Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Hi, WK. You say:

quote:

---

The trade off between R, high fecundity, and K, lower fecundity higher parental investment, strategies can be seen all the way through the organismal spectrum even in a highly K species such as humans.

---

Then you conclude:

quote:

---

Humans are an R type species, but there are certainly a number of environmental condition where a more K like high fecundity strategy could be advantageous.

---

I don't understand how you got from A to B.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I got the types mixed up in the last paragraph. I'll just go back and correct that using the wonders of time travel.TTFN,WK

Thanks, WK.I in turn used my Wayback Machine to go back to just prior to my alleged first reading of your post.There was no error--it never happened.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

As has been suggested in several ways on this thread fecundity may lead to more homsexual male offspring at least. The idea of a cumulative immune response to male foetuses predisposing later male offspring to homosexuality is well established, and there is certainly convincing evidence of the trend for later male offspring being more predisposed to homosexuality.Therefore genes increasing fecundity can produce homosexual male family members as a byproduct of having a larger number of children, provided several are male. In this scenario male homosexuality would be a natural epiphenomenon of increased fecundity.TTFN,WK

Which obviously is saying a lot for a guy who just told me about gay uncle apes as some sort of scientific breakthrough. There ya go, exactly. So how does it work for homosexuals as it pertains to evolution? They are essentially, what, natures nanny? Come on, man. Think about what you're saying. Anastasia already pointed it out. You are speaking about natural selection in terms of it being a mindful entity.Moreover, you aren't accounting for lesbians in the wild. What job do they have? I just see a lot of ad hoc reasons that, to you, sound mildly plausible. It seems that you'll just throw one out there in hopes that I'll bite. Because homosexuality has to do with SEX, Taz! That is the angle from which the moral argument derives. And there are only a few things that can copulate where contrasting them forces the relativist to crush his own argument by saying one is okay, but the others or not, for literally, no reason other than them having some personal objections to it. I suppose I could use inanimate objects as a basis, but then there would be no moral argument.Its pretty much unassailable at this point that I am not equivocating homosexuals to anything else, being that its a moral argument. Everyone, save the boards extremists (go figure), understand what I've been saying all along. Are humans exempt from natural selection? Its pretty obvious that we are discussing humans here. We've been doing that now for several pages now. Which would be totally copacetic to me if it weren't for the fact a number of people (not sure if you were in that group) that said animal sexuality and human sexuality are different enough to where you can't draw any good conclusions from them by way of juxtaposition. And I even mentioned to, I believe, Molobigirl, that it seems awfully hypocritical. What I said is the acceptance of it comes from a liberal persuation. As for gay ducks, cats, and donkeys, the problem is that you give these animals way too much leeway for understanding. If a dog has tried to copulate with another male dog, does it prove the dog is a homosexual, or does it simply prove the dog is sexual?I've seen male dogs try to copulate with other male dogs, female dogs, cats, shoes, you name it. Does that also mean that dogs can be zoophiles if they attempt to copulate with animals of a different specie? These animals are driven by simple instinct. I think you give them far more mental credit than is warranted. Yeah, I butchered that sentence. Sorry. What I meant to say is, even supposing that homosexuality is perfectly normal within the animal kingdom, could they reasonably be construed as "weaker" in individual terms, as it relates to natural selection?I only ask, because, being that procreation is so critical within the theory of evolution, how can natural selection favor them if they have effectively lost the natural will to procreate? A cure? Can you provide data for me to review? I've never heard of this. But let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You aren't giving me a hypothetical situation, right? You are saying that researchers have actually "cured," (whatever that means), homosexuals within the animal kingdom?

---

​

"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

Can you actually show that homosexuals don't have the desire to procreate or are you gonna keep on asserting it with no support?

