View Full Version : Nature v. Nurture: Looks like homosexuality might not be a choice after all
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 20:40
Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html).
A new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours.
...
They also gave flies drugs to alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours.
Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.
Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html).
Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.
Well they don't call them Fruit Flies for nothing... :wink: ~:flirt: :kiss:
It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings. That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations. Furthermore, that does not justify the behaviours. Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.
The problem in bringing evidence saying homosexuality is not a choice, is those bringing said evidence always want it to also carry the implication that it extends to justify all those things I just mentioned. But, it does not extend and does not justify any of them. Therefore, it is a moot point whether having homosexual inclinations is a choice or not.
So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.
As far as the "choice" canard, I just never understood the argument. I never chose to be attracted to women; I'm just that way. There was never, ever a moment in my life when I had to think about it, or make any sort of rational process out of it. I just liked women from the earliest time I could think about who I wanted to play spin the bottle with.
Likewise, the gay people I've known and worked with have never discussed any moment of choice. Geez, sexual attraction is such a cocktail of hormones and chemicals, I can't imagine anything that has less to do with choice.
As far as a "gay cure," I've known several gay men who would have loved to be straight if that were possible. Offering adults a way to change their sexual preference might be popular.
Here's where it gets thorny: What if there's an in utero test for gayness? What if couples begin to abort gay babies the same way they now routinely abort fetuses with downs syndrome?
What if the "gay cure" is offered to parents of children whom they know to be gay? Where's the ethical line on that? Is it a legitimate act for a parent to pay for and get medical treatment for their child which will alter their sexuality permanently?
I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I think it's worthwhile to bat them around.
Ok, seriously. It's startling news but how such treatments could be devised for primates and their dizzyingly complex genetic junk is an another deal altogether. Apples and oranges or not it's pretty fascinating stuff.
Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.
Oh well, in the end everything will be defined as an illness, and everything that makes a human a human, will have to be cured.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 21:30
The possibility has always existed, but this neither proves nor disproves anything. We don't know the physiological mechanism that causes this in humans.
As far as I last checked, insects are very different from primates.
There are two main sexes - Male and Female
If you have a penis and testicles, you are usually a male
If you have a vagina and ovaries, you are usually a female
Very few people have both - they are on the fence.
Where you put your various parts is a choice, fueled by various fetishes. The blueprints are for procreation, pleasure and excretion. That is what "God" designed them for.
If they don't do one of those things, they are broken or not being used properly.
Don Corleone
12-10-2007, 21:35
I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case. From a religious perspective, it's perfectly 'natural' to look after one's own and tell everyone else in the world to pound sand if they need your help, but that's not exactly what God wants out of us either. From a biological perspective, as several have noted, fruitflies and primates are a LONG ways apart on the evoltionary/genetic scale.
I just find it interesting is all. It certainly lends a lot of credence to the arguments I've heard put forward by gay people that they in fact had no choice, any more than they 'chose' to have blue eyes.
And as Viking rightly points out, now we're going to get into a whole philosophical/epistemological debate over what is a 'defect' and what needs to be 'cured' versus accepted as part of the human condition.
I just think it sheds new light on the question. Nothing definitive, just illuminating.
And as Viking rightly points out, now we're going to get into a whole philosophical/epistemological debate over what is a 'defect' and what needs to be 'cured' versus accepted as part of the human condition.Well, let's be honest. Biologically speaking, how can homosexuality not be considered a defect? The debate would be about whether it's something we could or should cure.. :shrug:
As to nature vs nurture, as others have pointed out- fruit flies don't tell us much one way or the other. There are frogs that can spontaneously change sex- I think it'd be a mistake to try to draw conclusions about humans based on that as well.
Reverend Joe
12-10-2007, 22:12
It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings.
Yeah, it does.
That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations.
What th... no. Just... no. :inquisitive:
Furthermore, that does not justify the behaviours. Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.
Yeah... it does.
After all, if gay people can ignore a biological inclination to be gay, why the hell can't I ignore my Tourette's syndrome? I mean, even if it's a biological condition of the nervous system, it's a behavior, and therefore a choice, right?
:juggle2:
PanzerJaeger
12-10-2007, 22:31
As far as the "choice" canard, I just never understood the argument. I never chose to be attracted to women; I'm just that way. There was never, ever a moment in my life when I had to think about it, or make any sort of rational process out of it. I just liked women from the earliest time I could think about who I wanted to play spin the bottle with.
Likewise, the gay people I've known and worked with have never discussed any moment of choice. Geez, sexual attraction is such a cocktail of hormones and chemicals, I can't imagine anything that has less to do with choice.
And who would choose to be marginalized, derided, and hated all their life?
If a guy can be attracted to both men and women and chose women, he is in fact bisexual, not hetero.
Of course a lot of social factors confuse this. For example, girls who make out at parties for guy's attention. Or the long time married man with kids who gets divorced and "turns" gay. At the end of the day, though, you can't change who you are attracted to.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-10-2007, 22:31
It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings. That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations.
Understood. However, if one subscribes to the theory of evolution, it seems unlikely that such a genetic component has developed only in homo sapiens and only within the last few millenia via mutation (natural or "induced"). The more likely expectation would be that this genetic element has been present throughout recorded history and probably a bit before -- if not all the way back to hominid predecessors.
....Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.
Quite correct. Though limited in many ways, Freud had a good point when he argued that some of society is an effort at suppression and control of "natural" behaviors.
Xiahou:
"Homosexual" activity has been observed in a number of species. I don't think we understand it very well yet vis-a-vis its role in propagation and improvement of the species in evolutionary/genetic terms. Is it a tendency being mutated out? Does it play some other role? If it were a simple an abberation (as it seems prima facie since homosexuality in humans does not result in offspring), it should be on the decrease via self selection, yet it would seem that it has been fairly consistent throughout recorded history (though varying in open-ness from culture to culture of course).
InsaneApache
12-10-2007, 22:39
Try turning it around. Are you heterosexual by choice? :inquisitive:
Just a thought.
