|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the causes of sexual orientation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
No, you along with nem, buzsaw, randman, and a few others have been arguing your heads off that homosexuality is completely a choice. Don't get me wrong. I've not offered definitive proof that homosexuality has biological causes. All I've done is present some evidence that at least tell us the cause(s) for homosexuality is more than just choice. But whatever it is that causes homosexuality is still unknown to science, as I have argued before.
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
References to gay/lesbian fruit flies:
Nature 436, 334-335 (21 July 2005) -
By forcing males to express the female-specific fruF transcript, Demir and Dickson produced males that showed the characteristics of the worst-affected fru mutants. These males were sterile, they barely courted females and they were more interested in courting males, forming courtship chains. By contrast, females jammed into fruM mode mated poorly, produced very few eggs, but ” astonishingly ” courted other females (Fig. 2), even to the point of forming chains. And an identity crisis of similar epic proportions was observed in females that were 'masculinized' using a different fru-related genetic trick. Finally, by feminizing specific abdominal glands in males to produce female pheromones, and placing the altered males with fruM females, the sex roles were reversed, so that the females courted the males. Nature 446, 502-504 (29 March 2007):
Physiological recordings in an air-flow assay revealed equally robust responses of T1 sensilla to cVA in both sexes, suggesting that cVA has a function in the sexual response of both males and females. Indeed, they observed that male Or67dGAL4 mutants court virgin females normally, but when paired with other males, their behaviour was significantly more homosexual than that of normal flies, exposing again the inhibitory effect of cVA, but this time on male-male interactions. Nature makes you pay for articles, but my paper subscription covers that. Email me if you want a pdf to read. And remember, green eyes and adult lactose tolerance are the results of mutations, too. Edited by Coragyps, : add snark "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5676 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
EDIT: Whoops, already posted.
Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Taz in response to Hoot Mon writes: No, you along with nem, buzsaw, randman, and a few others have been arguing your heads off that homosexuality is completely a choice. Don't get me wrong. I've not offered definitive proof that homosexuality has biological causes. All I've done is present some evidence that at least tell us the cause(s) for homosexuality is more than just choice. I have personally witnessed homosexual behavior in dogs, cats, and most recently even a male guppy. If homosexuality is completely culturally determined and has no biological element I wonder how the male guppy became gay in the first place. I did not see any 'overprotective behavior' on the part of the mother guppy, nor any particularly 'distant behavior' on the part of any male(s). Basically they saw their progeny as food until they got too big for their mouths. I don't see how this particular male guppy would have been influenced by any 'gay culture' among the other fish. Granted that while male guppies may have a particular fondness for 'dancing' and 'showing off' to the point their behavior may be considered 'flaming' by some, such behavior was only aroused around females except in this one particular case. Nor did this particular male guppy have any role models among the others of its kind as they were, to all appearances, 'straight.' So I am curious how those who proclaim "homosexuality is a choice" can explain exactly how this particular guppy 'chose' to be gay? Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5676 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: It's a conspiracy from homosexuals to push their Gay Agenda and erode the traditional nuclear family of one man, one woman, and hundreds of eggs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Hmph. The whole story sounds fishy to me. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Anglagard, just remember to be careful about cases like these. We know that dogs hump just about anything when they're horny enough. The only cases (I think) that are supportive of a biological basis for homosexuality are cases of persistent homosexual tendencies even with the presence of members of the opposite sex. For example, there are plenty of chimp and bonobos individuals that only go after other members of their own sex. They just go have sex with other members of the same sex and then go back and help raise their siblings' children. Penguins and geese are other classic examples where they actually would form life-long bonds with members of their own sex. It's been observed that some same-sex goose couples actually would chase away a mother goose to steal her eggs and then rear the young as their own.
I swear, the next time I hear a "it's not natural" argument I'm going to scream. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Would not everything you have said also apply to anyone else who remains childless? Regardless of sexual orientation?
Those who have fertility issues, those who remain single and childless out of choice and even those heterosexual couples who are perfectly capable of having children but who choose to use contraception to remain childless. If there is a genetic factor to any of these personal choices or physical limitations should these people not be categorised, if you are going to insist on categorising people in reproductive terms, into the same group as homosexuals? Your natural selection argument would seem to apply equally to all of those categories of people as it would homosexuals. No? As a social and cultural animal isn't the offspring argument you put forward overly narrow. Newton remained childless. Do we really think that his contribution to the human species was less than that of the average sperm donor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Newton remained childless. You know there was a reason for that don't you? Let's just say that due to gravity, he couldn't help but go down on a body with a large mass*.
(*Shamelessly stolen from Mark Steel!) Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You know there was a reason for that don't you? Let's just say that due to gravity, he couldn't help but go down on a body with a large mass*. I knew that it had been suggested that Netwon was gay but what little I have read about his life had always suggested that he was basically too preoccupied with his work and too socially inept to be chasing the "pleasures of the flesh". Whatever form that flesh may have taken...............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/06/080617204459.htm
This article refers to several facts about homosexuality and genetics such as twin studies etc. It then discusses population modeling to pick between various hypotheses about why some homosexuality may remain in populations.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat writes:
Can't speak for squids, but here in Bremerton, WA, they seem to be more interested in fighting each other than fucking each other. They also recorded "In the Navy" Does that mean all sailors are gay?You are implying Guilt by association. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Coragyps, very interesting and relevant to this thread. Thanks. From the Nature article:
quote:While your article is pretty good, I think, it doesn't have much to say that about the benefits bestowed upon to a population that must endure those queer mutations. However, at the very least, it lays such queer characteristics at the feet of genetic predisposition. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nosey, from your cited article:
quote:This seems awfully relevant here. It suggests that a population may contain a fecundity function that is affected by homosexuality. This is huge! It implies that NS ” differential reproduction amongst individuals across a population ” is enhanced by homosexuality. Is this a good thing for a population's dynamic equilibrium? Or is it a good thing for Darwinian NS? ”Hm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This seems awfully relevant here. It suggests that a population may contain a fecundity function that is affected by homosexuality. This is huge! It implies that NS ” differential reproduction amongst individuals across a population ” is enhanced by homosexuality. Is this a good thing for a population's dynamic equilibrium? Or is it a good thing for Darwinian NS? You have it backwards. What this suggests is that there is a genetic variation that gives females higher fecundity and that the homosexuality is linked to this variation. The modeling answers your questions:It has an affect on a population's dynamic equilibrium -- the population naturally settles into a balance that maintains a higher overall fecundity. I don't know what you mean by "good for" a dynamic equilibrium -- to me the question makes no sense at all. Likewise, what do you mean by "good ...for" Darwinian NS. That is exactly how the model was constructed. We observe a link between the occurrence of homosexuality in males and increased fecundity in female relatives. Thus NS will produce a particular balance in a population. That balance depends on the apparent negative fecundity affects of homosexuality (a particular fetish of yours) and the positive affects of that gene(s) (or linked genes) on female reproduction. It explains to you exactly how it is possible for homosexuality to be maintained in a population but only if it is genetic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024