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Um, no, the gay uncle apes have been known for at least 2 decades. Ok, let's leave natural selection out of this. We can both drop this term all together.Past studies have shown that, at least in apes, the families that have those gay uncles tend to have more healthy children. Further studies suggested that the reason for this is that the gay uncles actually helped their sisters take care of their young.So, let's add 2 and 2 together. More healthy kids means better chances of the family genes being passed on to the next generation. Capice? Um, no. If a trait is beneficial when it produces a gay uncle every once in a while to benefit the family genes, and this trait happens to also produce a gay aunt every once in a while, why on Earth would there be any selective pressure against this trait? More off-topic nonsense from you. Um, no. Natural selection is a name we use to describe a natural process. This process pretty much is common sense. You haven't explained why a trait that would every once in a while produce a gay member in a family be selected against, considering the fact that the gay member would sometimes help raise the family offsprings. What on earth are you talking about? The discussion is about homosexuality and natural selection. We find homosexual behavior throughout the warm blooded animal kingdom. What's wrong with bringing this up? Remember that we are not talking about morality here. We are talking about the possible biological aspects of homosexuality. Ok, let's leave the dogs out of this. What about penguins? What about the birds that are monogomous? They have plenty of female members to seek out. And yet they decide to stick with their gay relationship for life. What is even more interesting is if they are given an egg or if they get their wings on some eggs, they would actually try to nurse the egg and then the hatchlings.Don't tell me the gay penguins and gay ducks who stay in monogomous relationships are affected by the liberal media as well. Then explain the ducks and penguins who stay in monogomous relationships even though there are plenty of females around. Define "weaker". Look, there are plenty of traits out there that are not passed on by the ones exhibiting them. Male pattern baldness, for example, shows up in males but are passed on by the female members of the family. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Researchers have actually found out ways to "cure" these "gay animal" of their homosexuality. I presented the articles here many months ago. Too lazy to try to dig it up now. If you don't believe me, ask HootMon. I had a long conversation with him about this. And just so you know, you and he are on the same side.To tell you the truth, the researchers who performed these experiments weren't treated nicely by the gay rights advocates. The implication for their discovery is all too obvious. Take a few more steps and we could pretty soon have procedures that pregnant women could go through to make sure their kids won't be gay. Then of course you could look the other way and say that we could choose for our kids to not be straight. Catch my drift?Anyway, if you don't want to take my word or HootMon's for this, I'll try to dig up the articles again. For now, I am indifferent about the researchers' intentions. Don't really know what they are.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

No, he is "throwing out" an actual tested observation and suggested a possible reason for why we see such a thing occuring. It is hard to directly compare modern humans with their ape cousins when it comes to some behaviors, but other evidence (which I believe was shared previously) shows that in apes a "gay uncle" is a benefit to his sisters' progeny. In humans, however, it is not shown that "gay uncles" help out their sisters' kids any more than heterosexual uncles. This is due to the larger behavioral differences and free will, if you will, in humans, but an evolutionary role for early humans/hominids can be reasonably extrapolated. As I mentioned, not as much research has been done on this question. It is probable that the reasons for male and female homosexuality are quite different. This, however, does not negate the actual evidence we are discussing. No, NJ, it doesn't. Just as being heterosexual isn't solely on the basis of sex. I was a lesbian before I ever had sex, before I had ever even kissed a woman. If I never have sex with another woman again, I will still be a homosexual. It is about attraction AND love AND sex. Not just sex. Except relativists haven't been forced to crush their argument. You have simply ignored the reasons we give, mainly concerning consent. Feel free to keep on believing that, but don't proclaim victory where there is none. Why not? I believe it was just Rrhain that suggested that and I am still trying to make sense of his argument, but I believe he is correct in that there is nothing that homosexuals do that heterosexuals don't do (as a group). That is another argument, tho.The reason, as I see it, that we can make the distinction is that bestiality involves humans and animals. When we study animal sexuality to compare it to human sexuality we are using animal-animal (within species) and human-human as isolated sets and only tentatively comparing the two different sets.Furthermore, I doubt you will get a scientist to say that because a pair of flamingoes are "gay" that means that homosexuality in humans is biological. The only reasonable comparison would be our closer ape cousins, although we may look to other species to brainstorm testable ideas in human studies. Thank goodness for liberals, then. The problem is that you are only thinking of the sexual aspect of homosexuality. You need to disabuse yourself of this in order to really understand it.The homosexuality observed in nature varies from exclusive pair bonds (where even when females are isolated with one of the males, they won't copulate) where the two actively raise or attempt to raise adopted or stolen young to early pair bonds in which the members later work together to attract mates to situational pair bonds and sexual behaviors(essentially forced on them through being isolated form females) to occasional acts of homosexual sex to purely "promiscuous" homosexual/bisexual behaviors.The variation is much the same in humans - of both the heterossexual and homosexual persuasions. Only, possibly, if it is found that the genes have no other effect on the propagation of familial genes (for example on fecundity). For the hundreth time, they HAVEN'T lost the natural will to procreate!!! Many homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matter) CHOOSE not to procreate, but that is not at all the same. If you insist on repeating this assertion, please back it up with some evidence. Try not to get too excited, nem.That information in the hands of the likes of you chills me to the bone. I can see the day (a la X-Men) where we are essentially forced to take this cure, after all, now it's a "choice," no? Scary shit and I hope it never comes to pass, but I am not all that optomistic.

