Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   On the causes of sexual orientation
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 81 of 108 (475343)
07-15-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Deftil
06-26-2008 3:19 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil, your post is right on topic and offers the best explanation yet for the origin of homosexual orientation: Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate). Apparently, womb chemistry can adversely affect brain development and show up in PET & MRI exams.
Now I am more convinced than ever that homosexuality is an aberration caused by developmental difficulties that might be treatable and even reversible with proper chemotherapy. I think these findings offer the first glimmers of real hope for homosexuals who seek normality and the social benefits thereof. (Why marry your best man when the bride has all the right equipment to make you happy ever after?)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Deftil, posted 06-26-2008 3:19 PM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Deftil, posted 07-15-2008 10:18 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 07-16-2008 5:53 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 82 of 108 (475345)
07-15-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Nausicaa13
06-24-2008 8:17 PM


Of eggs and wombs
Nausicaa13 writes:
Hoot Mon,
there are many instances of homosexuality in animals that are quite natural. The highest occurrence of this is in the Canada Goose population. I believe it is twenty-something percent of the population that that is homosexual; and there is a reason. As you might know, Canada Geese mate for life, so if one partner dies, the other will leave its young and stay with the dead mate. The homosexual couple will then come in and care for the young and/or the "widowed" mate. This is only one example of how homosexuality is helpful to the animal community, not "detrimental."
This makes me ask if the "homosexuality" of geese is the same kind of homosexuality as that of humans. Are you perhaps dabbling in anthropomorphism here? Because if Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate) has any credibility then geese would need to be born out of a womb rather than hatched out of an egg.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Nausicaa13, posted 06-24-2008 8:17 PM Nausicaa13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 07-15-2008 6:00 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 84 of 108 (475418)
07-15-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
07-15-2008 6:00 PM


Re: Of eggs and wombs
WK writes:
So maybe it is like many of us have always said, sexuality is a highly diverse state and is affected by both genetic and environmental factors producing a spectrum of sexualities.
Well, that pins it right down.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 07-15-2008 6:00 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 85 of 108 (475426)
07-15-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
07-15-2008 6:00 PM


Re: Of eggs and wombs
WK writes:
I don't see any reason why homosexuality couldn't persist in geese consistent with the antagonistic theory.
Could you explain why? I may have missed something, but the complexity of the antagonistic theory seems to require both womb gestation and a familial history of mother-son births. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
I'll go back and read the article again.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 07-15-2008 6:00 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-16-2008 5:35 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 90 of 108 (475495)
07-16-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Wounded King
07-16-2008 5:35 AM


Re: Of eggs and wombs
WK writes:
not only do you not seem to be bothering to read the primary research but you can't even understand the predigested pop-science version either. What the article does is discuss the antagonistic theory, that a genetic factor which increases fecundity in women predisposes men to homosexuality, and draw a distinction between that and another theory, that successive male births leads to increased chances of homosexuality due to changes in the womb environment such as an immunogenic response to male specific antigens. This 'Fraternal Birth Order' (FBO) effect has been estimated to only account for ~1 in 7 instances of male homosexuality (Blanchard & Bogaert, 2004).
Wounded, you are right about my confusion. I have wrongly conflated conclusions from several different articles:
1. From The Slate article that discusses Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate)
quote:
Gay couples can't have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn't it died out?
A study published last week in PLoS One tackles the question. It starts with four curious patterns. First, male homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives, those related to the gay man's mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man's male relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother than in those related to his father.
2. The original PlusOne article: 'Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality'
quote:
We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.
3. The NAS article:PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (PNAS)
quote:
Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects...We addressed this issue by studying hemispheric asymmetry and functional connectivity, two parameters that in previous publications have shown specific sex differences. Ninety subjects [25 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW), and 20 homosexual men (HoM) and women (HoW)] were investigated with magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres. Fifty of them also participated in PET measurements of cerebral blood flow, used for analyses of functional connections from the right and left amygdalae. HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. No cerebellar asymmetries were found. Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections...Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate, in HeM and HoW with the caudate, putamen, and the prefrontal cortex. The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.
4. The NIH article by Blanchard & Bogaert:
quote:
Homosexuality in men correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, greater numbers of older brothers being associated with a greater probability of homosexuality. There are reasons to believe that this relationship is causal rather than merely statistical, that is, that older brothers produce the increase in the probability of homosexuality for later-born males. It is possible, under this assumption, to estimate the proportion of homosexual men who can attribute their sexual orientation to their birth order among their brothers (fraternal birth order). This statistic, the population attributable fraction (PAF), was computed on the combined archival data of 2,256 heterosexual and 71 homosexual men examined in survey studies of sexual behavior in the UK and the USA. The PAF was 28.6%, with 95% confidence limits of 14.8% and 48.0%. These limits encompass the PAF of 15.1% previously estimated with a Canadian sample. The results indicate that the proportion of homosexual men whose sexual orientation is attributable to fraternal birth order constitutes a minority, but not a negligible minority, of all homosexual men. The fraternal birth order effect may reflect the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked antigens by each succeeding male fetus, and the concomitantly increasing effects of antimale antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain in each succeeding male fetus.
I will continue to try to sort it all out. And with your kind patience I'm sure I'll get it right sooner or later. (Did you know I suffer from paleocerebralism?)
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-16-2008 5:35 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 91 of 108 (475500)
07-16-2008 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by FliesOnly
07-16-2008 8:53 AM


