Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 306 (375439)
01-08-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Let me ask you why gays suffer when they can't get "married" under the law but still gain, via civil union, all of the technical rights that heterosexual married people enjoy. I say let them have everthing but the title of being "married." What's so bad about that?
The act of separation degrades the person being separated. This is why, even if black people had their own water fountain not 20 feet away, the arrangement was still not equal... even if their water fountain is every bit as good as the whites-only one. Implicit in the act of separation is the statement, "you are not good enough to use our water fountain."
Same thing here. Even if civil unions give every single right that marriage gives, the very fact that it's a separate institution makes it unequal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 4:52 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 5:24 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 92 of 306 (375440)
01-08-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chiroptera
01-08-2007 4:18 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
Chiroptera, re:
Humans, on the other hand, have very few, if any, behaviors that are the result of prewired programming. It seems possible, in light of some scientific studies, that some individuals have a biology based predisposition that, when exposed to some sort of environmental stimulus, will more likely result in an individual that is sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex. Just as there are some individuals that, without any biological predisposition whatsoever, will, when exposed to some sort of environmental stimulus, result in an individual that is sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex. And/or there are individuals who have this biological predisposition but, presumably due to the environment that they were exposed to (either prenatally or post-natal socially), did not develop into an individual that is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
OK. If you say so. But I happen to observe that MOST human behavior is naturally predisposed. Of course we could quibble or the meaning of "predisposed." And then someone is bound to bring up "free will."
If there is one thing that seems clear, especially when observing different cultures and how real individuals actually behave in a given culture, is that humans are not "naturally" anything. If they are naturally anything, then they are natural bisexual polygamists, and the predominance of obligate heterosexual behavior among American males is probably due to cultural conditioning, not because heterosexuality is somehow more "natural" than homosexual behavior.
You are going to have a hard time convincing an evolutionary biologist that Homo sapiens had natural ancestors but somehow it became un-natural or a-natural. Seriously, what makes you think humans are biologically exempt from a natural status? E. O. Wilson, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, Stephan J. Gould, John Maynard Smith, Richard Lewontin, and many other good biologists would not agree with you.
”Hoot Mon
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 4:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 5:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 93 of 306 (375441)
01-08-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dan Carroll
01-08-2007 5:15 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Dan Carroll, re:
Even if civil unions give every single right that marriage gives, the very fact that it's a separate institution makes it unequal.
By way of what reasoning? Where's the harm?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-08-2007 5:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 10:06 AM Fosdick has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 306 (375442)
01-08-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 5:16 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
quote:
But I happen to observe that MOST human behavior is naturally predisposed.
That is interesting. How do you distinguish between naturally predisposed bahaviors and unnaturally predisposed behaviors, and behaviors that are not predisposed at all?
-
quote:
You are going to have a hard time convincing an evolutionary biologist that Homo sapiens had natural ancestors but somehow it became un-natural or a-natural.
I have no desire to convince anyone of this.
-
quote:
...Stephan J. Gould...Richard Lewontin, and many other good biologists would not agree with you.
Actually, these two individuals would actually agree with me. In fact, Stephan Jay Gould has written entire essays which are the main basis of my posts on this thread. He and Lewontin have been very critical of the kind of hard "biological determinism" that has been espoused in some of the popular press.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 5:16 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 5:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 306 (375444)
01-08-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dan Carroll
01-08-2007 3:18 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
If I am unable to choose to be gay then that means that nobody is able to?
I can't say what everyone on the planet is capable of doing. But if a person such as you or Hoot Mon is incapable of choosing your sexuality, then it seems a bit silly for either of you to insist that it's what others are doing.
Oh, I didn't realize you were just trying to make us seem a bit silly. I thought you were saying that you can't choose to be gay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-08-2007 3:18 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 96 of 306 (375447)
01-08-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Chiroptera
01-08-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
Chiroptera, re:
How do you distinguish between naturally predisposed bahaviors and unnaturally predisposed behaviors, and behaviors that are not predisposed at all?
I begin with the null hyopothesis that EVERYTHING about humans and other animals is naturally predisposed. Then I go looking evidence to the contrary. I haven't found very much. Please tell me what is so un-natural or a-nature about human behavior. (This subject harps back to the 1970s, on the campus of the University of Michigan, when Wilson and Hamilton were vilified for suggesting that human behavior had genetic roots in common with other animals.)
