Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,492 Year: 6,749/9,624 Month: 89/238 Week: 6/83 Day: 6/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Natural Selection.
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 136 of 243 (391735)
03-27-2007 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 4:37 PM


nj writes:
And consider this as well. If this sexuality were really about love, then it shouldn't matter what sex anyone is, right? Therefore, if you remove the will to procreate, but only have homosexual sex as being measured strictly for sexual gratification, then where does love fit in? I don't understand that.
If you want to put it in terms of love, then shouldn't it be the case that whether or not the other person is of opposite sex or not you'd want to marry him/her? In fact, throughout my life I've had many great male friends as best buddies. I should have married one of them, then? We did, after all, do everything together.
Yes, but finding ways around nature doesn't help the evolutionary argument for why homosexuality exists at all. Yes, you could be artificially inseminated, you could adopt, you could have sex with a member of the opposite sex, but I'm talking about nature. Why would such a thing be selected for. Why would nature subvert itself? That makes no sense to me.
Despite the fact that this has been explained a kazillion times on here, you still manages to miss it.
Evolution and Natural Selection does not necessarily mean the pumping out of as many offspring as you possibly can. Having a gay uncle helping to raise you up does have its advantages. I am reminded of the grandmother hypothesis.
No. Because the answer is obvious. They 'want' different colored eyes, not that its natural. Perhaps we could make the same argument for homosexuality.
Oh, sure. It is entirely possible that there is a world wide conspiracy where humans and animal alike decide to be homosexuals and try to pass it as not having a choice about it. Those gay ducks, penguins, apes, etc. as well as my gay friends sat in a dark room together and consciously decided to be gay.
..... There it is. There is nothing left to discuss. Homosexuality is either a choice, directed by societal influence, or nature is in confusion which undermines the basic principles of evolution. The two are incompatible.
What about gay ducks, penguins, apes, cats, and a myriad other animal species that have homosexual members? Are they, too, influenced by the liberal agenda?
You can only fast for so long. My point is, if nature gives us instinct for a reason, what reason is there to select homosexuality?
How about to take care of your siblings' children?
And how far down does the rabbit hole go as far as what we get to decide is instinctual and what is societally induced?
Again, were gay ducks under some kind of duck societal pressure to be gay?
Couldn't we make the argument that old men desiring fertile, pubescent females is merely an instinct to procreate with the healthiest stock? And yet, we have a moral aversion towards pedophilia. Again, couldn't we make excuses for rape as some evolutionary basis? Just how far down the does the rabbit hole go? Where is the line drawn in the sand?
Again, you are trying to pass off the argument of making a comparason between sex between 2 or more consenting adults and rape as somehow valid.
I have. And if you read the OP's points, he has met homosexuals that have said the same thing. In other words, they are inventing reasons for why they are a-okay with nature and that they are actually beneficial. Sounds like purpose to me.
It's all in your head. Nobody is trying to convince you that it's a-okay. I certainly am under no obligation to try to convince you that my right handedness is a-okay. My wife is under no obligation to try to convince you that her left handedness is a-okay.
You seem to start out a priori that there is something wrong with homosexuality and that the rest of us have to somehow convince you that it's a-okay. You should be aware that I am under no moral or legal obligation to convince you that I should be able to have sex with Steve or any other consenting male adult in the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 4:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 137 of 243 (391744)
03-27-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog
03-26-2007 8:38 PM


