Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?
Posted on: February 23, 2009 - 5:53pm
Offline
Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?
I was wondering if any of you had any theories about the "reasons" for homosexuality. Someone I talked to had the idea that it could be our way of "balancing" the population out (not everyone has kids), or maybe partly due to a gender imbalance.
What do you think?
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
- Login to post comments
There's a study I once read done on mice that found space was the main contributor as to the percentage population of homosexuals. I've been looking for that study forever.
It could be one of those things that doesn't really have a "reason", it just survived without any specific function or detriment. For instance, what are the function of earlobes? You could speculate forever.
It's always possible two sexes opened the door to a third or fourth by virtue of the sloppiness of biology. That is, given certain doses of certain hormones in development, the shift from one "orientation" to another doesn't finish, or goes through an extra process. But I don't know if that's necessarily population driven, rather than a simple fact of biology (ie that homosexuality is a biological inevitability).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is a very, very simplified explanation of the hypothesis that makes the most sense to me. Please realize I'm only trying to illustrate a principle, not explain the specifics. To my knowledge, there are no specifics to explain just yet.
Imagine a game of dice where you have five dice, and each roll of the dice, you're trying to get a total within the range of eleven and twenty four. (The total range possible is five to thirty -- five 1s up to five 6s.) If you roll ten or less or twenty five or more, you lose. Otherwise, you win. Obviously, most of your rolls will win, but there are some combinations that can't help but lose. If you roll four 1s, it doesn't matter what the fifth die turns up. Same for four 6s.
The thing is, all the numbers are useful for making combinations that fall within the winning range. If 1s did not exist, for instance, a roll of 6,6,6,5 would be an automatic loser, but with a 1 in 6 possibility of rolling a 1, it becomes a possible winner.
Now, if we roll the dice a hundred times, we shall expect to roll a certain percentage of winners and losers, and the more times we play, the more we would expect the percentages to line up with the odds. That is, if a hundred rolls is one game, and we play a thousand games, we should expect that a graph of losers over time would remain remarkably consisent, despite occasional fluctuations.
Now, consider that homosexuals are genetic losers (that is, they are very unlikely to reproduce), and notice that regardless of culture, the percentage of homosexuals in the population stays approximately the same, and that there's no particular causal link between a homosexual parent and homosexual children. This is because there is no such thing as a "gay gene." There are, however, combinations of useful genes that stay in our genome (like 1s and 6s) that produce homosexuals when they combine in certain ways with other useful genes.
This approach explains several things pretty parsimoniously: Straight parents have homosexual children sometimes. Homosexuals who reproduce often have straight children. Attempts at eugenically removing homosexuals from the population don't seem to affect the percentage in the next generation. From generation to generation, the percentage of homosexuals in the population stays quite stable, with minor fluctuations. This all lines up with the hypothesis that homosexuality is the result of an unfortunate (from the point of view of natural selection -- don't you dare call me a bigot!) combination of ordinarily successful genes.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
What, I need a reason now ?
I don't think evolution can even play with this issue, just like it can't touch many other issues, no matter how much some people want it to. As a matter of fact, some stuff in the evolutionary theory really is silly, but still people argue against reason, like: "OMG, we MUST have alternative to God in this". In my opinion, the God-story is butt-shit crazy in it's own right, we don't need to compete in that sport.
But back to the matter at hand - why the hell are men who like men and women who like women called homosexuals? Once upon a time stuffing your genitalia in another man's ass was an act of preference, not an identity. In some societies only the most exalted and respected had this option of brotherly and sisterly love. In fact people sent their boys to the learned men for training. Just ask Socrates. And Socrates had a wife and offspring too, propper patriotic and responsible thing to do. Good traits get to live another generation. Socrates' great love was a pretty briliant guy himself, books have been writen about him. Look that up. And it's not an isolated incident, great men and women in history often were quite unclear or verifyably same-sex preferenced. As a contemporary example I like Amy Goodman from DemocracyNow.org (yea, look that up too). She has been married to a pretty woman for a long long time. If only I was 30 years older... and a woman...
Joking aside, it looks to me like we are killing off some of the best of our gene-pool, telling men who like men and women who like women not to have kids, telling them they are "evolutionary excidents and mistakes" and stuff like that. As if our best trait of the species is between our legs: "Oh, you can't reproduce like a rabbit? Sorry, you are a mistake". Wait a minute, didn't our evolution allow us to have kids without actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman? Once that becomes a matter-of-fact, we might have to start finding evolutionary explanations for the existance of "heterosexuals".
I would argue as follows: men and women who like same sex simply need diversity in the geene pool, and thus what we call "heterosexuals" are beneficial as a simple breeding stock. I like this one, who never thought of himself as a big breeding bull in heat and got turned on by that? Noone? Yea.. me neither...
