From a Darwinian viewpoint wouldn`t homosexuality be a dead end ...and how does evolution account for it?
Poll
What is Homosexuality?
A genetic condition | 28% | 28% - 82 | ||||
A personal choice | 36% | 36% - 104 | ||||
A mental disorder | 26% | 26% - 75 | ||||
Other | 9% | 9% - 27 | ||||
Total: 288 |
You in a nutshell Bahahaha! HA! You got staloned!sergeriver wrote:
What is Homosexuality?
jk! ur r'some
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Id say genetics. I cant see why anyone would chose to be gay, if it means being discriminated against and being basically sterile. i think it has to be determined before birth. I like some gay people and what they do or did, like Freddie Mercury, Rob Halford and Sir Ian McKellen, but I just couldnt be gay, i like chicks to much.
What is homosexuality?............Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, I think it is a noun.
Using a G36E.
For all those that think homosexuality is a "personal choice":
Please describe to the court, the exact moment in your life when you made the conscience decision that you prefer a female over a male. Tell us all, when you weighed all the facts, why you CHOSE females over males. Please tell us what was going through your mind the night before you had to make your decision, or the pressures you were under. Enlighten us on who you talked to, before making this decision. Did you talk to a priest, your counselor, maybe your mom and dad or even your friends? Maybe you read books on the subject so you could make an educated decision.
It had to be a tremendous life altering decision you made. Please share your decision making experience with us.
Please describe to the court, the exact moment in your life when you made the conscience decision that you prefer a female over a male. Tell us all, when you weighed all the facts, why you CHOSE females over males. Please tell us what was going through your mind the night before you had to make your decision, or the pressures you were under. Enlighten us on who you talked to, before making this decision. Did you talk to a priest, your counselor, maybe your mom and dad or even your friends? Maybe you read books on the subject so you could make an educated decision.
It had to be a tremendous life altering decision you made. Please share your decision making experience with us.
Religious and social persecution, that's how. Gay people have been pressured into leading heterosexual lives for as long as people have been around.Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
From a Darwinian viewpoint wouldn`t homosexuality be a dead end ...and how does evolution account for it?
If that's not good enough for you, then think of it like erectile dysfunction. How does evolution account for that?
I`m sorry...you have no idea of what I was talking about....chittydog wrote:
Religious and social persecution, that's how. Gay people have been pressured into leading heterosexual lives for as long as people have been around.Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
From a Darwinian viewpoint wouldn`t homosexuality be a dead end ...and how does evolution account for it?
If that's not good enough for you, then think of it like erectile dysfunction. How does evolution account for that?
If homosexuality is genetically influenced - in the extreme case, if there is a gene or collection of genes that makes someone homosexual - what advantage is there in it? Surely the 'aim' of DNA is to be replicated as much as possible.
S. Keane
Richard Dawkins' reply to this question, and others like it, is dealt with in his letter to the Daily Telegraph: "Could a gay gene really survive?" (16th August, 1993), reproduced below.
Genes that predispose a significant minority of men to homosexuality raise a Darwinian puzzle. If homosexual men rarely father children, homosexual genes should dwindle to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.
As long as the (always implausible) social science orthodoxy was maintained that homosexual inclinations were entirely made, not born, there was little problem. The recent demonstration that, not for the first time, the politically correct is factually incorrect, changes all that. Moreover, contrary to two Letters to the Editor of this newspaper, the evidence that the 'gay' gene lies on the X chromosome (which a man receives only from his mother, and cannot pass to his sons) provides no let-out. A man passes his X chromosome to all his daughters and, on average, a quarter of his grandsons. Any gene that reduces a man's daughters is subject to strong negative selection. It should, other things being equal, disappear.
When Darwinians are challenged by some seemingly un-Darwinian fact of human life, they often invoke the distortions of civilization. Why have we a taste for sugar when it rots our teeth? Because civilization blunts the cutting edge of natural selection, and in our ancestral past sugar was too scarce to do anything but good. Darwinians have framed similar theories about homosexuality: forget the ephemera of modern life, how might homosexual genes have fared during all those millennia on the African savannah?
Some of these theories note that genes have different effects in different contexts. Genes that promote homosexuality in, say, bottle-fed individuals might foster some advantageous trait in breast-fed individuals. Before the teated bottle was invented, the gene would not have surfaced as a gene 'for' homosexuality at all. It would have been a gene 'for' something quite different, perhaps resistance to a virus. Obviously I name 'bottle' and 'virus' only for the sake of argument. The general point is that the effects of a gene may depend upon context. As a special case, they may depend upon which other genes are present in the body. Homosexuality may therefore manifest itself in some individuals, as a spinoff from a gene's positive selection because of its desirable effect in other individuals. A particular version of this theory postulates a gene that causes homosexuality in males but a completely different, beneficial, effect in females.
Another theory, the 'sterile worker,' starts from the well-understood observation that worker bees, ants, wasps, termites and naked mole-rats divert their energy and time away from reproduction and towards the welfare of their young collateral relatives. Perhaps Pleistocene children, while their macho fathers were away hunting, were left under the protection of a gay uncle? The uncle's genes, including those promoting homosexuality, would have a good chance of being reproduced by the children whom he protected as surrogate father.
Incidentally the newly discovered 'gay gene', being on the X chromosome, could be shared by a maternal uncle's nephews (and nieces) but not by a paternal uncle's nephews. It is tantalising to recall the anthropological finding that, in those many societies where uncle replaces father as economic and protective guardian of a child, it is universally the mother's brother not the father's brother. Admittedly, this "mother's brother effect" already has an alternative Darwinian explanation.
In any case, the sterile worker theory doesn't explain why the uncles, in addition to refraining from normal masculine activities, should enjoy making love to men. Indeed one might think that, left in camp with the women, there is another obvious way in which they could benefit their genes, over and above caring for their nephews and nieces. This brings me to my own favourite, the 'sneaky male' theory.
In harem-based species, like some seals and deer, a minority of males monopolises the females, leaving a surplus of bachelors. Those supernumerary males that have no hope of displacing a harem-master sometimes specialise in an alternative, 'best of a bad job,' strategy: sneaking quick copulations with females while his back is turned. Genes promoting sneaking skills are passed on, in parallel with genes promoting the dominant male skill of bashing up other males.
You can tell harem species by their sexual dimorphism - males larger than females. Humans are less dimorphic than elephant seals (a dominant bull typically outweighs 14 females) but dimorphic enough to suggest at least some legacy of harem-based history. Clandestine matings with females may have provided the only route for surplus bachelors to pass on their genes. Their skills may have included lulling harem masters into a false sense of security, and now here is the point. A genuine preference for other males might well carry more conviction than a simulated indifference to females. By analogy, women frequently remark that they feel 'secure' in the company of homosexual men, and monarchs have staffed their harems with eunuchs. Incidentally, experts doubt the widely-promulgated story that the Ottoman Sultan Ibrahim was so jealous of a rumoured liaison between a eunuch and an unidentified odalisque that he drowned his entire 280-strong harem in the Bosporus. In any case homosexual men are not eunuchs and they can fertilise women. According to the sneaky male theory, their homosexual orientation gained them privileged access to women and a minority stream of homosexual genes prospered.
Explanations buried in Pleistocene history are always less convincing where reproduction, rather than survival, is at stake. Early death may have been largely abolished nowadays, but genes still vary in their ability to get themselves reproduced. If a homosexuality gene lowers its own probability of being reproduced today, and yet still abounds in the population, that is a problem for commonsense as much as for Darwin's theory of evolution. And, intriguing as several of these theories may be, I have to conclude that it remains a problem.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml
Explanations buried in Pleistocene history are always less convincing where reproduction, rather than survival, is at stake. Early death may have been largely abolished nowadays, but genes still vary in their ability to get themselves reproduced. If a homosexuality gene lowers its own probability of being reproduced today, and yet still abounds in the population, that is a problem for commonsense as much as for Darwin's theory of evolution. And, intriguing as several of these theories may be, I have to conclude that it remains a problem.
Last edited by Comrade Ogilvy (2007-07-25 18:52:24)
If that's not good enough for you, then think of it like erectile dysfunction. How does evolution account for that?
Thats a disease...not the norm....
Thats a disease...not the norm....
That would be a great sig, except the gun isn't a G36E. It looks like a G36 to me.Klinka-Klinko wrote:
Using a G36E.
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
It's a G36E. The original version. The G36E is the basic version of the G36 family.Havok wrote:
That would be a great sig, except the gun isn't a G36E. It looks like a G36 to me.Klinka-Klinko wrote:
Using a G36E.
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
lol the sterotype look or what?Im_Dooomed wrote:
Either choice you pick, they're all still geay. I hate the gays who really love to LOOK gay in public.
i say its a choice. there is no 'gay gene' is there? or...is it...i think not.
like I quoted nearly 8 hours ago.
Double that... at least
"see page 1"
Double that... at least
"see page 1"
Last edited by xXCortoMalteseXx (2007-07-25 19:25:14)
There are, in fact, a fair number of genetic disorders that severely reduce their own chances of getting passed on. The one that most readily comes to mind is Tay-Sachs disease, which almost always kills those who have it before the age at which they would be capable of reproducing. How, you ask, is this possible? Would not such a gene have eliminated itself long ago?Comrade Ogilvy wrote:
(paraphrased) A long and ill-conceived argument
The answer is, simply, that this issue is far more complicated than you give it credit for. The basis for the belief that homosexuality was genetic in origin was derived from the fact that homosexuality seems to occur naturally in pretty much every population, whether or not it is reported. More recent studies have shown a statistical correlation between the number of brothers that are born to your mother before you and your chances of being a homosexual, with the hypothesis being that the mothers womb undergoes changes during the previous pregnancies that produce a change in a later fetus that in turn directly or indirectly causes homosexuality. There is further evidence, such as a statistical correlation between certain physical characteristics such as finger length, and, I believe, something to do with your hair, and being gay. Because physical characteristics are not something you choose, or something that can be influenced by a conscious choice, the only logical conclusion is that there is a genetic or environmental cause for both the physical characteristics and homosexuality.
Whether or not homosexuality is genetic in its cause, there is no question in the relevant scientific and medical agencies that there is little choice involved. Now, that doesn't mean that when one of your friends 'decides' that he/she is going to go have sex with another person of the same sex that they are choosing to be gay, merely that they are choosing to have sex with someone of their gender. I hope the distinction is not lost on you.
I sincerely doubt that you have a romantic attraction to other men but decide that you are going to be attracted to females instead. This sort of specious thinking is what clutters up debates like this without actually putting forth any viable or even intelligent ideas.Havok wrote:
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
A cop out, if I ever saw one. If you are incapable of debating on anything but a superficial level, you should seriously question the veracity of your beliefs.rawls2 wrote:
The one in my heart.Skruples wrote:
I see, so the people whose job it is to diagnose and treat mental disorders say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. This is an almost universally arrived at conclusion in the scientific, medical, and psychiatric/psychological communities. Decades of research to back it up, etc. etc.rawls2 wrote:
Psychology and/or psychiatry are not proven sciences. Go to a 10 mathematician with an equation and you'll get 10 identical results. Can you do that with either of the to aforementioned professions?
You say it is a mental disorder.
Which opinion do you really think is more informed?
Anyways, good debate. Finally a fresh thread from serge. Good debating all, I need to play video games now.
You are saying that you choose to be straight or gay each day of your life, just as you would choose to wear a coat or a heavy sweater outside depending on what mood you are in that day?? Well please post back and tell us how you cope, on the days you wake up in the mood to suck a dick.Havok wrote:
That would be a great sig, except the gun isn't a G36E. It looks like a G36 to me.Klinka-Klinko wrote:
Using a G36E.
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
Well said.lowing wrote:
You are saying that you choose to be straight or gay each day of your life, just as you would choose to wear a coat or a heavy sweater outside depending on what mood you are in that day?? Well please post back and tell us how you cope, on the days you wake up in the mood to suck a dick.Havok wrote:
That would be a great sig, except the gun isn't a G36E. It looks like a G36 to me.Klinka-Klinko wrote:
Using a G36E.
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
Kinda funny, but this is the first time I've ever wanted to karma lowing for anything and I'm all out of karma for the day.
choice
well, that settles it..........I am convincedAdams_BJ wrote:
choice
A mental disorder. That's basically what it is.
Well I guess even I have my moments .........really I ain't that bad a guy.chittydog wrote:
Well said.lowing wrote:
You are saying that you choose to be straight or gay each day of your life, just as you would choose to wear a coat or a heavy sweater outside depending on what mood you are in that day?? Well please post back and tell us how you cope, on the days you wake up in the mood to suck a dick.Havok wrote:
That would be a great sig, except the gun isn't a G36E. It looks like a G36 to me.
To Lowing, I choose to be heterosexual every single day. It's not a one-time decision that you make. There are countless people that have 'rediscovered' themselves by becoming gay. By your logic, they couldn't just become gay because they were straight before. I choose to be heterosexual because, to me, it seems like a more enjoyable life style. There are other people who don't see it that way, and because of it, they become homosexual. It's all based on preference, which is a choice.
Kinda funny, but this is the first time I've ever wanted to karma lowing for anything and I'm all out of karma for the day.
Last edited by lowing (2007-07-25 21:09:49)
Lowing being intelligent and rational? This deserves a +1.lowing wrote:
For all those that think homosexuality is a "personal choice":
Please describe to the court, the exact moment in your life when you made the conscience decision that you prefer a female over a male. Tell us all, when you weighed all the facts, why you CHOSE females over males. Please tell us what was going through your mind the night before you had to make your decision, or the pressures you were under. Enlighten us on who you talked to, before making this decision. Did you talk to a priest, your counselor, maybe your mom and dad or even your friends? Maybe you read books on the subject so you could make an educated decision.
It had to be a tremendous life altering decision you made. Please share your decision making experience with us.
I have one small question.
Now picture those queer eye for the straight guy dudes. Why didn't they talk like that when they were ten years old if you are born with it?
Now picture those queer eye for the straight guy dudes. Why didn't they talk like that when they were ten years old if you are born with it?
Born gay, chose metro?usmarine2005 wrote:
I have one small question.
Now picture those queer eye for the straight guy dudes. Why didn't they talk like that when they were ten years old if you are born with it?
Maybe for the same reason you didn't talk about fuckin the shit outta your best friends mom at that age either??usmarine2005 wrote:
I have one small question.
Now picture those queer eye for the straight guy dudes. Why didn't they talk like that when they were ten years old if you are born with it?