Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Overlooks? Read this post by moi to mod. It explains why those of us who are frustrated with NJ are frustrated with NJ. Personally, I don't think they are the same thing. Sure, sex drive does more often than not bring about offsprings. But we do observe male animal who are isolated in zoos masturbate themselves and each other. There was one particular study I read some time ago describing how male cats would masturbate themselves and each other in cases where female cats are not accessible. Are these cats stupid enough to think that masturbation would bring about offsprings or are they just satisfying a seperate urge that happens to come hand in hand with their desire to reproduce? Says you. Gay penguins both in the wild and in zoos have been observed to be very optimistic when given an egg to care for. Particularly in South America, there are certain species of ducks with homosexual couples that would actually chase away mother ducks and steal their eggs and then nurse the ducklings when they hatch.But forget the homosexual factor. You should watch March of the Penguins. In it, the film showed several instances where parent penguins who lost their eggs to the ice below their feet or their young to the weather would try to steal other penguins' eggs or young.So, clearly, the evidence seem to point to some sort of desire to parent even if the offspring ain't their flesh and blood. You are making the same mistake/argument that christian fundamentalists often make. We are not just talking about gay gene or genes. We are talking about biological reasons for behaviors that we would classify as homosexual behaviors. We don't know what the biological reasons are. What we do know is that scientists have observed homosexual behaviors throughout the animal kingdom and some have even found experimental procedures (hormonal and drug treatments) that would "cure" these gay animal. So, clearly, it appears to us that one's sexuality seems to be more biological than not.But directly answering your question, how so? I just told you that some studies have indicated that at least among primates the families with those gay uncles have healthier offsprings than others. Why? Because the gay uncles would actually help their sisters to raise the children, who by the way are carrying the family genes. If these children have better chances of survival and healthy upbringings than the children without gay uncles, how is this not a selection for the family genes that would every once in a while produce a gay member?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : Changed whether to weather. And I tell people English is my native language...

---

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!

Honestly, i've seen some pretty stupid questions in my life, but the fact that this is coming from you tops them all.There's no "need" of anything. Evolution, or natural selection, favors what works. Communal raising of children works. Having a gay uncle also works. It's like asking why there's PC when we already have MAC. They both work so they both get selected for. (1) Whenever you bring up animal and rape as an argument, it's always when we are talking about the morality of homosexuality. You keep comparing gay sex to rape.(2) This is not a morality thread. Look at the title again. Homosexuality and Natural Selection, not Homsexuality IN HUMANS and Natural selection.(3) I am speaking purely from the perspective of scientific observation. Scientists study fruit flies, mice, rats, and any other animal that might hold clues to human genetics and whatnot. And when the question of the "nature or nurture" in regard to homosexuality, we look to animal to study the biological possibilities.(4) You've said many times before that you think homosexuality is a choice and that this choice comes about because of the agendas of the liberal media. So, let me ask this question again. Are gay ducks, apes, penquins, cats, donkeys, horses, etc. affected by the liberal media also? Can you rephrase the question? I want to be absolutely clear what you are asking me. How so? We observe homosexuality in just about every part of the animal kingdom, particularly in mammals. We have devised treatments to "cure" these animal of homosexuality. How are these 2 facts not an indication that homosexuality is biological?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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!

I'm not a geneticist or a sexual behavior biologist... or whatever you call those geeks. What I do know is that a small portion of the male population in the US supposedly have such low sex drive that they don't care much for sex. Some have even claimed that they are not physically attracted to anyone at all.Take me for example. I can go on for weeks and months without sex. The wife, on the other hand, wouldn't let me get away with it. But there are plenty of gay couples that adopt and raise these orphaned children like their own flesh and blood. In fact, a few years ago, a Dutch lesbian couple with their 2 adopted sons came and stayed with us for a few days before moving on to other parts of the States. They read Harry Potter to their sons each night. From what I observed, there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the 2 sons were the most important part of their lives. How can you possibly say such a thing after many of us have tried to explain this to you dozens of times before?It is as simple as this. The family that has some sort of biological inheritance that every once in a while would produce a homosexual member has a slightly better chance at having healthy offsprings that would not only survive to adulthood but also have better health while growing up than the offsprings of other families. In other words, these children with the gay uncles (at least back in the stone age) had better chances at growing up healthy and breeding out more healthy children.I was particularly amazed at this sentence that you wrote:

quote:

---

For a long time gay people got married to an opposite sex partner because it was 'normal', and nowadays gay people have committed same sex relationships complete with children and responsibilities.