One thing I envy men who do men for - they never have difficulty getting their partner to let them in the back door.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Disclaimer: I am neither an evolutionary biologist, nor a psychologist. I effectivily know nothing of what I'll be talking about below.
Second disclaimer: some may find my opinions offensive, and I urge anyone to correct me if they have scientific evidence that I am just flatout wrong in any of my below opservations. If you don't think I'm wrong, but still find it offensive, then I'm still sorry if I offend, but I have to call it like I see it.
If a homosexual reproduces biologically, he or she is doing so in spite of their homosexuality, and thus, if homosexuality was genetic, then it could only survive if homosexuals still had children "the old fashioned way", with a member of the opposite sex.
This, ofcourse is not impossible, since in humanity's past many societies have frowned on homosexuality, and thus, many closet homosexuals got married and had children. I believe Oscar Wilde for example, had children.
However, if this was the case, we must expect that this would be detrimental to the likelyhood of "homosexual genes" flourishing, as closet homosexuals that were in loveless marriages, that they were forced into by societal pressure, would have as little sex as possible with their spouse, and thus be less likely to pass on their genes than their heterosexual "competetors".
At any rate, we know that gay people have straight children, and vice versa, so there is no indication at all that homosexuality is genetic, and the above though experiment shows us how it seems next to impossible that that is the case.
However, homosexual behavior seems to me to be the result of natural human impulses. Yet another of the many suggested "misfirings" of human behavior. In one sense of the word at least, homosexuality can be said to be "unnatural", but of course only in the sense that using contraception is unnatural, or wearing clothes, or eating any food that isn't berries, fruit, or the raw flesh of a dead animal is unnatural.
And just for the record, if I lived in a society where no one wore clothes and only ate what they found on the ground, I still wouldn't have any problem with homosexuals. I'd be alot more concerned with anyone proclaiming themselves shaman: Religion, now there's a misfiring I'm NOT a fan of.
It is my understanding (Hamby can probably help me out here) that humans are heavily reliant on childrearing to instill what comes more instinctively to our mamalian, and even more our reptilian and other, cousins.
That is to say, because humans have large brains, we have come to rely heavily on teaching our children, what many other animals just "know" instinctivily. I seem to remember a thread in which Hamby talked about how humans find out who their siblings are by who they grow up with, and so don't want to have sex with them when they reach sexual maturity. That is, my sister, being adobted, is in theory a perfectly reasonable potential sexpartner for me, but since I grew up with her, I have never, and never will, consider that possibility.
But if my father and mother had secretly had a female child, and given her up for adobtion, and I met this woman for the first time in adulthood, I might well be sexually attracted to her. That is, I wouldn't be able to sniff her butt, and then just sense: "stay off this one: she's your sister", as other animals might.
So... (here's the possibly offensive part), it is my impression that homosexuality is partly the result of childrearing. Freud seemed fond of the idea that all our sexual behavior stems from our childhood.
Now, as I said, I'm not a psychologist, and I haven't ever studied Freud, but from what I've heard through exposure to (popular) culture, he does seem to be on to something.
Many of my own sexual preferences, fantasies, fetishes, and turn-off's I can trace back experiences in my childhood, and my early teens.
Now, the only homosexual I know personally is a man in my family, and while he in many ways do not fit the stereotypical homosexual male, in other ways he does. He for example had a distant, even absent father, and an overprotective mother.
This is a subtle stereotype I've often seen expressed in popular culture, like Will's parents in Will and Grace for example.
Now before you jump all over me, I'm not suggesting that gay men are the product of a distant father and an overprotective mother, period. For one, that particular childhood could be applied to me too, to an extent.
But I do believe that it is one factor that can contribute to the forming of homosexual personality.
What I mean to say is, I don't know what makes a person gay, and I don't think anyone does, because their are probably a myriad of psychological factors that play into it, but I do believe that something makes a person gay, and not that they are born gay.
That said, I also believe that some genetic traits may contribute to the likelyhood of someone becoming gay, thereby saying that some people are born more bi-curious than others. Are you following me? I mean to say, noone is born destined to be gay, but some people may be more likely to become gay under the right conditions than others.
So, to the OP, I don't think there is a natural selection reason for homosexuality, but just a natural selection reason for the plasticity* of the human brain. The human brain is capable of forming wildly different personalities under different circumstances because that has served our genes well in the past, and that's all.
Finally, in the same way that I don't choose to be straight anymore than I choose my sexual fetishes, or what kind of music I like, or what kind of people I find interesting, gay people don't choose to be gay. But there are reasons why I like cetain kinds of music et.c., and those reasons have to do with my experiences in life, and probably also with my particular genetic make-up. Maybe I like loud rock music because I have slightly less sensitive ears than others, but also because my older brothers like it...
