|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the causes of sexual orientation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nausicaa13 writes:
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. 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." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Well, that pins it right down. 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. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
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 don't see any reason why homosexuality couldn't persist in geese consistent with the antagonistic theory. I'll go back and read the article again. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Wounded, you are right about my confusion. I have wrongly conflated conclusions from several different articles: 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). 1. From The Slate article that discusses Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate) quote: 2. The original PlusOne article: 'Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality' quote:3. The NAS article:PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (PNAS) quote:4. The NIH article by Blanchard & Bogaert: quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
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. 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). ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Deftil writes:
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.)
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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
"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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Deftil writes:
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. I also hope you aren't suggesting trying to "cure" homosexuals who have no desire to be "cured". ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
NoseyNed writes:
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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Deftil writes:
No, I'm only trying to offer them a choice. I would want that choice if I were gay. Are you for trying to make gay people straight, even if they are perfectly happy being gay? ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Sure. If that's what they want. How many straight people do you know of who want to be gay? Would you support offering people the opposite choice? To change their orientation from straight to gay? ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Jaderis writes:
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.
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. 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.
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 it about equal rights do you not understand? Why do you feel so threatened? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5525 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
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. 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 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024