---

I still don't think you fully appreciate the amounts of time that is involved in evolution. What you would call a "long time" is nothing but a microscopic point on a time scale that would go beyond your field of vision.On the other hand, even if there has been enough time for us to see the effects of sexual selection taking place, what on earth would select against family genes that every once in a while would produce a gay member? Remember that in order for a trait to go away, there has to be some sort of selection against that trait.In fact, I have suggested in the past that we should experiment with this concept. We only allow non-religious people to breed while sterilizing the religious ones. After, say, 10 generations, we can look at the population and see how many are religious. We then go on and keep this selective pressure up for another hundred generations. See how well religion can last in such an environment...Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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!

The answer is simple. NS isn't perfect. People that have low sex drive do reproduce. Look at myself, for example. My sex drive is relatively low. However, when I got married, I did have the thought in mind that I wanted children. If it wasn't for my moral conscience, I'd be breeding out kids right now instead of applying to adopt. Excuse me? Are you saying a low sex drive is an undesirable trait?NS is a force that governs what gets passed on. Again, it's not a perfect force. And since there's really no pressure against people with low sex drive, why wouldn't this particular trait gets passed on? I guess I misread what you said. My apology. Which is exactly why we look at animal behavior to try to categorize what's nature and what's nurture.You are avoiding what I said before. If a drug and hormonal treatment could effectively make an animal not attracted to other members of its own sex, wouldn't this be an indication that the issue is more biological than choice?Remember how this came up in the first place. NJ claimed that homosexuality is caused by an overzealous liberal media agenda. How does he, and you, explain the fact that we find homosexual animal throughout the animal kingdom, particularly warm blooded animal? How does he, and you, explain the fact that these animal can be "cured" of their homosexuality through drug treatments? The experiment that I suggested would prove once and for all if NS work or not. We introduce a selective pressure against those that are religious. We only allow the non-religious to breed while sterilizing the religious as well as isolating them from the rest of the population. If after 100 generations or so the majority of the population is still religious, then NS is disproven. If, on the other hand, only a handfull of religious people are left, then we can say that NS does work. Catch my drift?

---

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!

See, it's statements like this that tell me you have an agenda behind your "openmindedness". I've been repeating myself and you've been completely ignoring what I've been repeating all this time.Let me try again. The "gay uncle" doesn't need to reproduce in order for the "gay gene" (if it exists) to be passed on. All there need to be is a family gene that every once in a while would produce a gay member of the family.Look at male pattern baldness, for example. It's passed on by the female members of the family, but only the male members exhibit this trait. Here's an example where the person who has a particular trait isn't necessarily the one to pass the trait on to the next generation.

---

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!

Oh, sure, and if you go back and read my messages in this thread in the past, I clearly said many times that it can be a choice and that there shouldn't be anything wrong with it being a choice. I even said that I might decide to become gay tomorrow.But let's not forget the real topic of this thread. Homosexuality and Natural Selection. We are discussing about possibilities for homosexuality being biological rather than just choice, which you and NJ have been trying to implicate. Sure, it can be a choice. But the evidence clearly shows that it's definitely biological in a lot of cases.You want me to tell you what I think your agenda is? First, NJ tried to say that homosexuality is purely a matter of choice and that people are gay because of the liberal media agenda. I pointed out that if that was the case, we wouldn't find gay animal in so many animal species. Beside that, we wouldn't be able to "cure" these animal of their homosexuality. Then you came in and keep repeating that it "can be a choice". Of course it can be a choice, I said, but the evidence clearly point to biological factors. Sure, I can dye my hair red, but the evidence clearly suggest that some people are born with red hair.But none of that is important to you, since you keep ignoring what I said about the biological factor. You keep repeating that "it can be a choice". Now, just look at how silly your words are if you said this same sentence to red hair.A:B:Take a step back for a moment and see how that sound. I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like person B has something against red hair and is just trying desperately to imply that it's purely a matter of choice (as if there's something wrong with it being a choice) by saying over and over "but it can be a choice" even though this thread is about the biological trait (or lack thereof).That's my guess on your agenda. NJ's agenda is all too obvious. But yours is a lot less obvious. If what my guess of your agenda is not correct, mind sharing it with the rest of us? Otherwise, why are you ignoring my comments on the biological factor of homosexuality?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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!

