NationStates Jolt Archive

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

Well, well the two major argument topics on NSG have laid down together and created this bizarre hybrid. Now all we need is abortion to be thrown in here somewhere and we would have something.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

There are recessive genes, and many traits that are ostensibly non-viable and would seem to be countermanding to natural selection.

Interestingly, there are many inherited conditions persistent in populations that reduce likelihood of mating, including some that kill the specimen before mating age. The reason they aren't bred out over time can vary, but usually revolves around a recessive gene, or perhaps a trait related to many genes, the results of which only manifest in relatively few cases. The gene itself thus persists, and only renders reduced viability in some fraction of the organisms in which it overtly manifests.

There are recessive genes, and many traits that are ostensibly non-viable and would seem to be countermanding to natural selection.

Interestingly, there are many inherited conditions persistent in populations that reduce likelihood of mating, including some that kill the specimen before mating age. The reason they aren't bred out over time can vary, but usually revolves around a recessive gene, or perhaps a trait related to many genes, the results of which only manifest in relatively few cases. The gene itself thus persists, and only renders reduced viability in some fraction of the organisms in which it overtly manifests.

Soooooooooooooooo...are you saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?!

Soooooooooooooooo...are you saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?!

Everything is a genetic disorder.

Even if homosexuality isn't genetic, let's say it's a choice.

So what?

Soooooooooooooooo...are you saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?!

No more so than blue eyes.

Why veiw evolution as the sole purpose for an indivdual organism? Also why view a homosexual choosing to reproduce as wrong?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.
Evolution does not work according to a plan.

Therefore, the premise of your question -- that "according to evolution, the only purpose an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds." -- is false. And thus, your question of whether homosexuality can't exist if evolution is real is based on nothing.

There is no "according to evolution" because evolution is not a thing that can articulate ideas. There is no "purpose" to any organism because there is no plan or goal to evolution. And homosexuals can do whatever they like, including engage in hetero sex in order to reproduce -- something they do and have done rather frequently throughout history.

So there you go.

Next question?

Soooooooooooooooo...are you saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?!

No, I'm saying it can be a genetic trait. Your line of reasoning was that because gays are less likely to have children, this somehow made it "unreal" in the sense that it supposedly incompatable with natural selection.

I'm simply pointing out that there are several inherited traits that reduce or eliminate one's likelihood of reproducing, yet they persist in the gene pool. This refutes your premise.

Also why view a homosexual choosing to reproduce as wrong?

He never said it was.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.
No, because homosexuals can help out the family/trial unit in other ways and ensure their genetic material passes on.

He never said it was.
He said it "seems wrong."

I read it as him thinking that it seems like it would be going against their nature to do so.

There is no "according to evolution"

Hang on what do you mean there is no according to evolution?

There would be in the same way that according to Newtons first law if I exert force on this table ot exerts the same amount of force back on to me.

Well, well the two major argument topics on NSG have laid down together and created this bizarre hybrid. Now all we need is abortion to be thrown in here somewhere and we would have something.

I Am excited I am making popcorn for this thread. *MUNCH*:D

You know what I should make that super hybrid thread and throw in who has the best country in the world for fun. *YEP*

Hang on what do you mean there is no according to evolution?

There would be in the same way that according to Newtons first law if I exert force on this table ot exerts the same amount of force back on to me.
I mean exactly what I said. Are your glasses foggy or something? First you miss where the OP used the word "wrong" in his post, and now you don't see the "because" and all the words following it in my sentence? Don't ask me what I mean by a phrase that you pick out of a sentence that contains the explanation you're asking for. I don't like that. *prepares to start glaring*

I Am excited I am making popcorn for this thread. *MUNCH*:D

You know what I should make that super hybrid thread and throw in who has the best country in the world for fun. *YEP*

Well pass some over here.

They should also chuck in some Bush and US election for some massive awesome thread where everybody will be involved hurling argument and counter argument along with some fallacies to go with it, hell people could abuse their favourite fallacy at the same time.

Having blue eyes doesn't cause any harm to you as an organism or inhibit you from passing on genes. Having blue eyes isn't a genetic disorder.

If you aren't only looking at evolution then I think it would be normal for homosexuals to want to reproduce.

Evolution does not work according to a plan.

I think he was referring to the body of governing principles that combine to form the dynamic of evolution. At least I hope so...


Therefore, the premise of your question -- that "according to evolution, the only purpose an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds." -- is false. And thus, your question of whether homosexuality can't exist if evolution is real is based on nothing.

There is no "according to evolution" because evolution is not a thing that can articulate ideas. There is no "purpose" to any organism because there is no plan or goal to evolution.[/QUOTE]

I think he (or she?) was trying to evoke the premise within evolution that any behaviour that reduces the likelihood of expressing one's genes into subsequent iterations will, in general, decline or disappear.

He somehow thinks gay dudes can't fuck girls if they want. Even if they couldn't, the well-observed concept of the recessive gene means that genetic sexual proclivity, even if decisively non-viable, could abide within a species indefinitely.


And homosexuals can do whatever they like, including engage in hetero sex in order to reproduce -- something they do and have done rather frequently throughout history.

So there you go.

Next question?

If I could have Tim Gunn's baby, why wouldn't I?

Well pass some over here.

They should also chuck in some Bush and US election for some massive awesome thread where everybody will be involved hurling argument and counter argument along with some fallacies to go with it, hell people could abuse their favourite fallacy at the same time.


*Chucks Popcorn all over thread*:D YAY

No, because homosexuals can help out the family/trial unit in other ways and ensure their genetic material passes on.

This is the best answer so far.

I mean exactly what I said. Are your glasses foggy or something? First you miss where the OP used the word "wrong" in his post, and now you don't see the "because" and all the words following it in my sentence? Don't ask me what I mean by a phrase that you pick out of a sentence that contains the explanation you're asking for. I don't like that. *prepares to start glaring*

Your eye always glares at me I don't like it.

I saw what you said after because you posted "evolution is not a thing that can articulate ideas" but then I know it is not a thing that can articulate ideas but rather a theory which has explains how things work, but I am asking how there can be no according to evolution as I said according to Newtons first... but that is not a thing either that articulates ideas it is a statement.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal?

Clearly this cannot be the case, because it is evident that homosexuality is real, and by your own admission it is also evident that evolution is real. There must, then, be compatibility between the two.

According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds.

According to evolution, natural processes will select for the traits that best allow for the passing on of the genetic material underlying them. There are two elements to this that you miss, however. The first is that a variety of traits will nevertheless arise "accidentally" from the perspective of evolution, independently of their survival merit: some will just be side-effects of evolutionarily useful traits, and some will just arise randomly. The second is that the passing on of genetic material need not occur through reproduction by the individual organism itself. If the organism helps other organisms possessed of similar genetic material, the trait will still prove evolutionarily useful even if that organism itself does not have enhanced reproductive fitness. (This is a common evolutionary explanation for altruism.)

Homosexuals, as we know, cannot reproduce with one another

But human beings are a social species, and same-sex couples are perfectly capable of caring for the children of others. The genetic material that sometimes gives rise to homosexuality may thus be socially useful in terms of reproductive fitness even if it is not individually useful.

and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

What does right and wrong have to do with evolution? As a matter of simple historical fact, gay men and lesbians have fairly regularly engaged in heterosexual intercourse and produced children. I don't think this is a particularly good explanation for the persistence of homosexuality, but there it is.

Having blue eyes doesn't cause any harm to you as an organism or inhibit you from passing on genes. Having blue eyes isn't a genetic disorder.

If you aren't only looking at evolution then I think it would be normal for homosexuals to want to reproduce.

Again, because of recessive genes, heterosexuals can pass on a gene that results in homosexuality.

Recessive genes can surface from many generations back, with neither immediate parent exhibiting the phenotype in question, but still passing on the causal genes.

In your examination of genetics, have you studied rudimentary elements like recessive genes?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

Well, their are closet gays, bisexuals, recessive genes, the possibility that homosexuality is not entirely genetic. Evolution is real, and so is homosexuality.

*Chucks Popcorn all over thread*:D YAY

You might want to keep some of that to eat while watching Muryvets slams me into the ground.

He said it "seems wrong."

I read it as him thinking that it seems like it would be going against their nature to do so.

But if they decided that they wanted to pass their genes on there is no real reason not to. They are still capable (should they choose).

I mostly asked because that one seemed only half finished as an idea. Well this whole thread is a little half baked but what can you expect from someone who is having a go at changing their views and is testing the water.

I think he was referring to the body of governing principles that combine to form the dynamic of evolution. At least I hope so...

I think he (or she?) was trying to evoke the premise within evolution that any behaviour that reduces the likelihood of expressing one's genes into subsequent iterations will, in general, decline or disappear.
People should say what they mean. And anyway, he's still wrong. What you describe above is not a purpose to evolution. It is merely an observation of how things work. No purpose is inherent in it.

He somehow thinks gay dudes can't fuck girls if they want. Even if they couldn't, the well-observed concept of the recessive gene means that genetic sexual proclivity, even if decisively non-viable, could abide within a species indefinitely.
Be that as it may. I do not believe we understand enough about our own genome to make pronouncements about what genes are good, bad or indifferent.

If I could have Tim Gunn's baby, why wouldn't I?
No one with any taste would refuse to have Tim Gunn's baby.

And I maintain my assertion that the OP is based on a false premise. But that's just me.

Everything is a genetic disorder.

This is the greater truth. :)

Your eye always glares at me I don't like it.

I saw what you said after because you posted "evolution is not a thing that can articulate ideas" but then I know it is not a thing that can articulate ideas but rather a theory which has explains how things work, but I am asking how there can be no according to evolution as I said according to Newtons first... but that is not a thing either that articulates ideas it is a statement.
Your loose use of language does not a premise make.

But if they decided that they wanted to pass their genes on there is no real reason not to. They are still capable (should they choose).

I mostly asked because that one seemed only half finished as an idea. Well this whole thread is a little half baked but what can you expect from someone who is having a go at changing their views and is testing the water.
I was only interpreting the OP. I do not agree with him/her.

People should say what they mean. And anyway, he's still wrong. What you describe above is not a purpose to evolution. It is merely an observation of how things work. No purpose is inherent in it.

While I feel that scientific matters take particularly potent benefit from a rigorous precision in language, reasonable accomodation for those less versed in the subject matter often pays dividends for all concerned.

As to any body of research, I agree that "an observation of how things work" is a more apt description. "Purpose" does imply more deliberate intent then can be assumed.


Be that as it may. I do not believe we understand enough about our own genome to make pronouncements about what genes are good, bad or indifferent.


No one with any taste would refuse to have Tim Gunn's baby.

And I maintain my assertion that the OP is based on a false premise. But that's just me.

Rather than "good, bad, or indifferent", I think the best appelates would be "more viable in some habitats at some times in some ways, or less so, or a mixed bag".

I would name my Gunn baby "Uziel".

Your loose use of language does not a premise make.

What? I was only asking a question.

No purpose is inherent in it.

This is what I think you were meaning and one I agree with, however if we are to say that those that are able to survive due to their genetic make up or adept to their environment will survive is apart of evolution then we would say according to evolution this is how this species survives where as these didn't.

Again, because of recessive genes, heterosexuals can pass on a gene that results in homosexuality.

Recessive genes can surface from many generations back, with neither immediate parent exhibiting the phenotype in question, but still passing on the causal genes.

In your examination of genetics, have you studied rudimentary elements like recessive genes?

Yes I know about recessive genes, but thanks for the condescending tone. I didn't want to imply that homosexuality was a recessive gene (because recessive is almost always synonymous with bad) nor did I want to call it a genetic disorder. That really seems to be all I'm getting here. Homosexuality is real. Evolution is real. The only way to explain it is by calling it recessive and/or a genetic disorder?

I know most of you use those terms much more loosely than I do, so I guess it's all in the rhetoric.

I was only interpreting the OP. I do not agree with him/her.

No worries I got that.

Seems like most posters are in favour of the idea that homosexuality is genetic.

Gravity doesn't exist to keep you on the earth. Gravity just is. Because it exists, you can lean on the table, but it doesn't exist to make you lean on the table.

Evolution doesn't exist to make species better. It just is. Because it is, successful mutations survive better, but it doesn't exist to make them survive.

While I feel that scientific matters take particularly potent benefit from a rigorous precision in language, reasonable accomodation for those less versed in the subject matter often pays dividends for all concerned.
Ham. Seriously. This is NSG. Haven't you seen enough of these threads go to hell in a handbasket over fuzzy jargon to know better than this? Better to get the point in question straight before page 5, if at all possible.