Actually, these two individuals [Gould & Lewontin] would actually agree with me. In fact, Stephan Jay Gould has written entire essays which are the main basis of my posts on this thread. He and Lewontin have been very critical of the kind of hard "biological determinism" that has been espoused in some of the popular press.
You are right about this. Harvard and Oxford have battled mightily over this issue. Dawkins seems to have won the battle, though, by showing (in "The Extended Phenotype," especially) that genetic determinism accounts for a large part of the evolutionary equation. Randomizing effects are important, too, but it's still a game of allelic combinations.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 5:27 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 6:25 PM Fosdick has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 306 (375452)
01-08-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
quote:
I begin with the null hyopothesis that EVERYTHING about humans and other animals is naturally predisposed. Then I go looking evidence to the contrary.
What would be evidence to the contrary?
-
quote:
Please tell me what is so un-natural or a-nature about human behavior.
Like I said, human behavior is neither natural or unnatural. The collected essays of the anthropologist Marvin Harris are a good start. Although he doesn't usually dwell on this particular question, the wide variety of human behaviors found in various cultures around the world would seem to speak very much against a large degree of biologically determined behavior; however, I believe he devotes a portion of his book Our Kind in discussing this and showing how little of human behavior can be explained by biological determinism.
Let us take the subject of this thread, homosexuality versus heterosexuality. There are examples were homosexual practices were widespread in the societies. Ancient Greek, Japanese samurai, and several African tribes, just off the top of my head, practiced pederasty. There are (or were) groups that found a male who was averse to homosexual sex to be abberant. Unless one believes that "gay" genes and "straight" genes somehow segregate according to ethnicity, this alone should show that sexuality is not biologically determined.
-
quote:
Dawkins seems to have won the battle, though, by showing (in "The Extended Phenotype," especially) that genetic determinism accounts for a large part of the evolutionary equation.
And Stephen Jay Gould showed in The Mismeasure of Man that there is no scientific basis for biological determinism.
However, we have come a long way from the days when truth was discovered by clever people "showing" how their positions are correct. Nowadays, we try to understand the world around us through scientific investigations involving observations and falsification of hypotheses.
For example, take surveys of sets of American identical twin brothers, one of whom is gay. In half or so of these sets of twins, the other brother is not gay. So much for biological determinism.
In fact, I vaguely remember reading about a study that looked at identical twin brothers, fraternal twin brothers, and non-twin brothers, at least one of whom was gay. In examing the proportion of sets of brothers where the other brother was gay, the faternal twins were between that of identical twins and non-twins. The fact that fraternal twins were not identical to non-twins would seem to say something against genetics being the major component. The fact that fraternal twins were not identical to identical twins would seem to be evidence against prenatal environment being the dominant component. (I have no idea, by the way, whether these results have been countered by subsequent studies).
All in all, in looking at studies of human behavior, it would appear that sexual orientation is not determined soley by biology, nor that biology is even the single most important factor. If sexual orientation is not predominantly genetic, then evolution has no effect on it, regardless of what Dawkins "showed".

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 5:51 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 306 (375453)
01-08-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 4:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
If I'm a black person and you say I can't drink water from a public fountain, is that the same thing as if I'm gay person and you say I can't get "married" at a public courthouse?
Sure, sounds the same to me.
Let me ask you why gays suffer when they can't get "married" under the law but still gain, via civil union, all of the technical rights that heterosexual married people enjoy.
Because they don't get all the same technical rights as married people. There's 1000 Federal rights they don't get, at least, that apply only to married people - not to civil unions, which don't exist.
I say let them have everthing but the title of being "married." What's so bad about that?
Again, asked and answered. Why did we specifically reject the doctrine of "seperate but equal" for minorities? How do you think you can have the exact same thing under two names, when the laws say only "marriage", not "marriage or civil union"?
I must have the obnoxious gene for questioning half-baked opinions.