*: I've fallen in love with the word plasticity, and use it all the time these days to sound smart
. Am I right in thinking it means: "easily changed/easily molded into very varied states"?
...Otherwise I look like a right fool, don't I?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Dude. My biology teacher in high school taught this theory as well. It's stuck in my head ever since, and I haven't been able to find the study either.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I've read two studies that I think link to this in an interesting fashion. One is that higher percentages of non-first-born males tend to be homosexual. The other is that it's been shown that male fetal cells stay around after the baby is born and the mothers basically become chimeric. So, perhaps the left behind male fetal cells from the older brother make later males more likely to be gay.
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8570620 for citations.
The trait sticks around because genetics and survival isn't just about individuals. It's about populations. If there are a few people not having kids but being productive members of society (perhaps un-distracted by reproduction) they may be advantageous to the society, so the (likely recessive) genes for homosexuality stay around.
-Triften
I don't think there is any "big picture" when it comes to homosexuality as a way of balancing the population out or anything, it's just a case of chemical make up. You get some traits from mom and you get some traits from dad, mix them together and occasionally a positive plus a positive will equal a negative. As for an evolutionary viewpoint, having these anomalies are probably a good sign that we have a healthy supply of variety in our genes which means a healthier species overall.
Free your mind.
While I've always had a hard time imagining that genetics do not play some sort of part, I doubt that genetics are the sole explanation for homosexuality.
As for an evolutionary reason, I think Edward Owen Wilson gives the best explanation in "On Human Nature" (1 of 2 books he received a Pulitzer for).
He felt the evolutionary purpose for homosexuality, was simply another example of kin selection. A homosexual, w/o being burdened with children of their own was free to assist the family unit (oh the irony) and thereby insure better odds for survival of the family genes. If for example, a mother, father or sibling should become sick or die, the homosexual family member could then step into said vacant role and assume those responsibilities. This in effect would seemingly strengthen the family and increase the likelihood those family genes would carry on.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
The earlobes are for licking and sucking and ... well, I'll stop there. Next time you take a shot for an avatar, could you turn your head a bit more to the side?
But seriously, I've seen similar studies but I was under the impression it was more to do with overpopulation. When the population becomes to high for the space the species have, the percentage of homosexual behavior increases. That said, even when there's underpopulation homosexual behavior is still observed. The study I saw was on penguins, and I think it bottomed out at 2%-5% and got has high as somewhere in the mid-high 30% range.
I'd like to emphasise that the phrase used was "homosexual behavior" rather than "homosexuality". I say that because if you look at a stereotypical prison population you see homosexual behaviour from people who outside of prison would be the least homosexual and possibly most homophobic people you would find, but desire for the act of sex drives to these actions.
My point thus far is to not confuse homosexual behavior with homosexuality. They are two different things. The former is desire for sexual contact driven often by an overwhelming by the senses and desperation, the latter is desire without desperation for those of the same sex.
So where does the desire without desperation for those of the same sex come from? Well, personally I think homosexuality is a much of nothing. I think people make too big a deal about the seperation of sexes. To me the difference between a guy liking girls or liking guys is about as big a difference and as big a deal as a guy liking the colour red or green. The only reason it is seen as such a big deal is the stigma built up against it in the dark ages by religion, as well as the fact that it is based on such a powerful emotion as love for a fellow human, as opposed to the weaker emotions involved in loving or just liking colours/food/vehicles/etc.
I'm not really expressing myself well at the moment, so hopefully I can clarify if/when there's any questions.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
The current, western version of homosexuality is new in that it arose in the last 200 years in European countries.
Our analytical view is not what nit is in the rest of the world nor what it was in our world just a few centuries ago.
No form of sex was talked about in explicit form in Christian countries so we are not expected to find it in the literature of the west. What we can find is in prohibitions. There is no need for prohibitions for things which do not occur.
What you find are prohibitions of public displays of all sex related activities and particular ones relating to men only.
What we can infer/guess/imagine about Greece and Rome is that it was common but the relationship had to be related to station. There was an assumed dominant/submissive relationship and the superior could not be the submissive. The emperor could not be the woman. Emperors dressing as women was a quick way to the afterlife. Some may have done it to flaunt their impervious position of power.
It takes a lot of reading and I have not found a credible source which objectively addresses this subject through history. And there are some very strange things very recently in relative terms.
One that surprised me was that as late as the 1920s in the west teenage women in schools were expected to have crushes on older women in their schools and that was intrinsic to sororities. They were of course expected to grow out of it and fall in love with men. We only know this for the proclivity of women to keep diaries and write letters which men did not. So what were fraternities like in the same time period? Why the secrecy?
