Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
Jagz Beach
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 306 (86253)
02-14-2004 9:56 AM


Interesting article on the subject.
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
Happy V-day everyone
{Note from Adminnemooseus: The above cited article is titled "Gay Animals are Common". I think I'll edit that into the topic title}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-15-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 4:22 PM Jagz Beach has not replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 306 (88007)
02-22-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jagz Beach
02-14-2004 9:56 AM


An illness may be a "natural" condition, but that does not make it a "normal" condition. Homosexuality may be a natural condition, but I will never believe it to be a normal condition.
No, civil rights should not be denied a person because the person is homosexual, but neither should the person be afforded special rules because of the homosexual condition. In other words, the rules of marriage should not be subverted for homosexuals to be able to marry one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jagz Beach, posted 02-14-2004 9:56 AM Jagz Beach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 4:29 PM godsmac has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 306 (88009)
02-22-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by godsmac
02-22-2004 4:22 PM


An illness may be a "natural" condition, but that does not make it a "normal" condition.
I don't understand why we should give particular credence to your ideas of what is "normal" and what is not. Is being handicapped normal? Does that make wheelchair ramps a "special right" for folks in wheelchairs?
In other words, the rules of marriage should not be subverted for homosexuals to be able to marry one another.
What part of homosexual marriage do you believe is a "special right"? Most of us look at it as giving them the same rights as straight people - that is, marrying the person that they love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 4:22 PM godsmac has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM crashfrog has replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 306 (88034)
02-22-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-22-2004 4:29 PM


Is being handicapped normal? Does that make wheelchair ramps a "special right" for folks in wheelchairs?
Sicknesses and injury are common in the natural world, but that does not make them normal states of health. Since when is paraplegia, for example, a normal state of human health? And allowing a handicapped person access to a public place is simply ensuring them the same right to be there as anyone else.
...the same rights as straight people - that is, marrying the person that they love.
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing. "Love" isn't even considered in many cultures where marriages are arranged long before the betrothed individuals even understand a concept of romantic love or sexual relations. If homosexual couples want to engage in sex or romance or living together, fine. But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal marital relationship? They can't procreate! Better to legalize it as a "gay union" than as marriage. But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Provide all of them the same privileges that a man and woman trying to raise a family have. Why are gays so special?
By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits? It may be "common" in the natural world, but I still maintain that it is not a condition that is normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 4:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 02-22-2004 9:16 PM godsmac has not replied
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 02-22-2004 9:30 PM godsmac has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 11:16 PM godsmac has not replied
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 9:17 AM godsmac has replied
 Message 11 by nator, posted 02-23-2004 9:44 AM godsmac has not replied
 Message 33 by platypus, posted 01-02-2007 1:44 AM godsmac has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 306 (88038)
02-22-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by godsmac
02-22-2004 8:48 PM


By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits? It may be "common" in the natural world, but I still maintain that it is not a condition that is normal.
There appears to be, indeed, some genetic connection and developmental connection to homosexuality (e.g., a male child has an increased likelyhood of being homosexual if he has more older male siblings born to his mother)
So, by the way, if you are a Christian, how is it that God makes individuals born to be homosexual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM godsmac has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 306 (88041)
02-22-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by godsmac
02-22-2004 8:48 PM


By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits?
Since any genes that might predispose toward homosexuality in humans haven't been identified yet, that's a little hard to answer. I have seen two ideas proposed, though:
* It might be that the genetic component of homosexuality is a "side-effect" of some entirely separate trait.
* Men with some "homosex gene" in early societies - those with functional extended families - perhaps were a significant help in raising their siblings, instead of heading off to form their own families. This, too, would perpetuate their genes, analogously to a worker bee raising its siblings even though it can't reproduce.
And then as Ned points out, there is quite a bit of research that points toward not genetic, but later-in-the-womb drivers, probably hormonal, that predispose some toward gayness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM godsmac has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 306 (88048)
02-22-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by godsmac
02-22-2004 8:48 PM


