Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Genitals weren't made but evolved as deemed to be an evolutionary advantage, such as homosexualtiy which might have arisen from the desire to mate with everything that moves to ensure reprocreation. Such habit was obviously successful and we all carry it within our genes. Don't deny you never had any homosexual thoughts, we al have. Oh god! I am an open gay male, I know what it is like to be gay, and not wanted " anywhere" you go, by religion and by " scientist." I don't hold grudges though, I know you are all still trying to accept each other, at least I ask questions.. Not sure if I agree with your statement that everyone has homosexual thoughts though.. With that said seems like I have more experience in this matter than anyone here " from what I know" -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Your words: Science tells you how things work That is exactly my point, 2 penises don't give birth to a child, a vagina and a penis do. Again, Unless you end up like the virgin marry,I hope you get the "the point here" there has not yet been any bad mouthing on groups here, plus I have already stated my point of views about this in my OP, I suggest you " re-read it" I agree with you ajb, I should have mentioned something like this.. Again, you are not being honest, you claim a homosexual cannot reproduce, you know that is wrong, being homosexual does not preclude you have heterosexual sex, unless you can demonstrate that it does then you have no case what so ever... in fact being heterosexual does not preclude you from having homosexual sex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I know this is going off topic, but are you sure? I am fairly certain I have never had any homosexual thoughts and have no idea why I would have. I shouldn't be fussed if I had had such thoughts, but I'm puzzled as to why you would think it is something that everyone has experienced. Perhaps you are defining having such thoughts in a different way from my understanding of the phrase. Does that also include your subconscious? Technical point, but none of those "recent styles" you mention are recent. All have been around since we have. And you're right, they all seem to be doing the job correctly up till now. Well no, not really. Science discovered how to deal with the conditions, but they were already in existence. Contraceptives and condoms are inventions based on scientific research. Sorry, even in nature there are exceptions to the male/female reproductive structure. There are species that can change gender when necessary, there are species that practice asexual reproduction and even species where the males carry the offspring. I'm not sure what you mean by "if and only if both subjects are 100% with no deficiencies". Reality shows us this isn't true, which is generally the case when you start throwing around figures like "100%". 100% what? But homosexuality has no effect on physics, none whatsoever. It does impact biology, so I agree with the choice to move the thread here. Because he was very specific about attacking your idea, which is what science discussions are good for. He didn't attack you personally, which would have been against our rules. This is a ludicrous argument. You say it's simple, then give a scenario that is unbelievably complex and absurd as an example. You've narrowed down the situation to the point where only your argument prevails in your mind, and that's very dangerous if you think what you're doing is thinking critically. I 100% disagree with you on the notion of my critical thinking. I have been gay all my life, and I have never seen anyone one of my gay friends have children while engaging in same sex, unless they ended up like the Virgin Marry , I keep saying that here. Please note, I am not talking about animals, although thanks for mentioning this I did not know this about animals It is humans " front lobe" thinking mammals per say if that's better I wish to discuss here. About science and biology, I was under the impression that " biology " and chemistry went hand in hand as termed universally a "science" IE person has a tumor, then is placed on chemotherapy?? Is this how this works?? Not sure if attacking someone's idea or their "personal" should qualify as being ok, the idea came from the person so the person is the make of the idea " just saying" Edited February 4, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Does that also include your subconscious? I 100% disagree with you on the notion of my critical thinking. I have been gay all my life, and I have never seen anyone one of my gay friends have children while engaging in same sex, unless they ended up like the virgin Marry , I keep saying that here. About science and biology, I was under the impression that " biology " and chemistry went hand in hand as termed universally "science" IE person has a tumor, then is placed on chemotherapy?? Is this how this works?? Not sure if attacking someone's idea or their "personal" should qualify as being ok, the idea came from the person so the person is the make of the idea " just saying" I know many gay men, not one of them has ever said they could not have sex with a woman, they prefer to have sex with men. You are just trolling at this point for ignoring my objections to your assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Analytical on a science forum, imagine that. You are basically saying if all humans quit conceiving would that be "bad". Yes, in terms of continuing humanity. But, while homosexual sex doesn't create life, neither does most sex. If everyone became homosexual overnight, I imagine that conception wouldn't stop. Even leaving out bisexuality and sliding scales, 100% homosexual people could agree to "go hetero" for a little to have children. That would mean they really want to have children, I would expect better parenting as a result. Population growth would take a hit, but really, do we need more people on the planet? Wouldn't quality be better than quantity? To me, seems like bisexuality would be the best. People would understand both sexes better and probably get along with both better as well. If everyone changed to 100% heterosexual overnight, would that be an improvement? I doubt it. I'm 100% hetero, never had any thoughts like that. My bromance with Matt Damon and Brad Pitt is just my admiration for their acting, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE!! This is the 2nd time I read someone correcting a universal homosexual mind frame, how interesting Or, another way of looking at it, if everyone turned 100% male overnight, I think that would be worse for humanity's long term survival than if everyone turned gay overnight. Does that make males bad for the long term survival of the species? Obviously not. How about all 100% male and one 0% male?? WOW! Now would't that be a gay guys dream "Cum" true Yep, you're absolutely right. My linking to that thread had nothing to do with reminding people how silly the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument truly is, and everything to do with me being upset that you were competing with a thread I created more than 5 years ago, and which hasn't been posted to in over 3 years. Gosh and golly and stuff... It's hard to slip anything by you, my friend. I've clearly been bested by your enormous intellect. How embarrassing. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy " thank you sir" So disregarding everything you have stated just now, you still placed your own 5 year old thread here " for a reason." I was very impressed how you " aimed" at religion in your thread and not your own personal point of views, as though instigating and or pointing the finger at them " like advocating atheism", At least here I am asking questions... The male penis was created? Come on all the rest that follows is nonsense due to that one phrase. I do suggest you read the other thread as indicated, it completely blows your initial thread out of the water and a side note lesbians are homosexuals and homosexual/heterosexual is not enough to keep people from having sex with who ever they want and then the concept of bi sexuality has to be considered... Yes the male penis was created " past tense here" for when a woman and man have children , they also create the genitals...Its called genetics. Unless you have another reasoning please share this.. The other post you mention is filled with bias towards religion, UMM AGAINST THIS FORUM'S POLICY RIGHT??? UMM YEA WHATEVER! ^It's about how surprisingly common ignorance continues to be in our modern 2014 world. Not to mention G h and c, still not being = 1 as per SI units still used in 2014, good point! I agree with you " me lad" Edited February 4, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I would disagree, the debate is ongoing - see a paper in support from Nature in 2013 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130628/ncomms3048/full/ncomms3048.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20130703 and a paper against from J. Theoretical Biology http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314000472 The first paper is a paper on kin selection. Kin selection is not group selection, rather kin selection is the concept of the aforementioned Hamilton. The analogy that Dawkins famously made for Hamilton's brilliant insight....the selfish gene....that is kin selection. Here again, it is not the welfare or success of the group that matters, but the success of the individual genes. The second paper is the one that actually argues for group selection. Sure the debate is ongoing, there are a few stalwart group selectionists, E.O. Wilson being the most notable. I never said that the group selection was dead. I said it has fallen by the wayside because, with the exception of a handful of individuals, it is not considered viable by most evolutionary biologists. Jerry Coyne does a good job of summarizing the state of group selection in Biology. As he points out, the theoretical models do not work that well and group selection has failed to explain anything in nature. Hence its lack of popularity. In contrast, gene-centric inclusive fitness theory or kin selection has successfully explained many things, including the often studied eusocial insects. The most notable group selection paper of recent years, the Nowak 2010 Nature paper, which many believed got into Nature purely by attaching Wilson's name, sparked a vast and immediate rebuttal. In fact over 150 researchers responded to it's publication. That's not exactly the mark of a theory in good standing. In the case of homosexuality then, how do you make the leap from a theory that struggles even in theory, let alone in practice to the assertion that it can explain a complex human trait like homosexuality? The problem with your "heterozygote" concept is it's over-simplistic. Homosexuality appears to be a highly multigenic trait involving lots of small effect alleles and a strong environmental component. Therefore, a simplistic, Mendelian mode of inheritance is of little utility. http://www.sciencedi...090513813000020 http://onlinelibrary...enticated=false http://www.sciencedi...003347213001966 You should read my previous posts more carefully.... "However, homosexuality is a going to be a complex quantitative trait...rather than a single allele, but the situation of heterozygote advantage still applies. " I made it very clear that its going to be a multigenic trait....that's what "complex quantitative trait" and "rather