Even the brazen Greeks and Romans were so circumspect about sex we have no clear idea what they did in real life. Us westerners are even worse. We have no idea what we really do even today.
We do know for a fact that what we call and define as homosexuality is not related to past expressions and defintions of it.
Because we know we are not talking the same thing there is no way we can talk about evolution.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I can follow that to some extent. Our sexual preferences can change over time through experience and emotional states, or so it appears. This is either a genuine change in sexuality, or, what I think is more likely, just feeling bolder and letting "deamons loose", experiencing new stimulous like power, better social standing. This could either mean acquired tastes in a matter of speaking, or approaching one's true sexual preference through time.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Actually, we have a fairly clear idea what they did. There are, in fact, detailed descriptions of how men had sex in Greek and Roman (to a lesser extent) cultures. For instance, anal sex wasn't the main thing at one point, it was using a man's thighs pressed together. There was, however, a verb used by Catullus for anal sex (from the famous line "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"
and various descriptions from Martial, grafitti and pictures found at archeological sites, etc. So we have details on that for sure.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I remember being very attracted to Wild Bill Hickcock on Saturday morning TV back in the early 50s. I was 4 years old. I've been attracted to men all of my life. Chances are that my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my upbringing. The attraction feels completely natural to me.
These studies about homosexuality are amusing to us gay folks. To us it sounds like, "What gives black people rhythm?"
Rick
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
It's their humongous genitalia, makes them swing rhytmically no matter what they are doing.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
What I am about to post is sort of in keeping with Hamby's explanation. I'm not sure there's really a reason for homosexuality to be favored, per se. It just happens, due to the expression of certain gene combinations, and conditions in the womb during fetal development. Homosexuality is essentially a congenital condition.
In recent years, scientists have focused on digit ratio to explain sexuality. Fingers grow according to levels of androgens in the womb. Higher androgenic steroids typically lead to increased growth in the 4th finger, so most men have 4th fingers that are longer than their second, while most women have a longer second finger or 2nd and 4th fingers that are about the same length. However, the data seems to point to the idea that homosexual men tend to have a more feminine digit ratio, while homosexual women tend to have a more masculine digit ratio.
This website explains it well, and in greater detail: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
Incidentally, I am a bisexual woman, and I have a digit ratio that does not match that of the average female. On my right hand, 4D is significantly longer than 2D, while the two fingers are a bit closer in length on my left hand, though 4D is still longer - this supports the idea on the aforementioned website that the right hand is more sensitive to fetal androgens.
Why me? I'm not sure. My mother has a longer 2nd finger, and my younger sister has a 2D:4D ratio that is pretty close to one - her 2nd fingers are slightly longer. So clearly my exposure to high androgens was not caused by any preexisting condition in my mom, and it did not influence the development of my sister in the womb 4 years after me. Neither of the other two are bisexual, and they do not have sex drives anywhere near as high as mine.
Anyways, the point is that most of the time, development proceeds normally. Every so often, certain genes leading to testosterone production are overexpressed, or are inhibited, leading to subtle effects on the sex of the fetus.
Pleasure pathways created in the brain during childhood development.
Just like with food, tobacco, drugs, etc... The brain can develop pathways that produce pleasure/euphoria that become associated with behavior. We are creatures of habit. So our attraction to a certain type of person is much like our habits of liking certain foods, music, drugs, etc... So it's a combination of genetics and environment.
But the idea that you are born gay or strait is false. It's like saying one is born a smoker, religious or alcoholic. You may have a genetically higher propensity to become addicted to smoking. But if tobacco is unavailable, you just find other ways to get your kicks. The brain can be programed to associate pleasure with many different activities.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC, how is it that you can be wrong about everything involving evolutionary biology? Have you ever read a single book about it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Man, what a compliment! I'll have to see what I can do!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Speaking of evolution and homosexuality, I was watching a clip from “The way of the master” on YouTube and I noticed that the editors had cut out that half-second clip of Ray Comfort giving the “O” face just after he said the banana was “pointed for ease of entry.”
Free your mind.
Maybe you should read more about how the brain and addictions work before embracing Politically Correct conclusions that homosexuals come from 'genetically superior' people. I thought you were the big anti-racist, does this mean now that homosexuals and their relatives can discriminate against us inferiors? Shouldn't businesses hire homosexuals or their relatives if they want superior workers?
