Homosexuality in a free society?

[jpahmad]

In a free society, there would be no coercion, no shaming, and no abuse of people's lifestyle choices.  Homosexuals would never have to be in the closet or on the "down low." 

 

This is great.  However, if we assume homosexuality is genetic, then wouldn't the traits that lead someone to develop a homosexual preference become extinct after a few generations? 

 

I'm assuming that homosexuals in a free society wouldn't be able to have biological children without surrogates.  Moreover, in a free society, I don't see too many women wanting to carry someone else's child for nine months and then just give it up.  They are already having problems today with surrogate mothers becoming attached to the baby and refusing to give it up. 

 

Also, do you think people in a free society would want to donate their sperm and their eggs?  Most people do these things for money right?  If people were not strapped for cash, would these things still happen. 

 

It may be possible that we are all bisexual by nature and in a free society we wouldn't be placed into gender roles, therefore we would screw whoever we wanted to.  That's actually probably the case.  We would live like the ancient Greeks.  But in this case, women and men would have to be willing to share their mates with other people without getting envious and possessive.  What's the likelihood of that?  Can anyone help me out with this?

 

[Archimedes]

I'm not sure why their genetic legacy would die out. I mean the first homosexual person had straight parents. So my guess is that homosexuality is not required in the family. However, this is just speculation

[Wuzzums]

Why do you think women in a free society will not be willing to carry a baby for 9 months? Nobody is coercing them now, so surrogate pregnancies are by choice, thus in a free society nothing will change in this regard. The problems you refer to about surrogate mothers not wanting to give the baby away are rare. They're inevitable seeing how the baby in most if not all these pregnancies is actually the woman's baby, the surrogate mother being not only the donor of an uterus but an egg cell too. One could avoid such situations by having the egg donor be a different person from the surrogate mother.

 

Same thing goes to donating sperm. Nobody is making anyone ejaculate in a cup.

 

Humans aren't bisexual, gender evolved as an adaptive mechanism. In a nutshell because the environment is the way it is, a human cannot adapt to take care of infants and provide resources by themselves. It takes as we can see a minimum of 2 to make the species viable. If the environment were harsher still, more genders might have evolved. Bisexuality is a waste of resources in humans so I don't see how we can evolve to acquire such a trait. If a heterosexual mates with a dozen partners they will yield a dozen kids. If a bisexual mates with a dozen partners they will yield half a dozen kids, and invested as much resource as the heterosexual. 

That's one theory anyway, and if I extrapolate it to homosexuals then gay men/women shouldn't exist. So either the theory is wrong, or the theory is correct, this latter implying that homosexuality offers some sort of advantage I can't see. Or maybe homosexuality isn't entirely genetic. I don't know.

 

Given an environment free of any danger, the species that will thrive is the species that has only one gender (again: if a hermaphrodite mates with a dozen partners then they will yield two dozen kids). So as we humans make the world we live in safer and safer, then two genders will become a vestigial trait and we'll slowly evolve towards hermaphroditism and not bisexuality. To some extent we can see this happening today, with metrosexuals and tomboys.

 

On an unrelated note, this is why District 9 is such a great scifi. It makes so much sense that a species advanced enough to develop interstellar travel to also have only one gender.

[tiepolo]

I don't see why there would be no shaming in a free society. Society implies some agreed, communal standards, and shaming is a conventional and effective way of maintaining such standards. What about freedom to shame? It is right and proper that certain antisocial and disruptive behaviours are shamed, adultery for instance.  Shaming or shunning are not initiation of force. 

[jpahmad]

I don't see why there would be no shaming in a free society. Society implies some agreed, communal standards, and shaming is a conventional and effective way of maintaining such standards. What about freedom to shame? It is right and proper that certain antisocial and disruptive behaviours are shamed, adultery for instance.  Shaming or shunning are not initiation of force. 

 O.k., how about rational shame.  Shaming someone for sexual preference is irrational.

Why do you think women in a free society will not be willing to carry a baby for 9 months? Nobody is coercing them now, so surrogate pregnancies are by choice, thus in a free society nothing will change in this regard.

 

What percentage of women are willing to be surrogate mother's today?  Is it just a matter of price?  Would every women be willing to carry someone else's baby for, say, 3 mill?

 

I don't think there would be a high enough percentage of willing surrogate mothers to keep the genetic traits of homosexuality going (assuming it's genetic)

 

I'm just basing this on current human nature.  However, human nature could change

Also, can someone be the best parent they can be if they take time away from raising their own kids to have someone else's?  Don't you think children would resent this?

