|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Just as once, everyone had the right to marry a person of their own race, and no one had the right to marry outside their race. Are you saying there was no discrimination involved there?
quote: First of all, I love that in one breath you say that there is no discrimination involved, and in the second, you talk about wanting to cut people off from the benefits of the institution. Classic. Secondly... just so you know, you're making up your own definition of marriage, and assuming it's the English-language definition. For instance, the following definition comes from dictionary.com: (the emphasis is mine)
marriage n. 1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2. The state of being married; wedlock. 3. A common-law marriage. 4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. But given your personal, godsmacworld definition of marriage, I'm confused. Is the Lexus allowed to be advertised as "the marriage of luxury and affordibility?" Luxury and affordability aren't male and female attributes. And you've established that marriage does not mean "a coming together" but in fact means "a legal union between two members of the opposing sex." "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Despite my efforts, this topic's problems persist.
Going to give it a short term closure (Probably just a few hours). Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
We currently have two active topics, concerning considerations of homosexuality.
This one is intended towards the biological considerations. The other (" Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!") is intended toward the sociological and political considerations. Please place your messages in the proper topic. Adminnemooseus Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3575 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
I found this:
But in any case, homosexuality doesn't have to be adaptive in a strict genetic sense to be a real phenomenon, argues Bagemihl. "Researchers have been blinded by the prevailing preoccupation to find adaptive explanations for every behaviour," agrees Vasey. He spent his doctoral years hunting in vain for evidence to support such explanations for the sexual proclivities of female Japanese macaques. For instance, the females do not use sex to test or establish dominance ranks or to form social bonds; they form a liaison, and when it is over, they act as though it never happened.
Does anybody know a reason why it can be an adaptive advantage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Interesting article..perhaps it is simply that animals like a good orgasm as much as humans do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Sounds like some girls I knew in college. "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Clutton-Brock writes:
Would that be considered a Trysexual? Try anything.
"Oh them, well they'd probably do anything."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Years ago I saw a study that showed that homosexuality among animals increased when the size of the animal "community" (for lack of a better word) grew unwieldy. If the study was accurate it would seem that homosexuality must be regarded as natural. It might be nature's own check on over-population.
Has anyone else seen this study or any similar study? Maybe I'm just too tired at the moment, but I can't think of how to search for this on google. If I remember correctly, the study I'm thinking of was cited in Time magazine some few years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
I have not heard of a study that suggests homosexualty may increase as a population gets large, but I would be very interested in reading it if it does indeed exist. However, I think we have to be careful here:
berberry writes:
This sounds like something that may be heading down the slippery slope of group selection. But it does beg the question: "why homosexuality as a means of population control?" First off, I don't think that a "few" homosexual individuals would have any real affect on population size. Secondly, how would this characteristic manage to stay masked when population numbers are low, but then manifest itself each time the population increased to some "trigger" size (I suppose "stresser hormones" could play a role)? Anyway, I'm just saying we need to avoid group selection as an answer.
It might be nature's own check on over-population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
A long time ago I remember (vaguely) reading an article (Scientific American I think) about the behaviour or rats as density increased. I think homosexual behaviour increased in that study.
This is hardly a really useful reference to anything but maybe will make it findable by someone who wants to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hello:
I think I'm gonna search for these articles. I'm curious if it was really homosexual behavior or maybe just an increase in the number of type II errors made. You know, maybe it was more of a: "as density increases, just "hump" anythig you see and maybe you'll be successful a few times" sorta thing. None-the-less, I think I'll see what I can find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I hope you are able to find something, I've tried but without luck.
I definitely remember that the article mentioned rats, but I think it also might have mentioned monkeys. If I remember correctly (and this is by no means certain, it really has been a long time) homosexuality increased when environmental changes threatened a particular species. From this, it was speculated that homosexuality might be one of nature's own checks on overpopulation. Incidentally, I am in no way endorsing this notion. I am simply relating the fact that I remember that someone, somewhere once had this idea, and whoever it was was important enough to have his or her research published in a major magazine. If it wasn't Time, it might have been U.S. News, Newsweek, New York or even The Advocate, all of which are magazines I've read with some regularity over the past decade or so. I don't think that the study was the major focus of the article, it was mentioned only as one possible bit of evidence that homosexuality is natural. My mother also read the article, tomorrow I'll call her and see if she remembers what magazine it appeared in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
godsmac Inactive Member |
I edited out my comments because I realized I was off-topic again.
I'll put it under the gay marriage ban topic. [This message has been edited by godsmac, 02-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
godsmac Inactive Member |
Aren't there always changes going on within a population's gene pool? Not all the changes going on would be beneficiary ("adaptive") to the population's survival (or actually the individuals' survival) and I should think that most changes would have no immediate effect unless a change in environment, say, sparked the natural selection process to act on those changes. Might not homosexuality be a common and perhaps often repeated one of these kinds of changes? Educate me here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hello Again:
I've been kinda busy with other stuff lately, but I did spend most of a morning searching for scientific artciles relating to population denisty and homosexuality. So far I have found nothing of any value along those lines. However, I did find a couple of other interesting articles that may be of some use (the first of which was touched upon earlier).
Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers R Blanchard and AF Bogaert Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether homosexual men have a higher mean birth order than heterosexual men primarily because they have more older brothers or because they have more older siblings of both sexes. METHOD: For the main analyses, 302 heterosexual men were individually matched on year of birth with an equal number of heterosexual men. Each completed a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire concerning family background and other biodemographic information. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis showed that homosexuality was positively correlated with the proband's number of older brothers but not with older sisters, younger brothers, younger sisters, or parental age at the time of the proband's birth. Each additional older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by 33%. CONCLUSIONS: These results restrict the range of possible theories of the birth order phenomenon to those that can explain not only why older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males but also why older sisters neither enhance this effect nor counteract it. Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality Miller EM ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR 29 (1): 1-34 FEB 2000 Abstract:The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (on reproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variability among the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other. And I did find this article too, which I'm tossing into the ring cause I thinks it may be of great interest to homophobes.The relation between sexual orientation and penile size Bogaert AF, Hershberger S ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR 28 (3): 213-221 JUN 1999 Abstract:The relation between sexual orientation and penile dimensions in a large sample of men was studied. Subjects were 5122 men interviewed by the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction from 1938 to 1963. They were dichotomously classified as either homosexual (n = 935) or heterosexual (n = 4187). Penile dimensions were assessed using five measures of penile length and circumference from Kinsey's original protocol. On all Jive measures, homosexual men reported larger penises than did heterosexual men. Explanations for these differences are discussed, including the possibility that these findings provide additional evidence that variations in prenatal hormonal levels (or other biological mechanisms affecting reproductive structures) affect sexual orientation development. Anyway, I'll keep looking for papers dealing with density, but I wanted to at least mention these articles so you know I have not simply given up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024