And allowing a handicapped person access to a public place is simply ensuring them the same right to be there as anyone else.
Right. And allowing homosexual couples to marry is simply ensuring them the same rights as other couples.
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing.
Plenty of people get married and don't have kids. Should we prevent them from doing so?
The fact is, your idea of marriage is simply one of many different ideas. I'm of the opinion that marriage is a social arrangement avaliable to couples. And the civil institution of marriage has to take everybody's view into account. And as for the religious, no one's saying that your church is going to have to marry gay people. But if my church wants to, it's unconstitutional of you to try and stop them.
But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal marital relationship? They can't procreate!
They can adopt, like many straight couples are forced to. Fertility is not a prerequsite for marriage.
But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together?
Allow gay marriage, and that's just what will happen. Any two people can gain the benefits of marriage.
By the way, if you are an evolutionist, how do think homosexuality, if it is a normal condition, evolved as an adaptation that is beneficial to the propagation or survival of an individual's genetic traits?
Kin selection.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM godsmac has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 306 (88055)
02-23-2004 12:46 AM


TOPIC DRIFT ALERT!
Considerations of homosexual mariage and other homosexual social issues should be confined to the "Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!" topic, or some other relevent topic.
This topic concerns the "naturalness" of homosexuality.
Adminnemooseus

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 306 (88061)
02-23-2004 2:36 AM


Here's the abstract from an article that hits the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality in greater depth:
quote:
An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success.
Dewar CS.
Kildean Day Hospital, FK8 1RW, Stirling, UK. colin.dewar@fvpc.scot.nhs.uk
The existence of homosexuality in humans poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Exclusive male homosexuality has a catastrophic effect on reproduction and yet inherited factors appear to contribute to it. Previous attempts to resolve this conundrum are inconsistent with aspects of evolutionary theory. Additional limitations are as follows. Until recently, accounts of homosexuality have paid little attention to the probable existence of adaptive bisexuality in ancestral populations, from which further variations in sexual orientation may have evolved. Secondly, previous explanations have concentrated on the ancestral environment of two to three million years ago as the determinant of modern sexuality, when more recent influences are likely to have had considerable impact. I argue in favour of a longitudinal rather than cross-sectional model of the ancestral environment. Thirdly, they have often ignored the possibility of variable phenotypic expression, whereby those individuals with a genetic propensity for homosexuality exhibit different and adaptive qualities on most other occasions. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that homosexual men have superior linguistic skills compared to heterosexual men. This may be the result of an adaptive feminising effect on the male brain and apply to many practising heterosexuals. Other adaptations to the recent ancestral environment may include enhanced empathy, fine motor skills and impulse control. By drawing together these contributing factors an evolutionary basis for homosexuality can be demonstrated.
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}
at PubMed.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 306 (88110)
02-23-2004 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by godsmac
02-22-2004 8:48 PM


quote:
No, civil rights should not be denied a person because the person is homosexual, but neither should the person be afforded special rules because of the homosexual condition. In other words, the rules of marriage should not be subverted for homosexuals to be able to marry one another.
Got it. You want them to have equal rights, as long as it's only the rights you want to give them.
quote:
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing.
Divorce is legal, which tosses the whole sacred union angle right out the window.
Marriage stopped being about any sort of grand old tradition long before homosexuals started getting uppity and asking to be "treated as people".
quote:
Better to legalize it as a "gay union" than as marriage.
And while we're at it, how about their own special water fountains?
Equal rights, but nice and separate.
quote:
But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Provide all of them the same privileges that a man and woman trying to raise a family have.
We do. It's called a common-law marriage. Live with someone for seven years or more, you're considered married under the eyes of the law, and have all the rights and responsibilities therein. Sort of like enforced enrollment in Little Orphan Annie's Secret Decorder Ring Club if you listen to the show enough times.
{Message off-topic - See message 8 - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM godsmac has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by godsmac, posted 02-23-2004 2:30 PM Dan Carroll has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 11 of 306 (88112)
02-23-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by godsmac
02-22-2004 8:48 PM


