Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the causes of sexual orientation
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 108 (471835)
06-18-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fosdick
06-18-2008 11:39 AM


You don't seem to understand the difference between sexual orientation, sexual reproduction, and biological sex.
Heterosexual orientation is the undisputable cause of human babies
Incorrect. Heterosexual sex is the major cause of human babies, not orientation. Certainly the prevalence of heterosexual orientation leads to a whole lot of heterosexual sex, but it isn't a prerequisite.
Heterosexual orientation is a genetic condition that is accountable in humans by the genes on their X and Y chromosomes.
If this were true surely homosexual orientation would simply be a variant form of genetic condition? Or do you mean that sex is determined by genetics, because once again that is quite distinct from sexual orientation.
Heterosexual orientation evolved as the key mechanism for facilitating a populations’ dynamic equilibrium and its resistence to Darwinian natural selection.
I'm not sure there is anything to support this characterisation. I certainly don't see where resistance to natural selection comes into it.
nor is the cause of homosexual orientation known to science.
Then surely neither is the basis of heterosexual orientation. I can't see what the genetic basis has to do with anything unless you want to argue that homosexuality is entirely a 'nurture' phenomenon, a position which there is substantial evidence to call in to doubt.
in fact, it may be a mechanism that suppresses a population’s ability to resist NS.
A completely bald assertion, do you have anything at all to back this up? There is evidence that in some cases homosexuality in men is linked to above average fertility in their female relatives.
Does science know enough about homosexual orientation to refute any of the WHEREAS statements and alter the THEREFORE statement?
Yes. Your THEREFORE statement is based on completely made up principles supported by nothing but bald assertion.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fosdick, posted 06-18-2008 11:39 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 06-18-2008 8:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 83 of 108 (475410)
07-15-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Fosdick
07-15-2008 11:15 AM


Re: Of eggs and wombs
Hi Hoot,
Do you ever actually read the research you are purporting to discuss? Are you actually talking about the research paper, 'Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality', or about the one throw away sentence in the slate article which is specifically making the point that the idea that womb environment changes with successive male children could lead to homosexuality is not accounted for by the Antagonistic theory. I don't see any reason why homosexuality couldn't persist in geese consistent with the antagonistic theory.
You seem to be arguing, from what you have presented, that not only does the basis of homosexuality differ between humans and geese but also between different instances of homosexuality in humans. 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.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Fosdick, posted 07-15-2008 11:15 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Fosdick, posted 07-15-2008 7:05 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 85 by Fosdick, posted 07-15-2008 7:58 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 87 of 108 (475465)
07-16-2008 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Fosdick
07-15-2008 7:58 PM


Re: Of eggs and wombs
Well, that pins it right down.
What did you expect? Biology is a messy science. Reality didn't feel obligated to conform to your desires, how unusual.
but the complexity of the antagonistic theory seems to require both womb gestation and a familial history of mother-son births.
No it doesn't, 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).
Please tell me if I'm wrong.
I thought that was what my previous post just did, but I'll do it again if you insist. You are wrong!
I'll go back and read the article again.
Very good idea, I recommend reading the actual research article as well (see link in Message 83).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Fosdick, posted 07-15-2008 7:58 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Fosdick, posted 07-16-2008 11:48 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 88 of 108 (475466)
07-16-2008 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Fosdick
07-15-2008 10:53 AM


Re: More recent info on the topic
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.think these findings offer the first glimmers of real hope for homosexuals who seek normality and the social benefits thereof.
These 2 things clearly don't go together. Any chemical therapy to prevent the 'abnormal' development of the brain will need to be applied prenatally, or at least very early in life, when the brain is actually developing. This obviously isn't something a homosexual can choose, it will be the choice of the parents.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Fosdick, posted 07-15-2008 10:53 AM Fosdick has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 95 of 108 (475625)
07-17-2008 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Fosdick
07-16-2008 7:38 PM


Re: More recent info on the topic
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.
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.
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?
If you don't like homosexuality because it gives you the squicks then fine. I don't think its a very good reason, and certainly not one to base restrictive legislation on, but it is one people understand. 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.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 07-16-2008 7:38 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 11:41 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 102 of 108 (475755)
07-18-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Fosdick
07-17-2008 1:21 PM


Weapon (so to speak) of choice
Would you support offering people the opposite choice? To change their orientation from straight to gay?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Fosdick, posted 07-17-2008 1:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Fosdick, posted 07-18-2008 10:42 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 106 of 108 (475799)
07-18-2008 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Fosdick
07-18-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Weapon (so to speak) of choice
I don't know, I've never asked, but then none of the gay people I know, that I know are gay at least, want to be straight either.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Fosdick, posted 07-18-2008 10:42 AM Fosdick 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