Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Try not to be too offended Dameeva. This was an old thread where we were discussing the plausibility of homosexuality as being the product of a chance mutation.Moreover, it should be especially inoffensive to you in the event that you are an evolutionist. I mean, think about it. From an evolutionary point of view, we ALL would be the product of mutation.So, please, try not to be too offended by that. It was an honest inquiry not intended to ruffle anyone's feathers, but rather an attempt to answer some fundamental questions.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

The whole tone of the discussion is demeaning by implying there is something wrong or there is a defect. Bullshit! There is no more need of a scientific discussion on homosexuality than there is for people with red hair.
What determines who any of us are? Not our sexual desires or choice of partner that's for sure. Do any of us choose to be who we are? I didn't choose my gendre or orientation. I just am and so is everyone else. As a 'gay' woman maybe you have a need to be accepted, allowing this kind of scrutiny. If I was a person in a same sex relationship (which is all it amounts to)I would say, "UP YOURS"Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

Recent studies have been fairly conclusive in their analysis of homosexuality among males and birth order.To sum up the results:Some women are essentially allergic to testosterone. As they produce male children, their body builds up defenses against the testosterone. The more male children she has, the more the defenses are built up, resulting in the trend for increasing chance of homosexuality among subsequent children.Obviously, like most of biology, this is only one factor, of which there may be many.It's also important to note that this is NOT a genetic mutation. There's nothing in the DNA of the homosexual brother that is different than his oldest (not gay) sibling. There's no reason to think that this effect will be passed on to children should this person choose to reproduce.As for evolutionarily selective factors for or against, since this "trait" in the mother increases with each subsequent children, there is a good likelihood that she'll have produced one or more non-homosexual offspring prior to this child. If there is any selective forces at work, they would necessarily be extremely minor.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

I don't understand. Are you associating a negative connotation to the word "mutation?" Speculating about a possible role of a (speculative) homosexuality gene(s) in natural selection is not demeaning. I think you may have gotten the impression that some people were trying to defend homosexuality by proving some kind of "benefit," implying that there is something wrong. I can see how you might think that, but I assure you that was not the over-arching theme of this debate. Sure there is! Knowing the evolutionary route of a gene or set of genes is highly fascinating to a lot of people. A beneficial aspect of having red hair (and the traits that usually accompany it like pale skin) is that in cold climates where there is not as much sunlight for half of the year the body is able to absorb more sunlight and hence more Vitamin D preventing rickets. See, that wasn't offensive at all and people actually learned something! True and I'm glad you feel that way, however, trying to figure out the genetics and the role or effect that this particular mutation may have has nothing to do with what you just said...well, except for maybe proving that it is natural and not a choice. Not that it matters either way. I doubt anyone here would say that I "feel the need to be acepted" or am at all ashamed by my sexuality by the posts I make.On the contrary. If I was uncomfortable with who I am I would probably be more defensive, jumping on any perceived slight and shouting down any discussion at all about the topic. You will find if you read my posts that I have never hidden my sexuality nor have I grovelled at the feet of those who disagree with me just to fit in. I have done so many times in my life and a couple of times on this board, but only when someone was actually being offensive.I am mature enough to pick my battles well (most of the time), but I DO stand up to trollish offensive comments.I do not, however, consider a discussion about the role of homosexuality in natural selection to be offensive in the slightest. I'm sorry that you doEdited by Jaderis, : No reason given.Edited by Jaderis, : fixed quote

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

Hmmm...I wonder if the increasing chance for a male homosexual child would mean a decreasing chance for a female homosexual child (providing that testosterone levels in utero have something to do with lesbianism)?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

The whole tone of examining homosexuality as though it is NOT NORMAL is my point. You are normal. I am normal. We are human beings! There is no need for a scientific analysis of normal.
What is the reason for this line of enquiry?

So by your logic Mendel should have never tried to figure out the inheritance of traits? It's a big waste of time to try and track the genetic history of groups of people or just people in general? We shouldn't bother trying to understand the role of sexual selection in evolution or the evolution of altruism? We should just say "Hey, neat! Red Hair!" and get on with our lives? Because these things are "normal" and not worth understanding?I, for one, would like to understand MY particular genetic history. It matters not one whit to me if my being a lesbian is genetic, but it sure would be interesting to find out! And to find out how this trait is passed along and why. I attach no feeling to it. It is simply intellectual curiousity.You are reading a nefarious purpose into the topic that simply is not there. Yes, some of the posts by certain individuals carry negativity with them, but the topic itself is completely benign!

I'm not sure that you mean generation. I am not a different generation from my older brother. Perhaps with each subsequent offspring or each subsequent pregnancy with a male child. This need not be the case if the selective forces are acting on traits which increase the number of offspring a female has, that would seem to naturally lend itself to such a trait being propagated. If the maternal effect is a factor in determining sexuality then there is good reason to think that the genes involved will be passed on in line with normal genetic principles. It wouldn't mean that a male carrier, gay or straight, would have a gay son, but it might lead to him having gay grandsons if the trait presents itself in his female children.TTFN,WK

Of course homosexuality is normal.But you have to be aware that there is a very serious, well organized assualt on the rights of these Americans.Fundamentalists consider homosexuality to be a choice and a sin. This is the fuel that drives their hate machine.If, in fact, homosexuality is something someone is born with like hair color, it leaves them very little room for argument.Ignoring fundamentalists is a VERY dangerous strategy which will always result in utter destruction. These are very dangerous people.

Right you are WK, typing late. I'll go back up an edit Right, but it would be gay 3rd or 4th grandson after passing the trait on to a daughter.So the genes are getting propogated through several rounds of child bearing before they show up to have a potential effect.

Before they show up with the particular effect of increasing the likelihood of gay male offspring, but not perhaps of producing the effect of increased female fecundity.TTFN,WK

I did spit the dummy a little and I apologise if I have offended anyone. I tend to get a bee in my bonnet when my children are concerned. A lioness protecting her cubs interests. Maybe this is why you assume I am an evolutionist?

I understand perfectly this dangerous view point of homosexuality being a sin, but trying to prove them wrong won't work. Look what happened when I just tried it on this forum? No one really heard my view point.

Well, I appreciate that, but if we do pick this back up, I'm pretty sure you are not going to like the things I say-- most people on EvC don't.But I will try to explain my position as best that I can in a way that is least offensive. I should warn you that no matter what I say, it tends to be completely manipulated around here. I would say listen to what I'm actually saying, not what some of the more extremist members think I'm saying through a thinly veiled disguise.Interestingly enough, Jaderis, a homosexual, is the one person that seems to understand me the most, even if she ultimately disagrees with me.The point is, the apology might be short lived. But I will try to explain my view without completely irritating you. Children? Are you equating homosexuals to children, you bigot! (Sorry, inside joke) Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

ha ha ha, no my friend, children are children. One of my own adult children just happens to be in a same sex relationship.That Theodore Roosevelt talks a load of shit, doesn't he?