Is Homosexuality On The Increase?

Delightful said:
2) I agree, sexuality isn't just a genetic thing on its own (though no doubt plays a part).
Click to expand...
To be honest I think genetics would probably be the least influential factor. For a genetic trait to be passed on it must fuffil one or more of the following criteria:
1) be actively beneficial towards fitness.
2) be simply not detrimental to fitness.
3) be so widespread within the gene pool that it is virtually impossible for it not to be passed on.

Now remember, fitness doesn't mean quality of life, it doesn't mean how physically fit someone is, and it doesn't mean how healthy someone is. Fitness means one thing and one thing only in the realm of genetics, and that is "did you survive long enough to reproduce and then also actually reproduce?" Please keep this definition in mind, as when I say "fitness" here I don't mean it in any other way.

And I don't think that homosexuality fulfills any of those 3 criteria in relation to fitness. It is not beneficial towards fitness. Moreover, It is detrimental towards fitness. And, of course that leaves "3) be so widespread within the gene pool that it is virtually impossible for it not to be passed on," which if it is true depsite the vast majority of people being heterosexual, means that it must be a trait that can only be activated by some set of environmental factors instead. This means that if "3)" is true it would be true in a way virtually and practically indistinguishable from it not being true, as if it is a common set of alleles then they aren't expressed very often, yet again seating the explanation back on environmental factors.

Essentially, for a trait to be passed on, it's gotta help you make babies, not make it harder for you to make babies, or it has to be an overwhelmingly common trait that it is passed down even if it is detrimental to fitness, which is typically paradoxical past a few generations. In essence, if homosexuality has any major genetic factor, it would be at best a bubble that we might currently be living in that is going to be outcompeted very quickly.
 
StinkyYankee said:
I'd imagine that there are plenty of gay athletes who aren't particularly secretive about it but are simply not effete enough to be easily noticed.
Click to expand...
I think, generally, if you don't behave in ways to advertise it nor go out of your way to mention it, people will just generally assume that you're straight. Perhaps to some gay men, being a little limpy wristy comes naturally, but I've always been under the impression that such behavior is more of an attempt at signaling one's homosexuality to others rather than people just being themselves and doing what comes naturally. That's not to say I don't subtly modify my behavior to fit in in different social situations. I think everyone does to a degree. When you want a group of people to like you or to give you attention, sometimes you have to try to fit in. I think it's a similar thing.
(Sorry for posting two messages in a row, by the way! I know some forums look down on doubleposting but I kind of forgot while writing this post.)
 
Homeosexuality doesn't preclude people from reproducing so maybe there has been a gene that's just been bobbing along getting passed on down the generations giving neither advantage or disadvantage? Sort of like eye colour for instance?

It seems to have been a trait throughout human history finding expression more in some cultures/environments than others but it's alway been there. As it is in other animals.

I don't think it's something you can consciously choose is it? But are there some people born with a greater predispossion than others just waiting, as it were, for an early trigger before the ability to reject has set in?
 
Last edited:
StinkyYankee said:
"3) be so widespread within the gene pool that it is virtually impossible for it not to be passed on," which if it is true depsite the vast majority of people being heterosexual, means that it must be a trait that can only be activated by some set of environmental factors instead.
Click to expand...
It could correlate with another trait that does help with living to reproductive age and successfully reproducing. For a made up example I randomly picked: if whatever genes were responsible for same sex attraction were also responsible for being resistant to a childhood disease.
 
Sollywos said:
Homeosexuality doesn't preclude people from reproducing
Click to expand...
I would say it *typically* does preclude people from reproducing, to be frank. Kind of need the two different flavors of gamete to start that whole process.

Just having an interest in the same sex doesn't always preclude a person from reproducing, of course. If I'm not mistaken most people with interest in the same sex also have an interest in the opposite sex; the proverbial bisexual, if you will. But I'd imagine you're moreso getting at how homosexual people would still get married and have kids in the past because of social pressure.
However, if homosexuality is genetic, there is less pressure today than there has ever been in history for people in the western world to get married and have children, so there's a actually an ironic chance that because less gay men or women are pressured into straight relationships, there will be less of the hypothetical "gay gene" passed down than ever. Now that I think of it, if social pressure was the only thing keeping a hypothetical "gay gene" going, then the next few generations might see *less* gay people than ever.