I never bought the "it´s a choice" thing.... I never choose to be attracted to girls....I just am....so I imagine that gays are the same way...like someone already pointed above...why would anyone make a choice for them selfs that bring with it prejudice and even hate from other people??
it´s not much of a surprise that you can "turn the switch" so to speak....sexual behavior is mainly all about brain chemistry..so if you can change that...you can change what team an individual plays on so to speak....but having said that we´re not fruit flies...we´re a little more complex than that...
even if we could this is a very slippery slope that I´m not sure we should go down ...so you can "cure" it...then what?....are parents allowed to screen their kids for it? maybe even test it in utero? do they have that right? what about selective abortion based on this...is that right? what is the difference between that and starting selecting people because you don´t like their hair or skin color? ..some guys played with that idea about 60 years back...you all might have heard of them....leather outfits....kinda weird marching style...their leader seemed a little light on the loafers himself.....which is kinda ironic.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 23:30
I never bought the "it´s a choice" thing.... I never choose to be attracted to girls....I just am....so I imagine that gays are the same way...like someone already pointed above...why would anyone make a choice for them selfs that bring with it prejudice and even hate from other people??
People convert to different religions, people become atheists, they get tattoo's on their faces and visible parts of their bodies, they molest children, molest animals, molest inanimate objects. These things are usually at odds with the surrounding society, yet people get it into their mind that they are being "driven" to do it by something inside of them.
It's all BS until tit's proven. The question of whether you are born "heterosexual" is absurd; If you've got the equipment, there is no question. Anything else is personal choice - conscious or subconscious
The question of whether you are born "heterosexual" is absurd; If you've got the equipment, there is no question. Anything else is personal choice - conscious or subconscious
So at what age did you decide to be a heterosexual? Can you remember the decision? Did anything special prompt it?
Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html).
Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.
I assumed this for a while. It's probably a combination of both, simply biological, or simply a choice. It probably differs for each homosexual individual.
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 00:17
Well, let's be honest. Biologically speaking, how can homosexuality not be considered a defect?
Homosexuality while not making the individual sterile leads to the same outcome. Sterility is not a defect. Have to look beyond the individual gene holder and look at how the genes will pass on.
Ants are on the whole sterile.
.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 00:56
Ants are on the whole sterile.everyone knows ants are sinful decadents.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:04
The human junk is like a big sign pointing to what their role is. So clearly obvious. One of the few clearly obvious things out there.
If you were born with a tattoo that said "i am clearly meant to contribute man goo to lady goo and make a baby", would that end the debate? Because you were given that sign, in a way. It's called "your ugly parts". The other side of that sign says "you can put this anywhere there is a hole" ie; a donut, a pie, a keyhole, someones pastrami sandwich when they aren't looking, oh yea and in between a man's hams.
TuffStuff, let me just see if I'm understanding you correctly:
Male and female genitals fit together, and so everyone should be heterosexual, since they are "built for it." Is that more or less what you're saying?
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:11
A car is built to drive. If you wanna join a circus, paint it rainbow and have clowns coming out of the trunk that's your business, but I doubt they put that in the manual. Regardless, few people will try to make the point that it wasn't meant to drive in the first place.
woad&fangs
12-11-2007, 01:12
Ok, how does this research account for bisexuality? Also, out side of my own selfish reason I don't have a problem with homosexuality. As several people have already stated love isn't exactly a choice.
For those of you who are against homosexuality, could you please explain why?
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:15
Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.
Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.
Um, actually, that sorta argues against the point you've been making. As in, we all have mouths, and we can all digest onions, so why would some pervert not like onions?
woad&fangs
12-11-2007, 01:18
I happen to like onions.
Also, are you saying that people should only have sex for procreation?
Edit: go Lemur!!!
Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.
I might not like onions...but I don´t think someone else is wrong or sinful for liking onions.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:28
Um, actually, that sorta argues against the point you've been making. As in, we all have mouths, and we can all digest onions, so why would some pervert not like onions?
Well played my friend. The onion arguement is much better used for the homophobia claim; "I dont like onions, that doesn't make me afraid of them". That is why I love arguing with the figurative; Easy wins and loses.
I honestly don't know. I will change my mind in the face of facts, not the gradual slide of public perception. Ive always believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 01:38
Ive always believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.you just said you thought it was a choice..
so is it a choice or a mental illness? or is it a rare case of a voluntary mental illness? :inquisitive:
woad&fangs
12-11-2007, 01:39
I believe that Neo-Conservatism is a mental disease but it has been renamed as a "political party" for political reasons.
Where would you draw the line as to what is or is not a mental illness? Do people with a whip fetish have a mental illness? Do angry people have a mental illness? What about ditsy people?
It all comes down to what is socially acceptable. That is why I'm asking why people are so against homosexuality. Many people are against it because "it isn't Christian" or whatever. Well, Jesus also said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:45
you just said you thought it was a choice..
so is it a choice or a mental illness? or is it a rare case of a voluntary mental illness? :inquisitive:
I don't know. It is one of the things that we don't yet understand or have much insight into. For some it is a choice, for others a mental illness? For others still it may be both. Who knows? Some people say that religiousness or your draw to it is a mental illness(s?). I can say what I'd like and they can do what they'd like and none of us have been proven wring yet.
All I know is that opinions have become entrenched in tenuous ground no matter where you are coming from.
I do maintain that something is broken, though.
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 01:51
is it a rare case of a voluntary mental illness? :inquisitive:
No need to bring marriage into the debate! :laugh4:
woad&fangs
12-11-2007, 01:52
It is one of the things that we don't yet understand or have much insight into. For some it is a choice, for others a mental illness?
How many studies do you want to confirm that it isn't a choice? There are a lot out there.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-11-2007, 01:52
Two things strike me about this:
1. Our society doesn't really like bisexuals whereas it's "okay" or "fashionable" to be gay.
2. Our society preconditions you to heterosexuality.
So I think that most people who are bi-sexual lean towards heterosexuality but there's a danger that if one day they wake up next to someone of the same sex they'll decide they're gay, because that's more acceptable to society.
About the girls that make out at parties, it's only certain types of girls and it's awsome.:beam:
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 01:53
I believe that Neo-Conservatism is a mental disease but it has been renamed as a "political party" for political reasons.
Where would you draw the line as to what is or is not a mental illness? Do people with a whip fetish have a mental illness? Do angry people have a mental illness? What about ditsy people?