Re: Bald assertions
FO writes:
I have a friend...he's gay...he's been gay for as long as he can remember (which is to say, as soon as he started having "those feelings", they have always been in response to, and/or directed towards, other males). Oddly, he was once married to a female and they had a daughter (a very attractive young lady, I might add).
Which proves that gay men have the balls needed to produce viable sperm. Has anyone ever claimed that gay men can't father beautiful women? Maybe he was naturally predisposed to procreate in such a way. Too bad he's wasting his sperm now on other men.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by FliesOnly, posted 07-16-2008 8:53 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by FliesOnly, posted 07-16-2008 2:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 93 of 108 (475575)
07-16-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Deftil
07-15-2008 10:18 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:
If the existence of homosexuality has actually been beneficial to humanity, as the theory claims, then would it be accurate to describe it as an "abberation"?
Would chemotherapy even change male homosexuality if it has a large genetic component?
Well, "aberration" is perhaps too strong a word to describe such a deviation from the norm. And if it can be proven that homosexuality plays a beneficial role in the human population, then I'm open to treating it like a favorable deviation from the norm. But I'm not yet convinced that it is. The only thing that persuades me otherwise is that NS can't get at it and weed it out of the human population. This may be the strongest evidence we have that homosexuality is not an aberration. (But it still seems a little queer to me.)
Do you subscribe to eugenics?
Certainly not the Nazi kind. But if breeding humans is done to bring out favorable characteristics, then what do you call it? Don't parents naturally care about what attributes they pass on to their children? Does that make them eugenicists? Was Archie Manning a eugenicist?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Deftil, posted 07-15-2008 10:18 PM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 1:46 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 07-17-2008 4:23 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 96 of 108 (475670)
07-17-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Wounded King
07-17-2008 4:23 AM


Re: More recent info on the topic
WK writes:
In the 'sexual antagonism' theory homosexuality per se is not beneficial, it is a side effect of the beneficial trait which increases female fecundity. It may be that if it were a distinct trait on its own it would have been weeded out and we would only see environmental causes of homosexuality.
"Beneficial" is my term, and it may be inappropriately applied. Now I'm backing away from it, because, to me, it suggests that increasing female fecundity my benefit NS more than an extant population. Just how is increasing female fecundity beneficial to a stable population? It would seem to me to be more beneficial to the unequal distribution of reproductive success amongst individuals of a population, which is the precise definition of NS.
As such, homosexuality could threaten the dynamic equilibrium of a standing population by making some females more fecund. No?
What I don't understand is your ridiculous belief that something being maintained by natural selection somehow means it ought to be acceptable. There is a line of thought that says that rape is an evolved sexual strategy, if that were true would it mean you would suddenly condone rape because NS favoured it?
Good point. But is it too anthropomorphic to say that "rape" is what happens when a male baboon forces sex on another baboon? Your using "rape" as an anthropogenically loaded term that does not really apply to baboons, only humans. Therefore, perhaps it is you who is espousing a ridiculous belief.
To argue that homosexuality is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint is not only torturing the science but it is making a completely vacuous argument. The evolutionary success or otherwise of homosexuality should have nothing to do with the question of how homosexuals should be treated. I think it is a mistake to look to nature for some sort of moral guidance.
OK, so you say it's a mistake. Can you give me a better reason to be tolerant of some queer bozo who wants to take a road trip up my Hershey Highway? Please give me some moral guidance on that one.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Wounded King, posted 07-17-2008 4:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 07-17-2008 12:03 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 98 of 108 (475676)
07-17-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Deftil
07-17-2008 1:46 AM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:
I also hope you aren't suggesting trying to "cure" homosexuals who have no desire to be "cured".
If I were a homosexual I'd want to cured. Why is my compassion for them a bad thing. I only want for them what would I want for myself. I think they're really missing out on the finer things offered by heterosexuality, like sex the normal way with all its naturally evolved accommodations.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 1:46 AM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 12:30 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 100 of 108 (475681)
07-17-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
07-17-2008 12:03 PM