quote:
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and child-rearing.
Toy forgot about the other purposes of marriage; to solidify political ties, for financial gain, and male privilage (especially in cultures where men have multiple wives).
quote:
If homosexual couples want to engage in sex or romance or living together, fine. But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal marital relationship? They can't procreate!
Um, lesbians can easily procreate through artificial insemination, and gay men can find a surrogate mother or adopt.
Do you also think that children are best raised by people who are not married to each other?
Lots of straight couples don't choose to or cannot procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry as well, and be allowed only a "civil union"?
quote:
Better to legalize it as a "gay union" than as marriage. But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Provide all of them the same privileges that a man and woman trying to raise a family have.
I think you are getting stuck on the term "marriage".
"Marriage" is a completely secular, civil institution as far as our local and national governments are concerned, regardless of what GWB, the Senate, or any homophobes say.
You might want to attend a church that believes that gay people do not have as much right to marry as straight people. However, your church, or the government, or you, for that matter, have no right to tell another church what to do if they believe that gay people have every right to marry.
Neither do you have the right to inject your religious views upon the secular definition of marriage that our Constitution allows us to enjoy.
I've done a little editing to your post to make a point. Enjoy:
quote:
Marriage is an ancient and sacred (in countless religions and cultures) union between a man and a woman of the same race for purposes of procreation and child-rearing. "Love" isn't even considered in many cultures where marriages are arranged long before the betrothed individuals even understand a concept of romantic love or sexual relations. If mixed-race couples want to engage in sex or romance or living together, fine. But change the fundamental concept of marriage so they can pretend to live in a normal racially-pure marital relationship? They can't procreate without producing mixed-race children! Better to legalize it as a "mixed-race union" than as marriage. But even then, why discriminate against all other types of people who happen to live together? Provide all of them the same privileges that a racially-pure man and woman trying to raise a racially-pure family have. Why are mixed-race couples so special?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-23-2004]
{Message off-topic - See message 8 - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by godsmac, posted 02-22-2004 8:48 PM godsmac has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 12 of 306 (88155)
02-23-2004 1:51 PM


natural choice?
My comment: my sister is homosexual and has never made a choice to be such. she simply is. Now does God care if she is homosexual? No more than he does that I eat crawdads. God if he exist does not lie awake at night fretting over whether or not someone is a homosexual or cajun.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by godsmac, posted 02-23-2004 2:44 PM 1.61803 has not replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 306 (88165)
02-23-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dan Carroll
02-23-2004 9:17 AM


Got it. You want them to have equal rights, as long as it's only the rights you want to give them.
Every one has the right to participate in marriage, a legal union between two members of the opposing sex. There is no discrimination in this. What you want to do is change the fundamental definition of an institution so that people with no rights to the benefits of that institution can gain access to them.
I would like to move this reply over to the Ban on Gay Marriages topic, but I can't. Is there a way an administrator could do it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 9:17 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 3:00 PM godsmac has replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 306 (88169)
02-23-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 1.61803
02-23-2004 1:51 PM


Re: natural choice?
my sister is homosexual and has never made a choice to be such. she simply is.
And no one with Downs syndrome chooses to be born with it, either. But it is still an abnormal condition. No one chooses to have Parkinsons disease, yet they do, and it is still an abnormal condition. My grandmother suffers from Alzheimers, and not because she chose to. If not having a choice in the matter is how we define what is normal, then human slavery must be a normal condition, too! However, it is not.
Now does God care if she is homosexual? No more than he does that I eat crawdads.
Are you saying God does not care about an individual's condition? Of course He cares! (But that's off-topic again.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 02-23-2004 1:51 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2004 2:46 PM godsmac has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 306 (88170)
02-23-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by godsmac
02-23-2004 2:44 PM


If not having a choice in the matter is how we define what is normal, then human slavery must be a normal condition, too! However, it is not.
True. We usually consider a condition "abnormal" when it leads to debilitating effects.
This is not true of homosexuality by itself, as it is with Parkinson's or Down's. That's why the AMA and other medical/psychological groups no longer classify it as abnormal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by godsmac, posted 02-23-2004 2:44 PM godsmac has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024