It all comes down to what is socially acceptable. That is why I'm asking why people are so against homosexuality. Many people are against it because "it isn't Christian" or whatever. Well, Jesus also said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
There really are a number of reasons why someone would be against it. The least substantial to me personally would be their religious abhorrence of it (which is usually pretty extreme). Some people can be against gratuitous violence in film, even though nobody gets hurt. Others can be against tattoos and view them as wastes of money or stupid in the long haul.
Another would be that It is popular in todays media and lures kids who feel different into making choices that may not be right for them. Another would be that it is gross by some standards, horrifying by others. Another might be that it tends to be a sign of weakness and femininity in males, which many people do not like for good or baseless reason. Another may see the gay movement as taking trite and taking focus away from more important matters((1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKh1mOeXfqE)(2) (http://www.sacredfools.org/crimescene/casefiles/s2/shipoffoolsstory.htm)
I could go on and on with weak reasons to be against it, but the truth is it isn't evil by modern western sentiment. Maybe the perception will change and that will make all the difference.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 01:54
All I know is that opinions have become entrenched in tenuous ground no matter where you are coming from.i've always maintained an open mind about it. i've no religious or political convictions with which to entrench my opinion, so your characterization is a bit faulty (i'm not exceptional).
as for now, the simple philosophy of live and let live is all that anyone need apply to this situation.
it may turn out that it's a little gene that we can just shut off and suddenly no more gays. i honeslty wouldn't care that much. but there is yet no logical basis for the notion that homosexuality is a case of something being 'broken'. to apply that term to a complex biological phenomenon in a complex biological system is rather pretentious.
woad&fangs
12-11-2007, 01:59
Another would be that It is popular in todays media and lures kids who feel different into making choices that may not be right for them. (1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKh1mOeXfqE)
Ah, I was going to eventually bring that point up. At my school there is a bunch of ugly goth's girls who are bi or homo mostly because they're sluts that no one has ever liked so they band together.....okay I'm going on a bit of a rant here but I do see that you have a valid point.
Crazed Rabbit
12-11-2007, 02:34
Homosexuality while not making the individual sterile leads to the same outcome. Sterility is not a defect. Have to look beyond the individual gene holder and look at how the genes will pass on.
Ants are on the whole sterile.
It's not the sterility that matters. It's that, scientifically, homosexuality impedes the base function to reproduce.
but there is yet no logical basis for the notion that homosexuality is a case of something being 'broken'.
I'd disagree, for the above reasons.
CR
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 02:58
It's not the sterility that matters. It's that, scientifically, homosexuality impedes the base function to reproduce.
But not all the gene holders reproduce.
Look at ants, termites, bees.
Only the Queen reproduces. The vast majority of her female offspring do not reproduce. It is not the base function of all the gene holders to reproduce. It is the base function of the gene to do so. So by having specialists it allows ants to concentrate on being a breeder (queen), a defender (a sterile soldier), a worker (another sterile soldier).
There could be very good reasons that homosexuality is in humans for a similar reason. There are studies showing higher incidences of homosexuality in younger brothers. After all if it is good enough for Grandmas to be sterile through menopause why not younger brothers through homosexuality?
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 03:01
It's not the sterility that matters. It's that, scientifically, homosexuality impedes the base function to reproduce.
My aunt is gay. She has two children, biologically her own, created by means of artificially inseminated sperm donated by a male friend.
It certainly hasn't impeded her ability to reproduce.
Ajax
There are many, many examples of people who benefit their genosphere without reproducing. Shall we call young heroes who die in war "malfunctions"? They often die too young to reproduce, so are they an error? Or does their sacrifice in wartime benefit their near-relations enough to call it a net gain?
What about priests and nuns who voluntarily forgo their right to reproduce? They spend their entire lives offering love and peace to the people around them, but they don't reproduce their own genome. Are they malfunctions?
The thing that made homosexuality's role snap into place for me was the sibling study. In essence, it showed that women who give birth to more than one son have a successively higher likelihood of having a later one being born gay. If you think about our ancestors, and how they lived, this kinda makes sense. Having a spare male who did not compete for wives and warrior status would be a net benefit to a tribe, especially since that male would be free labor for the duration.
Just a thought.
-edit-
The sibling study also makes sense of the long-standing and nonsensical tradition of primogeniture.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2007, 03:25
The thing that made homosexuality's role snap into place for me was the sibling study. In essence, it showed that women who give birth to more than one son have a successively higher likelihood of having a later one being born gay. If you think about our ancestors, and how they lived, this kinda makes sense. Having a spare male who did not compete for wives and warrior status would be a net benefit to a tribe, especially since that male would be free labor for the duration.
Also ties in with Primus Noctis traditions holding over from very early hunter/gatherer cultures. If the top cadre of males are doing all the procreating -- like the Male in a pride of lions -- then all the other hangers on are left to satisfy their needs in some other fashion.
Is there really some chemical/genetic component that kicks in with later children for this? And if so, how come the trend toward smaller families in Western culture has not resulted in a decrease in this population segment?
More questions than answers in this whole area.
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 03:29
It would make the younger brothers the warriors. Only need a single male breeder.
Younger Princes were the 'spares' and sent off to war.
Is there really some chemical/genetic component that kicks in with later children for this? And if so, how come the trend toward smaller families in Western culture has not resulted in a decrease in this population segment?
Here's a summation (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=117&art_id=qw1151335802796B222) of one of the studies. Here's another (http://www.webmd.com/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality). As for a decrease in the homosexual population, who's to say there hasn't been? It's not as though we've been keeping accurate records for all these centuries.
Devastatin Dave
12-11-2007, 04:39
It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings. That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations. Furthermore, that does not justify the behaviours. Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.
The problem in bringing evidence saying homosexuality is not a choice, is those bringing said evidence always want it to also carry the implication that it extends to justify all those things I just mentioned. But, it does not extend and does not justify any of them. Therefore, it is a moot point whether having homosexual inclinations is a choice or not.
Soooo, are you trying to tell us something, Sweetheart?
Also ties in with Primus Noctis traditions holding over from very early hunter/gatherer cultures. If the top cadre of males are doing all the procreating -- like the Male in a pride of lions -- then all the other hangers on are left to satisfy their needs in some other fashion.
