scrappy Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 This article makes a case that homosexuality may function as a form of kin selection. Perhaps gays are not expunged from the human population, as one might expect for a group that does not participate in sexual reproduction, but instead are allowed (and even maintained) to function beneficially in supporting roles to their population. Any thoughts or relevant extrapolations?
ecoli Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 its a sound theory, but i don't think it's been demonstrated in the animal kingdom to be true.
iNow Posted January 19, 2009 Posted January 19, 2009 It's a very close cousin to the grandmother hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis
Mokele Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 I think it doesn't explain squat. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom, including in species with little or no sociality. While on the island in question, it may give a fitness benefit, I don't think that explanation works for the ultimate cause of homosexuality itself. Whatever that cause is (kin selection or just a genetic hiccup), it needs to explain the prevalence beyond humans. Mokele
scrappy Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 I think it doesn't explain squat. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom, including in species with little or no sociality. While on the island in question, it may give a fitness benefit, I don't think that explanation works for the ultimate cause of homosexuality itself. Whatever that cause is (kin selection or just a genetic hiccup), it needs to explain the prevalence beyond humans. I'm confused about your claim that homosexuality runs rampant through the animal kingdom. Does it really? I saw an Animal Planet video once of a male baboon who tired to hump another male baboon, but he was rejected. Then he went over and tried to hump a tree stump. Does this mean then he went from homosexuality to herbal sexuality?
iNow Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I'm confused about your claim that homosexuality runs rampant through the animal kingdom. Does it really? Perhaps you should check out the thread I created on that very topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36687
scrappy Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Perhaps you should check out the thread I created on that very topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36687 Your thread on homosexuality in the animal kingdom is interesting. I especially liked the homosexual penguins with their rocks. Yes, it does seem like a natural function to me—homosexuality could carry on in a species if it provides kin benefits. I'm on the side of the argument that says homosexuality can be seen naturally as form of kin selection. (But does this have any meaning in the context of gay rights, since most scientists already agree that choice alone does not make a person gay? It would be interesting for the gay community to pick up on Hamilton and Dawkins and adopt a neo-Darwinian perspective...you know, from gay power to kin power.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think you mean arbosexuality Thank you for the chuckle.
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Thank you for the chuckle. /me goes off to start a thread on Arbosexual Rights.
iNow Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (But does this have any meaning in the context of gay rights, since most scientists already agree that choice alone does not make a person gay?) Just being pedantic here, not intending to create any tangents, but most scientists agree that choice is practically nonexistent in making a person gay. Do you remember the day you chose to be heterosexual?
ecoli Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I think it doesn't explain squat. Homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom, including in species with little or no sociality. While on the island in question, it may give a fitness benefit, I don't think that explanation works for the ultimate cause of homosexuality itself. Whatever that cause is (kin selection or just a genetic hiccup), it needs to explain the prevalence beyond humans. Mokele doesn't this statement incorrectly assume that homosexuality in humans and other animals results from the same phenomenon?
iNow Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 What do you suggest would be different? Curious question.
scrappy Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Just being pedantic here, not intending to create any tangents, but most scientists agree that choice is practically nonexistent in making a person gay. Do you remember the day you chose to be heterosexual? If I ever had any doubts about my heterosexuality they were crushed like grapes when I saw Brigitte Bardot in “The French Bikini.” (But, on this issue of choice, would you say a bisexual person makes such choices? Tonight it’s Ralph and tomorrow Susie? I think choice is part of the equation for some people.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddoesn't this statement incorrectly assume that homosexuality in humans and other animals results from the same phenomenon? Exactly!
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (But, on this issue of choice, would you say a bisexual person makes such choices? Tonight it’s Ralph and tomorrow Susie? I think choice is part of the equation for some people.) Bear in mind there is a difference between choosing who you can be attracted to, and choosing who you will be sleeping with on a particular occasion.
Sisyphus Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The thing with human homosexuality is that pretty much has to have both a nature and a nurture element. For the former, there's the fact that it's probability is closely tied to biological siblings (every older sibling you have, whether or not they have any contact, increases the probability of homosexuality). Plus, you know, common sense. For the latter, there's the fact that it shows up very differently in different cultures (in ancient Greece, almost every male practiced bisexuality, and pure heterosexuals would be deemed effeminate). But whatever the underlying basis, it's obviously not a conscious choice who you're attracted to. I mean, really, does anybody actually believe it is? (And no, the choice on whether to act on it doesn't count.)
