Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 16 of 306 (88174)
02-23-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by godsmac
02-23-2004 2:30 PM


quote:
Every one has the right to participate in marriage, a legal union between two members of the opposing sex. There is no discrimination in this.
Just as once, everyone had the right to marry a person of their own race, and no one had the right to marry outside their race. Are you saying there was no discrimination involved there?
quote:
What you want to do is change the fundamental definition of an institution so that people with no rights to the benefits of that institution can gain access to them.
First of all, I love that in one breath you say that there is no discrimination involved, and in the second, you talk about wanting to cut people off from the benefits of the institution.
Classic.
Secondly... just so you know, you're making up your own definition of marriage, and assuming it's the English-language definition.
For instance, the following definition comes from dictionary.com: (the emphasis is mine)
marriage
n.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
But given your personal, godsmacworld definition of marriage, I'm confused. Is the Lexus allowed to be advertised as "the marriage of luxury and affordibility?" Luxury and affordability aren't male and female attributes. And you've established that marriage does not mean "a coming together" but in fact means "a legal union between two members of the opposing sex."

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by godsmac, posted 02-23-2004 2:30 PM godsmac has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by godsmac, posted 02-27-2004 2:26 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 17 of 306 (88175)
02-23-2004 3:06 PM


Persistent Topic Drift
Despite my efforts, this topic's problems persist.
Going to give it a short term closure (Probably just a few hours).
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 18 of 306 (88194)
02-23-2004 5:18 PM


Topic Re-opened - Now let's get our messages in the correct topic
We currently have two active topics, concerning considerations of homosexuality.
This one is intended towards the biological considerations.
The other (" Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!") is intended toward the sociological and political considerations.
Please place your messages in the proper topic.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Saviourmachine, posted 02-26-2004 12:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3553 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 19 of 306 (88821)
02-26-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Adminnemooseus
02-23-2004 5:18 PM


Not adaptive?
I found this:
But in any case, homosexuality doesn't have to be adaptive in a strict genetic sense to be a real phenomenon, argues Bagemihl. "Researchers have been blinded by the prevailing preoccupation to find adaptive explanations for every behaviour," agrees Vasey. He spent his doctoral years hunting in vain for evidence to support such explanations for the sexual proclivities of female Japanese macaques. For instance, the females do not use sex to test or establish dominance ranks or to form social bonds; they form a liaison, and when it is over, they act as though it never happened.
Does anybody know a reason why it can be an adaptive advantage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-23-2004 5:18 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by 1.61803, posted 02-26-2004 12:33 PM Saviourmachine has not replied
 Message 21 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-26-2004 12:39 PM Saviourmachine has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 20 of 306 (88826)
02-26-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Saviourmachine
02-26-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Not adaptive?
Interesting article..perhaps it is simply that animals like a good orgasm as much as humans do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Saviourmachine, posted 02-26-2004 12:13 PM Saviourmachine has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 306 (88827)
02-26-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Saviourmachine
02-26-2004 12:13 PM


Re: Not adaptive?
quote:
they form a liaison, and when it is over, they act as though it never happened.
Sounds like some girls I knew in college.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Saviourmachine, posted 02-26-2004 12:13 PM Saviourmachine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 02-26-2004 12:52 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 22 of 306 (88829)
02-26-2004 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dan Carroll
02-26-2004 12:39 PM


Re: Not adaptive?
Clutton-Brock writes:
"Oh them, well they'd probably do anything."
Would that be considered a Trysexual? Try anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-26-2004 12:39 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 306 (88990)
02-27-2004 3:07 AM


Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
Years ago I saw a study that showed that homosexuality among animals increased when the size of the animal "community" (for lack of a better word) grew unwieldy. If the study was accurate it would seem that homosexuality must be regarded as natural. It might be nature's own check on over-population.
Has anyone else seen this study or any similar study? Maybe I'm just too tired at the moment, but I can't think of how to search for this on google. If I remember correctly, the study I'm thinking of was cited in Time magazine some few years ago.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by FliesOnly, posted 02-27-2004 9:44 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 10:09 AM berberry has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 24 of 306 (89025)
02-27-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by berberry
02-27-2004 3:07 AM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
I have not heard of a study that suggests homosexualty may increase as a population gets large, but I would be very interested in reading it if it does indeed exist. However, I think we have to be careful here:
berberry writes:
It might be nature's own check on over-population.
This sounds like something that may be heading down the slippery slope of group selection. But it does beg the question: "why homosexuality as a means of population control?" First off, I don't think that a "few" homosexual individuals would have any real affect on population size. Secondly, how would this characteristic manage to stay masked when population numbers are low, but then manifest itself each time the population increased to some "trigger" size (I suppose "stresser hormones" could play a role)? Anyway, I'm just saying we need to avoid group selection as an answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by berberry, posted 02-27-2004 3:07 AM berberry has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 306 (89030)
02-27-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by berberry
02-27-2004 3:07 AM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
A long time ago I remember (vaguely) reading an article (Scientific American I think) about the behaviour or rats as density increased. I think homosexual behaviour increased in that study.
This is hardly a really useful reference to anything but maybe will make it findable by someone who wants to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by berberry, posted 02-27-2004 3:07 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by FliesOnly, posted 02-27-2004 12:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 26 of 306 (89050)
02-27-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
02-27-2004 10:09 AM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
Hello:
I think I'm gonna search for these articles. I'm curious if it was really homosexual behavior or maybe just an increase in the number of type II errors made. You know, maybe it was more of a: "as density increases, just "hump" anythig you see and maybe you'll be successful a few times" sorta thing. None-the-less, I think I'll see what I can find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2004 10:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 02-27-2004 1:07 PM FliesOnly has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 306 (89053)
02-27-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by FliesOnly
02-27-2004 12:42 PM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
I hope you are able to find something, I've tried but without luck.
I definitely remember that the article mentioned rats, but I think it also might have mentioned monkeys. If I remember correctly (and this is by no means certain, it really has been a long time) homosexuality increased when environmental changes threatened a particular species. From this, it was speculated that homosexuality might be one of nature's own checks on overpopulation.
Incidentally, I am in no way endorsing this notion. I am simply relating the fact that I remember that someone, somewhere once had this idea, and whoever it was was important enough to have his or her research published in a major magazine. If it wasn't Time, it might have been U.S. News, Newsweek, New York or even The Advocate, all of which are magazines I've read with some regularity over the past decade or so. I don't think that the study was the major focus of the article, it was mentioned only as one possible bit of evidence that homosexuality is natural.
My mother also read the article, tomorrow I'll call her and see if she remembers what magazine it appeared in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by FliesOnly, posted 02-27-2004 12:42 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by godsmac, posted 02-27-2004 2:43 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 30 by FliesOnly, posted 03-04-2004 8:47 AM berberry has not replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 306 (89063)
02-27-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dan Carroll
02-23-2004 3:00 PM


