NationStates Jolt Archive

Now since Darwinism has taken ahold of many believers around the world, I propose a dilemma after reading the previous claims on homosexuality. Does homosexuality prove that certain aspects of human beings are currently beyond the range of Darwin's theories? Many times before can we see the proof of adaptation and evolution within humans (i.e. sickle cell traits). Though a characteristic trait such as homosexuality, if genetic as some claim, should have died off many years prior to now. Again for example, the sickle cell trait amongst African immigrants/refugees to areas where malaria is no longer prevelent. This does not correspond well together, that a trait which could be passed genetically would promote the impossibility of reproduction. Thus homosexuality cannot be genetic.
In this case I also propose another thought process for everyone. Can an evolved society's beliefs and views actually distort Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution and modern genetics would be forced to claim that homosexuality would have been annihilated after one generation, unless a consistent mutation within a population is present. Though has our world's society produced "God made me this way" homosexuals (aka Genetic/Natured) which would somehow defy and thus a deem a revision of Darwinian views, or has it produced "I just like it better" homosexuals (aka Nurtured)? Please leave your views and if any experts can inform me more I would much appreciate it.

1) Natured homosexuals
2) Nurtured homosexuals

2 things wrong with your claim:

1. Many gay people have had children, especially up until the sexually liberal era we live in today. Before the 1960's, many tried to have a family and repress it.

2. There are recessive traits, which can be passed through generations and not always show up.

But, that's all moot because nobody really knows what causes homosexuality. Only slight traces of a possible "gay gene" have been found, it could have to do with something beyond basic, Mendelian genetics.

I am actually not making any true claim, as much as getting readers to think about possibilities before writing some one sided nonsense. Also, my desires are for this to be more of a anthropological discussion not so much a genetics discussion, for many will then try to sound "scientific".
PS. not that I am and claiming you have, but I know there are people who will.

As I remember, they have found that homosexuality is mostly brain chemistry, for example, a Guy's sexual attraction switch is on Guy instead of Girl by hormones etc. But there may be genetic factors that could result in a higher chance as they innfluence the brain's chemistry, but no exact 'gay gene'
In rgards to the nature Vs Nurutre arguement, certain effects or stresses on a woman while pregnant have being shown to influence the sexual preferences/orientations of children

Now since Darwinism has taken ahold of many believers around the world, I propose a dilemma after reading the previous claims on homosexuality. Does homosexuality prove that certain aspects of human beings are currently beyond the range of Darwin's theories? Many times before can we see the proof of adaptation and evolution within humans (i.e. sickle cell traits). Though a characteristic trait such as homosexuality, if genetic as some claim, should have died off many years prior to now. Again for example, the sickle cell trait amongst African immigrants/refugees to areas where malaria is no longer prevelent. This does not correspond well together, that a trait which could be passed genetically would promote the impossibility of reproduction. Thus homosexuality cannot be genetic.
In this case I also propose another thought process for everyone. Can an evolved society's beliefs and views actually distort Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution and modern genetics would be forced to claim that homosexuality would have been annihilated after one generation, unless a consistent mutation within a population is present. Though has our world's society produced "God made me this way" homosexuals (aka Genetic/Natured) which would somehow defy and thus a deem a revision of Darwinian views, or has it produced "I just like it better" homosexuals (aka Nurtured)? Please leave your views and if any experts can inform me more I would much appreciate it.

1) Natured homosexuals
2) Nurtured homosexuals
Whoboy.

First, gene alleles rarely up and disappear, even if it no longer serves a purpose (the sickle cell trait), especially in such a short timespan as the time between africans leaving africa and now (under 200 years, a blink in the evolutionary timescale), second, nurture has nothing to do with "I just like it better", it is clear that choice has nothing to do with homosexuality.

A homosexual 'gene' could be highly useful in the heterozygous form in females (pure conjecture, but this entire thread is), or the lesbian 'gene' in heterozygous form in males that boosts the ability of those people to have children ('emo'). Also, it can be seen that homosexuals act as a support of society, while not having children themselves they support their kin's children, to the death in some circumstances, which would allow the homosexual gene to be passed on even if the homosexual himself did not have children. Furthermore, reproduction can occur in a homosexual relationship, just generally one of the partners wouldn't like it very much :p.

There is also the simple problem that everyone assumes that, to be affected by genetics, there must be a single gene that causes it.