 

Unless, of course, the money they got from being a surrogate mother somehow compensated for the loss of time with their own children. 

 

Or, maybe surrogate mothers would mostly be childless women.  But if I were looking for a good surrogate mother, I wouldn't pick someone who has never had a baby before.  I'm paying a lot of money and I want to be sure that she can reproduce.

[tjt]

Maybe I'm behind the times, but is there now evidence supporting that homosexuality is genetic?

[jpahmad]

Maybe I'm behind the times, but is there now evidence supporting that homosexuality is genetic?

 

I don't know

[JamesP]

If there is a genetic component (there's no particular reason to believe, without actual evidence, that there is or isn't), then tens of thousands of years of varying oppression and repression hasn't bred it out of the human race.

 

There are certainly environmental factors, though I don't know the degree to which they're understood (men with older brothers are more likely to be gay, for example).

 

There was another thread on homosexuality that was opened recently. I find that interesting.

[jpahmad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

 

 

 

If there is a genetic component (there's no particular reason to believe, without actual evidence, that there is or isn't), then tens of thousands of years of varying oppression and repression hasn't bred it out of the human race.

 

 

That's because, according to some researchers and speculators, there were enough people on the "down low" to keep the genetic trait in the gene pool.  Someone could live two different sexual lifestyles, one that was permitted by society, and one that was not. 

 

In a free society, no one would lead a deceptive lifestyle.  Homosexuality would be out in the open and people would pursue monogamous relationships with whomever they choose.  Without enough surrogate mothers, this behavior would select out the "gay gene."

Here is another relevant article


http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
I find the first and the last theory the most interesting

[Wuzzums]

 

I don't think there would be a high enough percentage of willing surrogate mothers to keep the genetic traits of homosexuality going (assuming it's genetic)

 

Natural selection eliminates out genes that are detrimental. If the homosexuality gene is gradually being removed then it means it's detrimental for human survival. Why should we go against our best interest and keep it? What possible good could come out of this scenario? Furthermore why would a gay couple purposely want their child to have a faulty gene? If I knew I had the gene for some horrible disease, me making children should be considered criminal negligence.

 

Also, can someone be the best parent they can be if they take time away from raising their own kids to have someone else's?  Don't you think children would resent this?

 

Unless, of course, the money they got from being a surrogate mother somehow compensated for the loss of time with their own children. 

 

Or, maybe surrogate mothers would mostly be childless women.  But if I were looking for a good surrogate mother, I wouldn't pick someone who has never had a baby before.  I'm paying a lot of money and I want to be sure that she can reproduce.

Yes, surrogate mothers can be the best mothers they could be. It's just 9 months (of which you can subtract the first trimester). Women are fully capable of raising children while being pregnant. A surrogate pregnancy is just a pregnancy.

 

The more I think of it the more I wonder why not more women apply for surrogacy. It's such a sweet deal, you're literally paid to do nothing. There are a ton of people out there that would give lots of money for it. Like actresses for example, the period they're pregnant is a period they cannot work meaning they're losing money. Or athletes, or women that cannot carry a pregnancy to term, or women that had hysterectomies, etc.

[jpahmad]

Natural selection eliminates out genes that are detrimental. If the homosexuality gene is gradually being removed then it means it's detrimental for human survival. Why should we go against our best interest and keep it?

 

 Who said that we should keep it?  Or not keep it for that matter?  I don't know if it's in humanity's best interest to keep it or not.  It certainly isn't for me to decide. 

 

It is clear though that if those people with the genetic trait do not reproduce, the trait will disapear. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, surrogate mothers can be the best mothers they could be. It's just 9 months (of which you can subtract the first trimester). Women are fully capable of raising children while being pregnant. A surrogate pregnancy is just a pregnancy.

 

The more I think of it the more I wonder why not more women apply for surrogacy. It's such a sweet deal, you're literally paid to do nothing. There are a ton of people out there that would give lots of money for it. Like actresses for example, the period they're pregnant is a period they cannot work meaning they're losing money. Or athletes, or women that cannot carry a pregnancy to term, or women that had hysterectomies, etc.

 

"sweet deal?" It depends on how the pregnancy goes

 

9 months is a long time.  If your biological children are infants or toddlers, those nine months are huge chunk of developmental time that the mother would not be fully active in.

 

Also, I would imagine that being a professional surrogate, if it ever becomes an occupation, would have the same effect on a woman's self esteem as being a prostitute, i.e., being valued just for the fact that you have female organs.