We alread know that certain combinations of X and Y chromosomes not only determine sex (XX = female, XY = male) but that there are combinations that cause other effects (XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.) such as females with male characteristics, males with female characteristics, and even hermaphrodites.
It is my belief that sexual orientation is a natural population control mechanism for the Human species, and as such our genetic codes carry "markers" for the whole range of sexual orientations...with hetero and homosxuality on the extremes and bisexuality serving as in interim bridge. This theory does not eliminate choice, since individual personality can effect behavior such that either orientation, heterosexual or homosexual, can have members with a very experimental personality leading to such things as sadism, masochism, beastiality, group sex, and even same-sex/opposite-sex encounters.
Still, it is my belief that bisexuality is a distinct orientation serving as an initial expression of population control to slow growth in a developing population, and homosexuality is an expression to retard such growth.
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 06-29-13 at 02:33 AM.
edited for inadvertent double post
Last edited by USNavySquid; 06-29-13 at 03:11 AM.
The thing about your familiarity argument, I can buy that up to a point. My uncle had 3 kids and 20 years of marriage and finally came out last year. It's long been argued that sexuality exists on a spectrum. For people at the extreme of either end, familiarity alone cannot make them fall in love with someone they're not at all attracted to, not even if they see that person on a regular basis in a marriage.
How I would account for bisexuals is they are naturally attracted to both genders, to one degree or another. On the spectrum, they fall somewhere in between. I think where your point is most relevant is when we may glance at someone and not give it much thought, but after spending time with them, we may fall for their personality or their looks. This is not the same as sexuality changing though. A conclusion is appropriate after a person sees hundreds/thousands of people and every single case of being attracted is toward the same/opposite gender.
Last edited by chromium; 06-29-13 at 03:23 AM.
However, as humanity gained more and more control over these various factors reducing their effect on population control, such "aberrations" would statistically increase in proportion to growth. Yet it would still remain statistically small in comparison to our over-all population. It is just more noticeable because while statistically small, the overall population is very large and so the incidence of noticeable same-sex and bisexual orientations seems larger then prior experience. See?
Regarding your uncle, what we as bystanders say about him carries less weight than what he says about himself. I may observe that after 20 yrs with kids in a hetero relationship that he must be bisexual to change to homosexual relationships. But if he says, "No. I was homosexual all along." Then how can i argue with that? I wouldn't argue, of course. But I would love to ask him a bunch of questions: Did you love your wife? Deeply? How did you show it? Did she arouse you? How? Did you fantasize about her? Others? etc etc. This would be enlightening for the purpose of understanding more about love/attraction.
I'm usually for the spectrum idea as related to other aspects of the human condition. I haven't applied it to sexuality. I tend to agree with what you say about familiarity not being enough to make people at the extremes attracted to others. But.... on a longer timeline perhaps familiarity would be prove to be enough.
bisexuals.... naturally attracted to both genders, you say. For me, that attraction comes as a result of the staring-contemplating-lusting progression. During the contemplating phase, the bisexual suppressed or rewrote his/her social programming and opened up to the possibility of pleasure/love/both with an "other". Then tried it out. And again and again.
If we are not attracted to someone, I think it is due to social programming and lack of familiarity. How do you explain acquired tastes? I didn't like coffee the first time i drank it. But I re-wrote that program, paid attention to coffee and now I like it. Now I crave it. That process of developing a like for something..... on a low level, is it much different from developing an attraction to a man or woman? Of course people may say, "you can't compare sexual orientation to coffee drinking." But the two have underlying processes that I think may have some steps in common. First I had to open myself up to the possibility of coffee.
Your last sentence, i disagree with because it diminishes the truth of a single occurrence. To me, a conclusion is appropriate only when it accounts for all observed variations. --Not just the occurrences that agree or are the same. To eliminate the minor differences in the results from the final conclusion is to make a weak conclusion.
Agree with your 1st paragraph.
2nd paragraph.... you are saying that since we have gained control over various factors (medicine vs. disease, strong shelter vs. weather, farms vs. gathering) but the marker is still present, so homosexuals will increase without having the need to... as in the need to prevent conflict/population loss due to the various factors listed. So.... with homosexuals increasing, they still remain a small % of our overall population, but b/c that % represents a large number, we see them more frequently....? I can't say I agree with that. It seems to assume too much. We don't know how frequently ancient societies saw homosexuals. (or do we?) If it's genetic, then heterosexual parents are only carriers? Despite both heterosexual parents coming from well nourished, healthy, well-resourced neighborhoods, their spoiled rich kid is a homosexual? Am I taking it too literal again?