than a single allele" means. However, the fact that something is a multigenic trait does not mean that heterozygote advantage might not apply. You can have both. I also don't know why you say ""heterozygote" concept, with heterozygote in quotations as if this is some new concept I just made up. Heterozygote advantage is an old concept in genetics. Also, even if a trait is multigenic, its still Mendelian. The reason I first started with simplistic single locus explanation is the same reason population geneticists have for decades started their models with single loci....ease. I was trying to convey a concept to a larger group who may not understand genetics, and so I started with the simplest explanation. That's it. I am not so naive as to think it a single gene trait...hence why I made pains in my post to state as much. Now, the three papers you cite here....I find your choice of them confusing, because they don't really all say the same thing or are even relevant. The first paper...about the only one of some relevance. models the effect of female fecundity and marrying at higher levels of social standing and with the effects of male homosexual preference. Its interesting, but it says nothing about the genetic architecture of homosexuality and after my brief glance...I'm pretty sure it assumes a single locus model.... The second paper doesn't even have anything to do with homosexuality...its about the heritability of pedophilia, which could apply to heterosexual attraction as well as homosexual attraction. I am truly confused about the choice of this paper. The third study examines the differences between Same-sex behavior and Same-sex preference and the implications of recognizing the difference in study design...it says nothing about the actual genetic architecture of the trait itself. So this paper seems irrelevant to the argument you are making. Selection for the trait is going to operate on the pool of alleles circulating in the population, and not on the individual level. As such, any genetic component to homosexuality in humans is going to be selected for/against on multiple fronts. Given the low prevalence of homosexuality, and the incomplete nature of the trait (i.e. people identifying as homosexual are still capable of being in heterosexual relationships and having children) it is unlikely that selection would have a strong effect on the particular (assumedly large) pool of alleles which potentially lead to homosexual tendencies given the right environmental factors. I am not sure what you mean by "Selection for the trait is going to operate on the pool of alleles circulating in the population, and not on the individual level". When you say "pool of alleles" do you mean alleles of a single gene? Or do you mean instead a pool of alleles from multiple loci? When you say the individual level, do you mean the individual as in the organism or as the specific gene. Selection can operate on each loci individually and many of these may be maintained by heterozygote advantage. The concept of heterozygote advantage is not contrary to the idea of a multigenic trait. In fact, the primary reason I raise it was as one simplistic example of how homosexuality could be selected for, divorced from concepts of advantages brought to the group through homosexuality itself. Given how little we know about the genetics of homosexuality, I would never make a claim on the actual genetic architecture...hence why I put a disclaimer in my post that it the trait is a complex and quantitative one. That being said, the genetics of homosexuality could be influenced by largely by one locus, even if it was multigenic, which under the right environmental conditions would lead to homosexuality. A multigenic trait also doesn't necessarily imply a large number of loci, particularly if the majority of those loci account for the majority of the heritability. There are several well known environmental correlations with homosexuality, including birth order, suggesting possible conditions in the womb having a significant effect. In fact, there is a strong correlation of male homosexuals being the younger siblings in large families. Based on this, I could propose a model where the heritability of homosexuality is accounted by one large effect allele, but highly dependent upon environmental factors such as birth order. The lack of such environmental factors and a low allele frequency in the population as a whole giving rise to the low prevalence of homosexuality. I raise this only as a hypothetical. The low prevalence of homosexuality does not necessarily imply a highly multigenic trait either. If an allele exists at low frequency....possibly due to recent origins....then you will have a low prevalence of that trait. There are so many genetic possibilities here that I am loath to make any firm assumption on the genetic architecture....I am confident enough, however, to argue against the possibility that its existence has anything to do with a group selection model. Edited February 4, 2014 by chadn737 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 I would like to point out that I never once said you have an, 'original thinking mind.' Those words weren't even a part of my post. What I said was this: You'd also do well not to take my statements out of their intended context. Secondly, you cannot keep insisting on your absurd preposition that homosexuals are wrong as per science when this point has been refuted over and over again in this thread. Unless you are willing and able to go through and detail why this is (and why science should have anything to say on the matter at all) without committing further logical fallacy or going off on completely unrelated tangents, then you cannot keep stating it as fact. Finally, though I cannot