Let us all be clear for the record: Evolution has no goals, plans, purposes, or opinions about itself.

As to any body of research, I agree that "an observation of how things work" is a more apt description. "Purpose" does imply more deliberate intent then can be assumed.



Rather than "good, bad, or indifferent", I think the best appelates would be "more viable in some habitats at some times in some ways, or less so, or a mixed bag".
Okey-doke.

I would name my Gunn baby "Uziel".
I would ask the Gunn to name my Gunn baby, and dress it, too. Anything the Gunn told me, I would find a way to "make it work," because I have declared Tim Gunn my media guru.

Gravity doesn't exist to keep you on the earth. Gravity just is. Because it exists, you can lean on the table, but it doesn't exist to make you lean on the table.

Evolution doesn't exist to make species better. It just is. Because it is, successful mutations survive better, but it doesn't exist to make them survive.

I like this, very interesting.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal?

No...

According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds.

That's...not how it works. Under evolutionary theory, organisms don't have a "purpose" or a "goal". There's no end result, there's no plan. There's just mutations, and odds.

Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

Your hypothesis begs the premise. You state that the goal of evolution is wrong, and that homosexuals having sex to have children is "wrong", thus you conclude that homosexuality is counter to evolution.

However you haven't supported your premise.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

Your understanding of evolution is faulty.

Yes I know about recessive genes, but thanks for the condescending tone. I didn't want to imply that homosexuality was a recessive gene (because recessive is almost always synonymous with bad) nor did I want to call it a genetic disorder. That really seems to be all I'm getting here. Homosexuality is real. Evolution is real. The only way to explain it is by calling it recessive and/or a genetic disorder?

I know most of you use those terms much more loosely than I do, so I guess it's all in the rhetoric.

Recessive genes aren't bad. it just requires two recessive genes for a trait to be expressed. Blue eyes are caused by recessive genes. Blue eyes aren't bad.

As to homosexuality and evolution, most cultures have taboos against homosexuality and strong norms toward heterosexual couplings so even gay and lesbians would have children even if they would rather have same sex lovers. This is changing in modern times and may decrease the number of homosexual people in the future to the degree that homosexuality is genetic.

This is the best answer so far.

I'm glad someone read my post. :(

(because recessive is almost always synonymous with bad)

In the context of genes, no, it is not.

The only way to explain it is by calling it recessive and/or a genetic disorder?

Not at all. Other explanations have been offered.

I'm glad someone read my post. :(

It was concise. The others are getting a bit redundant :rolleyes:

What? I was only asking a question.



This is what I think you were meaning and one I agree with, however if we are to say that those that are able to survive due to their genetic make up or adept to their environment will survive is apart of evolution then we would say according to evolution this is how this species survives where as these didn't.
If we wanted to be clear and accurate in our communications, we would say this is "according to the theory or principles of evolution."

That is, if we wanted to be clear.

Again, because of recessive genes, heterosexuals can pass on a gene that results in homosexuality.

Recessive genes can surface from many generations back, with neither immediate parent exhibiting the phenotype in question, but still passing on the causal genes.

In your examination of genetics, have you studied rudimentary elements like recessive genes?

Is it recessive or a random mutation?

If it is recessive, then would not a family line have a propensity for homosexuality especially when thinking of Mendal?

Granted I don't think there has been a study to show it and it probably does happen but Religion tended to make homosexuals hide.

No worries I got that.

Seems like most posters are in favour of the idea that homosexuality is genetic.
That's one of those things that I know I don't know enough about to address. My personal opinion is that it is likely both genetic and choice, the mix ranging widely from individual to individual, with an enormous number of variables to consider in each case. But I avoid making an argument about it because I don't like trying to back up speculative opinions.

If we wanted to be clear and accurate in our communications, we would say this is "according to the theory or principles of evolution."

That is, if we wanted to be clear.

Well that is what I thought he meant "according to the theory or principles of evolution."

Clarity is not always a feature of NSG :p

As to homosexuality and evolution, most cultures have taboos against homosexuality and strong norms toward heterosexual couplings so even gay and lesbians would have children even if they would rather have same sex lovers. This is changing in modern times and may decrease the number of homosexual people in the future to the degree that homosexuality is genetic.

This explanation seems weak to me, for two reasons.

For one, it reads what is really a particular, socially limited prejudice into a universal human trait. Homophobia as we modernly understand it is largely the product of the dominance of Christianity and Islam, and while non-Abrahamic cultures have hardly been free of various forms of anti-gay prejudice, there are plenty of cases where exclusive homosexuality has been tolerated enough to not necessitate child-bearing. Exclusive homosexuality itself, however, is as best we can tell existent in all human cultures--and, for that matter, in a variety of animal species as well. That hardly suggests an explanation for its persistence that is rooted in the presence of social prejudice.

For another, while it is obvious that gay men and lesbians are hardly reproductive dead-ends, it does not follow that they are just as likely as straight people to have children. Even small differences in reproductive fitness are enough to make very large differences in prevalence over long periods of time.

Soooooooooooooooo...are you saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder?!

If it is a choice then conventional evolution would have little effect on it as it is not an inherited trait

Lets play a game. Lets assume, just for a moment, that homosexuality is a choice, m'kay?


So the fuck what? How does that invalidate the arguement that they should still be able to live their lives in a way that makes them happy?

Answer? It doesnt.

If it is a choice then conventional evolution would have little effect on it as it is not an inherited trait


I have gay friends, calling it a choice is slapping them in the face.

I have gay friends, calling it a choice is slapping them in the face.

how so?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing. I know many who have done so. Sexual pleasure and reproduction are two separate things. Please note that 1. Non-human animals reproduce without any observable pleasure in the sex act (they are driven to it by instinct - spayed and neutered animals live happy, long lives without having sex - in point of fact, they live longer if spayed/neutered). 2. Human beings have evolved to have sex for fun, without reproducing - that seems to run counter to your implied argument that sex is only for reproduction. 3. Homosexuals are hardwired to have sex with each other for fun. 4. To contend that it is wrong for homosexuals to have sex with the opposite gender for the purpose of reproduction is a moral judgement that really doesn't belong in this argument. 5. Incidents of homosexual behavior have been noted among non-human animals. 6. Christian doctrine implies homoerotic behavior between deity and his so-called creation.

It just seems to me that homoerotic behavior fits perfectly well into the evolutionary scheme of things.

Yes I know about recessive genes, but thanks for the condescending tone.

There was no condescension, it was legitimate question. Take it as condescending if you want, but I would ask it of almost anyone who drew the line of reasoning you tried to.


I didn't want to imply that homosexuality was a recessive gene (because recessive is almost always synonymous with bad) nor did I want to call it a genetic disorder.

"Recessive is almost always synonymous with bad" is something you assume. But the only "bad" characteristic that was implied was lessened viability, which is not any kind of moral judgement or necessarily pejorative in any social or cultural sense.

Also, if you look back, nobody called it a genetic disorder. That was a misinterpretation you introduced. I never described it as such. I'm not being condescending; honestly, go back and look.


That really seems to be all I'm getting here. Homosexuality is real. Evolution is real. The only way to explain it is by calling it recessive and/or a genetic disorder?

Again, I never said disorder. The fact that you equivocate "recessive" with "disorder" doesnt mean I do the same.

Its interesting that when somebody mentioned blue eyes as an illustrative example of a recessive gene, you didn't seem to see the relevance. Blue eyes are a recessive gene, and as you yourself said, they are not a disorder or "bad". Thus, when I refer to the condition as potentially recessive, in no way does it necessitate the appelate "disorder".


I know most of you use those terms much more loosely than I do, so I guess it's all in the rhetoric.

So, we are the ones here being imprecise with our language?

Catan Catan, you introduced the proposition that being gay was somehow contrary to evolution based on supposedly diminished proclivity for gays to reproduce. If you really were familiar with recessive genes as you claim, or any of the other reasonable alternative models for the gene to endure, you wouldn've have asked the question in the first place because you'd have had multiple plausible answers.

how so?

Because they feel it's a part of them they can't change. Calling it a choice implies they could change a part of them.

I have gay friends, calling it a choice is slapping them in the face.

If one of your gay friends was going to reproduce biologically, would you tell them its wrong? Is that not a slap in the face?

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing. I know many who have done so. Sexual pleasure and reproduction are two separate things. Please note that 1. Non-human animals reproduce without any observable pleasure in the sex act (they are driven to it by instinct - spayed and neutered animals live happy, long lives without having sex - in point of fact, they live longer if spayed/neutered).


What the Bonobo and the Dolphin? ;)

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

*palmface*

Because they feel it's a part of them they can't change. Calling it a choice implies they could change a part of them.

but we all make choices who define who we are. It may be a Decision that one could not conceivably change but it would still be a choice.

What the Bonobo and the Dolphin? ;)

Quite right--A-SD's claim is absolutely untrue. Bonobos and dolphins engage in pleasurably sexual activity when there is no chance of reproducing--many other animals visibly enjoy intercourse that can lead to procreation.

Because they feel it's a part of them they can't change. Calling it a choice implies they could change a part of them.
I know lots of gay people who feel that their sexuality is part of the essence of their self, and that there is no choice attached to it at all. Which, of course, is exactly how I and many other heteros I know feel about our sexuality.

I also know people who engage in homosexual sex by choice. I am sure their sexuality is also essential to their self and that they never "chose" it.

That doesn't mean there is no room for choice in what we do. A gay person can choose to have hetero sex for sake of producing offspring, just like a hetero person can choose to have gay sex for, oh, any number of reasons.

This explanation seems weak to me, for two reasons.

For one, it reads what is really a particular, socially limited prejudice into a universal human trait. Homophobia as we modernly understand it is largely the product of the dominance of Christianity and Islam, and while non-Abrahamic cultures have hardly been free of various forms of anti-gay prejudice, there are plenty of cases where exclusive homosexuality has been tolerated enough to not necessitate child-bearing. Exclusive homosexuality itself, however, is as best we can tell existent in all human cultures--and, for that matter, in a variety of animal species as well. That hardly suggests an explanation for its persistence that is rooted in the presence of social prejudice.

*shrugs*. I highly doubt that there have been nearly as many exclusively gay(in sexual relations) people as there are today even if it was tolerated enough to exist. Besides the social predjudice there have been strong economic reasons to have reproduce including workers, social safety nets, old age support.

For another, while it is obvious that gay men and lesbians are hardly reproductive dead-ends, it does not follow that they are just as likely as straight people to have children. Even small differences in reproductive fitness are enough to make very large differences in prevalence over long periods of time.

True, which is why I didn't mean for my explanation to be the entire explanation. It probably has something to do with it, but far from the comeplete explanation.

What the Bonobo and the Dolphin? ;)

You did note that I said observable when referring to non-human animals (bonobos are pretty closely related to humans - something like a fraction of a percent genetic difference. It's also noteworthy that animals that have a highly developed intelligence, like dolphins, are more likely to experience observable pleasure in the sex act - also note that bonobos and dolphins indulge in homoerotic behavior).

Quite right--A-SD's claim is absolutely untrue. Bonobos and dolphins engage in pleasurably sexual activity when there is no chance of reproducing--many other animals visibly enjoy intercourse that can lead to procreation.
Many other animals also visibly enjoy sexual behaviors that cannot lead to procreation. After 45 years in this world, paying attention to what goes no around me, I suspect the majority of species enjoy sex -- in their own weird little ways -- and will have sex and also do other things related to sex (like courtship behaviors) solely for some pleasure it brings them.

I know lots of gay people who feel that their sexuality is part of the essence of their self, and that there is no choice attached to it at all. Which, of course, is exactly how I and many other heteros I know feel about our sexuality.

I also know people who engage in homosexual sex by choice. I am sure their sexuality is also essential to their self and that they never "chose" it.

That doesn't mean there is no room for choice in what we do. A gay person can choose to have hetero sex for sake of producing offspring, just like a hetero person can choose to have gay sex for, oh, any number of reasons.

To get a girl of course.

*raises hand of ignorance*

Would that then not make them purely heterosexual or homosexual? If they decided to engage in these activities?

You did note that I said observable when referring to non-human animals (bonobos are pretty closely related to humans - something like a fraction of a percent genetic difference. It's also noteworthy that animals that have a highly developed intelligence, like dolphins, are more likely to experience observable pleasure in the sex act - also note that bonobos and dolphins indulge in homoerotic behavior).
Spend some time in farm country. You'll find that quite a lot is observable.