Apparently you have a mutation in your gene for "effective argumentation", since I'm still waiting for you to present a rebuttal that isn't simply the repetition of your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 4:52 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 99 of 306 (375464)
01-08-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Chiroptera
01-08-2007 6:25 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
Chiroptera, re:
I begin with the null hyopothesis that EVERYTHING about humans and other animals is naturally predisposed. Then I go looking evidence to the contrary.
What would be evidence to the contrary?
You tell me and I'll see if I can find a genetic cuase somewhere.
Like I said, human behavior is neither natural or unnatural. The collected essays of the anthropologist Marvin Harris are a good start. Although he doesn't usually dwell on this particular question, the wide variety of human behaviors found in various cultures around the world would seem to speak very much against a large degree of biologically determined behavior; however, I believe he devotes a portion of his book Our Kind in discussing this and showing how little of human behavior can be explained by biological determinism.
Yes, I am aware of numerous studies that seek to disprove genetic predisposition. All of the ones I've seen so far regarding evolution are vulnerable to Gould's argument for "deep homology." As you know, homology is all about genes. I'll admit, however, that I am pedisposed to "nature over nurture" from the start. That is my bias. Please, coax me out of it. Most arguments for "nurture over nature" are not very convincing to me.
And Stephen Jay Gould showed in The Mismeasure of Man that there is no scientific basis for biological determinism.
No, he really didn't, so far as genetic determinsim is concerned. Gould eventually agreed with Dawkins that genes are extremely deterministic in matters of survival strategies (i.e., the selfish gene). They do that by way of homology (which is about as deterministically predermined as you can get!). But genetic determinism is not the only operative in evolution, of course. Gould and Dawkins were at odds mostly over the functional meaning of phenotypes.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2007 6:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 01-09-2007 9:23 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 100 of 306 (375472)
01-08-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
01-08-2007 6:26 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog wrote:
Apparently you have a mutation in your gene for "effective argumentation", since I'm still waiting for you to present a rebuttal that isn't simply the repetition of your point.
I didn't have a point, not originally, I had a question about the natural-ness of gay behavior. I got three competing answers: 1) gay-ness is natural, 2) gay-ness is unnatural, and 3) gay-ness is neither of the above. So what is it? If I have a point at all it's that I suspect gay-ness is natural, genetically predisposed, and that gays should be treated accordingly.
You know, some people would argue that the separation of men's and women's restrooms is somehow limiting their rights and freedoms. Others might insist on having rights to their children's diaries. The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot. People say a lot of things.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2007 6:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2007 8:08 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 102 by Jaderis, posted 01-08-2007 11:52 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 306 (375480)
01-08-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot.
Really? You have, perhaps, an example of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:51 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 1:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 102 of 306 (375545)
01-08-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
You know, some people would argue that the separation of men's and women's restrooms is somehow limiting their rights and freedoms.
Who?
I will concede that I have seen firsthand the plight of transexuals who experience vilification from both the straight and gay communities when it comes to single sex use only areas (bathrooms, women's events, etc), but there are no laws per se restricting use of a men's bathroom by women or vice versa. I do it all the time. Lots of women bemoan the fact that the lines for women's bathrooms are usually inifinitely longer than for the men's, but they take no action because of cultural constraints (and for some, I suppose, fear for safety in certain places) not because some law says they cannot use the men's room or because they will be beaten or prosecuted just for using it. I've even experienced having men using the women's room outside of gay clubs (where it happens all the time and no one cares).
Others might insist on having rights to their children's diaries.
This delves into the "your rights end where mine begins" area. Children, as it stands, do not have many of the rights coveted by the American adult population, a fact which I have a hard time reconciling regarding some rights (locker searches in school, free speech rights in school, the right not to be assaulted by their parents in the name of "discipline"). The privacy of one's mind should be sacrosanct in our culture, however, because it is the only thing that is completely our own.
To bring it back to topic, the right to violate the privacy of another's mind has nothing to do with gay rights, unless we encounter a day when brain/genetic scans to weed out homosexuals becomes compulsory.
Right now, however, this "right" is not analogous to homosexual rights.
The Hells Angels say their rights are abused if they can't have fist fights in the parking lot.
Again, not analogous.
I would argue that people who want to be involved in a fight should be able to (ie Fight Club ) because the assault is not hurting anyone who does not want/expect to be hurt.
