QuakerInfo.com Forum

[lvquaker]

Well, there certainly are a lot of opinions on the board, but I am impressed with the open mindedness and candor of the discussion.
I have researched the basis of homosexuality extensively for some years, and I may be able to contribute.
A positive correlation has been found between a human sexuality gene and homosexuality, while in a statistical sense this makes the gene extremely likely to be the correct "gay gene", which brought up huge questions as to whether or not we could breed out, or correct the issue. Well, even if we could, we couldn't because it seems to be linked to the gene which regulates female fertility. In the long run however, I doubt that even if this gene predisposes someone to being homosexual, its not universal, we are not determined by biology alone.
There are several biological, and evolutionary arguments to explain homosexuality, which also explain why homosexuality doesn't select against itself in evolution and also why homosexuality seems to remain constant, through many eras and across cultures. That basic argument goes like this, imagine primitive man, hostile, aggressive, territorial, to the point of being a certain danger to any male who approaches, and sometimes even females. And the same goes for primitive females, just as hostile, aggressive, and territorial...how then does society form? Well, this starts a race, the first group to form a society has a clear advantage over those who do not, so the basic idea is the biological or sociological selection forces actually select against vicious territoriality, namely that homosexuality may be one of the evolutionary strategies to produce a "male friendly male" and a "female friendly female", which allows for cooperation and interaction, from which we could possibly explain homosexuality by saying that certain individuals inherit an extra strong version of this "social" gene.
Another theory related to biology is the offspring theory, that certain individuals decide that it's a better investment in protecting and rearing their siblings and siblings children, rather then sow their own oats, because the genes are the same anyways. Since these individuals have no desire to breed, but still have a human need for companionship, homosexuality seems the only option open to them. Sex and intimate contact being a human need, and not just a "gratification" as it was so delicately put on another post in this forum.
Classical humanist arguments on homosexuality have been settled by the likes of Socrates and Plato by stating that love, in its truest and purest form, can only exist between equals, that it can not be based in need; sexual, monetary, social or anything else. That being the case it becomes a sociological issue, being that in any given society at any given time it seems there is a preference in that society for a gender to be more equal than another. Hence, men will sometimes form more 'real' relationships with other men than they do with their wives, and vice versa.
In the long run however, while the scientific arguments may seem convincing, they do not withstand the force of the single statement "we are not determined by biology alone", on the other hand, Religious and Sociological arguments fail to persuade because of lack of consensus, and empiricism. So both nature and nurture fail. I think the only solution is to practice tolerance, patience, and acceptance as our third alternative, because in the end no one can give a good reason why two consenting adults, who do no harm, cannot do with their hearts as they wish. All humans long for intimate contact, it is the fabric of our beings and our society, out of which we define ourselves, why begrudge someone that?