Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:31 PM
28 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), xongsmith (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 1 of 1309 (722722)
03-24-2014 2:41 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process. If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

What are your thoughts, counter evidence (but not inflammatory or insulting responses)?

Edited by lokiare, : Grammar.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-24-2014 3:06 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 4 by Omnivorous, posted 03-24-2014 3:10 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2014 3:16 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:17 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 3:26 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2014 3:40 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 03-24-2014 4:23 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 10 by frako, posted 03-24-2014 5:58 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 11 by roxrkool, posted 03-24-2014 10:12 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:23 AM lokiare has responded
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:35 AM lokiare has responded
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 8:26 AM lokiare has responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 9:17 AM lokiare has responded
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 03-25-2014 2:26 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:00 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 56 of 1309 (722894)
03-25-2014 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Thugpreacha
03-24-2014 3:06 PM


Re: Rights versus Responsibilities
lokiare writes:

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.

Both. As a believer, I think that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice. It is also not a sin. It just is.

Homosexual behavior, however, is a choice.

The debate centers on rights vs. responsibilities.

I can understand the secular argument that in essence says that no religion nor belief should legislate human morality. So in that context, and on behalf of a secular government, I advocate choice, consensus, and personal responsibility regarding behavior within society.

As a believer, I will say that I believe that many inborn traits of humanity....whatever they may be...are something we are born with, but have a responsibility to control.

If humans simply behaved according to biological urges, we wouldn't have that good of a society.

Do you have any proof that "... that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice.". Studies? surveys? anything to factually back this up and negate the link I posted that lists many studies showing it is environmental and choice based?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-24-2014 3:06 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 5:18 PM lokiare has not yet responded
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 5:23 PM lokiare has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 5:46 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 89 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-25-2014 6:29 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 59 of 1309 (722899)
03-25-2014 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Omnivorous
03-24-2014 3:10 PM


Re: Why are choices fair game?
lokiare writes:

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

As I recall, the Constitution goes to some lengths to protect my right to make my own choices.

I'd say that if meat folks began persecuting veggie folks (denying them equal access to marriage, housing, employment, etc.), then vegetarianism would need to be "protected under the law."

Could you explain why only those aspecst of human life that are seen as biologically determined should be protected against persecution and bigotry? Under your rubric, religious liberty would suffer considerable harm.

Actually no. Nice try to box me in, but it won't work. Lets go back to your statement about veggie folk being persecuted. Homosexuals think that being persecuted means being denied service (usually because of additional costs, and possibly religious belief). So they are pushing for laws that require everyone to serve them. As is recently seen in the law suits about the wedding cake service being denied to a homosexual couple and them suing to force the group to do it or pay restitution. So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians.

In fact its the religious freedoms that forcing those things would violate. Surely there are churches, housing, and places of employment that would likely not refuse service to homosexuals and even possibly cater to them. Why should everyone be forced to cater to something that is a choice. I see signs all over that say things like "firearms prohibited" and "no shirt, no service" can we then under the same assumptions start suing those people and throwing them in jail because they are 'infringing on our rights'? Of course not. That would be nonsense.

It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.

The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry. The second thing is we have to get rid of all those signs and clauses in contracts that say "we can do these things without having a reason at all.".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Omnivorous, posted 03-24-2014 3:10 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 5:41 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 5:58 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 76 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:00 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:13 PM lokiare has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


(1)
Message 60 of 1309 (722902)
03-25-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
03-24-2014 3:16 PM


Why are some religious folks so worried about homosexuality anyway?

What business is it of theirs/yours?

Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion. A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. So it actually is our business. You'll notice that we didn't really care until that point. We tried to convert them, but that was it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 03-24-2014 3:16 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 5:52 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 6:01 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 82 by frako, posted 03-25-2014 6:10 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 63 of 1309 (722906)
03-25-2014 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tangle
03-24-2014 3:17 PM


Putting all academic, scientific and philosophical arguments aside for the moment, let me set you a challenge.

For me to win this challenge I'm relying on the probability of you being a heterosexual - and that you are male.

Go to any gay porn site. Do it late at night, possibly after you've had a beer or two and see if you can get an erection "by choice".

I've tried this and it doesn't work for me, but I'm a sample of one, so maybe it's not representative. (But I'm betting it is).

Report back and give us the result. (This is one experiment that you CAN try at home.)

Nice try but you fail at a few points. One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.