Sollywos said:
It seems to have been a trait throughout human history finding expression more in some cultures/environments than others but it's alway been there. As it is in other animals.
Click to expand...
I've never been a fan of the "animals do it" arguement. Animals do all sorta crazy things very often. The impetus for homosexual behaviors in animals is rarely ever the same as the human impetus. A male human who is gay might think things like another male human is attractive and might desire romance and a relationship and to spend time together and, of course, to do the dirty. However, in animals, it tends to be less romantic or nuanced. It's usually more about establishing dominance, mistaken identity (frogs and beetles are both animals that often try identity mates by texture. This sometimes results in accidental gay sex or even trying to mate with other bizarre things that remind them of females, like frogs riding snakes or beetles humping beer bottles), temporary survival tactics (some snake species have males that imitate females in order to get more manly male snakes to keep them warm during winter), subterfuge (some pinniped males are willing to take it up the behind from the alpha male in order to get closer to the females in the alpha's harem), and more. That's not to say there aren't animals that exhibit homosexual behaviors for more human-like reasons, but they are very much in the minority in the natural world. None of this is to say something like nature says gay sex is wrong; I just think that nature is full of crazy stuff done for crazy reasons and it is fallacious to just say "nature does it" as a justification for a human behavior.
As a human, a relationship is more than just the sexual acts themselves.
Sollywos said:
I don't think it's something you can consciously choose is it? But are there some people born with a greater predispossion than others just waiting, as it were, for an early trigger before the ability to reject has set in?
Click to expand...
I don't think people can choose their sexuality. The only real choice in the matter is whether or not to try to come to terms or embrace your true feelings. Historically that usually means coming to terms with being gay, but these days it can even mean coming to terms with having a less hip sexuality than your friends! I don't think a person can truly reject their feelings forever. Eventually your actual feelings and desires will boil to the surface.
 
escargot said:
One advantage of homosexuality I've read of is that children with gay aunts and uncles have back-up parents and caregivers.
Click to expand...
I think this is one of the best arguements for how there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality. If you have a gay gene that is not expressed and then your brother has a gay gene that is expressed, you kicking the bucket after having kids gives your kids a better chance at surviving long enough to continue your lineage. It does nothing for the fitness of the individuals who do express the gene, but can benefit those who carry it but don't express, giving the hypothetical gene a way to contribute to fitness.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that swans, who mate for life, sometimes parter up with a member of the same sex and have been seen raising the children of deceased swans. Maybe this seems hypocritical after my whole "nature alone isn't a good arguement" thing but this case is more similar to human behavior.
 
How, when so many matters of modern life are increasingly politicised (even arbitrarily, and regardless of which political 'side' it stems from), can a thread like this not lapse or veer into what may be considered a 'political discussion'; and, as such, is declared out of bounds for the forum?

For instance, a mainstream newspaper article today reports on the apparently growing 'habit' of LGBTQ+ books for young people being censored or even withdrawn from school libraries here in the UK; if we, as some have suggested, discuss homosexuality as somehow being Fortean - a view I'd need some convincing about, as it happens - then it follows that that all things directly affecting homosexuals and other people, by obvious extension, are open to discussion and debate; and that's where problems potentially lie (IMO).
 
Steven said:
How, when so many matters of modern life are increasingly politicised (even arbitrarily, and regardless of which political 'side' it stems from), can a thread like this not lapse or veer into what may be considered a 'political discussion'; and, as such, is declared out of bounds for the forum?

For instance, a mainstream newspaper article today reports on the apparently growing 'habit' of LGBTQ+ books for young people being censored or even withdrawn from school libraries here in the UK; if we, as some have suggested, discuss homosexuality as somehow being Fortean - a view I'd need some convincing about, as it happens - then it follows that that all things directly affecting homosexuals and other people, by obvious extension, are open to discussion and debate; and that's where problems potentially lie (IMO).
Click to expand...
I think we are behaving well in this thread. I once took a class in college that tried very hard to drill into my head that "everything is political" and what I learned was precisely the opposite: Looking at topics that are more advanced than politics as being mere politics is a disservice to such topics. The natural and supernatural world are both beyond the narrow scope of the political.
 
One advantage of homosexuality I've read of is that children with gay aunts and uncles have back-up parents and caregivers.