To get a girl of course.

*raises hand of ignorance*

Would that then not make them purely heterosexual or homosexual? If they decided to engage in these activities?
Not if they don't engage in them exclusively.

If only every 20th meal you eat is just a salad, does that make you exculsively vegetarian?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

I'm not going to read through the beat-down you are going to take on the subjects of homosexuality, evolution, genetics, etc.

You may find this article interesting reading, however: Gender scientists explore a revolution in evolution (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html) (when you read this don't confuse Darwin with modern evolutionary theory, OK?)

The fact is that homosexuality and gender variations can be advantageous to a species. That is why homosexuality and gender variations are widespread in the animal kingdoms. See, e.g., link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6421.php), link (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693965406.html), link (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/283/16/2170).

**back to your regular programming**

Cat-Tribe so SeXy!

Quite right--A-SD's claim is absolutely untrue. Bonobos and dolphins engage in pleasurably sexual activity when there is no chance of reproducing--many other animals visibly enjoy intercourse that can lead to procreation.

I'm sorry I made myself so unclear. I was trying to make a point and skipped over a number of animals of a high order of intelligence in order to make that point. It still stands that most non-human animals do not take observable pleasure in the act. It also stands that there is considerable evidence of homoerotic behavior in animals, even those who do not have a higher order of intelligence.

Many other animals also visibly enjoy sexual behaviors that cannot lead to procreation. After 45 years in this world, paying attention to what goes no around me, I suspect the majority of species enjoy sex -- in their own weird little ways -- and will have sex and also do other things related to sex (like courtship behaviors) solely for some pleasure it brings them.

There are a number of models applied to species with even basid cognitive functions. Since pleasure, at least in a biological sense, can be paralleled with "that which an organism feels the urge to experience and repeat" it seems likely that once some creature randomly associated a pleasure response with whatever form of fucking it does, it fucked more. Once it outfucked its competitors over numerous generations, pleasure became naturally associated as an impetus for fucking, even in specimens where, for whatever reason, fucking will not reproduce.

I imagine this is simply a natural correlate to various pain prinicples.

I'm starting to see why you have little patience with some of these folks. They can be painful.

Not if they don't engage in them exclusively.

If only every 20th meal you eat is just a salad, does that make you exculsively vegetarian?

Well no but if they are engaging in them it would be akin to bisexuality then wouldn't it? No longer purely homosexual or heterosexual.

*shrugs*. I highly doubt that there have been nearly as many exclusively gay(in sexual relations) people as there are today even if it was tolerated enough to exist.
What do you base that on?

Besides the social predjudice there have been strong economic reasons to have reproduce including workers, social safety nets, old age support.
For thousands of years, large groups of people (also known as "societies") have banded together in systems of cooperative living (aka, "societies") that have provided such support systems among their members, even though those members may not be related by sexual reproduction.

I'm not going to read through the beat-down you are going to take on the subjects of homosexuality, evolution, genetics, etc.

You may find this article interesting reading, however: Gender scientists explore a revolution in evolution (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html) (when you read this don't confuse Darwin with modern evolutionary theory, OK?)

The fact is that homosexuality and gender variations can be advantageous to a species. That is why homosexuality and gender variations are widespread in the animal kingdoms. See, e.g., link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/6421.php), link (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/27/1090693965406.html), link (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/283/16/2170).

**back to your regular programming**

So, if a troll is somebody who makes an absurdly stupid and provocative post and then runs away, what do we call a guy who bungees in and makes a conceptually targeted and factually supported post?

I say we call that an "elf".

Cat-Tribes, you are a dirty Jew elf.

Well no but if they are engaging in them it would be akin to bisexuality then wouldn't it? No longer purely homosexual or heterosexual.
No, not necessarily. That would be related to why they do it, which is why I included those words about there being more than one possible reason for it.

Many, many species have statistically significant homosexual populations, or populations that indulge in homosexual behavior. While we may not agree on the mechanism by which homosexuality is embedded or created in an individual, I think that simply by dint of its extraordinary commonness we can agree there is at least a significant genetic basis for it.

I am exceedingly interested in primate studies, particularly of bonobos, our closest primate relatives. In bonobos, homosexual interaction is not only common, it's far more common than we usually see in human cultures (there could be many reasons for this). Far from being maladaptive, homosexuality for bonobos is an extremely useful bonding tool that unites males that might otherwise fight for dominance, and females that might otherwise compete for food, to the benefit of the entire group.

Bonobos, unlike chimpanzees, live in very peaceable collective societies, where searching for food, making shelter and raising young are jobs done with everyone's help. This kind of collectivism necessitates close interaction with individuals who would not tolerate each other's presence in chimpanzee society. Homosexual interaction serves as both both a way of bonding individuals to one another and a way of reducing anxiety, stress and aggression. This allows bonobos to live in larger groups that are better able to gather food and protect themselves, increasing the likelihood of any individual's chances of procreating.

*shrugs*. I highly doubt that there have been nearly as many exclusively gay(in sexual relations) people as there are today even if it was tolerated enough to exist.

Well, I'm not aware of any reliable data pre-Kinsey (whose reliability is open to question, too). I do know that a sizable proportion of male sheep prefer other male sheep, 8% according to the article popping up on Google, and obviously social prejudices play no role there.

Certainly it seems to be true (with the "no reliable data" caveat) that non-exclusive homosexual behavior has been much more common in past societies than it is in this one, but I'm not sure how much relevance that has to the topic at hand.

No, not necessarily. That would be related to why they do it, which is why I included those words about there being more than one possible reason for it.

So sexuality of someone is more to do with why they commit an act rather than the acts they commit?

So, if a troll is somebody who makes an absurdly stupid and provocative post and then runs away, what do we call a guy who bungees in and makes a conceptually targeted and factually supported post?

I say we call that an "elf".

Cat-Tribes, you are a dirty Jew elf.
I second the proposal of the new terminology -- without the adjectives.

Many, many species have statistically significant homosexual populations, or populations that indulge in homosexual behavior. While we may not agree on the mechanism by which homosexuality is embedded or created in an individual, I think that simply by dint of its extraordinary commonness we can agree there is at least a significant genetic basis for it.

I am exceedingly interested in primate studies, particularly of bonobos, our closest primate relatives. In bonobos, homosexual interaction is not only common, it's far more common than we usually see in human cultures (there could be many reasons for this). Far from being maladaptive, homosexuality for bonobos is an extremely useful bonding tool that unites males that might otherwise fight for dominance, and females that might otherwise compete for food, to the benefit of the entire group.

Bonobos, unlike chimpanzees, live in very peaceable collective societies, where searching for food, making shelter and raising young are jobs done with everyone's help. This kind of collectivism necessitates close interaction with individuals who would not tolerate each other's presence in chimpanzee society. Homosexual interaction serves as both both a way of bonding individuals to one another and a way of reducing anxiety, stress and aggression. This allows bonobos to live in larger groups that are better able to gather food and protect themselves, increasing the likelihood of any individual's chances of procreating.

[Enter Serious Mode]
You know who mentions Bonobos a lot? Seriously? The local Raelian Bishop. I'm entirely serious here.[/End Serious Mode]

So sexuality of someone is more to do with why they commit an act rather than the acts they commit?
Probably. Maybe. How the hell should I know? Why do you people keep calling me? Get out of my head!!!

I second the proposal of the new terminology -- without the adjectives.

I have no choice. Cat-Tribes is a lawyer. That makes him a Jew.

I'm a law school student. That makes me a...wannaJewbee. I guess.

[Enter Serious Mode]
You know who mentions Bonobos a lot? Seriously? The local Raelian Bishop. I'm entirely serious here.[/End Serious Mode]
Well, now we know what the local Raelian Bishop is into.

Funny, the ad that I just got on the screen said "are you gay?"

Well, now we know what the local Raelian Bishop is into.

There's nothing wrong with some good clean ape lovin'.

...I would love to hear such a sermon to see exactly how bonobos are worked into it.

Funny, the ad that I just got on the screen said "are you gay?"
Jolt knows. ;)

Jolt knows. ;)

Hmmm. Mine says "Is your man gay?".

And Im a guy. If I have a "man", I know hes gay. Unless the Mrs. isnt telling me something...

Well, I'm not aware of any reliable data pre-Kinsey (whose reliability is open to question, too). I do know that a sizable proportion of male sheep prefer other male sheep, 8% according to the article popping up on Google, and obviously social prejudices play no role there.


How does the behavior of sheep reflect on whether humans are exclusively homosexual in their sexual behavior in past societies?

Certainly it seems to be true (with the "no reliable data" caveat) that non-exclusive homosexual behavior has been much more common in past societies than it is in this one, but I'm not sure how much relevance that has to the topic at hand.

Its more of a sub-topic taking a look at the trait of homosexuality in human populations than homosexuality in all sexual species.

How does the behavior of sheep reflect on whether humans are exclusively homosexual in their sexual behavior in past societies?

The original question by the OP was how homosexuality was evolutionarily possible. The example suffices to show that social prejudice cannot be necessary as a precondition, even for levels of prevalence equivalent or higher to those in our society.

It is not a decisive indicator either way as far as the prevalence of exclusive homosexuality in past societies, and was not meant to be.

Mine says "Vienna gay scene".

.....monkeys throwing darts, I swear.

edit: and I got an ad for match.com in the abortion thread. Seriously, what kind of girls do you think I'm looking for? I mean, I like loose women as much as the next guy but...not THAT loose.

Hmmm. Mine says "Is your man gay?".

And Im a guy. If I have a "man", I know hes gay. Unless the Mrs. isnt telling me something...

Mine is just informing me that there is a gay scene in Vienna. Just a gray box with a link and this text, really small and plain:

Vienna homosexual scene
Vienna has a broad gay-lesbian scene! Info here
Not very enticing. The gay scene in Vienna must be boring as hell. And kind of random, too.

I'm seeing gay ebony dating.com

I always get this ad whenever these type of thread come up. Jolt must think I'm black.

Mine says "Vienna gay scene".

.....monkeys throwing darts, I swear.

edit: and I got an ad for match.com in the abortion thread. Seriously, what kind of girls do you think I'm looking for? I mean, I like loose women as much as the next guy but...not THAT loose.
Maybe it's determined by geography. Maybe this is the time of year that all the Bostonians go to Vienna for boring buttsex. I'm guessing.

Now my ad is back to Holy War. Kind of appropriate. ;)

I was getting "Are you gay?" but now it has changed to "Become a police officer!"

I think the ads want me to join the Village People...

I was getting "Are you gay?" but now it has changed to "Become a police officer!"

I think the ads want me to join the Village People...
:D

Jolt is hijacking this thread.

Maybe it's determined by geography. Maybe this is the time of year that all the Bostonians go to Vienna for boring buttsex. I'm guessing.


If you think it's boring, you've never been to Vienna in the winter.

Bring out the Fluggenschieken!

(seriously, I will so make out with whomever gets that...)

(OK, I mean I will so make out with whatever woman gets that...)

If you think it's boring, you've never been to Vienna in the winter.

Bring out the Fluggenschieken!

(seriously, I will so make out with whomever gets that...)

(OK, I mean I will so make out with whatever woman gets that...)

...does it count if I only get it because you've mentioned it to me before? :p

...does it count if I only get it because you've mentioned it to me before? :p

pft, like I needed a reason for YOU

If you think it's boring, you've never been to Vienna in the winter.

Bring out the Fluggenschieken!

(seriously, I will so make out with whomever gets that...)

(OK, I mean I will so make out with whatever woman gets that...)

Too late! The Freud has slipped! Nothing for it now but decades of therapy, my lad. Good thing you're already on your way to Vienna.

The original question by the OP was how homosexuality was evolutionarily possible. The example suffices to show that social prejudice cannot be necessary as a precondition.

And I was limiting myself to human homosexuality and not homosexuality outside in other species. I never claimed in was necessary precondition only that it makes a trait that would normally decrease reproductive fitness less fitness decreasing.

It is not a decisive indicator either way as far as the prevalence of exclusive homosexuality in past societies, and was not meant to be.

Possibly. We haven't been in a society where homosexuality faces so little prejudice that the vast majority of homosexual people are exclusively homosexual for enough generations for the gene pool to be significantly affected and even then gay people would continue to reproduce, if at a much lower rate than heterosexuals on average.

If you think it's boring, you've never been to Vienna in the winter.

Bring out the Fluggenschieken!

(seriously, I will so make out with whomever gets that...)

(OK, I mean I will so make out with whatever woman gets that...)

