|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,814 Year: 4,071/9,624 Month: 942/974 Week: 269/286 Day: 30/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the causes of sexual orientation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
RE: The causes of heterosexuality and homosexuality:
WHEREAS: Heterosexual orientation is the undisputable cause of human babies and every other kind of baby you could possibly think of, with the only exceptions being binary fission, parthenogenesis, and cloning. WHEREAS: Heterosexual orientation is a genetic condition that is accountable in humans by the genes on their X and Y chromosomes. WHEREAS: Heterosexual orientation evolved as the key mechanism for facilitating a populations’ dynamic equilibrium and its resistence to Darwinian natural selection. WHEREAS: Homosexual orientation does not cause babies in any species, nor is the cause of homosexual orientation known to science. WHEREAS; Homosexual orientation did not evolve to facilitate a population’s dynamic equilibrium or its struggle against Darwinian natural selection; in fact, it may be a mechanism that suppresses a population’s ability to resist NS. THEREFORE: Heterosexual orientation is entirely consistent with biological principles that improve a population’s wellbeing, while homosexual orientation is detrimental to a population’s wellbeing because it does nothing to protect it from the ravages of Darwinian NS. Does science know enough about homosexual orientation to refute any of the WHEREAS statements and alter the THEREFORE statement? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5704 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: This same reasoning might be used for peacock feathers. (An apt analogy given how fabulous homosexuals can be). In all seriousness, the answer is a complicated one. It's almost certainly the case that homosexuality has a strong biological component. However, how much of that role is genetic, epigenetic, or developmental isn't entirely known. In any case, homosexuality is observed across many, many species, from penguins to elephants to dogs to chimps. Thus, there must be something either beneficial or selectively neutral about homosexuality for it to persist. In wolves, mounting behavior between males is done to establish a dominance hierarchy. The same is true for rabbits, though humping behaviors persist even after neutering and is done by both genders. In bonobo chimps, lesbianism helps ease the stresses of inter-population migration. This last observation would seem to be a distinct positive effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hootmon writes: homosexual orientation is detrimental to a population’s wellbeing because it does nothing to protect it from the ravages of Darwinian NS. You have not however shown that it is detrimental. I look around and see tons of gays. Humanity seems to be doing ok.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You don't seem to understand the difference between sexual orientation, sexual reproduction, and biological sex.
Heterosexual orientation is the undisputable cause of human babies Incorrect. Heterosexual sex is the major cause of human babies, not orientation. Certainly the prevalence of heterosexual orientation leads to a whole lot of heterosexual sex, but it isn't a prerequisite.
Heterosexual orientation is a genetic condition that is accountable in humans by the genes on their X and Y chromosomes. If this were true surely homosexual orientation would simply be a variant form of genetic condition? Or do you mean that sex is determined by genetics, because once again that is quite distinct from sexual orientation.
Heterosexual orientation evolved as the key mechanism for facilitating a populations’ dynamic equilibrium and its resistence to Darwinian natural selection. I'm not sure there is anything to support this characterisation. I certainly don't see where resistance to natural selection comes into it.
nor is the cause of homosexual orientation known to science. Then surely neither is the basis of heterosexual orientation. I can't see what the genetic basis has to do with anything unless you want to argue that homosexuality is entirely a 'nurture' phenomenon, a position which there is substantial evidence to call in to doubt.
in fact, it may be a mechanism that suppresses a population’s ability to resist NS. A completely bald assertion, do you have anything at all to back this up? There is evidence that in some cases homosexuality in men is linked to above average fertility in their female relatives.
Does science know enough about homosexual orientation to refute any of the WHEREAS statements and alter the THEREFORE statement? Yes. Your THEREFORE statement is based on completely made up principles supported by nothing but bald assertion. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You're wrong right from the start.
quote: I dare say that never in the history of mankind has a baby ever been created by someone's sexual orientation. Babies are created by the joining of a sperm and an egg, followed by several months of development in a woman's womb. That's how each and every one has ever come about, at least up to now. Please note that nowhere in that process is the issue of sexual orientation a factor. I must say, your continued assault on other people's sexuality is rather amusing, and a little embarrassing. I for one would appreciate it if you'd give it up. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
BeagleBob writes:
BB, is it fair to call any of these examples a true form of homosexuality? I've seen dogs hump pillows, babies, and people's legs, but that doesn't prove they're homosexual. I used to be a member of the YMCA, but that didn't make me gay. In wolves, mounting behavior between males is done to establish a dominance hierarchy. The same is true for rabbits, though humping behaviors persist even after neutering and is done by both genders. In bonobo chimps, lesbianism helps ease the stresses of inter-population migration. This last observation would seem to be a distinct positive effect. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
BB, is it fair to call any of these examples a true form of homosexuality? I've seen dogs hump pillows, babies, and people's legs, but that doesn't prove they're homosexual. I used to be a member of the YMCA, but that didn't make me gay. All right what is the true form of homosexuality? Maybe with a definitive example, we can then debate this topic in a sane manner. Also , what has the YMCA got to do with a person being homosexual? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5704 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Well, at the very least it provides reasoning for my choice of names. I do know of several reports where animals have engaged in pure same-sex relationships at the exclusion of opposite-sex relationships (such as the zoo penguins that had romanced each other and were even given a fake egg to tend to). There were news reports a few years ago of sheep engaging in homosexual activities, ignoring the opposite sex. In fact, this phenomenon was so significant that scientists did studies of sheep brains on this.