Re: off topic but ...
NoseyNed writes:
It is obvious your reasons for arguing are just your ickyness on the idea of some kinds of sex. Sex practiced by heterosexual couples by the way.
Since there are, probably, a number of perfectly straight women who would be seriously ickied by the idea of sex of any kind with you then I assume that heterosexuality is also wrong in some way.
Nosy, the literary value of ickiness is too much for me to avoid. But I do run off with it a bit too much. I don't care a twit about what gay people do behind closed doors, anymore than I care about what straight people do behind closed. I only give a twit when gay people try to make straight people out to be bigots for insisting that "marriage" is a civil union only between a man and a woman. Now all that ickiness you speak of comes out from behind closed doors and into the laws. Thus a twit is given by me.
Who's sexual orientation should be honored over another?
In addition, today anything which reduces the overall fecundity of hmans might be the only thing which saves us and the planet. We are probably in the 5 to 10 times carrying capacity range already.
1. The way homosexuality theoretically affects the "overall fecundity of humans" is to make some women more fecund than others, which I see as a potential agency of NS.
2. While saving humans from extinction may be a valid concern of yours, let me assure you that the planet will be around for a few more billions of years, no matter what happens to us.
3. You might be right about carrying capacity.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 07-17-2008 12:03 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jaderis, posted 07-18-2008 4:58 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 101 of 108 (475685)
07-17-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Deftil
07-17-2008 12:30 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
Deftil writes:
Are you for trying to make gay people straight, even if they are perfectly happy being gay?
No, I'm only trying to offer them a choice. I would want that choice if I were gay.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Deftil, posted 07-17-2008 12:30 PM Deftil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 3:47 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 104 of 108 (475793)
07-18-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
07-18-2008 3:47 AM


Re: Weapon (so to speak) of choice
WK writes:
Would you support offering people the opposite choice? To change their orientation from straight to gay?
Sure. If that's what they want. How many straight people do you know of who want to be gay?
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 3:47 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Wounded King, posted 07-18-2008 11:23 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 105 of 108 (475798)
07-18-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jaderis
07-18-2008 4:58 AM


Re: off topic but ...
Jaderis writes:
Obviously you do or else you wouldn't have been talking about saving us from ourselves in your very last post (among many others).
I don't need your back-handed compassion. I know the joys of my own sexuality and I would thank you to butt the fuck out.
I'm all for joy. And I don't need to know what kind of joy you have behind closed doors. The only the kind of joy that bothers me is the kind that claims to need special legal protection, like the joy of screwing your pooch or your best buddy. Pooch and buddy screwing are not the least bit of a bother to me until they arise to legislative endorsement. Then they fall right into my lap and I have to be part of it.
Who said anything about honoring one over the other? Apparently you think just like the Christian Nationalists who believe that even recognizing other beliefs (or the lack thereof) puts their own belief on the back burner.
What is it about equal rights do you not understand? Why do you feel so threatened?
I'm all for equal rights. You are being silly here, of course, because gays have every right I have to get married heterosexually.
What is your deal with NS? You speak of it as if it is some major threat and something to be fought against. Is natural selection of the human species a bad thing to you?
Well, yes, if it means our eventual extinction. Too bad there are no longer any Neanderthals around to ask what that think about NS.
Our genes still act accordingly and there may come a time when natural selection acts upon us as a species more strongly than it does now, so I wouldn't be so quick to be rid of this "aberration."
You mean to say that maybe homosexuality will save our species?
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : spelling of "Jaderis"

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jaderis, posted 07-18-2008 4:58 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2008 9:44 PM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 108 of 108 (475881)
07-19-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluescat48
07-18-2008 9:44 PM


Re: off topic but ...
bluescat48 writes:
If you are for equal rights, then gays should be able to marry homosexually. You are forcing them to go against their own sexual orientation, and that is not equality.
But, bluescat, from my perspective "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron, like a three-sided rectangle. I'm for legalizing gay "domestic partnerships"”give them all the benefits of a heterosexual marriage, which is NOT an oxymoron.
But when gays insist on being legally "married," I have to ask why. They want to make THAT an issue instead of coming up with their own term for gay domestic partnerships. What about "GDPs"?
Hypothetically from in the SF Chronicle:
quote:
In Sausalito yesterday, Chuck and Larry were joined together homosexually in a legailized GDP. And, in San Jose yesterday, John and Sarah were married heterosexually. Both civil unions were equally joyous. The grooms were handsome and the brides were beautiful, depending of course on your particular sexual orientation. Everyone was happy, except for a few bigots who demanded that gays should be allowed to get "married" too. But there's always a few oxymorons around to make fools out of themselves.
Probably best to take this over to the On the Threshold of Bigotry.
”HM

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2008 9:44 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024