And to think I was about to tell you that it was from a movie titled Eurotrip IIRC

...does it count if I only get it because you've mentioned it to me before? :p
I don't get it. Guess that means he's breaking up with me now.

You guys are weird. I'm getting "Darkorbit: The Online Game".

I don't get it. Guess that means he's breaking up with me now.

ladies, ladies.

There's PLENTY to go around. I just might...need a nap in between.

You guys are weird. I'm getting "Darkorbit: The Online Game".
Jolt knows. *nods*

Alright, people, cut it the fuck out NOW! No more threadjacking and/or joltwhacking!

The OP made a serious, well thought out post, and has continued to provide sound replies to our responses, be they from me, Muryavets, the Jew Elf...go back and look, there is no excuse for threadjacking because he has repeatedly saliently responded to on topic posts! See, right...uh...right there...over there by the, uh...


Neo Art, if you want some real poposchtuppen, go to Vienna, evidently.

ladies, ladies.

There's PLENTY to go around. I just might...need a nap in between.

Quite slackin, cap'n. You're younger than me, you should have no problem with a double tap sans siesta...just take a Tijuana Red Bull....that's Tequila, Cranberry Juice, viagra, gatorade, uppers, and an unopened condom stuck to the bottom of the glass.

Quite slackin, cap'n. You're younger than me, you should have no problem with a double tap sans siesta...just take a Tijuana Red Bull....that's Tequila, Cranberry Juice, viagra, gatorade, uppers, and an unopened condom stuck to the bottom of the glass.

ooooooh, UNOPENED.

All right, you degenerates, I'm going to bed. You can let yourselves out when you're done. Just don't wake me up. ;)

ooooooh, UNOPENED.

Yeah, something in the uppers degrades the latex, I'm not a chemist, I don't know why.

And you can't re-use them, dude, even in Boston.

All right, you degenerates, I'm going to bed. You can let yourselves out when you're done. Just don't wake me up. ;)

Neo Art can do lots of things to a woman without waking her up. Its case law now.

If we wanted to be clear and accurate in our communications, we would say this is "according to the theory or principles of evolution."

That is, if we wanted to be clear.

For those of us who are not pedants "According to the theory or principles of evolution." IS clear with the text in white left to be understood by the reader.

For those of us who are not pedants "According to the theory or principles of evolution." IS clear with the text in white left to be understood by the reader.

And for those of us who not pendants, "I will hang you from my neck or ear" is vaguely threatening.







Okay, that was pointless, I admit.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

The causes of homosexuality can be biological without being genetic. I've heard it hypothesized that it's from basically a glitch that can happen in any pregnancy, a time during which a lot of things depend on the right levels of hormones being there at the right time. That's why you get homosexual animals and such. Genetics could factor in to how likely this is to happen.

I've also heard it hypothesized that homosexuality in males and homosexuality in females are caused by different biological events and processes that just happen to produce a similar result.

But I'm not a biologist or researcher on the subject. It's still pretty clear to me that one's sexual orientation isn't something one gets to decide. I never 'decided' that I was attracted to females, and likewise, I don't think homosexuals ever 'decided' to be attracted to members of the same sex.

are people saying that evolution and homosexuality cant go hand in hand ??

why on earth cant they not ?

unless of course you assume homosexuality is an aberration or a genetic defect. But then using logic, if that were the case, then homosexuality should have been wiped out long ago. But since we can assume that homosexuality is still around then it means that homosexuality is not a genetic deffect.

Many say that it is due to a gene defect. Why on earth cant it be due to the genetic variation in humans ?

Now what does that say about homosexuality ?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.



is that what evolution says ??

from what I understood from studying it, evolution means

- the maintainance of a healthy and pure gene pool
- the passing of genes from one generation to another


In no way does that mean that all genes in all individuals must be passed on. Evolution mioght mean passing on your genes from one generation to another but it never says that all living organisms need to do it.

Really i think that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Evolution is a theory that shows the progressive development of all organisms on earth.

It is not a theory that demonstrates the sexual activities or thoughts of an organism.

Wheter one passes the genes to the next generation is a moot point in the theory of evolution.

How the passing happens if and when it happens is the issue in evolution.

So in homosexuality, genes cannot be passed on. So, the theory of evolution clearly never even comes into play here as ther is no passing on of genes in the first place.

I hope all the above sounded coherent..


hahaha ...

are people saying that evolution and homosexuality cant go hand in hand ??

The OP suggested they were somehow incompatible. His reasoning was soundly refuted throughout the thread


why on earth cant they not ?

unless of course you assume homosexuality is an aberration or a genetic defect. But then using logic, if that were the case, then homosexuality should have been wiped out long ago. But since we can assume that homosexuality is still around then it means that homosexuality is not a genetic deffect.

Many say that it is due to a gene defect. Why on earth cant it be due to the genetic variation in humans ?

Now what does that say about homosexuality ?

What it was described as was a possible genetic trait. The appelate "disorder" wasn't really asserted that I saw. On this thread, at least, I don't think anyone sought to describe it as a "defect".

Bear in mind, aberrations are not necessarily defects. A beneficial mutation, or the potential for one, is as much the source of viability enhancing traits as the others.

Wheter one passes the genes to the next generation is a moot point in the theory of evolution.

How the passing happens if and when it happens is the issue in evolution.

The passing happens via reproduction, such as meiosis. Whether a particular gene passes and its impact on species viabilities is quite central to evolution.


So in homosexuality, genes cannot be passed on. So, the theory of evolution clearly never even comes into play here as ther is no passing on of genes in the first place.

I hope all the above sounded coherent..


hahaha ...

Gays can and do pass on their genes. Just because are not sexually attracted to the opposite gender doesn't mean they can't still peform the act and conceive. They can and do.

You also ignore the very plausible perpetuance vector of recessive genes, wherein straight people can pass on genes for traits they themselves did not manifest.

The causes of homosexuality can be biological without being genetic. I've heard it hypothesized that it's from basically a glitch that can happen in any pregnancy, a time during which a lot of things depend on the right levels of hormones being there at the right time. That's why you get homosexual animals and such. Genetics could factor in to how likely this is to happen.

I prefer the "sibling" hypothesis. Basicly it boils down to the fact that your siblings share a large part of your genes - which means that if you increase their capacity to have offspring, you promote the spreading of your own genes as well. In the animal kingdom the gay specimens are often "spare caretakers" - which results in exactly that.

According to evolution, natural processes will select for the traits that best allow for the passing on of the genetic material underlying them. There are two elements to this that you miss, however. The first is that a variety of traits will nevertheless arise "accidentally" from the perspective of evolution, independently of their survival merit: some will just be side-effects of evolutionarily useful traits, and some will just arise randomly. The second is that the passing on of genetic material need not occur through reproduction by the individual organism itself. If the organism helps other organisms possessed of similar genetic material, the trait will still prove evolutionarily useful even if that organism itself does not have enhanced reproductive fitness. (This is a common evolutionary explanation for altruism.)


There is an argument that a level of homosexuality within a given population is evolutionarily advantageous, certainly in cases of over-population, since they are less likley to themselves reproduce whilst also being a further adult in the social group who can provide and care for the off-spring of siblings. That the chances of male homosexuality increase with the number of male children a women conceives would lend some support to this hypothesis.

I know lots of gay people who feel that their sexuality is part of the essence of their self, and that there is no choice attached to it at all. Which, of course, is exactly how I and many other heteros I know feel about our sexuality.

I also know people who engage in homosexual sex by choice. I am sure their sexuality is also essential to their self and that they never "chose" it.

That doesn't mean there is no room for choice in what we do. A gay person can choose to have hetero sex for sake of producing offspring, just like a hetero person can choose to have gay sex for, oh, any number of reasons.

I think there may be confusion in people's arguments between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, indicating that an individual is sexually attracted to their own gender, and this is clearly not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice to be attracted to the opposite gender. How we behave based on this sexual attractions is however a choice, although all social factors being equal clearly the orientation and the behaviour are likely to be strongly correlated.

doesn't that make homosexuality unreal?

Yes, many will agree that it's freaking unreaal dude! What's your point?

I prefer the "sibling" hypothesis. Basicly it boils down to the fact that your siblings share a large part of your genes - which means that if you increase their capacity to have offspring, you promote the spreading of your own genes as well. In the animal kingdom the gay specimens are often "spare caretakers" - which results in exactly that.

This is a good hypothesis as well. It works quite well given our evolution as social animals.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.
Yes you are correct, a genetic explanation for homosexually is impossible according the the theory of evolution. that mean's that it is much more likely a social phenomenon and not a genetic disorder.

Yes you are correct, a genetic explanation for homosexually is impossible according the the theory of evolution. that mean's that it is much more likely a social phenomenon and not a genetic disorder.

It's really not, as the past 8-pages have been explaining.

To summarise:
- Recessive genes
- Reproduction by gays/lesbians despite primary orientation
- Sibling hypothesis

For more detail on all of these and more please read the preceding thread. Thank you.

You just can't say that homosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.

You just can't say that homosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.

Here, let's have some fun with this. I offer this counterargument:

You just can't say that heterosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be straight then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being straight or stop being straight in public.

You just can't say that homosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.

This works for other *aflictions* then gayness aswell. For example:
"basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being christian or stop being christian in public."
See what i did there ?...

Maybe people should stop making sexual orientation such a frikkin issue, who cares that Bob likes kissing dudes.


Or that Betty likes to sprout christian claptrap...

For those of us who are not pedants "According to the theory or principles of evolution." IS clear with the text in white left to be understood by the reader.

And for those of us who not pendants, "I will hang you from my neck or ear" is vaguely threatening.







Okay, that was pointless, I admit.
So is Redwulf's criticism. People are bitching at me for picking on that detail as if they're brand new to NSG and have never gotten sucked into a mire of arguing over what terms mean. Yea, verily, denial ain't just a river in Egypt. But if this is the way some people feel about it, then I will be happy to keep mum the next time those people end up in a 3-week dictionary war with some nitwit.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Who says they want attention? All they want is being allowed to get married and to adopt kids, same as anybody else.

Look back some 30 years, and you would probably go on the same rant about blacks... attention-whores going on rallies and demonstrations for their rights. Why can't they just stay quietly at home and be black?

There is an argument that a level of homosexuality within a given population is evolutionarily advantageous, certainly in cases of over-population, since they are less likley to themselves reproduce whilst also being a further adult in the social group who can provide and care for the off-spring of siblings. That the chances of male homosexuality increase with the number of male children a women conceives would lend some support to this hypothesis.



I think there may be confusion in people's arguments between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, indicating that an individual is sexually attracted to their own gender, and this is clearly not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice to be attracted to the opposite gender. How we behave based on this sexual attractions is however a choice, although all social factors being equal clearly the orientation and the behaviour are likely to be strongly correlated.
I agree.

There are so many factors affecting sexuality and sexual behavior, that I think all discussions like this are doomed to fall into incoherence sooner or later. There are lot of reasons for individuals to reproduce and a lot of reasons for individuals not to reproduce. There are a lot of reasons for us to have an impulse towards sex that is not related to reproduction. We still have little to no real understanding of what it is that makes an individual manifest one kind of sexuality rather than another. Etc. None of us is really equipped on NSG to explore this fully enough for it to make sense or get anywhere in the end.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Yeah, how dare they demand equal rights?

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay?
Gay bashers.

Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married?
Civil rights activists.

all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.
Yeah, heh, I don't think so.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

In other words, you don't care if you're gay as long as you don't have any of the same rights as straight people do. Or are you saying straight people shouldn't be able to marry who they want either or adopt children or have visitation rights, life-insurance, inheritance rights and so on.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

... Okay, now you get Forensatha Pissed Mode. You really should have known you were going to get this reaction, don't waste my precious time by bitching about getting it.

Let's stop and examine your fucking statement a few other ways. Here's a few ways it applies historically.

Who is it that always starts the fuss about being black? Who wants all the attention by voting and eating in the same restaurants as whites? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Who is it that always starts the fuss about being Jewish? Who wants all the attention by teaching Judaism and openly displaying your faith? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Who is it that always starts the fuss about being a woman? Who wants all the attention by wanting voting rights and not getting treated like property? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Who is it that always starts the fuss about being Christian? Who wants all the attention by celebrating Christ and performing religious rituals that can be easily confused for symbolic cannibalism? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

In short, what you're arguing is the same piece of shit argument that's been used by some to attempt to sound reasonable while advocating everyone go along with the flow. It's the same god-damned thing that's been used to make discrimination reasonable for centuries.