According to the research I linked and others that I have seen. Homosexuality is brought on by environmental factors and habituated using the brains propensity to reward success (ejaculation or orgasm). These reinforcing brain chemicals form an addiction much like heroin or cocaine or caffeine or strawberries. So that by chemical reinforcement a homosexual would get aroused by seeing those pictures or videos.

The research, if you didn't read the link, cites things like overprotective mothers and distant or absent fathers along with sexual abuse at early ages as the cause of homosexuality. So its more akin to a mental psychosis (not exactly, I'm looking for a more neutral word) than it is to anything else. Other research indicates that it can be brought on by serotonin imbalances which cause the inability to distinguish between the different genders which later can be reinforced chemically as above to lead into homosexuality.

The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. There are many testimonies of willing people that have undergone therapy to reverse their (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) addition to the same gender and who live normal lives afterwords.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 3:17 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 03-25-2014 5:44 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 5:54 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 6:20 PM lokiare has not yet responded
 Message 202 by Larni, posted 03-27-2014 6:14 AM lokiare has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 73 of 1309 (722920)
03-25-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
03-24-2014 3:26 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Well, gay people can still make babies. When a gay man puts his penis into a lesbian's vagina... well, I'm sure you know how babies are made.

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex. So short of modern chemicals that stimulate an erection it really should have been evolved out, unless it doesn't come from genetics and is purely or mostly environmental.

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.

Sexual attraction sure feels biological to me. I mean, when my girlfriend gets naked in front of me, I just start getting an erection. I don't think about it. I don't choose it. It just happens.

Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry. So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics.

If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

No, not necessarily. Why?

See above.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

Or like, say, your religion? And if its a result of your environment, then it isn't necessarily a choice. If you get hit by a car and you're disabled, then that wasn't a choice. But will still make sure businesses have an entrance ramp so you can wheel yourself in there, despite the fact that you were a product of your environment.

Well if you assume its some kind of disability as you compare it to above then sure, if seeking treatment for it, they should not be discriminated against (really no one should be discriminated against, but what some consider discrimination or bigotry is merely disagreement). However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services that would be incurred by a business that didn't refuse service to homosexuals. Comparing it to religion is kind of a false comparison. I don't remember any wars over homosexuality or any mass persecutions (it was merely viewed as a mental illness up until the 60's).

So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?

Society is going the route of it legally being a protected class, like race or gender.

Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed. The phrase "Which one is not like the others" comes to mind.

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

What evidence for homosexuality being a choice and being an environmental condition does that link have?

Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

quote:
Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."
December 13, 2004

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 11:51:59 AM by Laissez-faire capitalist

1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

2.) Dr. Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors."

("New Evidence of a "Gay Gene," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, p.95)

3.) British researchers generated comparable results in an identical-twin study. Their conclusion? The suprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual.

The study by them: "confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation."

(King, M and McDonald, E. Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 160: 407-409 (1992).

4a.)Homosexual researcher Simon Levay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals:

"I didn't show that gay men are born that way the msot common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

4b.)Dr. Simon Levay: The most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

5.) Dr. J. Satinover:

"Research studies on homosexuality by Dr's Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey, Richard Dillard, Simon Levay. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have failed to show proof of a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic. The media has sensationalized and perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene."

Satinover, J. M.D. (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids. Baker Books

6.) Another of Dr. Jeffery Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the resaerch itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do when speaking in sound bites to the public."

(Jeffery Satinover, M.D. The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8)

7.) The American Psychological Association:

"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for many people at an early age through complex interactions of biology, psychological and social factors."

(The American Psychological Association's pamphlet "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

8.) The American Psychiatric Association (2000):

"no replicated scientific studies showing any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

9.) Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

(Goldberg, Steven (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

10a.) Science, 1994:

"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter: "It's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated...all were announced with great fanfare, all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

(Mann, C. "Genes and Behavior." Science 264: 1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.)

10b.) "The interactions of genes and environment is much more complex than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press."

Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689

11.) Two genetics researchers, one at Harvard, commented in Technology Review, July 1993 p. 60 concerning twin study's.

"While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data, in fact, provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

(Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July 1993. p.60)

12.) P. Scott Richards:

"Some environmental and psychological factors that may play a causal role in the development of homosexuality include: (1) cross-gender effiminate behavior in childhood. (2) gender-identity deficits (3) hostile, dteached or absent fathers (which leads to "defensive detachment" from the father and other males) and (4) overly close, controlling or dominating mothers.