Re: How does homosexuality evade natural selection?
There have been a number of Twin studies consistent with a biological, if not a genetic, basis for male Homosexuality. Only one seems to explicity look at twins raised in different environments.
Homosexual orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets.
Whitam FL, Diamond M, Martin J.
Arch Sex Behav. 1993 Jun;22(3):187-206.
Twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual were solicited through announcements in the gay press and personal referrals from 1980 to the present. An 18-page questionnaire on the "sexuality of twins" was filled out by one or both twins. Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins (34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. Twenty-three pairs of dizygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual orientation. In addition, three sets of triplets were obtained. Two sets contained a pair of monozygotic twins concordant for sexual orientation with the third triplet dizygotic and discordant for homosexual orientation. A third triplet set was monozygotic with all three concordant for homosexual orientation. These findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation.
Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart.
Eckert ED, Bouchard TJ, Bohlen J, Heston LL.
Br J Psychiatry. 1986 Apr;148:421-5.
We describe six pairs of monozygotic twins, in which at least one member of five pairs were homosexual, and one of the remaining pair was bisexual, from a series of 55 pairs, reared apart from infancy; all the female pairs were discordant for homosexual behaviour. This and other evidence suggest that female homosexuality may be an acquired trait. One male pair was concordant for homosexuality, while
the other was not clearly concordant or discordant; this suggests that male homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part.
Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs.
Kendler KS, Thornton LM, Gilman SE, Kessler RC.
Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;157(11):1843-6.
OBJECTIVE: Although previous studies have suggested that sexual orientation is influenced by familial factors, which may be partly genetic, these studies have relied on unrepresentative and potentially biased samples. The authors attempted to estimate the role of genetic and environmental factors in the determination of sexual orientation in a more representative sample.
METHOD: Sexual orientation was assessed by a single item on a self-report questionnaire in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. Sexual orientation was classified as heterosexual or nonheterosexual (bisexual or homosexual). The authors compared the similarity of sexual orientation in the monozygotic twins to the similarity in the same-sex dizygotic twins, all dizygotic twins, the same-sex dizygotic twins and sibling pairs, and all dizygotic twins and sibling pairs. Biometrical twin analyses were performed.
RESULTS: All analyses demonstrated familial resemblance for sexual orientation. Resemblance was greater in the monozygotic twins than in the dizygotic twins or in the dizygotic twins plus nontwin siblings. Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. No evidence was found for a violation of the equal-environment assumption regarding monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs.
CONCLUSIONS: Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation. The results of these analyses should be interpreted in the context of low statistical power and the use of a single item to assess the complex phenotype of sexual orientation.
One important point to bear in mind with the Camperio-Ciani et al. study previously cited (2004) is that in many ways the female fecundity hypothesis in concert with the observation that more older male siblings increases the likelihood of a child being homosexual suggests that homesexuality is partly an epiphenomenon of the increased female fecundity rather than the result of any gene causing homosexuality in the actual bearer.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 03-26-2007 8:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 7:45 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5755 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 138 of 243 (391865)
03-27-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Wounded King
03-27-2007 4:53 AM


Re: How does homosexuality evade natural selection?
One important point to bear in mind with the Camperio-Ciani et al. study previously cited (2004) is that in many ways the female fecundity hypothesis in concert with the observation that more older male siblings increases the likelihood of a child being homosexual suggests that homesexuality is partly an epiphenomenon of the increased female fecundity rather than the result of any gene causing homosexuality in the actual bearer.
I tend to agree. But in the absence of a genetic explanation for homosexuality, the role of person choice seems to become more important. Is it, then, mostly a psychological issue? No genes involved at all? Are there any good biological principles, other than genetic ones, that can explain such a choice favoring homosexuality? The "epiphenomenon" approach might do the job, but I don't yet know the principles it relies on. I'm not sure I trust the psychologists with this one.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 03-27-2007 4:53 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2007 7:51 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 141 by Taz, posted 03-27-2007 8:53 PM Fosdick has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9012
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 139 of 243 (391867)
03-27-2007 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Fosdick
03-27-2007 7:45 PM


Absence?
But in the absence of a genetic explanation for homosexuality,
But the above quote just gave a reasonable genetic explanation. Why would you ignore that?
Like most things about us it is undoubtably complex but all the studies I've read suggest a genetic or uterine enviroment connection. Do you have any that suggest otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 7:45 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 8:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5755 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 140 of 243 (391880)
03-27-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NosyNed
03-27-2007 7:51 PM


Re: Absence?
But in the absence of a genetic explanation for homosexuality,
But the above quote just gave a reasonable genetic explanation. Why would you ignore that?
Believe me, Nosy, I want to see a genetic explanation for everything. That's my bias. But there were ambiguities in those pubs. I was reponding more specifically to WK's line:
...an epiphenomenon of the increased female fecundity rather than the result of any gene causing homosexuality in the actual bearer.
It was the "actual bearer" part that interested me.
Like most things about us it is undoubtably complex but all the studies I've read suggest a genetic or uterine enviroment connection. Do you have any that suggest otherwise?
Not even a clue to a suggestion, because, dispite the ambiguities I see in the studies mention by WP, I don't know how an "uterine environment connection" can NOT be a genetically managed phenomenon. Yes, WK can go to epiphenomena is he want to, but I don't want to go there until I understand just the phenomenon part, if there realy is any.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NosyNed, posted 03-27-2007 7:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 141 of 243 (391881)
03-27-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Fosdick
03-27-2007 7:45 PM


Re: How does homosexuality evade natural selection?
Hoot Mon writes:
But in the absence of a genetic explanation for homosexuality, the role of person choice seems to become more important.
Do you at all remember our conversation on this just a couple or so months ago where I referenced a research that led to a "cure" of animal homosexuality? Surely, if the trait can be cured via experimental procedures then wouldn't this be an indication of it being more than just a personal choice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 7:45 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM Taz has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5755 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 142 of 243 (391884)
03-27-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Taz
03-27-2007 8:53 PM


Re: How does homosexuality evade natural selection?
Do you at all remember our conversation on this just a couple or so months ago...
Oh, sure, I remember that. How could I forget it?
...where I referenced a research that led to a "cure" of animal homosexuality? Surely, if the trait can be cured via experimental procedures then wouldn't this be an indication of it being more than just a personal choice?
I would have to agree with you. And I suppose, then, that you would have to agree with this: When they invent a "cure" for homosexuality in humans, being homosexual certainly will be a matter of choice.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Taz, posted 03-27-2007 8:53 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Taz, posted 03-28-2007 3:47 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 143 of 243 (392009)
03-28-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
03-27-2007 9:10 PM