You just pick whatever studies you want to justify a political position. Just like Hollywood can only make movies that are pro-gay, so-called science can only come up with pro-gay conclusions in our PC dominated society. I will grant that their is genetic component to having a propensity to being gay all things being equal. But all the brain science tells us that we are conditioned to associate certain behaviors with pleasure and we develop these associations based on both conditioning and genetics. Evolutionary biology is not the only explanation for human behaviors.
Under the right conditions can be made to be anything by conditioning. For example: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=229
So if the pleasure pathways in the brain are wired up in certain way one can be converted to being strait or gay(or theist or atheist), regardless of their genetics. Granted he went back to being homosexual because this is how he had been hardwired since birth. But we know from the study of addictions that they are a function of BOTH genetics and environment. Same is true of sexual behaviors.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
EXC, did you even read Hamby's initial post? NO ONE in this thread has proposed the idea that homosexuals are genetically superior to heterosexuals - or superior in any aspect, for that matter. Hamby's post summarized a hypothesis that homosexuality is conferred when certain combinations of genes are activated, but that this situation is rare in terms of probability.
You sort of disproved your own point here. This was not the result of environment at all, but rather the result of direct physical changes to this man's brain. You have the causality reversed here. The subject did not experience arousal because of the images; it was because of the electrodes signalling his brain to get aroused. The conditioning argument would hold water if, after this experience, he was able to get turned on by viewing erotic images of women because the experience created a new "pathway" in his brain, thereafter associating women with pleasure. But this was not the case, since he did not seem to be affected after the experiment. Under the artificial conditions he was subjected to, they could have been showing they guy "2 girls 1 cup" while energizing his electrodes, and he would have still experienced sexual pleasure. A rhinoceros could have barged into the room and taken a shit right in front of him, and the subject still could have orgasmed on the spot, and we could be writing papers about how we changed a man's preferences to bestiality. His reaction doesn't mean that he was turned on by the situation; it means that the signals and feedback loops in his brain that were inducing sexual arousal were simply strong enough to override any disgust he may have otherwise felt in the situation.
"Granted he went back to being homosexual because this is how he had been hardwired since birth." Yes, the whole point we're getting at is WHY are people such as this individual hardwired that way? You're conceding the point that homosexuals are that way from birth, which is what you were just trying to argue against. Yes, obviously if he had been born with that "extra" pathway that was artificially put in place using electrodes, he would have at the very least been bisexual. The point is, that pathway never developed on its own. WHY? What Hamby and I are both proposing is that it is the outcome of several specific gene combinations.
If you would like to argue the environment/conditioning perspective, which is very much a valid point of view, you'll need to provide some better data that actually suggests homosexuality is linked to some social or environmental experience. Something like "boys that are sexually abused as children are more likely to be homosexual in adulthood," or "being spanked by teammates after doing well in sports leads one to be gay." "Children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual." "Ex-convicts more likely to take it in the ass after being released." Any of those would be an acceptable argument. Whether that argument is true would be up for debate, but the study you cited was an example of physical, not environmental, manipulation.
My point is that what really determines straitness or gayness is the brain pathways that exist to the pleasure centers in the brain. Genetics and environment are indirect causes.
We know from brain science that pathways are developed from both genetic and environmental conditions. So really any human behavior has both a genetic and environmental explaination. It's really just either religious or Political Correctness bullshit that says it must be 100% one or the other.
I know the electrodes caused stimulation of the pleasure center. But, the man was conditioned so when he looked at the hot woman, he would get the stimulation. In a strait male, there is a pathway from the eyes to pleasure centers when viewing such pictures. They essentially created an artificial pathway to make him temporarily strait.
Yes and "several specific gene combinations" can make you more likely to be highly addicted to nicotine. But you don't become a smoker unless you are exposed to an association of smoking with pleasure over a period of time. Especially when you are young.
The brain develops, new pathways develop, you learn to associate certain behaviors with pleasure. Pathways develop in the brain as you are exposed to things especially as a child. As adults we become set in our ways as the pathways become more permanent.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC wrote:
Assuming for the moment, that you weren't making some sort of colossal attempt at comedy here...
For every film made that allegedly supports gay people in some way, how many do you suppose have been made that denigrated them ?
I can think of two films w/ gay themes right off the top of my head...Brokeback Mountain and Milk.
One depicts two persons trying to survive and find love in an environment of violence and intolerance and the other the senseless murder of a gay politician and the complete lack of justice for the person responsible for the killing. One was based on a fictional book and the other was an account of historical fact. Both films were "protested" because of said "gay themes" and one had flat out refusals to be shown by many theaters.
Explain how these films are "pro-gay" and then maybe you could make a list of the rest of these "pro-gay" films you're talking about.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
They depict how gay people were unfairly treated in the past. I'm not anti-gay or a moralist. But this theme seems to be played up over and over again in the movies.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/swaab/2009/02/24/homosexuality-not-a-choice/
The man is a professor of neurobiology. Check out the rest of his research on the subject.
http://www.papermasters.com/homosexuality_and_brain_structure.html
Joemailman
It is, I'm afraid, a subject to which there are definite answers but also a conflict with the most basic of human acceptances and that is the understanding that you and I are extremely limited animals. In a nutshell the answers lie within the realm of conditioning, positive reinforcement and operant behavior. This form of behavioral psychology has be relegated to the back rooms of general psychological teachings for a very understandable reason. It poses a threat to the entire judeo-christian culture of which the entire world is a part of. It is a threat to the entire world of human culture as we know it because it threatens the economic structure of life on this planet but only human economic structure. The life of every other species is unconcerned with such mundane (in their operative opinions) and boring analysis. In fact they pay no attention to such "trivia". Other animal life is far more sophisticated in that they concern themselves with the moment and with the necessary (the physical world). Human beings are subjected to a world of information to which they have no allegiance nor are they educated to understand.
The end of religion and the end of superstition forms of understanding such as the traditional understandings of homosexuality can only happen when human beings are subjected to that which is beneficial to their well-being. This includes an ALL inclusive education, an economic structure which is supportive and cooperative, and of course, a social structure of economic and emotional support so necessary for child development.
This will not, of course, at all happen in our lifetimes but the answers to the question of homosexuality can be discovered through that which I have described. For me it is a clear as it can be that human beings AND the information in their cranium are nurtured, not natured.
I see. Then using this reasoning, do you consider "Mississippi Burning" a pro-black film ?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
The brain doesn't stop developing after birth. Perhaps the foundation for being oriented toward being gay is set before birth. But he is making this conclusion that it is 100% set before birth(before the brain is fully developed) because it's politially popular. The environment a child is exposed to affects the brain development.
What about pedophiles? Why is this condition not something they are born with and have no control over? Answer, the science is driven by public opinion and politics, not facts and reason.
Why isn't the behavior of racism like homsexuality consider to be a result of evolutionary biology which can aid in the adaptation and survivability of a group of homosapiens and other primates? Same answer. In the current political climate especially universities, it's OK to be gay and pro-gay but not racist. So the politics drives the scientific conclusions.
In another post, a scientific study concludes that child abuse alters the structure of the brain, so that as adults these changes have a great effect on an individuals state of mind and behaviors. But when it comes to being to being gay or strait, all brain develpment ends before birth.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Er..no, trust me, that's not his intention at all. He is know for doing exactly the opposite, going against the flow of political correctness. Seriously, read some of his articles. He's your kind of scientist.
In fact, when he came out with his research, he received deathtreaths from gay groups who believe that sexual orientation is a (lol !) "political" choice. Yeah, go figure.
As soon as I saw this, I remembered Bill Maher's movie, Religuluous - where there was a similar statement made when Bill was interviewing John Westcott, a "gay-man-turned-straight", who was advocating that other gay people convert to being straight - and that there was no such thing as a "gay gene". At this point, the movie cuts to Bill interviewing Dean Hamer (a geneticist), where Bill says "And you also discovered the gay gene?" - and he replys "Yes." (I know, it's not very convincing).
Dean Hamer's research is far from complete - and far from being accepted by the scientific community - but there was a recent article released that added support for the "gay gene" theory:
www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4748750.html
Who knows...?
-Ryan
Goddess is studying biology - you can't just pull stuff out of nowhere and expect she'll take your word for it. The "pleasure centers in the brain" isn't exactly scientific talk. Also, between genetics and environment, you have covered all causes of human development (as you later repeat). Maybe you're just wording what you're trying to say incorrectly, but none of the above even approaches what could be called a statement of fact.
I don't think I can explain why the Wrong-O-Meter just bumped into the red-line without supplying you with a complete university education in the sciences. You're essentially saying that gay guys aren't really gay until they get hooked on cock. I'm baffled that you can write these things without irony.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But ... it is. It's not like they want to have an unpopular sexual choice.
What? How are you connecting an attitude with a sexual preference? That makes no sense.
What the hell are you talking about? What scientific conclusions could you reach about racism?
There are lots of developmental processes that end at different stages in life, so I don't see your problem with some ending at one point and others ending at another. Severe mental trauma can alter the structure of the brain, sure, but men and women who are gay and have grown up in accepting environments (like liberal cities) have nothing specific to point to that would have happened to them to make them gay, would they?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Man... I knew I smoked one too many! Is there a ten step program someone could refer me to... I wonder if it's as hard as quitting smoking!
:::smirk::: I said "hard"
See, here's where pop reporting gets in the way of scientific understanding. There is not a "gay gene." There are combinations of genes that can produce homosexual offspring. There really aren't a hell of a lot of individual genes in the human genome that can be said to be the gene "for" this or that. Think back to my analogy from the beginning of the thread. You've got five dice, each with it's own place, so you have Die 1, Die 2, Die 3, Die 4, and Die 5. Suppose we say that we've rolled a 23. This isn't enough for us to know for certain which each die roll was:
1) 5,5,5,5,3
2) 5,3,5,5,5
3) 5,3,4,6,5
etc...
If we calculate the possible number of combinations that will produce 23, it's actually very, very high. However, if we want to get a score of 7, there are far fewer possibilities, for any roll which includes a 4 or higher is automatically disqualified, no matter what position it's in. Fours are terribly useful for rolling 23s, but they're very bad for rolling 7s.
Obviously, this is a horribly simplified analogy, and is only marginally useful at best, but the point I'm trying to make is that if we say that a total score of either 5, 6, or 7 will be called "gay," there is no single number on any of the dice that is the "gay" number. On the contrary, only the sequence, taken as a whole, can be called "gay."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Have they found the straight gene yet? Do they know how to remove it? 'Cause us straight people are seriously problematic, while the only serious gay defect can be offset by medical procreation.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
It's driving me sane!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
One day I'm going to have a stress induced heart attack over the spurious, casual and utterly incorrect use of the word gene in pop sci.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I don't know what you're talking about, because I just discovered the ice-cream-loving gene (which I clearly have, scientifically) and I'm running with it.
I love ice cream. You can't argue with science, DG.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Clearly.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You've defined racism as an attitude(which seems more of a political than scientific explanation), I define it as a natural phenomena that often occurs in the human species.
When many animals(including humans) encounter a new member of their species, they evaluate them to see if they are friend, foe or perhaps sexual partner. When my dog encounters a new dog, he's got to decide if this dog can be an enemy and want to fight him, the dog could be a potential new pack member or could have sex with the dog.
What they will do is a function of the dogs genetics and how the dog was socialized as a pup. I don't think us humans are all that different. So according to your view, if the dogs fuck, this is all because of genetics, but if they fight it's all because of their attitude?
So politically correct science you've embraces tells us that in humans our choice of sexual partner is 100% genetic, but our choice of enemy(racism, tribalism, etc...) is just some kind of attitude that has no explanation from the study of evolutionary biology. Then where do "attitudes" like racism, war making, etc... come from? Why does evolutionary biology explain homosexuality but not racism/tribalism?
That racism/tribalism like homosexuality it is a natural phenomena that has it's origins in our genetics and conditioning as children. There is no scientific reason to treat homosexuality as a sacred cow, only political ones.
There is no evidence that this is what is happening. The 'scientists' are just saying it ends early in the womb because it fits with their predetermined conclusion.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Ice cream gene at 12 o'clock.
...
I love it! I've created a short-hand for unfounded scientific claims, and it's called "ice-cream gene".
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
And who cares?
I'm gay. I live a good life and I'm happy, so why the hell should I give a damn what makes me gay? I'm a man who is attracted to men. So the fuck what?
Most of the people who argue that homosexuality is a choice or a psychological defect or brain malfunction do so because they believe homosexuality is a problem to be solved. But it's only a problem....FOR THEM.
It's NOT a problem for me.
So to those who have a problem with it; fuck off.
Rick
Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?
Here's a question concerning both the ice cream gene and the gay gene. My uncle just got a kidney transplant from my sister, since then he now has developed a taste for certain foods that my sister likes and he previously did not. So the question is; if an organ transplant can change your tastes for food, is it possible for a straight man to recieve an organ from a gay man and suddenly develope a taste for tube steak?
Free your mind.
If these two are on some scales of societal modifyability, like if you are out of prison you are straight and in prison you are gay(sry for being shrude here), I will say that it DEFINITELY is a much harder scale to move than the racist/non-racist scale. I mean I can be a racist for a day, just give me an excuse, it's like a mood swing. I can NOT be gay for a day, it would have to be some incentive to me unimaginable. And I have been in a war for a prolonged period of time surrounded only by men, that did nothing for me.
Undoubtedly you could do experiments using people as lab rats, aka prisoners. But I don't think anyone really has a serious interest that either one or the other side of the argument should win, other than retards that engage in one or another side of the argument. So prisoners are used as slave labour, something people have serious interest in, while we debate completely irelevant stuff.
Why is there not a forum against prisons on this site btw, amongst all this nonsense? Aren't we supposed to be like enlightened and stuff? Looks to me this site brings together random people that just happen to be offended by religion.
I just wondered upon it while I was looking for some writings by Jürgen Habermas and ran into Gary Habermas on this site. Guess which of those two is an imbecile.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Yes but ... You knew there was a butt in it.
You are correct we have some mentions of what they did mechanically at some points in time. That was not my point.
Back when this current movement was starting there were a few anonymous interviews with the older generation of gays who wished the youngsters would just shut up. The play/movie/TV serious Odd Couple was of that generation. It has only been in the last couple decades we "learned" gay men would marry just to fit in -- such social pressure, the pain of it. It has to stop. And now the idea of marriage, something unheardof before now. Yet we have 6000 years of history, most of which was neutral and a fair amount approving of gays and not a single marriage custom recorded.
Then we can get into the "natural" percentage of gays and genetics and all the modern talk that is coming up here. If those are rational discussions with an evidentiary basis how do we explain Sparta where all the warriors were "gay" if we may use that word for them? Admittedly Sparta is few of a kind but how can genetics apply, how can it be natural, if a social custom can make it more common?
What I say we do not know is just what it meant and to some extent what it means today. What kind of relationship did Spartan warriors have? Were they just bunk buddies for cold nights in the field and better than masturbation?
Mentioning Sparta highlights all the Acheans/Hellenes not having the same "gay" attitudes. In Athens it was intellectual or at least that is all that was recorded. In Rome it was something about the beauty of the male form. But in all these cases what did it mean in practice?
Defining gay by how they did it is like defining hetero relationships by how they do it. It doesn't tell us much. In fact until you have had a second marriage and a few long term live-ins you don't know much about hetero relationships. It takes experience to learn your own range of behaviors.
We have some idea that "gay" relationships were generally hidden in Christian Europe save we know of times when it was open but simply not mentioned. Pardon me but we know the same about hetero relationships through history so that doesn't tell us much. With an estimate of 15% of children coming from non-husbands gay and hetero don't seem all that different.
And if we take this back to the "evil" of social pressure forcing gays to marry women where are the bisexuals in all of this? And then we get to all the shepards who loved their flocks and the farmers who helped pigs over fences. And with all of this how do we distinguish any behavior from our tendency to do what feels good for no reason other than feeling good?
Which gets me back to the 1920s "crushes" of women for women. Did men have them for men? We don't know. We know women did not make it public. Is it reasonable to think this was a fad for women in the 1920s? Did women change then or are they the same now? If it was a fad in the 20s, how often does it recur?
Now give me a generalization for the 1000 years of the Roman empire. Or for the thousand years of Mycenaen, Achean, Greek culture that prided itself on its differences from city to city.
I don't know. In fact I would just like to know what "gay" means today outside of the political hype as I know it has changed from 20 years ago when it started to go public. But then I would also like to know the range of hetero relationships today. But neither group nor the bisexuals nor the shepards nor the pig helpers appear to be publishing tell alls nor are sociologists conducting inclusive studies.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I'm starting to think you may have some predetermined conclusions of your own.
Before you call somebody a 'scientist' with predetermined conclusions, why not have a closer look at their findings ?
Here, a closer look at the research of that neurobiology professor I mentioned : http://www.knaw.nl/akademienieuws/pdf/124.pdf
It's not just the hypothalamus that supports his claims.
Yes, it's in Dutch. Get somebody to translate it for you, and then show me those predetermined conclusions. Considering all the facts he uncovered, what other conclusion was he supposed to end up with ?
And please keep in mind, this guy doesn't give a flying fuck for either your politics or mine. And he payed the price for that (Gay activists protesting outside his house, abusive phonecalls and letters, bomb threaths, etc...)
I've read the above three times, and I have no idea where you're going with this. Maybe if you finished just one of those thoughts, I'd be able to respond. What has to stop? Gay marriage? Why?
Should we also turn back the clock on the equal treatment of women? 6,000 years of our history doesn't have much to say about women being equals, but it seems to be working out just fine from where I sit.
Because social custom can make lots of things more common. That doesn't mean that Greek men didn't write love poetry to one another. A lot of it, actually.
Love poetry. Do I really need to be more specific?
It meant men having sex with other men, and women having sex with women was okay.
Whoa - why would I get married in the first place? Don't talk crazy-talk. I thought you were talking about the mechanical, because there was so much already written about the love between members of the same sex that the only mystery left for you was the mechanical act. No, there is a LOT of love poetry. Lots of allusion to men loving men. Mythical and historical.
Could we not equate sex between people with bestiality? If we're discussing sex between people, I think we can stay there. No need to bring the flock into it.
You've never been attracted to another man. We get it. If you can't understand that, just say so.
"Homosexual" isn't as vague, I suppose, so why don't you stick with that?
Just because you haven't read any doesn't mean they aren't there.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.