I edited out my comments because I realized I was off-topic again.
I'll put it under the gay marriage ban topic.
[This message has been edited by godsmac, 02-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-23-2004 3:00 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 306 (89065)
02-27-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by berberry
02-27-2004 1:07 PM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
Aren't there always changes going on within a population's gene pool? Not all the changes going on would be beneficiary ("adaptive") to the population's survival (or actually the individuals' survival) and I should think that most changes would have no immediate effect unless a change in environment, say, sparked the natural selection process to act on those changes. Might not homosexuality be a common and perhaps often repeated one of these kinds of changes? Educate me here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 02-27-2004 1:07 PM berberry has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 30 of 306 (90239)
03-04-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by berberry
02-27-2004 1:07 PM


Re: Is Homosexuality a Check on Population Explosion
Hello Again:
I've been kinda busy with other stuff lately, but I did spend most of a morning searching for scientific artciles relating to population denisty and homosexuality. So far I have found nothing of any value along those lines. However, I did find a couple of other interesting articles that may be of some use (the first of which was touched upon earlier).
Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers
R Blanchard and AF Bogaert
Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether homosexual men have a higher mean birth order than heterosexual men primarily because they have more older brothers or because they have more older siblings of both sexes. METHOD: For the main analyses, 302 heterosexual men were individually matched on year of birth with an equal number of heterosexual men. Each completed a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire concerning family background and other biodemographic information. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis showed that homosexuality was positively correlated with the proband's number of older brothers but not with older sisters, younger brothers, younger sisters, or parental age at the time of the proband's birth. Each additional older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by 33%. CONCLUSIONS: These results restrict the range of possible theories of the birth order phenomenon to those that can explain not only why older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males but also why older sisters neither enhance this effect nor counteract it.
Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality
Miller EM
ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
29 (1): 1-34 FEB 2000
Abstract:
The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes. During development these shift male brain development in the female direction. Inheritance of several such alleles produces homosexuality. Single alleles make for greater sensitivity, empathy, tendermindedness, and kindness. These traits make heterosexual carriers of the genes better fathers and more attractive mates. There is a balanced polymorphism in which the feminizing effect of these alleles in heterosexuals offsets the adverse effects (on reproductive success) of these alleles' contribution to homosexuality. A similar effect probably occurs for genes that can produce lesbianism in females. The whole system survives because it serves to provide a high degree of variability among the personalities of offspring, providing the genotype with diversification and reducing competition among offspring for the same niches. An allele with a large effect can survive in these circumstances in males, but it is less likely to survive in females. The birth order effect on homosexuality is probably a by-product of a biological mechanism that shifts personalities more in the feminine direction in the later born sons, reducing the probability of these sons engaging in unproductive competition with each other.
And I did find this article too, which I'm tossing into the ring cause I thinks it may be of great interest to homophobes.
The relation between sexual orientation and penile size
Bogaert AF, Hershberger S
ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
28 (3): 213-221 JUN 1999
Abstract:
The relation between sexual orientation and penile dimensions in a large sample of men was studied. Subjects were 5122 men interviewed by the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction from 1938 to 1963. They were dichotomously classified as either homosexual (n = 935) or heterosexual (n = 4187). Penile dimensions were assessed using five measures of penile length and circumference from Kinsey's original protocol. On all Jive measures, homosexual men reported larger penises than did heterosexual men. Explanations for these differences are discussed, including the possibility that these findings provide additional evidence that variations in prenatal hormonal levels (or other biological mechanisms affecting reproductive structures) affect sexual orientation development.
Anyway, I'll keep looking for papers dealing with density, but I wanted to at least mention these articles so you know I have not simply given up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by berberry, posted 02-27-2004 1:07 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-05-2004 3:28 PM FliesOnly 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