I know you said you don't want this to be a genetics argument - but people must realize that what you learn in high school biology is only the very simplest of genetics - and the types of traits discussed are not complex traits such as sexuality. It is incredibly unlikely that sexuality is controlled by a single gene. It is much more like that it exists along a spectrum precisely because it is dependent on numerous factors, including several genetic. Thus, a gay person could have a child, and that child may be any sexuality - based on the combination of factors received from both parents. Two heterosexual people could have a child that would be gay, because the alleles that combine cause that sexuality.

Skin color, which is much less complex than something like sexuality, is controlled by no less than five separate genetic locations. Why would anyone assume that something this complicated was determined by one gene?

I think we are pushing our theory of desirable genetic development a little too hard. Uncontrolled sexual desires and deviation from reproductive sexuality is both well documented and well known. To say that it is caused by genetics at all is no defense... A child molester and a rapist, nature or nurture? Sexual addiction? S&M? etc., etc., etc.

Your premis would depend on Dawanism being a complete theory, which I have my doubts about. I genuinely beleive that there exists, inbuilt, in each species the mechanisms to control it in case it is overly sussesful. That could be as simple a process as tasting nice to other animals, having a selective diet or long hair for cold climates. In humans I beleive it is our overly agressive territorialism, our sexual predilitions and our vunerbility to deseases.That is not to say that homosexuality is purely biological because that would disregard our human personality traits but to claim it is unatural is simple religious bigotry.

I think we are pushing our theory of desirable genetic development a little too hard. Uncontrolled sexual desires and deviation from reproductive sexuality is both well documented and well known.

Who said anything about uncontrolled desires?

And "deviation from reproductive sexuality"? You mean half of the sexual acts that married, heterosexual couples engage in on a regular basis?

Who said anything about uncontrolled desires?

And "deviation from reproductive sexuality"? You mean half of the sexual acts that married, heterosexual couples engage in on a regular basis?


Exactly. I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm asking, where do we get our sexual desires from...

2 things wrong with your claim:

1. Many gay people have had children, especially up until the sexually liberal era we live in today. Before the 1960's, many tried to have a family and repress it.

2. There are recessive traits, which can be passed through generations and not always show up.

But, that's all moot because nobody really knows what causes homosexuality. Only slight traces of a possible "gay gene" have been found, it could have to do with something beyond basic, Mendelian genetics.

1. I'm confused. Run that by me again...homosexuals have had children? No. To say that homosexuals have had children would be to imply that they were heterosexual (heterosexual=reproduction, homosexual=no reproduction). While they may have had families before turning gay (ie, they got a divorce) this would imply that they were straight at one time, thereby reaffirming the belief that homosexuality is a choice.

2. To state that homosexuality is a recessive trait would suggest that it is inherited, which according to Darwinian philosophy, it is not.

Note that I am not against homosexuals, I am simply stating that it is not genetic.

1. I'm confused. Run that by me again...homosexuals have had children? No. To say that homosexuals have had children would be to imply that they were heterosexual (heterosexual=reproduction, homosexual=no reproduction). While they may have had families before turning gay (ie, they got a divorce) this would imply that they were straight at one time, thereby reaffirming the belief that homosexuality is a choice.



Homosexuality has very little do to with reproduction...

1. I'm confused. Run that by me again...homosexuals have had children? No. To say that homosexuals have had children would be to imply that they were heterosexual (heterosexual=reproduction, homosexual=no reproduction).

Incorrect. One can have sex with someone they are not attracted to. A heterosexual can have sex with a member of the same sex without suddenly becoming homosexual - they simply aren't actually attracted to that person. The same can happen in the other direction.

While they may have had families before turning gay (ie, they got a divorce) this would imply that they were straight at one time, thereby reaffirming the belief that homosexuality is a choice.

There is no "turning gay". Some get married in heterosexual relationships despite the fact that they are gay. This is generally because they are pushed to do so to be "normal".

2. To state that homosexuality is a recessive trait would suggest that it is inherited, which according to Darwinian philosophy, it is not.

As has already been explained, this is not true. Only if homosexuality were directly controlled by a single genetic allele which did nothing at all else would there be any cause at all to suggest that homosexuality would get "bred out". There is absolutely no reason to believe that (a) sexuality is controlled by a single gene or (b) genes that affect sexuality don't do anything else.

Another subject that drives me nuts. Unless you go around asking if heterosexuality is learned or genetic, then you really have no business asking if homosexuality is.

1. I'm confused. Run that by me again...homosexuals have had children? No. To say that homosexuals have had children would be to imply that they were heterosexual (heterosexual=reproduction, homosexual=no reproduction). While they may have had families before turning gay (ie, they got a divorce) this would imply that they were straight at one time, thereby reaffirming the belief that homosexuality is a choice.