moderate here, I would like to unofficially point out to you that you are crossing the line by calling the people who are homosexuals wrong, as per rule one of this forum. I have already mentioned to you that 'wrong' is not the argument you appear to be making and it is not scientific. Crossing the line?? There is another member here whom placed a link in where they were demoralizing religion for their beliefs in homosexuality, at least here I am asking if it is wrong... If you " read" my replies I have already stated that I am gay and have more experiences on this subject both with religion, scientist and regular people.... I have not disagreed with anyone if homosexuality is wrong, I am simply asking questions... I have not stated that homosexuality is wrong at all... The matter is that they cannot reproduce the natural way...Production and choice like I have been hearing seem to be not related?? The point that Delta is making here - one that you do not seem to get, despite having been told it in numerous threads - is that science is not some massive conglomerate that decides whether something is right or wrong. It is a tool that is used to describe the world around us and how things are. Commenting on whether a phenomenon that clearly exists in nature is right or wrong is completely outside the purview of science.C Now this make better sense to me thanks. Phenomenon you mention. So then, why would science have an issue with: A religious point of view? An Astrologist point of view? A psychic's point of view? Regarding " homosexuality? You said yourself science only describes things in nature.... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Crossing the line?? There is another member here whom placed a link in where they were demoralizing religion for their beliefs in homosexuality, at least here I am asking if it is wrong... If you " read" my replies I have already stated that I am gay and have more experiences on this subject both with religion, scientist and regular people.... I have not disagreed with anyone if homosexuality is wrong, I am simply asking questions... I have not stated that homosexuality is wrong at all... The matter is that they cannot reproduce the natural way...Production and choice like I have been hearing seem to be not related?? What does you being gay have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't address anything in my post. You should try doing that. And actually, you have disagreed with most of the posts made in this thread. Furthermore, yes you damned well have: If religion states that homosexuals are wrong, and on the scientific side they cannot produce children, then homosexuality is " wrong" as per what religion states and as per scientific fact. Again: Its wrong because " although healthy" they cannot reproduce, although not sterile, they still cannot reproduce..Unless of course one of them ends up like THE VIRGIN MARRY, GET IT<------? Along with your implied stance that it is wrong throughout this entire thread. If that is not your position, then I once again implore you to adopt clarity when you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 How can you say homosexuals cannot reproduce? Do you really think a homosexual woman cannot have sex with a man or a homosexual man cannot have sex with a woman? Surely you realize this is a totally false idea? O O, you seem not to get it.... A real gay man does not get sexually aroused by females, and vise versa... DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 As Hamilton made rigorous in a couple of specific circumstances, homosexuality can be selected for without any particular heterozygous advantage if kin selection is strong enough otherwise - if there's a nonreproductive uncle/aunt advantage corresponding to the grandmother advantage, say. The heterozygous advantage would be the homozygous kin, in other words. Although recent styles have changes IE anal sex oral sex and masturbation and etc The impression one gets from the homophobic is that they think all this sex stuff is modern, that people didn't behave like this way back when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Now this make better sense to me thanks. Phenomenon you mention. So then, why would science have an issue with: A religious point of view? An Astrologist point of view? A psychic's point of view? Regarding " homosexuality? You said yourself science only describes things in nature.... It doesn't. None of what you just said makes sense or has any relevance to this thread and it furthermore demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what science is. I would strongly recommend you re-read my post or Delta's or alternatively, take some time away to correct your misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 What does you being gay have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't address anything in my post. You should try doing that. And actually, you have disagreed with most of the posts made in this thread. Furthermore, yes you damned well have: Along with your implied stance that it is wrong throughout this entire thread. If that is not your position, then I once again implore you to adopt clarity when you post. So then obviously you agree with religion as per their Virgin Marry??? That's why I placed this all over this thread... I'm sorry but facts are facts here, gay people cannot give birth to children like straight couples can... Science deals with protocols of facts not magic.. Because of this both religion and science agree... Religion supports their Virgin Marry And science supports a miracle that one day two men might conceive... that is pathetic considering both groups IE religion and science are always at each others throats.. How odd.... It doesn't. None of what you