(P. Scott Richards, "The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary and Personal Perspectives," AMCAP Journal. Vol 19, No. 1, 1993, pg. 36)

13.) Lesbian biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, responding to the "born that way" argument:

"It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sawy in court. For me, it's a very shaky palce. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral one."

14.) Camille Paglia, lesbiam activist: "Homosexuality is 'not normal'. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

Camille Paglia: " Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is highly refractory, and once the sensory pathways have been blazed -- a phenmenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perferctly worthy aim."

Camille Paglia: " We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubscent stage where children anxiously band together bt gender...current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice'; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer to deal with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort."

Boys victimized by older men are far more likely to be homosexual as adults, and the cycle often repeats itself. More environmental factors.

15.) Noted child sex-abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likley to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their victimization experiences."

(Bill Watkins & Aaron Bentovim, "The Sexual Bause of Male Adolescents: A Review of Current Research, " Journal of Child Psychiatry 33, (1992); in Byren Finkelman, Sexual Abuse(New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 316

16.) The Archives of Sexual Behavior:

"One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender."

(Marie, E. Tomeo "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons." Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

17.) A study of 279 homosexual and bisexual men with Aids and control patients reported:

"More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20% by age 10 years."

(Harry W. Haverkos, "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501)

18.) A stduy of 229 convicted child molesters found that:

"86% of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

(W.D. Erickson, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83)

19.) A National Institue of Justice report states that:

"the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people...who experienced no victimization as children."

(Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences, Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief (March 1995): 6)

20.) A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59% of male child sex offenders had been victims of contact sexual abuse as a child.

(Michelle Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What offenders Tell Us" Child Abuse and Neglect 19, (1995): 582)


What are your thoughts, counter evidence (but not inflammatory or insulting responses)?

I'll need to see evidence, as opposed to a bare link, to figure out what kind of counter-evidence you'll need.

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2014 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 03-25-2014 6:01 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:04 PM lokiare has not yet responded
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2014 7:26 PM lokiare has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 80 of 1309 (722928)
03-25-2014 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2014 3:40 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process. If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?

It's not a dominant genetic trait, is it? By your naive reasoning, we'd also be rid of sickle-cell anemia.

People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism).

One could say the same of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms ...

I already addressed this in a post above.

And your right to be vegetarian is protected under the law. If you're a vegetarian, and someone tries to force a beefsteak down your throat, that's assault.

My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus. Is that protected under the law? Because that's what homosexuals are pushing for.

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

Ah, freerepublic, the source of all knowledge ...

Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2014 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:15 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:30 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2014 7:39 PM lokiare has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 85 of 1309 (722933)
03-25-2014 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Diomedes
03-24-2014 4:23 PM


Re: Research Studies
So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

There have actually been several studies on this topic. I provided a few links below, but to summarize:

There is a selection component for homosexuality when you factor in social constructs of species. So far as I understand, homosexuality exists in species that have a social component to their organizational makeup; i.e. they live and work in groups.

The selective advantage of homosexuality can often be summed up by the 'Gay Uncle' notion. In a situation where a specific family has a gene or specific disposition to produce gay offspring, the likelihood of that offspring surviving increases because of the added benefit of having an additional male member of the group protecting a sibling's offspring. This can be expanded on to include the 'Lesbian Aunt' notion where a gay female member can assist in child rearing.

Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.

Also even if that were true, it doesn't follow unless the creature in question passes its genes on to another generation. If it doesn't, then it would still get weeded out.

In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes.

An important notion to remember: homosexuality has been observed in species outside of the human race. Macaque monkeys are a good example. Which means it is both natural and must have some specific evolutionary advantage.

Uh no. There could just be similar unnatural reasons why both animal and humans have homosexuals within their ranks. Has anyone done studies on serotonin imbalances in animals that show that homosexuality in animals is driven by an imbalance? Why yes they have. So there is one similarity right there.

Unless of course evolution is false, then there is no need to have an advantage, but assuming for the moment that evolution is fact (instead of a loosely put together theory that has been proven false over and over) what advantage would there be that wouldn't be eclipsed by other advantages that a heterosexual social animal brings to the table? I have yet to see a valid answer to this.

Links:

http://www.newscientist.com/...mosexuality.html#.UzCTFahdV8E

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...s/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdf

http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/.../evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf

I haven't reviewed your links. I will do so after I get done responding to what you've posted, if you properly summarized them, though it doesn't do much for the homosexual cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 03-24-2014 4:23 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2014 7:45 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 7:51 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 88 of 1309 (722936)
03-25-2014 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by frako
03-24-2014 5:58 PM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

well if you take a the human species as an example for the past 1000 or more years just about everywhere on the planet gays where killed, tortured and or imprisoned. So naturaly people hid their sexuality, got married and had kids to show see im not gay im just in touch with my feminine side LOL. So all that fighting against gays probably increased the gay population in humans.