The right to fight ends when an unwilling participant is involved. Hmmm...maybe it is analogous (in a grossly loose sort of way). Homosexual behavior does not affect anyone who is not involved, unless you choose to be affected by claiming that it is hurting your marriage or your fragile, glass made god's sensibilities, or you get offended when some guy/girl hits on you (do you get so offended when someone of the opposite sex whom you are not attracted to hits on you, too?) or some such other BS.
As for the whole marriage deal, I have said this before here, but I will say it again. I do not particularly care if my relationship with the woman I love is called "marriage" or not as long as I get the same rights entitled to me as heterosexual couples do. However, I know that many people do care and I will fight for their right to use that word. It is just a word, after all. I also recognize most religious institutions' unwillingness to recognize homosexual unions. That is their right and I would not want the state to force that recognition upon them, just as I would not want the church to force the state not to recognize the "civil" marriages of gays.
I hope to review some of the biology posts and respond...I do not wish this thread to unravel into solely a debate about gay marriage since it is only half of the OP.
People say a lot of things.
Yes, they certainly do, which is why it helps to swim through alot of the BS, look at both sides, really consider both sides and then make an educated decision instead of an impulsive one based on someone's anecdotal conclusions (including mine).
Edited by Jaderis, : forgot to quote the last bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:51 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 3:32 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 125 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 2:08 PM Jaderis has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 103 of 306 (375574)
01-09-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jaderis
01-08-2007 11:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Jaderis writes:
It is just a word, after all.
I'm afraid that the issue is more complicated than that.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jaderis, posted 01-08-2007 11:52 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jaderis, posted 01-09-2007 4:15 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 110 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 12:33 PM Taz has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 104 of 306 (375577)
01-09-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taz
01-09-2007 3:32 AM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I'm afraid that the issue is more complicated than that
Oh, yes, I am well aware of that. What I am stressing is that "marriage" is a word. The symbolic meaning we each give to the word is different. I had no idea that it held such sacred meaning (as in a man and a woman united under god with such fierceness) until I counseled gay and lesbian couples who wanted the the term applied to them.
I was raised to question everything. Marriage means to me people uniting their lives to a common purpose, whether it be kids, art, love, or whatever.
I didn't know until much later in life that "marriage" was restricted. Most people don't. They don't even have to ask "why?" because their definition is already fulfilled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 3:32 AM Taz has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 306 (375602)
01-09-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Fosdick
01-08-2007 7:35 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
quote:
I begin with the null hyopothesis that EVERYTHING about humans and other animals is naturally predisposed. Then I go looking evidence to the contrary.
What would be evidence to the contrary?
You tell me and I'll see if I can find a genetic cuase somewhere.
Oh, I'm sure that you can explain away any single piece of data. Creationists do that all the time; that's not so hard. The question is whether one can offer a hypothesis that not only explains the bulk of the available data but also offers testable predictions.
Sort of like this:
If sexual orientation were genetically determined, I would expect that near 100% of identical twins would either be both gay or both not gay. That turns out to be not the case. In fact, if a gay American male has an identical twin, about half the time his twin brother is not gay. Identical twins share identical genomes. One person is gay. Another person is exactly the same genes is not gay. This happens a significant portion of the time. Therefore, sexual orientation is not determined by genetics. At best, sexual orientation is caused by genetics + something else, with the something else be as important or more important than the genetics.
Here is another: if human males were "naturally" heterosexual, I would expect that in the vast majority of human societies, homosexuality among males would be at most a minor aberrant occurrence. That is not the case. In a great many societies, homosexual behavior among men is a common occurrence; in fact, among some, obligate heterosexual behavior is considered aberrant.
Or another: If human males were "naturally" heterosexual, then I would expect that in most societies, males would avoid homosexual behavior without any expectation that they do so. Again, that is not what we see. In the cases of which I am aware, the societies in which males are exclusively heterosexual have strong taboos against homosexuality and severely punish those who engage in same-sex behavior. One does not impose sanctions against something that no one is doing "naturally" -- one imposes sanctions against something that people would do if they had the opportunity.
Homosexuality is no more "unnatural" to the humans species than eating with chopsticks is.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Fosdick, posted 01-08-2007 7:35 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 2:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024