Tell me, do you like the idea of dressing up in white clothes and burning crosses in the yards of people while calling those people such words as "******" just because they want to be the same as you? Do you enjoy the idea of taking people and gassing them by the millions just because they happen to believe in a certain faith and a few of them happen to be blamed for something that's not even their fucking fault? Do you enjoy taking your wife into your bedroom, raping her, beating her until she can't move, and then smiling because you know she'll never own jack shit? Better yet, do you enjoy the idea of tossing people of a new faith to the lions and cheering as they're ripped to shreds right in front of your eyes? Do you even think any of those things is right?

No? Then why the fuck do you sit there and try to justify disallowing gay couples the same rights as married couples? Yeah, they're not getting treated as badly anymore on the obvious scale... but imagine how heartbreaking it would be if you had a significant other and you couldn't fucking visit them in the hospital because it's immediate family only and you're the wrong sexual orientation. Imagine what it's like to have a group of fucking bigots tell you that the fact you love someone and they disagree with it is a sign that you're damned to suffer for all eternity. Imagine being told that you should stop being who you are and conform to their standard of normality.

And, yes, gay people are killed, even today, simply because they're gay, even in the United States. And you have no idea how many stories I've heard about them being beaten, raped, or worse simply because of the fact they prefer people of the same sex. And the best part is? They get to enjoy hearing people like you tell them "you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain."

Honestly, you know why they organize those parades? Why they talk and fight so hard? Because everyone before them did it, and they're wondering why they have to be less equal than others.

Or, if you want, we can go back to the days when Christians had to worry about whether or not they were going to be a lion's lunch. After all, if we're going to say one type of discrimination is okay, then why not all of them?

Well I'm impressed. you sure know how to put it. exept when you said that I like the KKK, Hitler,sexism and ancient Roman games. you should learn to control your emotions when having a discussion. now you sound like a child how doesn't get his treat. Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.

Well I'm impressed. you sure know how to put it.

In real life, I'm nicknamed Triune the Dragon. I'll give you three guesses as to why.

exept when you said that I like the KKK, Hitler,sexism and ancient Roman games.

Prove it. I want you to actually go through my post and prove this little allegation. Because, trust me, if I were going to accuse you like that, the mods would have every reason to consider whether or not the resulting ban would be permanent.

you should learn to control your emotions when having a discussion. now you sound like a child how doesn't get his treat.

And the best you can do is an ad hominem. Trying to bait me into actually flaming you, eh?

As for controlling my emotions: Trust me, if they were not being controlled, you would have heard a lot worse.

Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.

Which is not what you have said at any point before this. Nice try in trying to change tactics. Also, I want you to prove that one as well.

Now, have you got any more trolling to do?

Well I'm impressed. you sure know how to put it. exept when you said that I like the KKK, Hitler,sexism and ancient Roman games. you should learn to control your emotions when having a discussion. now you sound like a child how doesn't get his treat. Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.
No, it doesn't mean you are racist. It means you are a homophobe. That's a different kind of bigot.

Also, do try to respond to the arguments that were actually posted. Forensatha did not tell you that you like those bigoted things. He ASKED you if you did, and then gave you the benefit of the doubt that you do not. He did it like this: "Do you like XYZ? No? Then why are you advocating XYZ for <name of group>?" So, no, he is not the one reacting in a childish manner.

Also, why are you daring to criticize his statements at all? You yourself said it -- you come into this thread, see what has been written here -- you should have known you'd get a reaction like this. But you went ahead and posted your views anyway, knowing you'd get this reaction, so you have no business complaining about it.

Or is this just part of your double standard -- holding others to rules that you don't follow yourself? There's a word for that.

Well I'm impressed. you sure know how to put it. exept when you said that I like the KKK, Hitler,sexism and ancient Roman games. you should learn to control your emotions when having a discussion. now you sound like a child how doesn't get his treat. Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.

Really? Not too long ago, people argued that a child being raised by mixed couples (as in one white, one black, or yellow, or purple or whatever) won't grow up normally. It's the exact same mindset as the one you are displaying right now.
Sure, since you grew up with the notion that mixed marriages are normal and that blacks and whites have the same rights, that's all normal to you now, so you're not a racist.

But since you didn't grow up with homosexual couples being regarded as normal, you happily wallow in homophobia.

Same thing, just a different flavour.

Really? Not too long ago, people argued that a child being raised by mixed couples (as in one white, one black, or yellow, or purple or whatever) won't grow up normally. It's the exact same mindset as the one you are displaying right now.
Sure, since you grew up with the notion that mixed marriages are normal and that blacks and whites have the same rights, that's all normal to you now, so you're not a racist.

But since you didn't grow up with homosexual couples being regarded as normal, you happily wallow in homophobia.

Same thing, just a different flavour.

You know what no one talks about? Children being raised by people of two different countries with different languages. How can a kid possibly grow up normally when s/he's hearing different languages all the time? How will s/he know which one is right?

You just can't say that homosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.Gee, I bet people said the same thing about blacks back in the day, and if they'd have listened, they'd still be moving to the back of the bus if a white person felt like getting on.

You know what no one talks about? Children being raised by people of two different countries with different languages. How can a kid possibly grow up normally when s/he's hearing different languages all the time? How will s/he know which one is right?Obviously German.

Some scientists claim that homosexuality is having some advantages for evolution. While homosexuals in general do not reproduce (some homosexuals do have children anyway) they could nurse their nephews and nieces and thus enlarge their chances of surviving.

First of all, yes I knew I would get a reaction on my opinion(s), in fact it was one of the reasons I posted them in the first place.
Second, I believe in what I say not because I' a homophobe but because it's what I think is right. (homosexuals don't scare me, they irritate me. a bit of a difference I believe)
Third, just because I never mentioned one ergument before doesn't make it untrue.
and finally if you want me to prove everything I say, why don't you do first?

finally, if you don't think your post was emotionaly loaded, read it again and think again.
(btw I'm having a lot of fun argumenting with you all, so thank you)

Well I'm impressed. you sure know how to put it. exept when you said that I like the KKK, Hitler,sexism and ancient Roman games. you should learn to control your emotions when having a discussion. now you sound like a child how doesn't get his treat. Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.

It's just a belief. There are zillions of children raised by homosexuals. And there are no signs that they all become stupid, criminals, US presidents or whatever.

And no, those children do not become, 'automatically', homosexual.

First of all, yes I knew I would get a reaction on my opinion(s), in fact it was one of the reasons I posted them in the first place.
Second, I believe in what I say not because I' a homophobe but because it's what I think is right. (homosexuals don't scare me, they irritate me. a bit of a difference I believe)
Third, just because I never mentioned one ergument before doesn't make it untrue.
and finally if you want me to prove everything I say, why don't you do first?

finally, if you don't think your post was emotionaly loaded, read it again and think again.
(btw I'm having a lot of fun argumenting with you all, so thank you)

Well, what do assumptions do you base your opinion of what's right and what isn't on? Any kind of hard facts, data, statistics about children raised by gays? Or just that gut feeling that gay=icky and is therefore wrong?

And that reply wasn't emotionally loaded. It used what's called "sarcasm" and "comparisons". Any emotions to be found must be your own.


Oh, and if you make a statement, it's up to YOU to back it up. Not up to us to disprove it.

IMHO, homosexuals can be nice parents. I even think that they make better parents.

First of all, they really want the child.
Secondly, the entire neighborhood is watching them.

For the record, I'm hetero.

First of all, yes I knew I would get a reaction on my opinion(s), in fact it was one of the reasons I posted them in the first place.
Second, I believe in what I say not because I' a homophobe but because it's what I think is right. (homosexuals don't scare me, they irritate me. a bit of a difference I believe)
Third, just because I never mentioned one ergument before doesn't make it untrue.
and finally if you want me to prove everything I say, why don't you do first?

finally, if you don't think your post was emotionaly loaded, read it again and think again.
(btw I'm having a lot of fun argumenting with you all, so thank you)
1) I think about everything I write, before I post it.

2) "Homophobia" is an odd word in that it doesn't really mean fear -- kind of a misuse of "-phobia", but I didn't make it up. Anyway, it is the current name for prejudice specifically directed at homosexuals, and your argument qualifies as that. So... homophobe, then.

3) I do not dispute that your argument is what you think. I am stating that your thoughts on this subject are homophobic.

4) Your statement that gays merely irritate you only takes even more credibility away from your argument. Your personal feelings of irritation are of interest to nobody but you, and do not form the basis for anything that should guide the thoughts of others. You started out by saying it was wrong to think that homosexuality is normal. Now you indicate that the only reason you think that is because you personally find gays irritating. Sorry, friend, but I do not accept you as the universal measure of "normal" or "okay," so your irritation factor says nothing about how homosexuals fit into society. Since they don't irritate me, I'll carry on thinking they are normal and okay, thanks.

I post first and then think about the subject. :)

1) your looking at evolution in the wrong way, its too narrow, the idea is that evolution happens because organisms and animals that have a disadvantage genetically, like being really brightly coloured so all your preditors can see you are slowly killed off over many generations thus leaving only the organisms that have an "advantage" (in this case duller clours so they can hide more easily from preditors). OR that the strongest and most able oganisms/animals survive as they are more able to find food, or kill food, ect. thus killing off the weaker less able organisms as they are less successful in this respect.

2) your looking at evolution from a "sex for reproduction" point of view rather than what its really about. Evolution doesn't mean the only meaning of life is to pass on your genes, it is simply a way of progressing the species to a higher and more complex level of life. There is an argument that sexual attraction is also a tool of evolution (for example GENERALLY a healthy, well built man would be seen as better looking than one that was ill and weak), however this is purely on a superficial level. The main tool of evolution is as explained above.

3) Lets just say being gay is natural (I know for a fact some people on here don't think it is but lets just say it is), there is actually evidence that having homosexual memebers in the species is actually an evolutionary ADVANTAGE, because there is less aggression WITHIN the sexes, meaning less intra-species tension meaning less war among ourselves, meaning less needless death. This is of course a debateable characteristic of humans but even then in ancient times there were even entire battalions of "gay soilders" in (I think) some of the Greek armies, who were feared because of their ferocity,and the were ferocious because of the fact they didn't want to be dishonoured in front of their lovers (like any human would) but thats a bit off point, what I'm saying is that its an evolutionary advantage, most successful mammal species have gay members (most apes, monkeys, horses, penguins, dolphins, dogs, cats, bovine species), thus meaning it can't be all that much of a disadvantage to have 10 to 20% of the population solely having sex with the same sex.

My basic point is that evolution exists but you can't narrow it down to individuals, it is a phenominon experienced by the species as a whole, the fact some people only have sex that can't possibly lead to reproduction, doesn't really effect evolution at all, for example if someone was celebut their entire life then thats not going to destroy the process of evolution no matter how good or bad his or her genes are.

Or is this just part of your double standard -- holding others to rules that you don't follow yourself? There's a word for that.

OOOOH OOOH I know a hypocrite.

There is also a large number of the scientific community that argues that humans have reached a level that is so advanced that they have completely lifted themselves out of the evolutionary process, in that it doesn't matter if your physically weak as a human because it would never mean that you're going to die because we dont have to forage for food we dont have to kill our food, we dont have any real preditors and even the least intellegent human being is more intellegent than any other animal. Thus evolution is not as important to us as a species than it is to say butterflies.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.

According to one of my psych textbooks, most psychologists agree that homosexuality is due to a mixture of genetic, hormonal and environmental effects. Like most other traits, it's neither purely genetic nor environmental.
As a genetic trait, it's intuitive to think it doesnt make evolutional sense but as you know sometimes things arent how they seem:

From Fox:


Study: 'Gay' Genes May Make Females More Fertile

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average.

The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368541,00.html

If you have fox allergy:


How homosexuality is 'inherited'

Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.

Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.

This would keep the pattern of gay inheritance alive, they told the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal.

Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.

Inheritance theory

There is controversy about whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, the authors of the study admitted to the journal.

Campaigners say equality for homosexual people is the more important issue.

Back in 1993, US researchers suggested male homosexuality was passed from mother to son after they found strong patterns of inheritance in family trees.

It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers.

Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.

Scientists doing DNA studies on homosexual brothers pinpointed 'culprit' genetic material to a region of the X chromosome that mothers pass on to their offspring.

But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.

Highly fertile

Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.

"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.

They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.

The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.

This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.

In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.


The researchers believe the homosexuality-increased fertility trait must be passed down on the female X chromosome.

They pointed out that this would not explain the majority (80%) of cases, and that cultural factors might be important.