Do you have some references to back up the 1000 year claim? Short of the few years in medieval times and the Muslim people's practices, I was under the impression from early times that homosexuality was accepted along side everything else as just an oddity.

As fare as gay animals go, take a look at bees or ants most of their population cannot breed yet they still exist as they serve a purpose in their social structure, gays in a wolfpack for instance increase the odds of their siblings surviving, as they have a strong male member that will not weaken the pack with fights over females. and even though they do not pass their genes on directly their closest relatives do more often and a proportion of them will be gay, as we know its not a gene itself that determines "gayness" it also has to do with the environment the genes just increase the chance.

Can you show me any studies at all that have been done that haven't been later disproven that show some genes that have anything to do with homosexuality? From my own research I haven't been able to find a single source that proves homosexuality is genetic in any way. Merely environmental and reversible at that.

If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?

It is a biological process in short during development, a lack of some hormones and possibly other environmental factors influence the development of the part of the brain that determines who you are attracted to. Think you'r brain was wired to find girls/boys attractive its not really a choice if you think it is watch a gay porno and see if you can get a hadron.

I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts

And i challenge you to watch a gay porno with a couple of your sex, and get aroused by choice. And no cheating by thinking of girls think of men. If you can manage that you are either gay/bisexual or you have a point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 03-24-2014 5:58 PM frako has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 90 of 1309 (722938)
03-25-2014 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by roxrkool
03-24-2014 10:12 PM


Re: choice??
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can possibly conclude that sexual attraction is a choice. Unless YOU personally feel attraction for both sexes. Do you? If so, then you are bi-sexual. Whether you acknowledge the fact or not.

I do not recall one time in my entire life where I made the deliberate choice not to feel attracted to a person of the same sex. That makes me a heterosexual. I have found many of my sex attractive, but have never felt any desire to take it further than pure appreciation for a beautiful human. Hell, I can't even control the attractions I feel for the opposite sex.

It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show). The choice may not have been the individuals, but it was a choice. Many homosexuals voluntarily rid themselves of homosexuality through various therapies which indicates anyone can choose to change from homosexual to heterosexual.

When I say its a choice, I don't mean its 'vanilla vs. chocolate' choice, I mean its a 'heroin addiction vs. being clean' choice. Being brought on by environmental factors (such as sexual abuse, parenting, or chemical imbalanced in the brain) and reinforced by brain chemistry means unless its caught early, it might be a difficult choice to change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by roxrkool, posted 03-24-2014 10:12 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 03-25-2014 6:41 PM lokiare has responded
 Message 95 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:50 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 91 of 1309 (722939)
03-25-2014 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Pressie
03-25-2014 5:23 AM


lokiare

What's your opinion on Intersex people? Do they have a choice about their sexuality? Are Intersex people sinning just by being born Intersex? Are Intersex people being born to be Intersex not a result of genetics?

Hope you do realise that the Theory of Evolution can explain Intersex people very well. Genetics.

This makes me think that there is a genetically induced rainbow of sexuality stretching from being completely heterosexual through bisexual through homosexual trough to being Intersexed.

No choice involved in sexuality.

(Before you go off on a tangent, Intersex is not the same as Transexual).

Can you explain what intersex means? If it does not mean transexual (which is a genetic flaw where certain traits from one sex are imposed on a person of the opposite sex due to various genetic problems some or all stemming from environment)?

From my quick once over on wikipedia it looks to me like intersex individuals fall into the same category as people with other birth defects which can in some cases by corrected by surgery. In all cases they are likely to have a dominant sex from a genetic perspective which can be checked for and then correct their deformations to match that sex. Which has little to do with homosexuality except that some of these people might not have the glands to produce distinctly male and female hormones thus confusing them into thinking they are one or the other when they might in fact be the opposite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:23 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 93 of 1309 (722941)
03-25-2014 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Pressie
03-25-2014 5:35 AM


lokiare writes:

So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?

Homosexuality sure does fit into the theory of evolution. It's very basic. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. That species reproduced both sexually and asexually, depending on the conditions being favourable for asexual reproduction and other conditions being favourable for sexual reproduction.