In the lions case, it's not that the non-breeding members are gay- they want to breed, but are prevented from doing so by the dominant male. The strongest is the one to breed- natural selection at its finest.
There are many, many examples of people who benefit their genosphere without reproducing. Shall we call young heroes who die in war "malfunctions"? They often die too young to reproduce, so are they an error? Or does their sacrifice in wartime benefit their near-relations enough to call it a net gain?
What about priests and nuns who voluntarily forgo their right to reproduce? They spend their entire lives offering love and peace to the people around them, but they don't reproduce their own genome. Are they malfunctions?
Now you're talking about choices again. You're comparing someone's decision to be chaste with someone else's supposedly biological unwillingness to breed. Clever(?) attempt to muddy the waters though by blurring factual and moral/social. I'm talking about a "defect" in the biological/evolutionary sense. A homosexual could be a successful millionaire who's company gainfully employs thousands- all great stuff in the social sense. But biologically, he'll never pass on his successful genes because of his homosexuality "defect".
I think perhaps people are too hung up on the term itself (defect) because of negative connotations associated with it. But again, I'm speaking purely in biological terms.
Here's a summation (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id=117&art_id=qw1151335802796B222) of one of the studies. Here's another (http://www.webmd.com/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality). As for a decrease in the homosexual population, who's to say there hasn't been? It's not as though we've been keeping accurate records for all these centuries.
And furthermore I would submit that attempting to keep records on this is next to impossible. Many (most?) cultures seem to have a very heavy bias towards any form of homosexuality, thus as we see here in the western world many young people who are born homosexual and self-deny due to social conditioning. I remember reading something awhile back, that health clinics have a new category, "Men who have sex with men", because there are quite a few men who adamantly state that they are not gay, but clearly are practicing homosexuals.
The topic in this thread has always been in-line with my understanding (as Ice has stated); it is a choice, a genetic predisposition, or some combination thereof. Personally I would not call homosexuality a "disease" or a "defect", but I also wouldn't call it "normal". That's a very simplified statement, but it'll do for now.
You're comparing someone's decision to be chaste with someone else's supposedly biological unwillingness to breed. Clever(?) attempt to muddy the waters though by blurring factual and moral/social. I'm talking about a "defect" in the biological/evolutionary sense.
I wasn't trying to muddy the waters, I assure you. I was just pointing out that there are good, positive non-breeding roles in society, and that they contribute to our overall success.
If something contributes to the group's success in surviving and thriving, I fail to see how that doesn't impact evolution.
If something contributes to the group's success in surviving and thriving, I fail to see how that doesn't impact evolution.
Because once they die, they're gone. Biologically speaking, the most successful are supposed to pass on their successful genes for future generations. Again, you're - perhaps unintentionally - confusing social benefit with genetic benefit.
Because once they die, they're gone. Biologically speaking, the most successful are supposed to pass on their successful genes for future generations. Again, you're - perhaps unintentionally - confusing social benefit with genetic benefit.
No, I'm just going with the latest genetic theories, which could prove to be bunk. But they do sound rather convincing to my non-specialist ears. The idea being that if you sacrifice yourself in one of a thousand ways, and forgo your chance to breed, you may still benefit your genome by upping the odds people related to you will survive and reproduce.
Here's a short essay (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000223.html) on the subject.
-edit-
A discussion (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060529_altruism.htm) of sacrificing breeding potential for the team, or "altruism," as the biologists call it, at the cellular level:
This can be seen as a profound form of altruism. By not reproducing, somatic cells commit evolutionary suicide to benefit the group. Something similar also occurs in insect colonies, which often have sterile “worker” castes.
In Volvox, biologists have previously found that a gene called RegA causes this “reproductive altruism.” RegA suppresses cell growth. Because a cell must grow a certain amount to reproduce, RegA also ends its reproductive career. Both germ and somatic cells have the gene, but in germ cells it’s inactive.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 05:19
Because once they die, they're gone. Biologically speaking, the most successful are supposed to pass on their successful genes for future generations. Again, you're - perhaps unintentionally - confusing social benefit with genetic benefit.
As Pape pointed out earlier, it's not about leaving direct descendents. It's about passing on the gene. If I give my life to save that of my sister, even though I die without offspring I'm benefitting my own genome, because my sister and I share many genes. I don't get to pass them on, but I help her to do so. For this reason, the closest ties and willingness to sacrifice are to and for family. If I die as a soldier fighting for peace, freedom, and the American way of life, I may die without offspring, and my death may directly benefit only my nation/community/whatever, but because I have relatives living within that nation/community/whatever, I improve their quality of life overall and thus their chance to successfully reproduce, thus benefitting my own genome.
Social benefit and genetic benefit can sometimes be the same. I don't need to pass on my genes personally to see to it that they're passed on.
Ajax
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 05:37
Is a Hermaphrodite Homosexual?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-11-2007, 05:49
NEWSFLASH: GAY PEOPLE CAN HAVE KIDS
seriously people...
As Pape pointed out earlier, it's not about leaving direct descendents. It's about passing on the gene. If I give my life to save that of my sister, even though I die without offspring I'm benefitting my own genome, because my sister and I share many genes. I don't get to pass them on, but I help her to do so. For this reason, the closest ties and willingness to sacrifice are to and for family. If I die as a soldier fighting for peace, freedom, and the American way of life, I may die without offspring, and my death may directly benefit only my nation/community/whatever, but because I have relatives living within that nation/community/whatever, I improve their quality of life overall and thus their chance to successfully reproduce, thus benefitting my own genome.
Social benefit and genetic benefit can sometimes be the same. I don't need to pass on my genes personally to see to it that they're passed on.
Ajax
But your genes aren't your sister's. They may be similar- but they're not the same. You may be near-sighted, where your sister is not- it all depends what specific genes you each got from your parents. Now, if it was you and your identical twin brother, I guess you might have a point there. :beam:
No, I'm just going with the latest genetic theories, which could prove to be bunk. But they do sound rather convincing to my non-specialist ears. The idea being that if you sacrifice yourself in one of a thousand ways, and forgo your chance to breed, you may still benefit your genome by upping the odds people related to you will survive and reproduce.It's sort of interesting to read about, but to my non-specialist ears, what they're talking about sounds more like social interactions. You don't kill someone else when given the chance because of the social understanding that they (or someone else) won't do the same to you given the chance. People raise other's children for similar reasons- we've collectively decided that it's something we benefit from. I don't know that it's always been the case throughout our history, but we've since decided that it's immoral not to care for orphans.