Ok. How about this. Gay Man decides he want's to leave somebody behind. Goes to an agency, does his thing with a cup. It's stored. A woman or a couple decide to make use of it.

Is he hetro?

The body still works as designed even though the mind is geared for "the other team."

[QUOTE=Herpesia]1. I'm confused. Run that by me again...homosexuals have had children? No. To say that homosexuals have had children would be to imply that they were heterosexual (heterosexual=reproduction, homosexual=no reproduction). While they may have had families before turning gay (ie, they got a divorce) this would imply that they were straight at one time, thereby reaffirming the belief that homosexuality is a choice.

Ok, I can see your line of thinking, but test tube babies, surregates (sp?)... There are plenty of ways to have children in a relationship without having both a male and female counterpart. There are sperm banks everywhere and egg donor ads in the newspaper. Tis not hard to make a child with science (theorhetically).

There are chemical addictions and there are behavioral addictions. Is one more ‘powerful’ than the other? Do people have an inert susceptibility to being ‘addicted’ to certain behaviors?

If I willingly drink coffee or smoke cigarettes everyday for twenty years, and then suddenly stop, I will have physically measurable reactions that we call withdrawals. I will get the ‘urge’ to resume the activity. Was I born with this addiction? I think we can agree that I was not.

Now, do I have a gambling addiction? Does my body react to the activity in such a way that it produces it’s own endorphins and ‘rewards’ me for the activity? I end up dreaming about and spending a disproportionate amount of energy and resources into pursuing the activity? Was I born with this? I think we can agree that I was born with the susceptibility to that vice, but that the activity itself is not the cause of my addiction.

Sexual desires, like addictions, are the same. Why does one man like large breasted women, and another likes skinny twiggs? Why do some women like large barrel-chested football players and others like skinny marathon runners? Are these learned traits or genetic traits?

I will argue that these things are learned traits. So far anyway our biology sciences have not been able to show any substantiated physical measurement (for example) that we can point at and say… You are going to like red-heads, you are going to like brunettes, or, you are going to like this that or the other thing. Sexual desire is real, but sexual day-dream specifics are ‘developed’ for taste and desires.

There are chemical addictions and there are behavioral addictions. Is one more ‘powerful’ than the other? Do people have an inert susceptibility to being ‘addicted’ to certain behaviors?

If I willingly drink coffee or smoke cigarettes everyday for twenty years, and then suddenly stop, I will have physically measurable reactions that we call withdrawals. I will get the ‘urge’ to resume the activity. Was I born with this addiction? I think we can agree that I was not.

Now, do I have a gambling addiction? Does my body react to the activity in such a way that it produces it’s own endorphins and ‘rewards’ me for the activity? I end up dreaming about and spending a disproportionate amount of energy and resources into pursuing the activity? Was I born with this? I think we can agree that I was born with the susceptibility to that vice, but that the activity itself is not the cause of my addiction.

Sexual desires, like addictions, are the same. Why does one man like large breasted women, and another likes skinny twiggs? Why do some women like large barrel-chested football players and others like skinny marathon runners? Are these learned traits or genetic traits?

I will argue that these things are learned traits. So far anyway our biology sciences have not been able to show any substantiated physical measurement (for example) that we can point at and say… You are going to like red-heads, you are going to like brunettes, or, you are going to like this that or the other thing. Sexual desire is real, but sexual day-dream specifics are ‘developed’ for taste and desires.

Kind of like Religious addiction.

There are chemical addictions and there are behavioral addictions. Is one more ‘powerful’ than the other? Do people have an inert susceptibility to being ‘addicted’ to certain behaviors?

If I willingly drink coffee or smoke cigarettes everyday for twenty years, and then suddenly stop, I will have physically measurable reactions that we call withdrawals. I will get the ‘urge’ to resume the activity. Was I born with this addiction? I think we can agree that I was not.

Now, do I have a gambling addiction? Does my body react to the activity in such a way that it produces it’s own endorphins and ‘rewards’ me for the activity? I end up dreaming about and spending a disproportionate amount of energy and resources into pursuing the activity? Was I born with this? I think we can agree that I was born with the susceptibility to that vice, but that the activity itself is not the cause of my addiction.

These things are irrelevant. One cannot compare drug or gambling addictions (neither of which would occur without actions on the part of the person) to sexuality (which is going to occur whether you actually act upon it or not).

Sexual desires, like addictions, are the same.

Except, of course, for the fact that sexual desires are not caused by actions. They are, in fact, the stimulus for many actions, but are not caused by anything the person does. When a person hits puberty, they begin to feel sexual desires, without any prompting from anything else.

I will argue that these things are learned traits. So far anyway our biology sciences have not been able to show any substantiated physical measurement (for example) that we can point at and say… You are going to like red-heads, you are going to like brunettes, or, you are going to like this that or the other thing. Sexual desire is real, but sexual day-dream specifics are ‘developed’ for taste and desires.

No, but interestingly, we have been able to make physical measurements (at least in animals) that can suggest that a given animal will have a tendency to like the same (or opposite) sex.

There are chemical addictions and there are behavioral addictions. Is one more ‘powerful’ than the other? Do people have an inert susceptibility to being ‘addicted’ to certain behaviors?

If I willingly drink coffee or smoke cigarettes everyday for twenty years, and then suddenly stop, I will have physically measurable reactions that we call withdrawals. I will get the ‘urge’ to resume the activity. Was I born with this addiction? I think we can agree that I was not.

Now, do I have a gambling addiction? Does my body react to the activity in such a way that it produces it’s own endorphins and ‘rewards’ me for the activity? I end up dreaming about and spending a disproportionate amount of energy and resources into pursuing the activity? Was I born with this? I think we can agree that I was born with the susceptibility to that vice, but that the activity itself is not the cause of my addiction.

Sexual desires, like addictions, are the same. Why does one man like large breasted women, and another likes skinny twiggs? Why do some women like large barrel-chested football players and others like skinny marathon runners? Are these learned traits or genetic traits?

I will argue that these things are learned traits. So far anyway our biology sciences have not been able to show any substantiated physical measurement (for example) that we can point at and say… You are going to like red-heads, you are going to like brunettes, or, you are going to like this that or the other thing. Sexual desire is real, but sexual day-dream specifics are ‘developed’ for taste and desires.

Wow, the comparisons you keep making are so uninformed I don't know where to begin.

No, but interestingly, we have been able to make physical measurements (at least in animals) that can suggest that a given animal will have a tendency to like the same (or opposite) sex.

Brain topology studies have been being conducted on humans for some time and they have given much evidence that sexuality can be predicted at a very young age (in order to conduct the study the person must engage in certain activities, some of which would be difficult in a newborn, thus 'at a young age' and not 'at birth).

(Stealing a point you made in another thread, Dem) To the original poster, sexuality exists on a spectrum. As such, it is possible that my brother and I could be very close on the spectrum due to genetics, but I cross into homosexuality and my brother just exists somewhere on the edge of the heterosexual part of the spectrum. Thus my brother could have children and pass virtually the same traits on to his children that I would have passed. I help to raise and nurture his children, thus causing them to be more stable and to have a better chance at reaching child-rearing age and having the ability to pass the trait on. Combined with the genetic explanation Dem gave in her previous post this fully explains how homosexuality could be passed on in a population without medical interference (donated sperms or surrogates).

(Stealing a point you made in another thread, Dem) To the original poster, sexuality exists on a spectrum. As such, it is possible that my brother and I could be very close on the spectrum due to genetics, but I cross into homosexuality and my brother just exists somewhere on the edge of the heterosexual part of the spectrum. Thus my brother could have children and pass virtually the same traits on to his children that I would have passed. I help to raise and nurture his children, thus causing them to be more stable and to have a better chance at reaching child-rearing age and having the ability to pass the trait on. Combined with the genetic explanation Dem gave in her previous post this fully explains how homosexuality could be passed on in a population without medical interference (donated sperms or surrogates).

And (I'm not sure if I've said this in this particular thread or not), if you had a sister, the same genetic contributions that put you on the homosexuality end of the spectrum might make her very interested in sex with men - and even more fertile. As such, she would actually have a reproductive advantage over other women, and would likely pass on the traits that made you homosexual, and her more fertile. On top of that, you would likely help raise her children as well - ensuring their survival.

There are all sorts of nuances that could come up here. That is why I get tired of people trying to break biology into absolute black/white propositions. Like most of life, it simply doesn't work that way.
=)

And (I'm not sure if I've said this in this particular thread or not), if you had a sister, the same genetic contributions that put you on the homosexuality end of the spectrum might make her very interested in sex with men - and even more fertile. As such, she would actually have a reproductive advantage over other women, and would likely pass on the traits that made you homosexual, and her more fertile. On top of that, you would likely help raise her children as well - ensuring their survival.

There are all sorts of nuances that could come up here. That is why I get tired of people trying to break biology into absolute black/white propositions. Like most of life, it simply doesn't work that way.
=)

I avoided it actually, because the proof is far less established (though I happen to think it's forthcoming), I didn't really feel like getting into a debate about it. Alleles don't have to have dozens of benefits. One benefit is plenty.