just said makes sense or has any relevance to this thread and it furthermore demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what science is. I would strongly recommend you re-read my post or Delta's or alternatively, take some time away to correct your misconceptions. I will because I am here to learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 So then obviously you agree with religion as per their Virgin Marry??? That's why I placed this all over this thread... I thought this was a thread about science, not religion? Stick to your own topic. I'm sorry but facts are facts here, gay people cannot give birth to children like straight couples can... And as I and others have already stated, this does not make homosexuality wrong. You can repeat this line until you are blue in the face, but you have nothing to say until you can properly address the criticisms that others have made about your premise. Because of this both religion and science agree... Religion supports their Virgin Marry And science supports a miracle that one day two men might conceive... that is pathetic considering both groups IE religion and science are always at each others throats.. How odd.... Just...no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) As Hamilton made rigorous in a couple of specific circumstances, homosexuality can be selected for without any particular heterozygous advantage if kin selection is strong enough otherwise - if there's a nonreproductive uncle/aunt advantage corresponding to the grandmother advantage, say. The heterozygous advantage would be the homozygous kin, in other words. Many studies have set out to test this hypothesis and found little to no support. In study after study, homosexual men do not demonstrate any increased giving of resources (essential for this hypothesis to work) to their family members and in some cases were less likely. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513801000745 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513806000699 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-011-9763-z http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-005-4345-6 These results were replicated across multiple cultures. We can contrast this to increasing evidence of female fecundity: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513808000688 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.short Edited February 4, 2014 by chadn737 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) As Hamilton made rigorous in a couple of specific circumstances, homosexuality can be selected for without any particular heterozygous advantage if kin selection is strong enough otherwise - if there's a nonreproductive uncle/aunt advantage corresponding to the grandmother advantage, say. The heterozygous advantage would be the homozygous kin, in other words. The impression one gets from the homophobic is that they think all this sex stuff is modern, that people didn't behave like this way back when. You don't think that "Lady Gaga" "hip hop music" rap music" the internet, cell phones and " Viagra" had any influence in today's "modern sexual activity?" I think homophobia is in relation to " closet cased gays" making my entire OP more complex... I thought this was a thread about science, not religion? Stick to your own topic. And as I and others have already stated, this does not make homosexuality wrong. You can repeat this line until you are blue in the face, but you have nothing to say until you can properly address the criticisms that others have made about your premise. Just...no. I am, I mentioned in my OP about religious points of views, I think many members did not read the entire post, again, this is why I kept placing the Virgin Marry.... Edited February 4, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 You don't think that "Lady Gaga" "hip hop music" rap music" the internet, cell phones and " Viagra" had any influence in today's "modern sexual activity?" I think homophobia is in relation to " closet cased gays" making my entire OP more complex... I am, I mentioned in my OP about religious points of views, I think many members did not read the entire post, again, this is why I kept placing the Virgin Marry.... And yet you posted this in the science part of the forum and specifically asked for scientific answers (to a question that science has nothing to do with, but never mind that for the moment), making religion or religious arguments not the topic of conversation. I think many members struggle to understand most of your posts and you do little in the way to clarify them when asked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Ok, here's the point you seem to be missing: We can use science to determine the reproductive rate of people who identify as homosexual in comparison to the reproductive rate of heterosexuals. We can use science to determine that reproduction inevitably leads to evolution and that failure to reproduce inevitably leads to extinction. We cannot use science to determine whether evolving is a good thing, whether extinction is a bad thing or whether reproducing more is an overall positive or negative thing. Those are goal-oriented values. Science can help us determine optimum strategies for reaching our goals, but it cannot tell us what our goals should be. In the absence of providing goals or values, science cannot tell you whether something is right or wrong, only whether it does or does not work. So, for instance, if your goal in having sex is to produce a child, then yes, science tells us homosexual sex is the wrong way to go about achieving that goal. If your goal is to feel good or establish an emotional bond with another person, science tells us that homosexual sex works just as well as heterosexual sex. Whether you should have sex to make babies or for recreational purposes is not something science can tell us, and as such, no form of sex can be labelled as universally "wrong as per science" because being wrong implies a value judgment that you can't use science to make. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) In study after study, homosexual men do not demonstrate any increased giving of resources to their family members and in some cases were less likely. You posted four studies ostensibly dealing with that, all dubiously designed voluntary "survey" questionaires (such methods often unreliable in matters associated with homosexual behavior - agreed?). Of the four, one provided evidence that in non-industrial cultures (at least, in the only non-industrial culture surveyed in any of the four) "androphilic" men do provide more resources to kin than "gynephilic" men do; one was neutral, the other two surveyed only a couple of closely allied modern Western cultures with homophobic norms - let alone attempt a pre-agricultural society estimate - and dealt with data bases in the tens (60, etc). (essential for this hypothesis to work) No, it's not. For one thing, simple reduction in competition for resources - like birds laying fewer eggs in bad years - can enhance the reproductive success of one's nearby tribesfolk (likely to be kin), and be potentially enough. These results were replicated across multiple cultures. No, they weren't. The only even partly non-Westernized non-industrial culture surveyed (on the island of Samoa, the abstract did not say which Samoans) provided evidence of the opposite - in the more tribal setting, such as iis commonly assumed for prehistoric people, androphilic men did contribute more to kin. We can contrast this to increasing evidence of female fecundity Another four studies, in which seems indicated that: Increasing related maternal female fecundity 1) is not in itself a demonstration of heterozygosity in whatever combination of alleles is involved 2) fits well with an expectation of greater support of some kind from gay men (or at least reduction in resource competitiom, gain in exploration, etc) 3) was a bit muddled, with one of the studies (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2 ) presenting conflicting findings between white and non-white androphilic men. The modern estrangement of gay men from their families and communities in Western cultures is far from reliable as a presumed evolutionary norm. Edited February 4, 2014 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Crossing the line?? There is another member here whom placed a link in where they were demoralizing religion for their beliefs in homosexuality, at least here I am asking if it is wrong... You are asking if it's wrong in a scientific sense rather than a moral sense; you posted this in a science section. What religion has to say on the matter is a separate issue. Science makes no judgement, since the question of "wrong" isn't one that biology (or physics) addresses. What science addresses is whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature and the answer is yes. Science may then go on and discuss some of the hows, whys and wherefores. If you want to discuss moral, religious and/or political implications, you should post those questions in the appropriate sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 O O, you seem not to get it.... A real gay man does not get sexually aroused by females, and vise versa... DUH! It's truly sad to see a person so ignorant of human sexuality much less their own sexuality. Evidently of all the gay men I know none are real gay men or of all the lesbians i know none are real gay women. You are either totally ignorant of human sexuality or a troll, my wife and I have been members of PFLAG for at least 15 years, yes the whole nine yards from meetings and attend a metropolitan community church where we are only one of two straight couples who go there. We have catered gay weddings, have gay friends and a gay son, you are misrepresenting gays for your own agenda, I have no idea what that may be but it's sad if you are really gay and sick if you are just trolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 You posted four studies ostensibly dealing with that, all dubiously designed voluntary "survey" questionaires (such methods often unreliable in matters associated with homosexual behavior - agreed?). Of the four, one provided evidence that in non-industrial cultures (at least, in the only non-industrial culture surveyed in any of the four) "androphilic" men do provide more resources to kin than "gynephilic" men do; one was neutral, the other two surveyed only a couple of closely allied modern Western cultures with homophobic norms - let alone attempt a pre-agricultural society estimate - and dealt with data bases in the tens (60, etc). Why would I agree that such methods are unreliable? This isn't a survey of engagement in sexual behavior. They are surveying attitudes towards the children of offspring. The homosexual individuals in the study are not hiding anything, so I have no idea why this would be unreliable because it is associated with homosexuality. You in fact give no real reason why we should distrust these studies. The language you are using is not specific and nothing more than an attempt at poisoning the well. That Japanese study was not "neutral"....it showed no difference between androphilic and gynephilic individuals. The Samoan study also is not so clear cut. Androphilic men were not less "needy" nor did they have increased overall generosity towards family members. So we have 3 studies against and one study for. That is very inconclusive result. While you maintain that the "homophobic norms" may play a