NEWSFLASH: GAY PEOPLE CAN HAVE KIDS
seriously people...They can, but pretty much by definition do not want to perform the reproductive act.... seriously.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 05:54
Exactly Sasaki. By the above logic, masturbation would also be a genetic defect, since it fails to produce offspring. Just because something in itself does not produce offspring doesn't necessarily mean it prevents the individual from doing so by other means.
Ajax
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 05:59
But your genes aren't your sister's. They may be similar- but they're not the same.
False. Some of my genes are the same as my sister's, some are not. That's different.
You're still missing the point. It's not the genome, it's the gene. I don't need to pass on a complete copy of my DNA to pass on genes I carry, and it's genes that are selected for, not full genomes. Even if my sister passes on some genes I share and some I don't, I've still succeeded in passing on those genes we share.
They can, but pretty much by definition do not want to perform the reproductive act.... seriously.
That seems a very broad generalization. Plus reproduction can be done without performing the reproductive act. Did you read my post about my aunt above?
Ajax
But your genes aren't your sister's. They may be similar- but they're not the same. You may be near-sighted, where your sister is not- it all depends what specific genes you each got from your parents. Now, if it was you and your identical twin brother, I guess you might have a point there.
Now you're sounding as though you weren't paying attention in Biology class. Phenotype is not genotype, and you and your sister share the vast majority of your genes. Preserving her life is a sensible and valid motive for the selfish gene.
-edit-
And what's with your seemingly unrelated digression into Thou Shalt Not Kill and orphans? We're talking about behaviors that directly impact the survival of your genome, not the social compact.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 06:14
Does anyone really care about their genes?
I don't.
I don't know if humans apply to this gene spreading subconsciously anymore. If all humans are "equal" and can process the same kind of reasoning, what is the benefit of keeping your genes alive? Now, I would say, It's all about principle and theory rather than flesh and blood.
It's not really for this thread, but this is pretty much a thread for hack science anyway, so...
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 06:21
You share half your genes on average with your sibling. And exactly half with your child.
So you sisters children are on average just as related to you as your grandchildren.
You share half your genes on average with your sibling. And exactly half with your child.
So you sisters children are on average just as related to you as your grandchildren.
I'd be interested to see the data backing that up, seeing as we share, at minimum (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/iu-hdm121806.php), 94% of our genes with chimpanzees.
Remember, your genes are a library, and what is expressed in you is only a fraction of the genome you carry. That's why traits can jump generations, for instance. As far as the genome is concerned, you and your sister's genes are identical.
AntiochusIII
12-11-2007, 06:28
So you sisters children are on average just as related to you as your grandchildren.That puts a new perspective on cousins marrying. :laugh2:
Okay, okay! I'm just being facetious.
Does anyone really care about their genes?
I don't.Well, you did say that "something's broken." That would naturally imply that the genes are at fault. People are thus debating whether there's anything broken genetically about homosexuality.
Of course if you do not imply that it's not the genes, but rather something else, such as their heads or society or whatever, then another contention related to the discussion going on is that the genes do have their roles in determining homosexuality, even possibly a dominant one, and thus challenging your position (if it is yours...I'm assuming too much here I know, sorry about that) -- and indeed the whole thread is precisely about this question.
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 06:31
You're confusing the overall coding with the individual genes. Each of the human genes will be nearly identical to those of other humans overall. However there is enough of a difference to say which genes you have came from which parent.
I have XY, my wife has XX.
The X's are not identical, they might share 99% in the coding but they are still different genes.
That means my kid will get half of my genes and the wife will give the other half.
Siblings can have a range from 0 to 100% sharing of genes. It would average exactly at 50% if it wasn't for identical twins weighting it towards the 100% end. Still near to 50% because there isn't that many.
And now I sound like the guy who fell asleep in Biology class. Since you have a more detailed understanding of the subject, does the Altruism theory make sense to you?
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 06:42
Altruism at the human level makes sense if others with the gene will survive.
More so when you consider a lot of warrior societies were clans... lots of inbreeding... so your cousin-brother dying in battle doesn't matter as his cousin-wife will get it on with his cousin brother.
In raw gene terms. Your genes = 2 children = 2 sisters = 4 nieces = 4 grandchildren.
If your death means 3 of your children survive its a net gain for the genes.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 07:28
Does anyone really care about their genes?
I don't.do you ever feel like having sex? if so, i submit that you care about your genes, whether you're aware of it or not.
anyone confused about how the non-reproductives fit into evolutionary paradigms just needs to read about inclusive fitness. i suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Roots-Human-Nature-Evolution/dp/0195093933) as a starting point.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 14:22
do you ever feel like having sex? if so, i submit that you care about your genes, whether you're aware of it or not.
anyone confused about how the non-reproductives fit into evolutionary paradigms just needs to read about inclusive fitness. i suggest this book (http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Roots-Human-Nature-Evolution/dp/0195093933) as a starting point.
So, people who have sex care about genes? That's why they have sex? Here I thought it was because hormones raged and It felt good. The subconscious goal and byproduct of sex is to reproduce. Whatever that actually means regarding the gene pool I'm not sure and don't care to just guess, especially as I have a degree in history. It also doesn't mean that I buy scientific arguments at face value.
I could have sex with a dude and probably enjoy it. To me it would be a choice. For some reason I get my rocks off most easily to Asian women, thin women with medium sized boobs or women with nice end areas. Was I born this way? God created me to seduce Asians? I doubt it. My sexual interests change. When I was younger I dug Italians broads.
Listen, I'm not trying to "prove" a point, just cast more doubt into an already doubtful arena. The burden of proof rests with those who think that there is a biological cause of this - defect, altruistic evolution or choice.
Ser Clegane
12-11-2007, 14:56
The burden of proof rests with those who think that there is a biological cause of this .
Why is that?
I would think that if many (the majority?) of gay people insist that they did not choose to be gay but simply are gay it might make more sense to pass the burden of proof to those people who insist that homosexuality is generally a matter of choice.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 15:13
Why is that?
