really seen at the small tribal level.

response 217 of 404:

Nov 2 05:45 UTC 1998

Everything I have ever seen indicates that sexuality, in general, is
determined biologically not culturally.  It's not as simple as
either/or, however.  While most people prefer the opposite sex, and a
few prefer the same sex, there is also a significant fraction that can
go "either way".  Sexuality is not its own separate island of behavior;
it's tied up to other things, and so there is some % of people (some
authorities claim 10%) who are into various forms of bdsm.  Even though
sexuality is not determined culturally, most cultures do have their
ideas on what sexuality "should be", which in our society leads to a
significant number of people who might be homosexuals through biology,
but who choose to pursue heterosexual relationships instead.  Some
authorities claim that many people in whom homophobia is strongest, may
well be examples of this "repressed" homosexuality.  That is, what they
fear may not be the other person, so much, as what is in themselves.

Human sexuality is actually unusual in the animal kingdom.  In most
species, including most mammals, "sexual activity for reproduction" only
happens at very particular times, and the rest of the time, females are
just "not ready/not interested".  In most of the great apes, females
have a monthly cycle (like humans) but are only interested in sex during
one small part of their cycle (unlike humans).  Males are still ready
for sex most of the time, but the only male who gets to mate with the
females is usually the dominant (or alpha) male.  The other males are
out of luck, well, at least so far as females go.  They can, however,
have sex with each other, and they may use this as a social method of
expressing dominance relations (the lower male gets to assume the
"female" role.) Presumably, such behavior also helps them to "practice"
having sex, and keeps the appropriate organs exercised and in peak
shape, in case they become alpha male.  In most mammals, the female does
most of the child rearing, and the male may only be there for the sex
part.  Cats are a good example of this; feline sex basically works like
rape.  The male does his part, it appears to be necessary that the act
cause some pain to the female, and the male departs.

The reason humans have such "unusual" sex may be related to our
intelligence.  Because we're so much smarter, it takes much longer for
us to mature.  This is because it takes us longer to learn how to do our
thing.  That means the mother needs to spend more time child rearing,
which makes it more important that she have help.  Sex helps do that, by
providing the human male with a reason to stick around and stay
pair-bonded.  There is actually only a period of about 3 days in the
month when human females are fertile, and yet sex is still possible and
enjoyable most of the rest of the time.  There are some other
interesting "unusual" aspects.  Humans are pretty much designed to have
sex face to face (although obviously other positions are possible).
That makes it possible for us to socialize while having sex.  Most other
mammals, including most of the other great apes, are designed to have
sex with both partners, well, facing the same way.  The male enters from
the rear.  Human sex also lasts a lot longer than in most other mammals.
If I remember right, with horses, chimpanzees, dogs, and cats, the act
is something like 10-15 *seconds*.  In addition, human females enjoy sex
just as much as human males.  With most other species, sex looks more
like something the females endure.

response 219 of 404:

Nov 2 23:20 UTC 1998

Guess what, Kenton.  Something doesn't need to be "benificial to the nation"
to be alright.  Freud has argued, quite compelling that religion is not
beneficial to the nation.  Religion still exists despite this.  Your beliefs
have yet to be proven correct, so why are you asking for proof of the
contradictions?  Your arguments are weak and close-minded, and an embarassment
to people who share some of your views for more legitimate reasons.  

response 221 of 404:

Nov 3 07:39 UTC 1998

Of course biology *dominates* sexuality. All organisms have reproductive -
sexual - organs and 99.9% of them try to use them. Humans are no different
than all other organisms in this regard. However there is also a great
variety of behavior out on the statistical tails, which departs in one
way or another from the "norm". That is where homosexuality - in any
animals - is located: uncommon behavior (which does not decry it in any
fashion).

response 223 of 404:

Nov 3 22:23 UTC 1998

Kenton's comment about not knowing any homosexuals reminds me of my own
history.  I was raised in a somewhat old-fashioned and protected family,
at a time when homosexuality didn't get as much air play as it does
these days.  I don't think I really even encountered the notion until I
was in my early teens.  My immediate response was to find the notion
thoroughly disgusting.  Not a reasoned response, just a gut reaction.

With a bit more thought, I decided that what people want to do in their
bedrooms is not my problem, but that I certainly didn't want to hear
about it.  I didn't think gays needed to be punished or cured or
anything, but I did think they should be *quiet* about it.  They can be
gay as they want to be, but please don't bother me with it, and by all
means, stay off the evening news.  Sex should be private.  I thought
this was a reasonable and generous stance.

That's pretty much the way my thinking worked, until I started getting
involved with M-Net, where suddenly I found myself, for the first time
in my life, regularly interacting with people who I knew to be gay. 
Actually getting to know real, live gay people, as opposed to just
imaginary gay demons made a huge difference in my thinking.  I found
that suddenly there was a large and diverse set of people, many of whom
I genuinely liked and respected, who were homosexuals.

It's a lot easier to disapprove of gays in the abstract than in the
flesh.  For me, this was a dilemma.  I discovered that these people who
I liked were in a catagory that I had considered disgusting.  So I had
two basic choices - decide to stand by my prejudices and write off these
people, or decide to stand by the people and write off my prejudices. 
(Well, I guess there is another options, the "I hate all gays except the
ones I know" option, but I'm not good at that kind of thinking.)

Anyway, once I decided that gays are OK, the "gays should keep it
private" thing collapsed too.  It's not like hetrosexuals keep their
sexual relationships quite.  I *like* walking down the street
hand-in-hand with my best beloved.  Why shouldn't gays want to do so
too, without fear of condemnation?  Everyone's sexuality is a big part
of their identity, and as hetrosexuals we routinely and constantly
express our sexual orientation in public in lots of large and small
ways.  It's a hundred per cent acceptable, and it should be for gays as
well.

I think that my initial reaction to homosexuality is really a reaction
to unfamiliarity.  Sex role assumptions run through everything we do,
and if, like me, you were raised with certain fixed assumptions, having
them suddenly twisted on you can make your stomach turn, especially if,
like me, you aren't very emotionally adventurous.

You don't get to choose your prejudices.  They get foisted off on you
whether you asked for them or not.  You do get to choose what you will
do when your prejudices hit reality.

To some degree, you also get to choose what prejudices you pass onto the
next generation.  I think I've matured a lot, but in spite of my
intellectual stance, I'm not completely comfortable with homosexuality
on an emotional level, and I probably never will be.  It's hard to get
past your early training.  But you can change the early training the
next generation gets, but doing your best not to let any lingering
prejudice be reflected in your words or actions.

response 225 of 404:

Nov 4 00:16 UTC 1998

really nice posting, Jan.  Although my background was completely different,
you made it easy to understand where you are coming from and how it happened.
Separating the intellectual from the emotional response, also helps
understanding what you are thinking and feeling.

response 227 of 404:

Nov 4 01:20 UTC 1998

Good post, Jan.  Realizing the prejudices that we *do* have, and we all have
them, is an important part of dispelling or at least dealing with them.

response 229 of 404:

Nov 4 03:11 UTC 1998

You're unaware of them, I'd bet, because you've obviously closed yourself off
from them, Kenton. Only the most militant would bother to debate this with you.

response 231 of 404:

Nov 4 06:25 UTC 1998

"Modern primitive" societies by definition haven't developed
agriculture, and don't have much resistance to rock and roll music.
It's as simple as that, and has little to do with their views on
sexuality or anything else.

In a wolf pack, chances are most of the members of the pack are more or
less closely related to each other.  A "gay uncle" or "maiden aunt" can
still help propagate her genes by helping to raise his or her nephews
and nieces.  I don't know about wolf packs in particular, but in many
species (I believe walruses and monkeys fall into this class), the alpha
male doesn't last very long.  He is, after all, leading a high stress
life with a lot of challenges, and tends to burn out pretty fast.  His
successor will almost certainly be a "younger male", and in some
species, that means he'll also have had plenty of homosexual experiences
as he advanced through the social ladder to gain the experience to
successfully overthrow the old alpha male.

With domesticated animals, particularly animals in zoos, we often create
social situations that are not much like what the animals would
experience in the wild.  It is not uncommon, in these situations, to
have "breeding" problems.  Either the mother doesn't know how to raise
young (never having seen it done), or in some cases, the male literally
does not know how to have sex.  I wonder how many of these mating
problems arise through the successful efforts of zoo keepers to keep
their animals from protraying "undesirable" sexual behavior, such as
homosexuality, or masturbation?

response 233 of 404:

Nov 4 06:56 UTC 1998

kenton, how can you posiibly know what any individual gay person does?
You said you'd still like someone if you found out he/she was gay, but
wouldn't like what he/she does. NOt all gay people do things you would
find disagreeable, and many straight couples do things that you would.

response 235 of 404:

Nov 4 07:17 UTC 1998

Better not tell kenton what men and women do with each other......he'd
become a heterophobe as well as a homophobe.

response 237 of 404:

Nov 4 23:12 UTC 1998

On evolution and sexuality:
There are two possible hypotheses. One is that biology strongly determines
sexuality. The other is that it doesn't. My discussion of evolution was meant
to illustrate the problem with the first hypothesis. Rane and the other person
support my view that the first hypothesis is flawed while causing me to infer
that they think I support it.

Rane was the one who said that sexuality was biologically determined, not me.

In re the question of why alpha maleness doesn't cause non-alpha-male traits
to evolve out, there's a simple answer:
Look at the Middle East. Look at Ireland. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at China.
Look at Australia. Look at Capitol Hill. 

Then tell me that aggression *isn't* selected. We are the most intelligent
species; it could be said that we are the most evolved. We are also, by far,
the most aggressive.