Re: How does homosexuality evade natural selection?
Hoot Mon writes:
And I suppose, then, that you would have to agree with this: When they invent a "cure" for homosexuality in humans, being homosexual certainly will be a matter of choice.
We could also look at it from the other standpoint. When they do invent a "cure", being heterosexual certainly will be a matter of choice also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 03-27-2007 9:10 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6083 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 144 of 243 (414022)
08-02-2007 12:17 PM


How selfish is a gene for homosexuality?
Obviously gene for homosexuality contradicts Dawkins concept of "selfish gene". Dawkins admitted that such a gene is not created by reccurent random mutation and he pointed out:
quote:
Genes that predispose a significant minority of men to homosexuality raise a Darwinian puzzle.
Dawkins himself about the problem:
quote:
If a homosexuality gene lowers its own probability of being reproduced today, and yet still abounds in the population, that is a problem for commonsense as much as for Darwin's theory of evolution. And, intriguing as several of these theories may be, I have to conclude that it remains a problem.
Page not found – Marcus du Sautoy
In this case homosexuality gene is not as much a problem for Darwin's theory but for Dawkins "selfish gene" hypothetical concept. Dawkins equate darwinism with his "selfish gene" hypothesis to avert attack and to put resposibility of "selfish gene" to darwinism. Because homosexuality gene obviously cannot pass and replicate itself however selfish it is.

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2007 12:32 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 147 by Taz, posted 08-02-2007 3:52 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 145 of 243 (414030)
08-02-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by MartinV
08-02-2007 12:17 PM


Re: How selfish is a gene for homosexuality?
Maybe you should read some of this thread Martin, it directly addresses this very issue.
In summary the crux of the issue is Dawkins statement "If a homosexuality gene lowers its own probability of being reproduced today".
This could only be a problem for evolution is it was actually shown that whatever gene/genes influence homosexuality do in fact lower its probability of being reproduced, and not just in homosexuals.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by MartinV, posted 08-02-2007 12:17 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by MartinV, posted 08-02-2007 2:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6083 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 146 of 243 (414048)
08-02-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Wounded King
08-02-2007 12:32 PM


Re: How selfish is a gene for homosexuality?
I skimmed the paper "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity" link to which you have given above. The explanation of greater fecundity of mothers having X chromosome with homosexual gene seems to back up the idea of "selfish gene" also in this case. But you know I do not believe a "selfish gene" story a bit. Trying to find something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2007 12:32 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 147 of 243 (414071)
08-02-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by MartinV
08-02-2007 12:17 PM


Re: How selfish is a gene for homosexuality?
MartinV writes:
In this case homosexuality gene is not as much a problem for Darwin's theory but for Dawkins "selfish gene" hypothetical concept. Dawkins equate darwinism with his "selfish gene" hypothesis to avert attack and to put resposibility of "selfish gene" to darwinism. Because homosexuality gene obviously cannot pass and replicate itself however selfish it is.
This is like the twightlight zone where things that we have been repeating for years somehow get lost while on their way to your brain.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by MartinV, posted 08-02-2007 12:17 PM MartinV has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 5240 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 148 of 243 (414125)
08-02-2007 9:00 PM


bull shit
I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. Are there any gays on this forum? Does anyone know a gay personally? These so labelled people are remarkably human. This discussion is highly offensive in debating human beings as though they are some mutation. Have a look at yourselves!

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Taz, posted 08-02-2007 11:12 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 150 by Jaderis, posted 08-02-2007 11:24 PM pelican has replied
 Message 151 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-02-2007 11:51 PM pelican has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 149 of 243 (414141)
08-02-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by pelican
08-02-2007 9:00 PM


Re: bull shit
Who are you responding to? If you are responding to multiple people, could you name a few? For now, I'm not sure how to respond to your question.

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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 9:00 PM pelican has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3680 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 150 of 243 (414144)
08-02-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by pelican
08-02-2007 9:00 PM


Re: bull shit
I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. Are there any gays on this forum? Does anyone know a gay personally? These so labelled people are remarkably human. This discussion is highly offensive in debating human beings as though they are some mutation. Have a look at yourselves!
I appreciate your sticking up for gay people, but aside from some of the typical homo-hating comments, I don't see anything wrong with discussing the possible genetics ("some mutation") of homosexuality and its possible role in human evolution.
Would you be so offended if we were discussing red-heads or sickle-cell anemia? I doubt it.
Please, by all means, be offended by the more classless remarks you may find in this thread, but don't be offended by a scientific discussion about homosexuality. As a gay woman I find it quite interesting and not offensive in the least.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 9:00 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 08-02-2007 11:54 PM Jaderis 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