The wikipedia article has plenty of examples in which homosexuality appears to be a social activity rather than one of simple horny rutting. I'm afraid I don't have access to the university network, so I can't provide any primary sources. However, if you do find some papers you're interested, give me a link and I can download them for your perusal next week. Now I've gotta go. There's a pillow in the corner there that's looking mighty attractive right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Larni writes:
I don't see how homosexuality could be beneficial to a population's evenly proportioned reproductive success amongst individuals, which is required to prevent NS. Homosexuals don't seek out relationships that participate in a population's reproductive activity. As such, they may even degrade it into a state of vulnerability when NS comes to call. Maybe homosexuality is an acquired disease of populations that weakens them to the ravages of NS. Such a theory could argued on the grounds that NS is defined as "differential reproductive success amongst individuals of a population." HM writes: Hootmon writes:homosexual orientation is detrimental to a population’s wellbeing because it does nothing to protect it from the ravages of Darwinian NS. You have not however shown that it is detrimental. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WW writes:
Nah! I'm sticking with it. If a man's penis is not heterosexually oriented toward a woman vagina (not I'm getting hot, even at my age) he will not get where he needs to go to make a baby. I don't believe homosexuals care to be oriented in the said same way. Orientation has everything to do with it.
HM writes:
Incorrect. Heterosexual sex is the major cause of human babies, not orientation. Certainly the prevalence of heterosexual orientation leads to a whole lot of heterosexual sex, but it isn't a prerequisite. Heterosexual orientation is the undisputable cause of human babies. Or do you mean that sex is determined by genetics, because once again that is quite distinct from sexual?
Is there something you know of about sexuality that is not determined by genetics? I don't believe heterosexuality is a developmental process. Do you? I don't know what kind of a process homosexuality is. Does anybody know?
in fact, it may be a mechanism that suppresses a population’s ability to resist NS.
A completely bald assertion, do you have anything at all to back this up? Yes. Your THEREFORE statement is based on completely made up principles supported by nothing but bald assertion.
No more bald than the assertion that gays need to get "married." Or the assertion that they became homosexuals by an act of nature that resembles the way black people become pigmented. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study
quote: Hoot, we discussed about this at great lengths just last year. Seriously, are you senile?
For Sheep, Homosexuality Is In The Genes quote: Born gay? How biology may drive orientationquote: To the admins: Sorry for the long copy and pastes. I had previously discussed this issue with Hoot at least half a dozen times before and he had previously admitted that these researches did indicate that homosexuality is more than just a choice and does have biological basis. However, senility seemed to kick in everytime because he'd always denied having such conversation with me shortly after we had it. I just thought there shouldn't be anymore excuse for him if the articles are posted right on here. Sincerely, Taz the Baby Eater I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat writes:
Because the Village People seemed to be a little light in their loafers when they scored their hit "YMCA." ...what has the YMCA got to do with a person being homosexual? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5704 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: The same might be said of altruism and kin selection, though. Such behaviors are detrimental to the individual's fitness, but they improve the fitness of the population as a whole. As we've seen with species like the bonobos, there definitely seems to be a societal benefit to their lesbianism. I recently learned of another hypothesis though, whereby homosexuality may be an X-linked trait that causes a behavioral change in women who have it, increasing their motivation to mate with other men. Males who have this chromosome and turn out gay might just be a side-effect.
There's a book here. It looks interesting but I haven't read it. EDIT:
quote: Ah there we go. This'll make some frat boys happy, for sure. Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
I'd like to give it up. But I really want to know what causes homosexuals and why they are like blacks. All we've got to go on are bald assertions. I must say, your continued assault on other people's sexuality is rather amusing, and a little embarrassing. I for one would appreciate it if you'd give it up. btw: I already know what causes heterosexual orientation, and without it no pecking penis will ever find its proper place where babies are made. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024