Yes I had included words to that effect when I was thinking things through but hadn't got time to develope it further so deleted it! I'm glad you mentioned it @escargot :)

I would say it *typically* does preclude people from reproducing, to be frank. Kind of need the two different flavors of gamete to start that whole process.

ha ha yes I'm aware of that. Of course that's not what I meant! No I was thinking how things were in previous times or even these days for those who have struggled to come to terms with their orientation and have got married and had children. There are still ways to pass on your genes if that's what you want to do.

Being homosexual doesn't mean that you don't have a strong desire to be a parent and this can be arranged either for males with a surrogate mother or for females with a sperm donation.

I was as a matter of fact thinking about a lesbian couple I knew in the early 80's who wanted a child. At the time there was a certain amount of debate as to whether sperm donations should be available for lesbian couples (regardless of who was paying it was seen as a moral/ societal issue rather than being about saving money on the NHS). So they got creative, another good friend of ours obliged, an easy going male who liked the idea of having issue but not the idea of responsibility! They didn't even bother with the traditional turkey baster but a wine glass and teaspoon surficed. It worked, a healthy pregnancy and birth followed. Everyone happy.

Of course problems could arise in informal arrangements like that so perhaps it would be wiser to go through more regulated channels as Tom Daley (the well known diver) and his husband did.

Probably more people in that position go for a regular adoption but that isn't always easy either what with long waiting lists.
 
StinkyYankee said:
Looking at topics that are more advanced than politics as being mere politics is a disservice to such topics. The natural and supernatural world are both beyond the narrow scope of the political.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between political and Political: politics versus party politics.
 
I'd be as surprised to learn that, factually, homosexuality has been increasing in recent times as I would be to learn that, factually, moronic attitudes to homosexuality are on the decrease. I think there is an inverse correlation between both perceptions, but I doubt there's any actual shift in either. Any study that tries to posit something conclusive is prone to immediate challenge on its selection of variables, which are as broad as can be imagined. In my opinion, research dollars could be put to better use on matters pertaining to improving the education of the aforementioned moronics. Or how to grow a rational adult from base elements.
 
hunck said:
One area in which it’s definitely not increasing is football - there are no gay male footballers whatsoever. It’s a statistical anomaly.
Click to expand...
Can I detect sarcasm?

Ian Roberts, a professional rugby league player, played for New South Wales in State of Origin and won 13 caps for the Australia national team. He played club football for the South Sydney Rabbitohs, Wigan, Manly Warringah Sea Eagles and North Queensland Cowboys.

This Fella came out to all and sundry in 1995. There are others who have come out and still play the various codes of 'Footy'. Female football is well known for its 'alternative' players, here in Australia.
 
Mungoman said:
There are others who have come out and still play the various codes of 'Footy'. Female football is well known for its 'alternative' players, here in Australia.
Click to expand...
Remember Dani (née Dean) Laidley, the ol junkyard dog who played for the Roos in the 90s. Did she come out as gay or trans? She’s a proud woman in her own right these days. Last person you’d expect to have been gender-confused, given the way she attacked the opponent so brutally, but that’s the kulcha, innet? You fake it under the mask to show the other boys you’re worthy of their respect. Poor kid must have agonised over her inner reality all that time.
 
StinkyYankee said:
To be honest I think genetics would probably be the least influential factor. For a genetic trait to be passed on it must fuffil one or more of the following criteria:
1) be actively beneficial towards fitness.
2) be simply not detrimental to fitness.
3) be so widespread within the gene pool that it is virtually impossible for it not to be passed on.

Now remember, fitness doesn't mean quality of life, it doesn't mean how physically fit someone is, and it doesn't mean how healthy someone is. Fitness means one thing and one thing only in the realm of genetics, and that is "did you survive long enough to reproduce and then also actually reproduce?" Please keep this definition in mind, as when I say "fitness" here I don't mean it in any other way.

And I don't think that homosexuality fulfills any of those 3 criteria in relation to fitness. It is not beneficial towards fitness. Moreover, It is detrimental towards fitness. And, of course that leaves "3) be so widespread within the gene pool that it is virtually impossible for it not to be passed on," which if it is true depsite the vast majority of people being heterosexual, means that it must be a trait that can only be activated by some set of environmental factors instead. This means that if "3)" is true it would be true in a way virtually and practically indistinguishable from it not being true, as if it is a common set of alleles then they aren't expressed very often, yet again seating the explanation back on environmental factors.

Essentially, for a trait to be passed on, it's gotta help you make babies, not make it harder for you to make babies, or it has to be an overwhelmingly common trait that it is passed down even if it is detrimental to fitness, which is typically paradoxical past a few generations. In essence, if homosexuality has any major genetic factor, it would be at best a bubble that we might currently be living in that is going to be outcompeted very quickly.
Click to expand...
From what little I know, genetics is definitely a factor. A recent Cambridge metanalysis suggested a key genetic element.

Wiki has lots of info and links:
"Scientists do not yet know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences and do not view it as a choice.[7][8][9] Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.[7][8] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

But I'll leave the details to the scientists. I'm not sure it really matters why someone is the way they are (politically/socially) - it's just interesting to know things :)


 
cycleboy2 said:
And in men's sport generally.

I haven't looked at the stats but I suspect that the number of openly gay sportswomen far, far outstrips that of openly gay men. For example, I believe two members of the England's women cricket team are married to each other, as are the Richardson-Walshes who won hockey gold for Team GB in Rio.

A tiny number of sportsmen have come out as gay while still competing, and perhaps slightly more after they stop competing. I'm not on social media much but I get the impression that them coming out as gay hasn't dented their popularity (though of course the haters are doubtlessly going to hate) or their employability, which has to be a good thing.

The cricket team I support, Somerset, had an openly gay player for years and I don't think it ever got a mention on the fan forum I'm a member of. His lack of batting form, yes, but not his sexuality.

But I think for a top-level footballer to come out as gay while still playing would be an extremely brave thing to do, even in 2024. Which is a shame.
Click to expand...

It’s certainly far more accepted amongst women, with little adverse reaction as far as I'm aware. Several current & past England women footballers are gay I believe. It’s simply not relevant to their sporting prowess.

Mythopoeika said:
There are a few, if you do a search.
Click to expand...
I was exaggerating slightly for effect. I should’ve said ‘next to no’ for more accuracy.
 
Delightful said:
From what little I know, genetics is definitely a factor. A recent Cambridge metanalysis suggested a key genetic element.

Wiki has lots of info and links:
"Scientists do not yet know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences and do not view it as a choice.[7][8][9] Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.[7][8] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

But I'll leave the details to the scientists. I'm not sure it really matters why someone is the way they are (politically/socially) - it's just interesting to know things :)


Click to expand...
Oh, it is most certainly a biological matter. I just think the average joe hears that something is biological and thinks that means it's just a matter of genetics alone and that simply isn't the case.
 
StinkyYankee said:
Oh, it is most certainly a biological matter. I just think the average joe hears that something is biological and thinks that means it's just a matter of genetics alone and that simply isn't the case.
Click to expand...
In most cases it likely has a clear biological component. But maybe not always. As with everything human, it's complex.

Aside from interesting debates as to what counts as a sexuality/orientation separate from behaviour (gay sex without being gay, like gay for pay, or gay for stay, or sex as weapon and so on), there's also the interesting case of sexual fluidity where someone goes from straight to gay (or some other change) late in adult life, the case of trauma affected sexualities, and cases of chosen/forced change.
 
Sollywos said:
@StinkyYankee. Not all gay men are effete and I've known a few effete men who aren't gay. Although of course your assessment could explain why some go under the radar.
Click to expand...
One of my closest mail friends is very effete/camp - and he's married (to a woman) and they have four kids. Yep, he's straight and always has been.

And one of my other oldest friends from our all-boys' school - we're talking 40+ years ago - had gender reassignment surgery a few years ago at the age of around 57. There was nothing when we were at school to lead any of us to think that was how they felt, but she told us more recently she knew from the age of seven. I know this isn't the same thing, but I suspect the willingness to express these feelings cover similar grounds.

I still get her pronoun wrong occasionally and she's fine with it. My wife doesn't get it wrong, but she's only ever known my friend as a she - whereas I knew her as a he all through my school years and beyond. Sheesh, that sentence sounds like an episode of 'Soap'. An up-to-date cultural reference there...
 
skinny said:
Remember Dani (née Dean) Laidley, the ol junkyard dog who played for the Roos in the 90s. Did she come out as gay or trans? She’s a proud woman in her own right these days. Last person you’d expect to have been gender-confused, given the way she attacked the opponent so brutally, but that’s the kulcha, innet? You fake it under the mask to show the other boys you’re worthy of their respect. Poor kid must have agonised over her inner reality all that time.
Click to expand...
I lived in South Ozz, Skinny, for a decade or so but could not get my head around the code. I do vaguely (everythings bloody vaguely nowadays mate) remember something about Dani but I could never put a face to the name.