I would think that if many (the majority?) of gay people insist that they did not choose to be gay but simply are gay it might make more sense to pass the burden of proof to those people who insist that homosexuality is generally a matter of choice.
Well it is provable that it can be a matter of choice, would you agree? You can go out and do the act that qualifies you as gay without really feeling it, you would probably still get some enjoyment out of it.
If they think that their constant action somehow makes them biologically different, they are making the claim. Others may buy it, but historically homosexuality has been viewed as a choice or a mental illness. They have already had the mental illness (without legitimate reason) stricken from the modern record, so that leaves only a choice or genetic predilection - which they can't yet prove. People are advocating new protections and laws, so they must prove their case.
The reality of this issue at the moment is that it has more to do with theory than solid science. So anyone who is capable of thought should throw their 2 cents in.
Ser Clegane
12-11-2007, 15:25
Well it is provable that it can be a matter of choice, would you agree? You can go out and do the act that qualifies you as gay without really feeling it, you would probably still get some enjoyment out of it.
Uhm ... interesting approach to the issue.
How exactly does the decision to perform a certain action prove that being gay (i.e. being generally attracted to the same gender as opposed to the other gender) is also a choice?
If you decide to have sex with another man today that does not really qualify you as "gay".
If they think that their constant action somehow makes them biologically different, they are making the claim.
As indicated above - being gay involves a bit more than the simple act.
Others may buy it, but historically homosexuality has been viewed as a choice or a mental illness.
That statement is correct - however, it does not make a valid argument for the claim that being gay is a matter of choice.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-11-2007, 15:32
Let me just throw this in, if or society isn't really keen on homosexuality isn't "I was born this way" a natural defense that then becomes suspect?
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 15:36
Uhm ... interesting approach to the issue.
How exactly does the decision to perform a certain action prove that being gay (i.e. being generally attracted to the same gender as opposed to the other gender) is also a choice?
If you decide to have sex with another man today that does not really qualify you as "gay".
As indicated above - being gay involves a bit more than the simple act.
That statement is correct - however, it does not make a valid argument for the claim that being gay is a matter of choice.
Being gay involves more than the simple act? Numerous acts to establish a pattern? What is this qualifier? Individual perception of reality does not have much traction in regards to what really exists.
I've never met a gay person that wasn't attracted to women sexually at one or more points in their lives.
Also, any straight people I've ever asked have felt some sexual pull with the same sex at one or more points in their lives.
Personally, I've thought about having sex with everything. On numerous occasion. In no way am I promiscuous, because the world would be a pretty sore place to live ;-). I reserve the act for females that I am in a monogamous relationship with as my choice. However, It is clear to me where this thing I have is designed to go.
Go on. Ask around. It may be illuminating.
Being gay involves more than the simple act? Numerous acts to establish a pattern? What is this qualifier? Individual perception of reality does not have much traction in regards to what really exists.
TuffStuff, you're sounding kinda mulish now. Ser already responded to this notion fully and clearly:
How exactly does the decision to perform a certain action prove that being gay (i.e. being generally attracted to the same gender as opposed to the other gender) is also a choice? If you decide to have sex with another man today that does not really qualify you as "gay".
We're all attracted to certain things by default. The vast majority of us are not attracted to our own gender. If you've indulged in an idle fantasy about hot football players, that doesn't really make you gay, it just means you have an active fantasy life. As for you engaging in sexual acts with other men, and having some sort of "threshold," here's where it is: Are you primarily attracted to men? If so, you may be gay.
It's not a complicated or nuanced concept.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 16:48
TuffStuff, you're sounding kinda mulish now. Ser already responded to this notion fully and clearly:
How exactly does the decision to perform a certain action prove that being gay (i.e. being generally attracted to the same gender as opposed to the other gender) is also a choice? If you decide to have sex with another man today that does not really qualify you as "gay".
We're all attracted to certain things by default. The vast majority of us are not attracted to our own gender. If you've indulged in an idle fantasy about hot football players, that doesn't really make you gay, it just means you have an active fantasy life. As for you engaging in sexual acts with other men, and having some sort of "threshold," here's where it is: Are you primarily attracted to men? If so, you may be gay.
It's not a complicated or nuanced concept.
So it is just primacy of interest. I already said that I am Primarily attracted to asian women. Probably 80 percent of the pornography I watch has an asian woman in it. Does this mean that I was born this way?
Yup, it means you were most likely born heterosexual. You're part of the acceptable majority. Deal with it.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 16:57
Yup, it means you were most likely born heterosexual. You're part of the acceptable majority. Deal with it.
Yes, but was I born interested in Asian women, or with a need to slay them? It must be messed up wiring in the brain or something. I'm Caucasian - this feels so unnatural. My parents just don't understand that I've felt this way from a very young age. I think I'm going to be sick!
I should just move to San Fran... or Taipei - make it easier on everyone.
TuffStuff, individual kinks and preferences are a little bit outside this discussion. You've now told us three times that you like Asian women. Good on ya, as the Ozzies say. This qualifies as a kink, not an entire sexuality.
What causes kinks and fetishes? I don't know that there's been any worthwhile research into the subject. Why does one guy like to dress up like Barney the Purple Dinosaur and be spanked by midgets? (Yeah, DevDave, I'm lookin' at you.) Nobody knows.
But it's a mistake to confuse kinks with overall gender preference. Sure, you like Asian women in particular, but if I were to present you with a gorgeous Nordic princess, I think your soldier would still stand up and salute. Probably not the same case if I presented you with an Asian man, no matter how beautiful he might be.
That's 'cause you're into chicks.
I don't think it's that fixed, for example, a lot of gays come from largely male family's. The brain is an organ as well.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 17:15
TuffStuff, individual kinks and preferences are a little bit outside this discussion. You've now told us three times that you like Asian women. Good on ya, as the Ozzies say. This qualifies as a kink, not an entire sexuality.
What causes kinks and fetishes? I don't know that there's been any worthwhile research into the subject. Why does one guy like to dress up like Barney the Purple Dinosaur and be spanked by midgets? (Yeah, DevDave, I'm lookin' at you.) Nobody knows.
But it's a mistake to confuse kinks with overall gender preference. Sure, you like Asian women in particular, but if I were to present you with a gorgeous Nordic princess, I think your soldier would still stand up and salute. Probably not the same case if I presented you with an Asian man, no matter how beautiful he might be.
That's 'cause you're into chicks.
I think kinks and "gender" are the same deal. Who says that they are different?
With what authority?
I believe that modernity has quite a bit to do with the polarization of peoples perception of homosexuality. That to be gay, you must "only" or predominantly be attracted to the same sex. There is alot of pressure within gay communities to not be "Bi", just as there is pressure in non-gay communities to conform to what they consider to be "natural".
I think Gender and Kink and all sexual practices are the same. Except 1; male-to female copulation. This is ingrained in us from our head to our junk. The signs are all there. Do what you will, but the reality is clear and physical. (not including hermaphrodites who formed differently in the womb/petri dish.)
I am not angry with you - you seem to have a decent balance on the issue with one side predominating. Me too. I won't say what's what, just what I believe the case to be - I will most liekly be swayed on this issue sooner or later in one direction or the other.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 17:31
The reality of this issue at the moment is that it has more to do with theory than solid science.
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this. The misconception that solid science and theory are different just doesn't want to go away.
Theory is Solid Science. Theory is Science. That's what it's all about.
Ajax
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 17:38
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this. The misconception that solid science and theory are different just doesn't want to go away.
Theory is Solid Science. Theory is Science. That's what it's all about.
Ajax
Okay,
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation."
Science has theories also, but I have not seen any of those yet on this issue - just experiments.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 17:41
Science doesn't just have theories. It is theories. That's the whole point. Experiments without theory are just charts of data.
So many people don't seem to even understand what theory is. A theory is a model used to explain the experimental data. The solar system is a theory. Gravitation is a theory. The atomic nature of matter is a theory. It's not like something starts as a theory and later may gain the 'exalted status of fact.' The highest achievements of scientific inquiry are theories. Facts are used to get to theories, not the other way around.
Ajax
edit:
Science has theories also, but I have not seen any of those yet on this issue - just experiments.
In terms of this thread, it seems the theory is that homosexuality is caused by physiological sources which can be modified, this theory based on facts obtained during experimentation with fruit flies.
Social conditioning plays a big part. Homosexual practices were rampant in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire as well as in other ancient cultures. I'm no expert but IMHO western catholicism played a big part in making the whole thing taboo as well as making people much more inhibited. Even today most homosexuals stay "in the closet" rather than go public due to the stigma attached.
Homosexual practices were rampant in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire as well as in other ancient cultures.
Just to throw out a possibility, what if that was at least partially due to the huge families people were having at the time?
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 17:49
In terms of this thread, it seems the theory is that homosexuality is caused by physiological sources which can be modified, this theory based on facts obtained during experimentation with fruit flies.
In fruit flies!
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 17:52
I'm no expert but IMHO western catholicism played a big part in making the whole thing taboo as well as making people much more inhibited. Even today most homosexuals stay "in the closet" rather than go public due to the stigma attached.
RIGHT. Homosexuality Isn't taboo in modern or ancient China. Or in India. Or the Near East. Anywhere else that it has been illegal for centuries.
And nowhere in recorded western history was homosexuality accepted by the majority. Parents (generally) used to loath the practices among the rich and "enlightened". The affluent have always done crazy things. Irish warlords used to sodomize a horse in a group before battle. I'm sure most people warriors did this... Art says so little about populations, only about their rich overlords.
People love to find exceptions that define the general rule.
ajaxfetish
12-11-2007, 18:02
In fruit flies!
Yes, in fruit flies. How is that problematic? Fruit flies are constantly used for genetic experiment, since their genetic makeup is so much simpler than humans and they breed so quickly. Sometimes results found in fruit flies are applicable to humans, and sometimes they are not. Either way, further research is required to establish any such similarity. AFAIK, this study has made no assertions about the genetics of human homosexuality. It has provided us with data showing a connection between sexuality and genetics is possible, and demonstrated the need for further experimentation on this issue, possibly leading to future studies more relevant to humans.
Ajax
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 18:22
Yes, in fruit flies. How is that problematic? Fruit flies are constantly used for genetic experiment, since their genetic makeup is so much simpler than humans and they breed so quickly. Sometimes results found in fruit flies are applicable to humans, and sometimes they are not. Either way, further research is required to establish any such similarity. AFAIK, this study has made no assertions about the genetics of human homosexuality. It has provided us with data showing a connection between sexuality and genetics is possible, and demonstrated the need for further experimentation on this issue, possibly leading to future studies more relevant to humans.
Ajax
The thread alludes to Human sexuality. I said that I haven't read scientific theories that lasted about the inert nature of human homosexuality.
I used the word "theory" correctly.
Live and let live. :shrug:
Live and let live. :shrug:
I agree 100%, people just don't understand the finer aspects of torture anymore. Used to be the art.
Just to throw out a possibility, what if that was at least partially due to the huge families people were having at the time?
I'm sure people carried on having large families throughout the Christian era and beyond also. My point is that in the pre Christian era there were openly gay leaders, such as Alexander the Great and this was not seen as an issue. And homosexual practices, in particular pederastic relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece and Rome. My point was that looking at western Europe and those countries influenced by it, possibly as former imperial colonies or otherwise, it is often Christian, particularly Catholic, ideology ingrained into western culture that conflicts with homosexuality. In Mediaeval Europe homosexuality was pretty much seen as the work of the devil and monarchs and nobility would go to great lengths to conceal homosexuality in their families in stark contrast to the former example.
Big_John
12-11-2007, 21:14
So, people who have sex care about genes? That's why they have sex? Here I thought it was because hormones raged and It felt good. The subconscious goal and byproduct of sex is to reproduce. Whatever that actually means regarding the gene pool I'm not sure and don't care to just guess, especially as I have a degree in history. It also doesn't mean that I buy scientific arguments at face value.try not to conflate proximate causes with ultimate causes.
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 21:34
try not to conflate proximate causes with ultimate causes.
I didn't. I was trying to illustrate how far removed the concept of gene proliferation is in humans while talking about the practical reality of sex for most people.