---

"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

As I remember correctly, the researchers lost some fundings due to their discovering/inventing the "cure", even though they have only succeeded in animal subjects. Every gay rights advocate groups as well as human rights groups in general spoke out against the researchers. It was a pretty big thing for a while and then the Iraq War took over the headlines again.Anyway, I doubt very much that it will come to forcing people to take the "cure". People like me won't allow it. I'll do anything to prevent it, even if I have to become magneto myself (I can already manipulate small metal objects ). At best, I can see long lines of gay volunteers to take the cure (a la x-men).The real issue is in the pregnant women as well as the minors. Will parents be allowed to force their 15 year olds to take the "cure"? Will pregnant women be allowed to go through the procedure to make sure their unborn children won't be gay? We already see a rediculous number of children being sent to christian camps to be "cured" of homosexuality. One of my friends in college was "cured" after his parent sent him to a christian camp for 6 months. Last I checked, he had a boyfriend .These questions came up in the original script of x-men 3, but the director decided to take these lines out because they're too blunt. I'm pretty sure a lot more people will be asking these questions in the not too distant future when more researchers stumble on more effective ways to "cure" homosexuality and when human trials will finally take place.My question is will people like NJ finally admit that it's more biological than choice when it finally comes down to just taking a simple pill or shot (like in x-men 3)? After all, Senator Kelly (x-men character) made a similar argument that NJ is using. While behind the public scene, however, he told his assistant "if it were up to me, I'd lock them all up." One can only imagine what NJ says behind the public scene.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Premise 1: Gay people like to have sex with members of the same sex.Premise 2: People of the same sex can't procreate.Premise 3: In order for them to procreate, they have to go against their natural proclivities in order to do so.Premise 4: This is an argument from nature.Premise 5: How is it natural, since nature continues to proliferate only by asexual and sexual means, for there to be homosexuality?Conclusion: Homosexuality is not a natural proclivity. But even in the event that it were, clearly they would be on the poorer side of natural selection, since they would, in essence, select themselves out of existence.So how natural is it for homosexuals to go against their own nature just to have children?In practical terms, what would that mean for the child? Would, say, the straight woman divvy up the child's time between herself and the father?

---

​

"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

How can it not be natural when we see it in nature? About as natural as it is for heterosexuals to go against their own nature and not have children.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I actually heard a study done where large families including a long line of brothers would be more likely have the youngest brother be homosexual, having something to do with the conditions in the womb. but it also goes into your statement about homosexual family members being geneticly put inplace to tend to the children of other family members. it seems to fit and is also seen in nature where you have certain females not taking a mate but instead tending to the young of the whole collective.
just complimenting your point!

I think that study has been discussed previously. Back in Message 113 I posted a link to some references on this hypothesis. I suspect the first reference there, a paper by Camperio-Ciani et al., may be the study you mean.TTFN,WK

Individuals do not select themselves into or out of existence. The theory of evolution accounts for scenarios where the non-reproducing individual benefits the genes it carries: altruism, social insects, and, apparently, homosexuality. I'm sure there are more.Many women disinclined to have sex have done so for the sake of having children--was that going against their nature? See above. Why do you assume the mother would be straight?

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

nemesis_juggernaut Two things here. First evolution has no purpose it merely has outcomes. Second the species does not lack the desire to reproduce. The sexual expression of a human being is not aligned with the requirement of reproduction for species survival. The sexual desire is a manifestation of the circuitry of the brain as a consequence of the manner in which that wiring proceeds. If ,in homosexuals, that wiring is slightly different from the larger majority of heterosexuals all this means is that the wiring can proceed in another direction since there is nothing to prevent it. Inferior is a rather loaded word don't you think? Disadvantaged in evolution is not even correct either since there is no reason at all why homosexuals cannot raise children. Evolution does not care if you reproduce or not as an individual. All that is required for success in evolution is a continuation of the species. Hell, evolution does not care for species or even families thanks to natural selection.