role, an equally valid explanation is that it is the uniqueness of the Samoan culture that gives rise to such behavior...having nothing to do with evolution. No, it's not. For one thing, simple reduction in competition for resources - like birds laying fewer eggs in bad years - can enhance the reproductive success of one's nearby tribesfolk (likely to be kin), and be potentially enough. These are not comparable strategies and I think you have misunderstood the obvious implications of your bird example. Birds laying fewer eggs in bad years allows them to allocate greater resources to a fewer number of young, thus ensuring the survival of one's own young. Its entirely selfish and unlikely to have any relation to the reproductive success of other birds. This strategy also makes no sense in the context of homosexuals. First off, assuming that the homosexual does not reproduce, you have a complete loss of reproductive potential in the homosexual (this is true in studies of Samoan homosexuals where it is accepted). The offspring of the birds still has reproductive potential. Secondly, the homosexual individual consumes resources. The idea that they represent a reduction in competition for resources makes no sense. You are consuming the same resources as having a heterosexual individual while eliminating reproductive potential....as an evolutionary strategy, it doesn't work out. Furthermore, in the Samoan study, there was no evidence that homosexuals had a difference in their "neediness" which would indicate that they use less resources than heterosexual members. No, they weren't. The only even partly non-Westernized non-industrial culture surveyed (on the island of Samoa, the abstract did not say which Samoans) provided evidence of the opposite - in the more tribal setting, such as iis commonly assumed for prehistoric people, androphilic men did contribute more to kin. The Samoan study is not so clear cut, as I pointed out above. They do not have a reduction in neediness (ruling out your reduced competition hypothesis), nor do they differ in general generosity towards family members. Another four studies, in which seems indicated that: Increasing related maternal female fecundity 1) is not in itself a demonstration of heterozygosity in whatever combination of alleles is involved 2) fits well with an expectation of greater support of some kind from gay men (or at least reduction in resource competitiom, gain in exploration, etc) 3) was a bit muddled, with one of the studies (http://link.springer...0508-007-9191-2 ) presenting conflicting findings between white and non-white androphilic men. The modern estrangement of gay men from their families and communities in Western cultures is far from reliable as a presumed evolutionary norm. 1) Strawman. I never claimed that these studies were evidence for heterozygote advantage. I point to these studies, because they show stronger evidence for the role of female fecundity, which is contrasted to the rather scant and contradicting evidence of kin selection in homosexuality. 2) It does not fit with an expectation of greater support. In some of the studies, they only looked at number of sexual partners, finding that siblings of homosexuals often had greater number of sexual partners. Its a huge leap to suggest that such behavior is based entirely on an expectation of greater support. As I pointed out above in the Samoan study, homosexuals have no reduction in "neediness" (i.e. the amount of resources used from family members) than heterosexual members, which clearly contradicts the argument that it has anything to do with resource competition. 3) The study found no difference because non-whites had elevated fecundity across the board. However, the increase fecundity has been observed in Samoa as well....as well as the effects of fraternal birth order. It is interesting then that we find evidence for fecundity and fraternal birth order across societies, but evidence of kin selection has been limited to only one culture. This would suggest that it is the latter two, not kin selection, that is the better explanation. 4) I am not assuming that the modern estrangement of gay men to be an evolutionary norm. However, I think it equally fallacious to extrapolate from the singular example of Samoa to the evolutionary history of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 there has not yet been any bad mouthing on groups here, plus I have already stated my point of views about this in my OP, I suggest you " re-read it" Yes there has. Homosexuals are a clearly identifiable group. Calling them "wrong" is an insult. Your question was "would the above discrimination on gays and lesbians, including those from religion be valid?" And the answer is" No, of course not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 O O, you seem not to get it.... A real gay man does not get sexually aroused by females, and vise versa... DUH! Again, how does that impede reproductive capability? As far as I know neither testes nor ovaries magically shut down the moment you engage in sexual activities with the same sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chadn737 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Again, how does that impede reproductive capability? As far as I know neither testes nor ovaries magically shut down the moment you engage in sexual activities with the same sex. Studies in Samoa shows that it does. If a lack of attraction to the opposite sex keeps you from having sex with them, it does reduce reproductive capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Is it lowering the tone of the discussion to mention a turkey baster at this stage? Lack of physical attraction does not prevent conception. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts