nature? god? or?

The Irreligious Right? ... >

Seriously, my guess would be that's about as inborn as homosexuality or any other sexual proclivity, Tasha. It's just a matter, I think, of realizing that "natural" covers a lot more ground than many of us think it may.

Nichole

I think..
BANANAS!

Virus maybe.  Someone will try to cure that to.

Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

Quote from: umop ap!sdn on July 05, 2008, 08:08:16 PM
Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

It may not be that simple, but WOW!! What a wonderful insight!!

Nichole

the need to procreate. course one needn't be completely hetero to do so. i imagine in a completely homosexual world, gays and lesbians would procreate for survival of the species. there'd probably be contracts and all that. sort of like amazon tribes agreeing to breed with males of neighboring tribes.

The need for procreation so the current system of white supremacist kyriarchy can survive.

Nature.

I think its in our instincts to want to 'survive' and 'procreate' so we may live on through generations. We want our species to last, so from that standpoint, I feel it is a nature thing. And by nature, I believe that when a population gets too high, homosexual activity increases to cause a form of balance and population control. That doesn't really cover bisexual preferences or whatever there is out there though...

You might also argue that the only reason why homosexual population goes up as theres more of a population density is because more people = you see more of the uncommon things as well due to so many people.

So, I don't know a heck of a lot about the science and biology standpoint surrounding those theories, but its an idea none the less.

Either way, I'm going to go with nature.

Quote from: Natasha on July 05, 2008, 07:12:16 PM
nature? god? or?

Statistical analysis of observable behaviour.

Wing Walker

Quote from: Nichole on July 05, 2008, 08:10:36 PMIt may not be that simple, but WOW!! What a wonderful insight!!

Really? Why thank you.

Quote from: Monty on July 06, 2008, 02:22:13 AMAnd by nature, I believe that when a population gets too high, homosexual activity increases to cause a form of balance and population control. That doesn't really cover bisexual preferences or whatever there is out there though...

In that case bisexuality might just be a consequence of the variation that exists.

Well, if dear old Sigmund was to be believed, we're all, by default, bisexual ...

I suppose if that IS the case, it's psychology and social conditioning as much as anything else that swings us to one of the two extremes. 

~Simone.

Free love? 
OMG, Shades of Woodstock. 

Now where is my tie dyed halter top? 

Janet

Quotewhat causes heterosexuality?

Tradition, mostly.

Quote from: redfish the artiste on July 06, 2008, 10:45:11 AMChimpanzees are Republicans (or, in certain President's cases, some Republicans are chimpanzees).

Bwahahaha!!!

Quote from: umop ap!sdn on July 05, 2008, 08:08:16 PM
Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

This is the Freudian idea of sexual development which has been pretty well discredited, especially since it makes homosexuality a form of arrested development.

A tremendous lack of imagination?

Interesting thing about humans.  As affluence increases the fertility rates decrease (I heard this a couple decades ago when studying Malthus in college).  Hence, we see European firtility rates in some affluent countries below replacement levels.  Assuming libido stays the same, people might prefer sex partners of the same gender since it avoids reproduction all together.

Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?"

Quote from: Nichole on July 07, 2008, 10:55:39 AM
Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?"

In the not too distant past, children were an investment, a way to create laborers.  While the first 5 years have a negative ROI, around 6 or 7 they can begin doing some tasks and cover a portion of their fixed cost.  By 10 or a 11 there is a positive ROI and 6 or 8 years of productive labor. 

This works very well in a rural economy.  In an urban economy that has those stifling child labor laws, children become a luxury good.  You sink thousands into them and you'll probably never see a nickel in return.

Quote from: Claire de Lune on July 07, 2008, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Nichole on July 07, 2008, 10:55:39 AM
Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?"

In the not too distant past, children were an investment, a way to create laborers.  While the first 5 years have a negative ROI, around 6 or 7 they can begin doing some tasks and cover a portion of their fixed cost.  By 10 or a 11 there is a positive ROI and 6 or 8 years of productive labor. 

This works very well in a rural economy.  In an urban economy that has those stifling child labor laws, children become a luxury good.  You sink thousands into them and you'll probably never see a nickel in return.

Claire, honey, I do so agree with your "rational" analysis of this, but as a mom I also know my children have returned my "investment" a thousand-fold in the ways of love, learning, understanding and pride than any monetary return would have ever been worth to me.

"Rationality," "utility" and "costs/benefits" be damned. The joy of watching others grow and make their way into the world may be one of Maslow's "higher order" benefits; but it's the one that speaks to my heart and soul.

Nichole