As you say mate, that's a tough school to go be in if you question, or recognise who you are - The press would not be nice, and there's that clique in any group who just won't leave it alone...

Good luck to Her, and Her Family.
 
skinny said:
and mail
Click to expand...
(These posts really are pushing the envelope... !-)

The question posed by this thread is relevant & interesting, and is extremely difficult to answer with a singular yes or no.

Deflection statements such as "human homosexuality has always existed at statistical levels similar to the present day, and the perception of any increased incidence is merely a function of broader societal acceptance" are spectacularly missing the point.

There is absolutely no doubt that (particularly in the developed & affluent parts of world) there has been a massive expansion of those openly-declaring themselves to be in long-term same-sex non-reproducing relationships (or, are happily living in states of overt homosexual casual semi-promiscuity).

The quasi-equalised way in which society now accepts this (and the manner in which it is represented & projected by our technomagnified media & the arts) is most intriguing in all sorts of Fortean ways, and I think nobody could disagree that our permanently-universal mechanisms of communication & contact provide a validative & enabling conduit for all varieties of human behaviour (in an extremely intimate way that nearly everyone massively underestimates).

I feel that there are multiple related-but-seperate strands to this overall phenomenon (and I'd like to expand upon all this, later) but meantime I'd like to list the following considered observations.

(Please note that nothing I write is intended to cause offence, nor is it intended to place value hierarchies or judgements upon anyone)

- widespread open declarative homosexuality in the western world (as opposed simply to acts of homosexual intercourse) can be seen as a product of wealth, health and societal stasis

- the parallels (and crossovers) between open/acknowledged neurodivergence and 'out' homosexuality are inescapably-evident (and relevant in any analysis)

- much of the controversial gender-realignment / cross-identified behaviours seen (especially amongst younger people) is primarily a form of defensive virginity

- there is almost certainly a correlation between a major strand of creativity (cf expression, communication) and homosexuality- this is a blunt and untuned statement that includes a kernel of truth

- the relative lack of sexual dimorphism in humans (and the inescapable biological fact that males are modified females) means that at the level of species we are inevitably on a continuum more of similarity rather than difference

(to be continued)
 
cycleboy2 said:
One of my closest mail friends is very effete/camp - and he's married (to a woman) and they have four kids. Yep, he's straight and always has been.

And one of my other oldest friends from our all-boys' school - we're talking 40+ years ago - had gender reassignment surgery a few years ago at the age of around 57. There was nothing when we were at school to lead any of us to think that was how they felt, but she told us more recently she knew from the age of seven. I know this isn't the same thing, but I suspect the willingness to express these feelings cover similar grounds.

I still get her pronoun wrong occasionally and she's fine with it. My wife doesn't get it wrong, but she's only ever known my friend as a she - whereas I knew her as a he all through my school years and beyond. Sheesh, that sentence sounds like an episode of 'Soap'. An up-to-date cultural reference there...
Click to expand...
So true, I worked with a camp hotel manager who sometimes received abuse from the likes of drunk wedding guests for his perceived 'gayness' and yet he was an absolute Lothario with women, bedding a string of not only attractive women but strong, independent and intelligent ones, too.
 
Delightful said:
In most cases it likely has a clear biological component. But maybe not always. As with everything human, it's complex.

Aside from interesting debates as to what counts as a sexuality/orientation separate from behaviour (gay sex without being gay, like gay for pay, or gay for stay, or sex as weapon and so on), there's also the interesting case of sexual fluidity where someone goes from straight to gay (or some other change) late in adult life, the case of trauma affected sexualities, and cases of chosen/forced change.
Click to expand...
Also sexual health services talk of 'men who have sex with men' (MSM) as a different 'group' than those men who openly identify as gay/lgbtq+/queer which is very much a Western concept and arguably a political statement as much as anything else (especially during the 70s-90s where there was the push for an equal age of consent and gay marriage).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top