Mokele Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 doesn't this statement incorrectly assume that homosexuality in humans and other animals results from the same phenomenon? How is it incorrect? It *hypothesizes* that it's the same, because that is and always should be the default hypothesis when you see a trait manifested over much of the animal kingdom. A basic rule of reconstructing trait evolution is parsimony - postulate the fewest origins and losses that can account for the observed distribution of the trait. In this case, that would mean postulating that there is a single origin, probably quite far down the evolutionary tree.
scrappy Posted January 24, 2009 Author Posted January 24, 2009 But whatever the underlying basis, it's obviously not a conscious choice who you're attracted to. I mean, really, does anybody actually believe it is? (And no, the choice on whether to act on it doesn't count.) Speaking about what is natural or not, what about polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and baby eating? Those are all well represented in the animal kingdom, too. And the female Black Widow spider eats her mate after mating, which is also natural. Do you think at some point we should differentiate what other animals do from what we do as humans? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBear in mind there is a difference between choosing who you can be attracted to, and choosing who you will be sleeping with on a particular occasion. So there are no choices at all involved in attraction?
iNow Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 So there are no choices at all involved in attraction? What do YOU think? I think the answer to your question is obvious. The choice is what you do with the attraction, not whether or not you feel it.
scrappy Posted January 24, 2009 Author Posted January 24, 2009 What do YOU think? I think the answer to your question is obvious. The choice is what you do with the attraction, not whether or not you feel it. Well, I don't know about that. I usually choose women with shapely rear ends because they're more attractive to me.
iNow Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 Well, I don't know about that. I usually choose women with shapely rear ends because they're more attractive to me. You seem to be missing the point. You find them attractive BEFORE you choose them. You don't "choose" to find their shapely rear ends attractive. You just find them attractive, and then choose those women. See what I mean?
scrappy Posted January 24, 2009 Author Posted January 24, 2009 You seem to be missing the point. You find them attractive BEFORE you choose them. You don't "choose" to find their shapely rear ends attractive. You just find them attractive, and then choose those women. See what I mean? You mean to say I don't have a choice in what I find attractive? I think I do. Don't you? You have free will, don't you?
iNow Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 You mean to say I don't have a choice in what I find attractive? Precisely. You can choose not to act on your attaction, but you cannot choose not to feel it.
Sisyphus Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Speaking about what is natural or not, what about polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and baby eating? Those are all well represented in the animal kingdom, too. And the female Black Widow spider eats her mate after mating, which is also natural. Do you think at some point we should differentiate what other animals do from what we do as humans? What are you talking about? I don't understand how this is a response to the text you quoted from me, nor do I really understand what you're asking me. Do I think we should excuse murdering and eating one's sexual partners on the grounds that Black Widow spiders do it? No. I'm willing to go on record saying that we should not. Edited January 24, 2009 by Sisyphus
scrappy Posted January 25, 2009 Author Posted January 25, 2009 To iNow and Sisyphus: Doesn't kin selection provide an natural excuse for non-heterosexual behavior? No, I really don't think we choose are sexualities; nature does it for us. But let me ask you this one hypothetical question: What if nanotechnology and/or genetic engineering someday (probably sooner than later) discover what causes of sexuality and find ways to change it. I suspect this will be possible within 20 years. When that happens choice will be the rule of the day and nature will take a back seat. (I can visualize a sex-change business operating like a laser eye-surgery clinic: in and out in a jiffy.)
Sisyphus Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Well that's quite a big "if," frankly (I don't think it's nearly that simple, myself), but I don't know what you're really asking. What would happen? Well, if cultural attitudes are still like they are today, I would guess the majority of naturally gay people would "get it fixed" at puberty since who would willingly put up with millions of idiots calling them immoral and whatnot if they could avoid it? People who have been gay adults for a while probably wouldn't. If trends continue and it becomes more generally acceptable, most probably wouldn't both bother. Or maybe lots of people would just make themselves bisexual, cus, hey, more fun for everyone.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now