Bigger picture

"It is clear that our findings, if confirmed by further research, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality," they said.

In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.

It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."

It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.

Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.

"It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.

"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

Sorry if these were posted b4, I didnt read most of the thread...

According to one of my psych textbooks, most psychologists agree that homosexuality is due to a mixture of genetic, hormonal and environmental effects. Like most other traits, it's neither purely genetic nor environmental.
As a genetic trait, it's intuitive to think it doesnt make evolutional sense but as you know sometimes things arent how they seem:

From Fox:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368541,00.html

If you have fox allergy:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

Sorry if these were posted b4, I didnt read most of the thread...
Great info, thanks. This is pretty much what I had in mind when I said, earlier, that we can't really know whether any given gene is going to turn out to be "good, bad or indifferent" for the species, meaning that we don't really know how the interplay of genetic coding works out overall.

There is also a large number of the scientific community that argues that humans have reached a level that is so advanced that they have completely lifted themselves out of the evolutionary process, in that it doesn't matter if your physically weak as a human because it would never mean that you're going to die because we dont have to forage for food we dont have to kill our food, we dont have any real preditors and even the least intellegent human being is more intellegent than any other animal. Thus evolution is not as important to us as a species than it is to say butterflies.

Who says that?


Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says

John Roach
for National Geographic News
December 11, 2007

Explosive population growth is driving human evolution to speed up around the world, according to a new study.

The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says.
....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

First of all, yes I knew I would get a reaction on my opinion(s), in fact it was one of the reasons I posted them in the first place.

So you admit to trolling. Good to know.

Second, I believe in what I say not because I' a homophobe but because it's what I think is right. (homosexuals don't scare me, they irritate me. a bit of a difference I believe)

So you're someone who reasoned it out and based, on pure reasoning, that it's okay to discriminate against people and tell them they're lesser than you simply because you believe they are lesser?

This is sounding a lot like a case for reintroducing Christians to lion pits.

Third, just because I never mentioned one ergument before doesn't make it untrue.

How about the fact you have no evidence for it and can't even be bothered to provide some when asked? Oh, wait, I can provide evidence that you're a liar.

You just can't say that homosexuality is perfectly normal and has to be accepted. I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this. My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'. it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you! basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.

I see what you both mean. (my opinion is based on what I see in MY country so it is possible that we all witness diferent things)
But think about this: Who is it that always starts the fuss about being gay? Who wants all the attention by adopting kids and getting married? all I'm trying to say is that when you do things like that you KNOW that yo're gonna get a reaction. so when you do, don't complain.

Those are your own posts, and my proof that you're lying.

So, which is it? Is it because they're not normal, because their children are not normal when raised by them, or because of your beliefs? Or is it some mysterious fourth position that you've not mentioned yet but must be the truth since we haven't torn it to shreds yet?

and finally if you want me to prove everything I say, why don't you do first?

Standard troll response when asked for proof. "You asked for proof, so prove it first!" We both know you'll make every effort to focus entirely on every bit of proof I give while giving none of your own. You have nothing but your own claims and your own beliefs, and the second you've been openly dishonest about.

finally, if you don't think your post was emotionaly loaded, read it again and think again.

Emotionally loaded != emotions out of control.

Anyway, you bore me. Come back when you're up to the task of actually arguing your stance effectively.

OOOOH OOOH I know a hypocrite.
Correct. Have a cookie.
http://www.cookiemadness.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/giant-cookie.jpg

And another for spelling it right. :D
http://www.cookiemadness.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/giant-cookie.jpg

Great info, thanks. This is pretty much what I had in mind when I said, earlier, that we can't really know whether any given gene is going to turn out to be "good, bad or indifferent" for the species, meaning that we don't really know how the interplay of genetic coding works out overall.

Yes and there are xtian fundie types who are nervous about these kinda research for obvious reasons. And then there are gays and leftie types who are nervous as well cause they think "gay gene" may be eliminated by doctors in future. But as u said, we dunno how things are gonna turn out. Even if there is a gay gene which could be eliminated (more likely its more than 1 gene which are involved in other functions), it may cause negative "chain reactions".

Both groups are being irrational, IMO.

Yes and there are xtian fundie types who are nervous about these kinda research for obvious reasons. And then there are gays and leftie types who are nervous as well cause they think "gay gene" may be eliminated by doctors in future. But as u said, we dunno how things are gonna turn out. Even if there is a gay gene which could be eliminated (more likely its more than 1 gene which are involved in other functions), it may cause negative "chain reactions".

Both groups are being irrational, IMO.
Agreed. And I also agree with the last line of what you quoted where it says that what's really important is equal rights. It's nice to gain information, but when it comes down to it, why different kinds of people exist does not matter at all to how they should be treated by others.

Agreed. And I also agree with the last line of what you quoted where it says that what's really important is equal rights. It's nice to gain information, but when it comes down to it, why different kinds of people exist does not matter at all to how they should be treated by others.

Yes, I'm amazed that 5-10% of the population does not have equal rights in even 21st century Western democracies. Of course, it's not perfect in Canada but at least everyone has full rights...

And then there are gays and leftie types who are nervous as well cause they think "gay gene" may be eliminated by doctors in future.

Which of course is an important point of dicussion.

Suppose the "anti-gayness medicine" exists right now. Should we use it ?
Is "being gay" something that is an undesireable condition in society ?

Sure - it is abnormal. But so is being lefthanded. So is having superior intelligence. So is being courageous.
Should we eradicate those traits as well ? Perhaps even hire a handicapper general ;) ?

Yes, I'm amazed that 5-10% of the population does not have equal rights in even 21st century Western democracies. Of course, it's not perfect in Canada but at least everyone has full rights...

Agree, it's sad. The situation for most European countries is about the same as in Canada.

Yes, I'm amazed that 5-10% of the population does not have equal rights in even 21st century Western democracies. Of course, it's not perfect in Canada but at least everyone has full rights...

Actually, they do have equal rights. Heterosexuals cannot marry a person of their own sex either...

Which of course is an important point of dicussion.

Suppose the "anti-gayness medicine" exists right now. Should we use it ?
Is "being gay" something that is an undesireable condition in society ?

Sure - it is abnormal. But so is being lefthanded or having superior intelligence. Should we eradicate those traits as well ? Perhaps even hire a handicapper general ;) ?

If there will be an anti-gayness medicine, maybe there would be an anti-homophobe or anti-christian or anti-str8 or anti-whatever drugs as well. Maybe there would be a grow a third leg drug or turn yourself into a zombie drug or a drug which combines both.

I think these points are mostly irrelevant anyway cause I belive by the time we progress a lot in genetic technologies, we'll be much more mature societies...

Actually, they do have equal rights. Heterosexuals cannot marry a person of their own sex either...

oh don't get me started on that shit.

If there will be an anti-gayness medicine, maybe there would be an anti-homophobe or anti-christian or anti-str8 or anti-whatever drugs as well. Maybe there would be a grow a third leg drug or turn yourself into a zombie drug or a drug which combines both.

I, for one, welcome our new 3 legged zombie overlords.

Actually, they do have equal rights. Heterosexuals cannot marry a person of their own sex either...

If they wanna marry a person of their own sex, are they heterosexuals? Sounds like they need a dictionary first.

I, for one, welcome our new 3 legged zombie overlords.

Just wait until the run-like-a-girl-in-a-3rd-rate-horror-movie drug comes out.

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

Emphasis mine.

What does this have to do with anything? You realize, of course, that homosexuals aren't the only ones who can engage in anal intercourse, right?

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?

No, they are saying that abnormal and bad are not the same. Being a genius is abnormal. Being lefthanded is abnormal.


you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?

You think straight people don't ? How old are you ?

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

I should hope you're not so isolated and insulated from reality as to not realize that heterosexuals can, and frequently do, engage in anal sex.

To argue otherwise would either show deliberate dishonesty or a thorough lack of adequate information with regard to sexual practices here in this country.

Besides, how exactly do lesbians "f*ck each others arse", as you so "eloquently" put it?

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?

Not any more abnormal than being incredibly intelligent is. And it shouldn't be discriminated against, either.

you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?

I know more straight people who practice that than gay and bi people combined. Also, I don't see your point in including this.

Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

I'll respect your position when you present one that is respectful. What you've presented is a position that is bigotted and dishonest. And I've already proven the dishonest accusation.

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

I really wish right now that a certain word wasn't censored in my post where I went off on you. Then you'd have the answer to that.

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
Yep.

you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Yep.

Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...
Your argument gets the respect it deserves.

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)
And are you now attempting to suggest that we are not being honest?

I should hope you're not so isolated and insulated from reality as to not realize that heterosexuals can, and frequently do, engage in anal sex.

To argue otherwise would either show deliberate dishonesty or a thorough lack of adequate information with regard to sexual practices here in this country.

Besides, how exactly do lesbians "f*ck each others arse", as you so "eloquently" put it?
I believe there are tools for that. And of course, there's always nature's first, last and best tool.

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

Spoken like a true n00b!:rolleyes:

I'm so disappointed -- based on the title, I thought this was a Thunderdome-style elimination match for annoyingly repetitive topics. "Two topics enter, one topic leaves!" "The winner of this match will take on the winner of Abortion vs. Global Warming...."

Sadly, no.

[begin pedantry]Bonobo society in the wild has not been extensively studied, but what observations there are suggest a more violent and hierarchic social structure than what has been observed in zoos. While they're still thought to be less violent than their chimpanzee cousins, they are not, despite their popular image, God's Li'l Angels of Humping and Tolerance.[end pedantry]

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

I f*ck trolls in the morning.

I f*ck trolls in the morning.

Do you also f*ck them in the evening?

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.


Homosexuals CAN reproduce, outside of their own sexual relationships. Science and logic have kind of beat evolution.



Now I have a question for those who might know the answer:
There is, at least to my knowledge, no proof that homosexuality can be passed on from a parent to a child, so wouldn't it be hard for homosexuality to be genetic?

But someone else said it was a recessive trait, so that assumes that it can be passed on, right?

So what is the story here? Does something have to be passed on to be considered a genetic trait?

I admit , I am not very smart about genetics, although it interests me.

Now I have a question for those who might know the answer:
There is, at least to my knowledge, no proof that homosexuality can be passed on from a parent to a child, so wouldn't it be hard for homosexuality to be genetic?

Not per se. As said, siblings share *a lot* of genes with eachother.
Of course, that would suggest that some families will produce more homosexuals than others. Unfortunately there is no reliable data on that concerning humans due to the stigma.

I am uncertain if there exist such studies concerning the animal kingdom. I assume there are - anyone have any sources ?

First of all, yes I knew I would get a reaction on my opinion(s), in fact it was one of the reasons I posted them in the first place.Go on.
Second, I believe in what I say not because I' a homophobe but because it's what I think is right. (homosexuals don't scare me, they irritate me. a bit of a difference I believe) Hydrophobic lipids aren't called that because they're "scared" of water.
Third, just because I never mentioned one ergument before doesn't make it untrue.
and finally if you want me to prove everything I say, why don't you do first? Prove what? Call us on it when we make claims.
finally, if you don't think your post was emotionaly loaded, read it again and think again.
(btw I'm having a lot of fun argumenting with you all, so thank you)Welcome.

Do you also f*ck them in the evening?

I prefer them fresh

Now I have a question for those who might know the answer:
There is, at least to my knowledge, no proof that homosexuality can be passed on from a parent to a child, so wouldn't it be hard for homosexuality to be genetic?

But someone else said it was a recessive trait, so that assumes that it can be passed on, right?

So what is the story here? Does something have to be passed on to be considered a genetic trait?

I admit , I am not very smart about genetics, although it interests me.
I don't know about genetics outside of how they affect me. However, the gene that causes my celiac disease was passed down from my great grandparents (who didn't have celiac) to my grandfather (celiac) to my mother (not celiac) to me (celiac) to my daughters (celiac) and on my father's side from my grand father (not celiac) to my father (not celiac) to my half sisters (not celiac) and me (celiac) and to my nephews (not celiac) and to one of their sons (celiac).

It passes whether it affects you or not.

Something is wondering me.

I know they did some research with identical twins that are separated by birth.

It turned out, that when one is homosexual, that there's 80% chance that the other twin is homosexual as well.

Why not 100%? After all they are genetic the same, no?

Something is wondering me.

I know they did some research with identical twins that are separated by birth.

It turned out, that when one is homosexual, that there's 80% chance that the other twin is homosexual as well.

Why not 100%? After all they are genetic the same, no?

One of them is in denial!!!!

One of them is in denial!!!!

hehe :)

Something is wondering me.

I know they did some research with identical twins that are separated by birth.

It turned out, that when one is homosexual, that there's 80% chance that the other twin is homosexual as well.

Why not 100%? After all they are genetic the same, no?

As far as I know, most inherited traits aren't expressed as simple on/off toggles like Mendel's pea plants. (This is, I believe, why everybody forgot about Mendel until he was rediscovered in the 20th century.) For example, it's pretty well accepted that certain mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, but there's no single variant that guarantees you'll get breast cancer. This lack of a 100% clear connection doesn't mean that genetics is hokum, but it does mean that a lot of traits are the result of a particular set of genes interacting with a particular environment.

It's not 80% but 50%.
For fraternal twins it's 20%.
Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

Still, why not 100%? They are genetic the same. I understand that not all and everything is the same. It could be that one become a criminal and the other president of the USA. But for homosexuality, many people tell it's genetic driven....

As far as I know, most inherited traits aren't expressed as simple on/off toggles like Mendel's pea plants. (This is, I believe, why everybody forgot about Mendel until he was rediscovered in the 20th century.) For example, it's pretty well accepted that certain mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, but there's no single variant that guarantees you'll get breast cancer. This lack of a 100% clear connection doesn't mean that genetics is hokum, but it does mean that a lot of traits are the result of a particular set of genes interacting with a particular environment.

So if understood you well... Anyone can be gay-ready at birth and due circumstances it's triggered?

It's not 80% but 50%.
For fraternal twins it's 20%.
Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

Still, why not 100%? They are genetic the same. I understand that not all and everything is the same. It could be that one become a criminal and the other president of the USA. But for homosexuality, many people tell it's genetic driven....

Perhaps it's because of a similar reason as to why identical twins have different finger-prints.

Something is wondering me.

I know they did some research with identical twins that are separated by birth.

It turned out, that when one is homosexual, that there's 80% chance that the other twin is homosexual as well.

Why not 100%? After all they are genetic the same, no?

Well, only if homosexuality is actually 100% genetic, which is doubtful, seeing as almost nothing is 100% genetic. Go talk to some identical twins, and you'll find that they not infrequently grow to different heights, have different-sounding voices, are of differing levels of intelligence, have different talents, enjoy different activities, have vastly different personalities (hence the trope of the "evil twin"), and so on and so forth. Environment matters, from the very moment of conception - there's some evidence out there now that homosexuality might be "triggered" in part by hormone levels in utero - and it matters in ways a good deal more subtle than we have much understanding of as yet. The fact that twin studies give the sort of odds they do is very strong evidence that homosexuality is largely genetic, though, certainly.

So if understood you well... Anyone can be gay-ready at birth and due circumstances it's triggered?

Not anyone. The twin studies you referenced suggest that there's a pretty big genetic component to homosexuality -- that's the simplest explanation for the differences between identical and fraternal twins. That said, it's also clear that homosexuality/heterosexuality isn't simply a toggle-switch trait, where if you have the gene variant you'll have the trait. It's probable that like, say, left-handedness, there are environmental factors as well. (And like left-handedness, those environmental factors aren't likely to be the obvious ones. Left-handedness has a genetic component, but it has also been linked to an increased level of the mother's testosterone at a particular stage of fetal development. For all we know, homosexuality may be linked to sunlight exposure at age 2 or some other totally random environmental factor.)

Well, only if homosexuality is actually 100% genetic, which is doubtful, seeing as almost nothing is 100% genetic. Go talk to some identical twins, and you'll find that they not infrequently grow to different heights, have different-sounding voices, are of differing levels of intelligence, have different talents, enjoy different activities, have vastly different personalities (hence the trope of the "evil twin"), and so on and so forth. Environment matters, from the very moment of conception - there's some evidence out there now that homosexuality might be "triggered" in part by hormone levels in utero - and it matters in ways a good deal more subtle than we have much understanding of as yet. The fact that twin studies give the sort of odds they do is very strong evidence that homosexuality is largely genetic, though, certainly.

And the chaotic good twin. ;)

It's not 80% but 50%.
For fraternal twins it's 20%.
Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

Still, why not 100%? They are genetic the same. I understand that not all and everything is the same. It could be that one become a criminal and the other president of the USA. But for homosexuality, many people tell it's genetic driven....

Because homosexuality is NOT purely genetic. Most traits arent purely genetic. Lets say you have the "tallness genes". But you had a really bad diet in childhood so you ended up medium height despite your "tallness genes"

And also there are no definate answers. Its still under research.

Well, only if homosexuality is actually 100% genetic, which is doubtful, seeing as almost nothing is 100% genetic. Go talk to some identical twins, and you'll find that they not infrequently grow to different heights, have different-sounding voices, are of differing levels of intelligence, have different talents, enjoy different activities, have vastly different personalities (hence the trope of the "evil twin"), and so on and so forth. Environment matters, from the very moment of conception - there's some evidence out there now that homosexuality might be "triggered" in part by hormone levels in utero - and it matters in ways a good deal more subtle than we have much understanding of as yet. The fact that twin studies give the sort of odds they do is very strong evidence that homosexuality is largely genetic, though, certainly.

No actually identical twins are pretty similar even if they are reared apart (adoption) so they are among the fav test subjects of psychology.

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

Was this 2 me?

Agree, it's sad. The situation for most European countries is about the same as in Canada.

Only Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain have gay marriage so, not true. Eastern Europe tends to be pretty homophobic, IMO.

I f*ck trolls in the morning.

So you fuck these, eh?

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

As long as you and the trolls are consenting adults, whatever rocks your boat....:D

Just because I believe that a child won't grow up normally when raised by two men or two women, doesn't mean that I'm a rascist.

True. It does mean that you're a homophobe, though--at least considering the fact that we have extensive, widely-available evidence indicating the exact opposite.

I believe that it is good for the commun sense of any nation that there are people who protest against this.

You believe wrong, since opposition to homosexuality is fairly obviously absurd.

My opinion is this: If you really want to be accepted AND be gay then stop organising parades and cruises for just 'your kind of people'.

If this were true, there would be no "parades and cruises", because there would have been no social marginalization in the first place. No, these events happen precisely because society does not accept homosexuality. They are not the cause of prejudice but its result, at least in a society tolerant enough that such open displays are not outrightly prohibited.

The evidence here is clear: the places least tolerant of homosexuality have neither gay parades nor gay cruises.

it is not sociaty who makes you different it is you!

The difference is there. The question is how people deal with it.

It is inherently homophobic to suggest that gays assimilate as the price for equality. Do not arrogantly suppose that everyone else should live and behave just the way you do.

basicly if you want people to stop comment you, then either stop being gay or stop being gay in public.

How ridiculously discriminatory of you. In all likelihood you would never suggest that straight people stop being straight "in public"--you would not object to a straight man speaking of his girlfriend, or a straight couple engaged in tasteful gestures of affection. Yet as far as you are concerned same-sex attraction must remain perpetually hidden. Why?

Because homosexuality is NOT purely genetic.

Exactly. Even the evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality that people sometimes cite--like the differences in brain structure--tend to be based on averages, not universals.

There is genetic influence, but it is probably not the be-all and end-all of the matter.

There is also a large number of the scientific community that argues that humans have reached a level that is so advanced that they have completely lifted themselves out of the evolutionary process, in that it doesn't matter if your physically weak as a human because it would never mean that you're going to die because we dont have to forage for food we dont have to kill our food, we dont have any real preditors and even the least intellegent human being is more intellegent than any other animal. Thus evolution is not as important to us as a species than it is to say butterflies.

this is, of course, stupid.

mutation happens regardless and not all phenotypes are equally reproductively successful. therefore, evolution. add to that the fact that we have a much larger effective population size than ever before, and thus much greater numbers of new mutations each generation, which means a higher number of beneficial mutations (obviously), and therefore evolutionary theory predicts we should be experiencing higher rates of evolution now than we did before.

the idea that there are no selective pressures anymore is ridiculous on its face. pressures change, but they always exist.

No actually identical twins are pretty similar even if they are reared apart (adoption) so they are among the fav test subjects of psychology.

They are quite similar, but I think Poli was trying to point out that even twins can have their differences. A recent study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4RV1K19-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F03%2F2008&_alid=810339670&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=43612&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=52&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d809af0f524ddf0d2a9597de946deb44) challenged the idea that twins have identical genetic profiles. The study showed that twins often exhibit forms of mosaicism, thus they are not genetically identical. Other studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05gene.html) have shown that there are also epigenetic differences. These differences begin to show subtly over time and become more apparent as the twins age. Physical differences in twins can start in the womb, infants who suffer from TTTS (Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome) (http://www.tttsfoundation.org/) are often smaller as adults. Psychologically they may be similar, but more than likely they will not be exactly the same. The Minnesota Twin Reared-Separately Study, where a lot of the information on "twins-reared separately" comes from, has recently come under heavy criticism from the scientific community. A study by the California School of Professional Psychology said that:

Most cases of "separated" identical twins in the literature suffer from one or more of the following problems: The twins were separated only after having been raised together for several years, they were raised by different members of the same family, they were placed into families correlated for socioeconomic status, they were aware of each other's existence and had frequent contact during much of their lives, they were brought to the attention of researchers on the basis of their similarity or knowledge of each other's existence, the material used to evaluate the similarities of twins was collected by the same researchers, and personality and environmental similarities were not assessed by blinded raters. In Farber's 1981 review of the 121 cases of separated MZ (monozygotic) twins reported to that point, she found only 3 cases in which the twins were separated during the first year of life, were reared with no knowledge that they had a twin, and were seen at the time of their first meeting.

The article summarizes the MISTRA study well, saying:

If the MISTRA research philosophy could be captured in one statement, it would be, "Everything can be quantified," but this is certainly an illusion. As David Rosenthal once observed about schizophrenia researchers, "One can divide the investigators in the field into two main types: those who like to look at numbers and those who like to look at patients. The former tend to be hereditarians, the latter environmentalists." This observation is also relevant to investigations looking into human behavioral and personality differences.

The MISTRA study has serious flaws and though I tried to find a direct link to to the Separated twins and the genetics of personality differences: A critique article, I was unable to. The only way I have access to it is through my hospital login, but university libraries might have it.

Also, the "Jack and Oskar" twins (Nazi vs. Jew) story, which is so often cited as a perfect example of twins reared in vastly different environments, is completely contrived. Both Jack and Oskar had been in contact with each other for more than 25 years and were recruited by an LA filmmaker (which is why they met) who told them to exaggerate their similarities. Just an interesting bit of "FYI."

And to stay more on-topic, studies show (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm) that homosexuality favours certain genetic factors (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8332896?dopt=Abstract), but not that there is necessarily a "gay gene (http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html)." There have also been neurological/physiological differences (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219?dopt=Abstract) found in homosexual men vs. heterosexual men.

And the chaotic good twin. ;)

"Nale, stop hitting your twin brother on his soft undeveloped baby skull!" :tongue:

*snip*

Yay for being less lazy than me and actually finding sources to make my point more effectively! (And for being all doctory so you can explain things better, anyway.) :)

Yay for being less lazy than me and actually finding sources to make my point more effectively! (And for being all doctory so you can explain things better, anyway.) :)

I think all those years of medical school forced me out of laziness and into productiveness. Boohiss.

By the laws of nature, A Man and a Man cannot reproduce, and a Woman and a Woman cannot reproduce. The beauty is, that a man and a woman, when they come together, can reproduce, as nature intended.

No actually identical twins are pretty similar even if they are reared apart (adoption) so they are among the fav test subjects of psychology.

Hmm, up to a point. The most heritable personality traits are still only display about 50-60% genetic influence, there is a lot of environmental variance going on. And as mentioned there is both often contact between adopted twins or at the least similarities in the environments reared in (due to how adopted children are placed). It's one of the reasons there is a preference to compare identical to fraternal twins, because it is expected that in both cases the siblings would be exposed to similar environmental factors, but for identical twins they have a greater shared genetic structure.

By the laws of nature, A Man and a Man cannot reproduce, and a Woman and a Woman cannot reproduce.

True enough, though scientists are working on the "woman and a woman" part.

The beauty is, that a man and a woman, when they come together, can reproduce,

What exactly is beautiful about this? The physical aspects of reproduction can actually be a pretty ugly thing, and the danger of pregnancy inherent to heterosexual vaginal penetration isn't exactly something worthy of aesthetic admiration.

as nature intended.

Nature "intends" nothing. The evidence we have indicates that for a number of animals, among them ones, like bonobos, very similar to human beings, sexual activity has a variety of purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction. It also indicates that homosexual behavior, exclusive and non-exclusive, is common across a wide variety of species, which is inexplicable if the only "natural" form of sexuality is oriented toward reproduction. This notion of a narrow, exclusive focus of sex is, these days, more religious than scientific.

What I meant was nature intends the reproduction of a species. Homosexuality is a gene defect.

By the laws of nature, A Man and a Man cannot reproduce, and a Woman and a Woman cannot reproduce. The beauty is, that a man and a woman, when they come together, can reproduce, as nature intended.

by the laws of nature your an idiot.

see what I did there? I can make absurd statements too with little or no backing at all.

A defect in the sense that homosexual attraction does not call for reproduction, I'm not saying it's a terrible thing.

What I meant was nature intends the reproduction of a species. Homosexuality is a gene defect.

nature doesn't intend anything. Homosexuality is not a genetic defect.

A defect in the sense that homosexual attraction does not call for reproduction, I'm not saying it's a terrible thing.

depends on which species you happen to be. And its STILL not a genetic defect

I'ts not an absurd statement, I took Biology, and according to it, Biological creatures were meant to reproduce. FACT

I'ts not an absurd statement, I took Biology, and according to it, Biological creatures were meant to reproduce. FACT

not true. Biological creatures aren't "meant" to do anything. If they reproduce then their genes survive but that has no bearing on the life of each individual biological creature. Secondly many species are Hermaphroditic and others have two fully functional sets of opposing genitalia. In both these cases homosexual attraction would actually act as a positive.

All I know is, for example, Two male humpback whales, cannot reproduce, which goes against what the species was meant to do, eat, make cool noises, and reproduce.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.
Except that homosexuality has existed throughout both human and animal history. Since homosexuality continues to exist, it must therefore present a benefit to the species as a whole.

All I know is, for example, Two male humpback whales, cannot reproduce, which goes against what the species was meant to do, eat, make cool noises, and reproduce.

as a species sure. As an individual animal no . .. that's a fairly key difference (also humpbacks are awesome :D). And its not "meant to". Those that do those things survive thus their genetics survive thus most of that species does those things . . . their not meant to its just the way evolution has worked in their case. In Clown fish on the other hand a female leads a pack of males. When the female dies the "lead male" changes sex and becomes the female matriarch. In that case homo(or at least bi)sexuality is a desirable trait as it allows fish to "climb the pecking order and reproduce when the male they've "attached themselves too" becomes a female.

Except that homosexuality has existed throughout both human and animal history. Since homosexuality continues to exist, it must therefore present a benefit to the species as a whole.

specific examples including, brothers caring for their siblings children out of feelings of "love" (same with sisters), Males working together rather than fighting each other for food and mates, introduction of "tribal groups" through bonding between males and/or females that are unrelated to one another . .. hmmmm sentience may actually be born of homosexuality lol.

As a species is what I mean. You seem to have a great understanding of this. I conceed.

All I know is, for example, Two male humpback whales, cannot reproduce, which goes against what the species was meant to do, eat, make cool noises, and reproduce.

Yet Earthworms, which are all the same sex, reproduce sexually.

What I meant was nature intends the reproduction of a species.

Nature doesn't have intent.

Natural processes happen to tend to select for traits that maximize the reproductive fitness of a species, but this is no more meaningful to judgments of ethics and value than the fact that gravity makes things fall.

Homosexuality is a gene defect.

Thanks for ignoring the entirety of this thread.

As a species is what I mean. You seem to have a great understanding of this. I conceed.

No its all good. I understood entirely what you meant its just not quite as cut and dry as it seems at first glance. For the majority of species Homosexuality is not, necessarily a desirable trait but for others it can be. So you were right, for some, just not quite right enough lmao :)

Thanks for ignoring the entirety of this thread.
The nature versus environment bit is a little to in depth for me to argue without doing research . .. which is a pain.

Just........Damn Nature and it's complex ways. I will now go out in a forrest, and reproduce with a whale.

Oh my, the add here is about joining a network for followers of Jesus.:eek2:

Just........Damn Nature and it's complex ways. I will now go out in a forrest, and reproduce with a whale.

lmao awesome :D

Except that homosexuality has existed throughout both human and animal history. Since homosexuality continues to exist, it must therefore present a benefit to the species as a whole.

careful there - not even very robust group selection holds that 'benefit to the species as a whole' is a relevant sort of fitness

careful there - not even very robust group selection holds that 'benefit to the species as a whole' is a relevant sort of fitness

Not everyone holds that humans are sentient, either. Does that mean that everyone who believes humans are sentient are wrong?

careful there - not even very robust group selection holds that 'benefit to the species as a whole' is a relevant sort of fitness

though in some ways it could be true in this case. For example, siblings will often help each other out in crises despite the fact that they cannot reproduce with each other. This, in turn, gives those genes a greater chance of surviving in a state to reproduce meaning that both siblings benefit despite the fact that neither is directly reproducing with another. Thus, in this case, benefit of the group as a whole is a relevant fitness. the same could hold true for a "homosexuality gene" or group of genes (if such exists I genuinely don't know . . .). While a member of a family containing those genes may never reproduce. Having that member in a family, tribal, pack like, or whatever, group could prove an advantage allowing this members genes to be passed on passively through other members who have the genes but do not express them.

I'ts not an absurd statement, I took Biology, and according to it, Biological creatures were meant to reproduce. FACT

Species do not need every member to be a breeder. There are extreme cases like the social insects (ants, bees, etc.) where less than 1/1000 breed, or less extreme cases like the pack hunters (wolves etc.) where often only one out of a half-dozen or so will breed. Advanced creatures which rely on co-operation need a certain proportion who do not breed but contribute to the next generation's success by doing other things.

By the laws of nature, A Man and a Man cannot reproduce, and a Woman and a Woman cannot reproduce. The beauty is, that a man and a woman, when they come together, can reproduce, as nature intended.

Nature doesn't "intend." Things just happen a certain way. Homosexuality has been observed in numerous other species. Therefore, apparently these lofty "laws of nature" you refer to are just fine with it.

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.
Umm...not if you have any sence of logic or self-respect.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

How can anything make homosexuality unreal? That is like saying that since smoking harms an organism, and organisms don't harm themselves then therefore, smoking isnt real. Without the Jewish/Christian ban on homosexuality then it would have breed its self out. But thanks to homophobia we now have homosexuals. Also, factor in Bisexuals and self fearing Homosexuals, and homosexuality makes perfect sence

Without the Jewish/Christian ban on homosexuality then it would have breed its self out.

Because the only places there are gays are in places with strong Jewish and Christian influences?

Like, you know, flocks of sheep?

Why veiw evolution as the sole purpose for an indivdual organism? Also why view a homosexual choosing to reproduce as wrong?

Not morally, just naturally "stupid." Why would an organism be gay if that lead to its death. If he did mean morally then fuck him. but if he ment naturally then I agree.

so not only are you calling me dishonest, you actually belief that being a homosexual is completely normal?
you do realise you are defending people who f*ck each others arse, do you?
Well anyway if you feel that way, I respect that. maybe you should learn to do the same...

(oh and please answer this one for me: do you always follow what's politicaly correct?)

Obvious troll is obvious. Who cares about politically correct? We care about what's right.

Also, what's wrong with fucking someone in the ass? Many heterosexual couples, including the one I'm part of, indulge in anal sex.

Are you fucking 12 or something? Or just trollin?

Obvious troll is obvious. Who cares about politically correct? We care about what's right.

Also, what's wrong with fucking some in the ass? Many heterosexual couples, including the one I'm part of, indulge in anal sex.

Are you fucking 12 or something? Or just trollin?

I . . . can't decide . . . .troll vs. idiot . . .. drat!

I . . . can't decide . . . .troll vs. idiot . . .. drat!

And who says you need to decide? You can choose both. That´s the beauty of it!:D

I . . . can't decide . . . .troll vs. idiot . . .. drat!

Pardon my un-intellectual post. The guy was starting to go from funny to irritating. There's only so much stupid homophobia I can take.

though in some ways it could be true in this case. For example, siblings will often help each other out in crises despite the fact that they cannot reproduce with each other. This, in turn, gives those genes a greater chance of surviving in a state to reproduce meaning that both siblings benefit despite the fact that neither is directly reproducing with another. Thus, in this case, benefit of the group as a whole is a relevant fitness. the same could hold true for a "homosexuality gene" or group of genes (if such exists I genuinely don't know . . .). While a member of a family containing those genes may never reproduce. Having that member in a family, tribal, pack like, or whatever, group could prove an advantage allowing this members genes to be passed on passively through other members who have the genes but do not express them.

though note that this is kin selection (or perhaps some other localized group selection), rather than 'for the benefit of the species as a whole' selection

Pardon my un-intellectual post. The guy was starting to go from funny to irritating. There's only so much stupid homophobia I can take.

lol no its all good

though note that this is kin selection (or perhaps some other localized group selection), rather than 'for the benefit of the species as a whole' selection

true though I'm not entirely sure that it could not end up being a trait of the species as a whole via simply applying to great a pressure to those members of the species without it. I got you point though. Evolution doesn't look at a species as a whole but rather at the genetic material of a single individual.

Because the only places there are gays are in places with strong Jewish and Christian influences?

Like, you know, flocks of sheep?

sheep are metaphorically good christians. move to penguins, everybody knows they worship strange pagan penguin gods

Evolution doesn't look at a species as a whole but rather at the genetic material of a single individual.
That's not really true.

That's not really true.

its HUGELY simplistic but it is basically true. Even kin selection etc. actually looks at a single subjects Gentic identity and how it can be transferred (sort of) through its siblings who are genetically similar

Stephen Jay Gould had an extended essay about this topic. What mostly happens is that selection among individuals within a species generally all smooths out, and the species changes little over its lifespan, but if it grows to a large population, new species will form differing in mostly random directions from the original species, as small populations are cut off from the main body and influenced by the genetic peculiarities of their founders. Most of these new species don't last very long, but just die out; the main action in the evolutionary game is this competition among new species to see which ones become explosive successes.

Stephen Jay Gould had an extended essay about this topic. What mostly happens is that selection among individuals within a species generally all smooths out, and the species changes little over its lifespan, but if it grows to a large population, new species will form differing in mostly random directions from the original species, as small populations are cut off from the main body and influenced by the genetic peculiarities of their founders. Most of these new species don't last very long, but just die out; the main action in the evolutionary game is this competition among new species to see which ones become explosive successes.

yep I think I may actually have read some/most/all of that article. like I said HUGELY simplistic but getiing into the nitty gritty of evolution would take more time and effort than I really wanna put into this

So lately I've been thinking a lot about evolution and my beliefs on the subject have changed. To me, the facts are in the evolution is real, and it's possible to believe this even if you're a Christian.

Anyway, it hit me that if evolution is real, then doesn't that make homosexuality unreal? According to evolution, the only purpose that an organism even has is to pass on the genetic material it holds. Homosexuals, as we all know, can't reproduce with one another and for a homosexual to engage in heterosexual sex only for the purpose of passing on genes seems wrong.

I'm not bashing homosexuality, i'm not bashing evolution, i'm not bashing Christians or anyone. I'm just curious.
Well, according to my professor from second-semester psychology homosexuality is present in 3% of males and 2% of females, so that's a pretty small minority. Sometimes in genetics people can be carriers for something in that the way the genes combine, the genes for one thing are too recessive to determine their physical characteristics but are present enough that they can determine the physical characteristics of their offspring depending on how their genes combine with the genes of their offspring. So perhaps this might be happening with homosexuality. Or maybe the 2%/3% rate is simply the rate of a certain way the genes combine, regardless of which genes are combining, to swtich the response to the same sex with the response to the opposite sex. Just a thought, though; I'm not sure.

Except that homosexuality has existed throughout both human and animal history. Since homosexuality continues to exist, it must therefore present a benefit to the species as a whole.

But would that benefit be?

Why can't it just be a recessive gene, that stays but will in time over the next few hundred thousand years or so disappear at some point.

Of course that is assuming that the only reason people are gay is because of nature rather than perhaps some other factors as well.

Oh my, the add here is about joining a network for followers of Jesus.:eek2:

The ads must have found out I'm not black because for me it has gone from gayebonydating to gay cupid.

by the laws of nature your an idiot.

see what I did there? I can make absurd statements too with little or no backing at all.

So your saying that two men can reproduce naturally together?