Um, no, the gay uncle apes have been known for at least 2 decades. Ok, let's leave natural selection out of this. We can both drop this term all together.Past studies have shown that, at least in apes, the families that have those gay uncles tend to have more healthy children. Further studies suggested that the reason for this is that the gay uncles actually helped their sisters take care of their young.So, let's add 2 and 2 together. More healthy kids means better chances of the family genes being passed on to the next generation. Capice? Um, no. If a trait is beneficial when it produces a gay uncle every once in a while to benefit the family genes, and this trait happens to also produce a gay aunt every once in a while, why on Earth would there be any selective pressure against this trait? More off-topic nonsense from you. Um, no. Natural selection is a name we use to describe a natural process. This process pretty much is common sense. You haven't explained why a trait that would every once in a while produce a gay member in a family be selected against, considering the fact that the gay member would sometimes help raise the family offsprings. What on earth are you talking about? The discussion is about homosexuality and natural selection. We find homosexual behavior throughout the warm blooded animal kingdom. What's wrong with bringing this up? Remember that we are not talking about morality here. We are talking about the possible biological aspects of homosexuality. Ok, let's leave the dogs out of this. What about penguins? What about the birds that are monogomous? They have plenty of female members to seek out. And yet they decide to stick with their gay relationship for life. What is even more interesting is if they are given an egg or if they get their wings on some eggs, they would actually try to nurse the egg and then the hatchlings.Don't tell me the gay penguins and gay ducks who stay in monogomous relationships are affected by the liberal media as well. Then explain the ducks and penguins who stay in monogomous relationships even though there are plenty of females around. Define "weaker". Look, there are plenty of traits out there that are not passed on by the ones exhibiting them. Male pattern baldness, for example, shows up in males but are passed on by the female members of the family. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Researchers have actually found out ways to "cure" these "gay animal" of their homosexuality. I presented the articles here many months ago. Too lazy to try to dig it up now. If you don't believe me, ask HootMon. I had a long conversation with him about this. And just so you know, you and he are on the same side.To tell you the truth, the researchers who performed these experiments weren't treated nicely by the gay rights advocates. The implication for their discovery is all too obvious. Take a few more steps and we could pretty soon have procedures that pregnant women could go through to make sure their kids won't be gay. Then of course you could look the other way and say that we could choose for our kids to not be straight. Catch my drift?Anyway, if you don't want to take my word or HootMon's for this, I'll try to dig up the articles again. For now, I am indifferent about the researchers' intentions. Don't really know what they are.

---

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!

As I remember correctly, the researchers lost some fundings due to their discovering/inventing the "cure", even though they have only succeeded in animal subjects. Every gay rights advocate groups as well as human rights groups in general spoke out against the researchers. It was a pretty big thing for a while and then the Iraq War took over the headlines again.Anyway, I doubt very much that it will come to forcing people to take the "cure". People like me won't allow it. I'll do anything to prevent it, even if I have to become magneto myself (I can already manipulate small metal objects ). At best, I can see long lines of gay volunteers to take the cure (a la x-men).The real issue is in the pregnant women as well as the minors. Will parents be allowed to force their 15 year olds to take the "cure"? Will pregnant women be allowed to go through the procedure to make sure their unborn children won't be gay? We already see a rediculous number of children being sent to christian camps to be "cured" of homosexuality. One of my friends in college was "cured" after his parent sent him to a christian camp for 6 months. Last I checked, he had a boyfriend .These questions came up in the original script of x-men 3, but the director decided to take these lines out because they're too blunt. I'm pretty sure a lot more people will be asking these questions in the not too distant future when more researchers stumble on more effective ways to "cure" homosexuality and when human trials will finally take place.My question is will people like NJ finally admit that it's more biological than choice when it finally comes down to just taking a simple pill or shot (like in x-men 3)? After all, Senator Kelly (x-men character) made a similar argument that NJ is using. While behind the public scene, however, he told his assistant "if it were up to me, I'd lock them all up." One can only imagine what NJ says behind the public scene.

---

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!