Bringing in facts that haven't been vetted nor can be verified, is a bad way to start your proof. Very little if any evidence actually points to all organisms coming from one organism, which is why the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. You can speculate about this all you want, but without transitional fossils showing micro changes leading from one eukaryotic organism to the next you can't call this a fact. It might be the 'best' explanation you can come up with, but it is far from a fact.

Easy.

Even if we were to assume they all came from the same ancestors what would this have to do with homosexuality in social animals who according to my limited research never reproduce asexually? You appear to be comparing apples to space ships.

Now you explain how Intersex people fit into men being poofed into existence and women being taken from a rib of some alledged man and turned into a woman. Please explain the differences in DNA in men and woman that way.

If I were to assume your sentence above then it would easily be fit in by the fall and decay of the world brought on by Adam and Even throwing a wrench into a well working machine. Entropy. Very easy. All defects are caused by environmental factors whether its stress on the creature or previous defects brought forward. This is the same for both the evolution side and the CR/ID side, only the source of the flaws are debated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 5:35 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 94 of 1309 (722942)
03-25-2014 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by vimesey
03-25-2014 7:46 AM


Oh, I am following the argument, but I'm not making the mistake which you're making in confusing homosexuality with sexual acts.

Homosexuality is sexual attraction towards your own sex. That is what we don't have a choice in - our sexual attraction to someone.

Where we do have a choice is in whether or not we perform a sexual act. I can be sexually attracted to someone and choose not to do something about it (being the faithful sort that I am). Equally, I can choose to do something sexual with someone I'm not attracted to. That choice will not affect in the slightest my sexuality - the people to whom I'm attracted.

Homosexual people have throughout history had heterosexual sex - often to avoid persecution, sometimes to have children. But throughout it all, they remain homosexual and attracted to their own sex. We can all choose to perform or not perform a sexual act - none of us can choose our sexual orientation.

Consequently, it is possible to reproduce as a homosexual - through surrogacy, or the choice to have heterosexual sex. You still stay homosexual.

Actually this is a common misconception. Many homosexuals voluntarily go through therapies to become heterosexual and are successful. For some reason the homosexual lobbies don't publicize this fact when they talk the subject. Go figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 03-25-2014 7:46 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by subbie, posted 03-25-2014 7:19 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 96 of 1309 (722944)
03-25-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Pressie
03-25-2014 7:55 AM


This one was very, very funny

Faith writes:

Yeah, really. Only by heterosexual sex can they reproduce, not AS homosexuals. As you well know. They are NOT like asexually reproducing animals. Duh.

Actually, some species can reproduce by themselves (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate themselves), to having sex with other cells (growing penises from their cell walls and impregnate other cells). They don't have fixed sexes.

We are decendents of those cells.

Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.

If we came from creatures like that, it still wouldn't matter though, as what we were millions and billions of years ago has little or no bearing on what we are today, especially if none of the genetics remains (which appears to be the case).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Pressie, posted 03-25-2014 7:55 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Omnivorous, posted 03-25-2014 6:54 PM lokiare has responded

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 1847 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 97 of 1309 (722945)
03-25-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AZPaul3
03-25-2014 8:26 AM


So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all?

What makes you think homosexuality does not fit into evolution? What does "fit into evolution mean"?

Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?

Why should it? You do know about dominate vs recessive genes, yes?

And what makes you think homosexuality is solely a genetic effect? Do you know about epigenetics?

Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process.

The brain is a powerful and complex organ that we are woefully unable to understand. The genetic and epigenetic makeup, the structure and biochemistry, are beyond our present state of knowledge.

But I will reiterate what has been said here. If homosexuality really is a choice that can be consciously made then you could make that same choice. If you're like me the very thought is ... well ... icky, disgusting. I cannot make that "choice" because I do not have that choice.

If I don't have that choice, and if deep down you find that you do not really have that choice, then what makes you think anyone else does? Your religiously motivated, biased and bigoted web sites? Probably not the best sources for researching reality.

Let's establish this one fact. Sexual orientation, from hetero through homo and every shade in between, is not by conscious choice. The orientation is the result of genetics, epigenetics, the structure and biochemistry of the body and brain. You have no choice in selecting your own sexual orientation and you have no choice in accepting the fact that neither does anybody else.

I'll leave the "why" via evolution to those more studied than I.

Can you link some studies (or articles about those studies) that back up the idea that it is genetic. I haven't been able to find a single reputable study that proves anything of the sort. In fact all of the evidence I can find points to the opposite, in that it appears to be almost solely an environmentally caused state of mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 8:26 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AZPaul3, posted 03-25-2014 9:12 PM lokiare has responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019