If you believe in some form of evolution, it's not too hard of a stretch to say that pleasure from sex is a byproduct of natural selection. If you like it a lot, you are going to do it as much as possible. The passing of genetic material is thus more assured. Society has now reached a stage where the unfortunate side effects of sex (kids) can be removed or reduced through technology (birth control). Applied over a long enough time scale, I'm curious as to what this will do to the species. A clean break from procreation?
Papewaio
12-11-2007, 22:34
Yes, but was I born interested in Asian women, or with a need to slay them? It must be messed up wiring in the brain or something. I'm Caucasian - this feels so unnatural. My parents just don't understand that I've felt this way from a very young age. I think I'm going to be sick!
Just a couple of criteria for a mate search:
How many men go out with taller women?
How many men go out with older women?
So you are probably looking for a youthful mate who is shorter then you.
More criteria:
Perky matched breasts, a nice bottom (doesn't have the right ring to it but this is PG), nice glowing skin, good weight range.
Are asian women ticking off any of those boxes for you?
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 22:45
Just a couple of criteria for a mate search:
How many men go out with taller women?
How many men go out with older women?
So you are probably looking for a youthful mate who is shorter then you.
More criteria:
Perky matched breasts, a nice bottom (doesn't have the right ring to it but this is PG), nice glowing skin, good weight range.
Are asian women ticking off any of those boxes for you?
I do like shorter women
But I like older women better than younger.
You are biased! You are using this as an excuse to say that you are born to love asian women! You decadent degenerate!
Papewaio
12-12-2007, 00:48
I confess that I too like women. My apologies for not even having a football fantasy. Apparently on the Kinsey Scale I would score a zero, I just don't have issues with others not being on the same digit. :laugh4:
The difference between man and woman outweigh the difference between the races. Those little Y's make us what 1/46 different from women? So that is about the difference between a human and a chimp. Yeap we men are just monkey's compared with out women. :inquisitive: :laugh4:
IrishArmenian
12-12-2007, 01:13
I agree with Caravel.
Would one choose to be homosexual on a whim and suffer all the consequences that society has thrust upon homosexuals: alienation, exclusion, condemnation, etc?
I doubt it.
AntiochusIII
12-12-2007, 01:41
I agree with Caravel.
Would one choose to be homosexual on a whim and suffer all the consequences that society has thrust upon homosexuals: alienation, exclusion, condemnation, etc?
I doubt it.I sorta want to choose to become gay and flamboyantly piss all the moralists off; after all, there's no greater calling in life than to piss off self-righteous bigots for fun and profit while holding hands with hawt guys in leather, right?
Well, I can't. :embarassed: I and my, ah, vital organ still prefer the company of sumptuous ladies over hunky males any day.
Clearly either I'm weak-willed or "it's a choice" is like spontaneous creation.
Big_John
12-12-2007, 02:22
I didn't. I was trying to illustrate how far removed the concept of gene proliferation is in humans while talking about the practical reality of sex for most people.then you failed to do so.
Here I thought it was because hormones raged and It felt good. The subconscious goal and byproduct of sex is to reproduce.as drone pointed out, that's so easily reduced to the expression of genes, it hardly needs explication.
in a very real way, any organism is simply a vehicle for gene promulgation. that's about as far as we can go toward an 'ultimate cause' without invoking the supernatural. hormonal urges, proclivities, subconscious and conscious goals can be, in general, considered a function of the genes. whether people are aware of this when their hormones are raging is irrelevant.
Boyar Son
12-12-2007, 03:31
I agree with Caravel.
Would one choose to be homosexual on a whim and suffer all the consequences that society has thrust upon homosexuals: alienation, exclusion, condemnation, etc?
I doubt it.
Not that some people hate gays, its just the way _some act_.
A gay man walking funny, talk funny, dress funny, is..funny. Alot of the alienation comes from this and IMO they act more girly then girls themselves...
Some take the feminine side to the extreme and is just stupid to others...
(generalization of my opinion, its late right now so I didnt put much effort)
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2007, 04:04
The brain is also an organ.
:devilish:
....must resist snide remarks about phallologocentrism.....
Goofball
12-12-2007, 18:25
Ive always believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.
Ironically, you could substitute "religious belief" for "homosexuality" in that statement, and it would still be accurate.
:devilish:
....must resist snide remarks about phallologocentrism.....
Ok this is where non-english speakers go omgwtfwhat?
this one at least easy on me ;)
Ok this is where non-english speakers go omgwtfwhat?
this one at least easy on me ;)
Unless they're Greek.
Unless they're Greek.
That is an universal truth that's easy. But a phal-lo-lo-go-cen-tris-m dear god get it of me!?
AntiochusIII
12-13-2007, 05:19
That is an universal truth that's easy. But a phal-lo-lo-go-cen-tris-m dear god get it of me!?Trust me, I fare no better.
Google is going to be my friend I guess. :sweatdrop:
It's just Greek, don't be afraid of it. "Phallo" would be phallus, as in your male dangly bit. "Logo" is word or language. "Centrism" we all know. So it's something to do with male language or male word preference.
Heck of a kink.
Ironically, you could substitute "religious belief" for "homosexuality" in that statement, and it would still be accurate.
Seriously? Tuff thinks religion is a mental illness and it was classified as one until recently? News to me and the rest of the world. :dizzy2:
You can never miss a chance though, huh? :no:
Goofball
12-13-2007, 17:51
Seriously? Tuff thinks religion is a mental illness and it was classified as one until recently? News to me and the rest of the world. :dizzy2:
You can never miss a chance though, huh? :no:
Not when a chance is obvious and appropriate to the topic, no.
First of all, I did not mean to say that TSM believed that religion was a mental illness. I was focusing more on this part of his statement:
...homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.
But then, I think you knew that, didn't you? And no, religious belief was never actually classified as a mental illness in the DSM, but the reason it has never been so is the same reason that TSM claims homosexuality was stricken. But I think you knew what I meant there too.
Let's have a look at some religious beliefs, shall we?
* Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ during Eucharist
* A burning bush talked to some old guy in the middle of the desert
* Another guy walked on water
* The same guy who walked on water can also create matter out of nothing and raise the dead
Now I don't mean to pick on Christianity in particular (I'm sure Muslims and adherents to other major religions hold similarly silly literal beliefs), I simply used these examples because they are familiar to me due to my own background. But the beliefs listed above are held as absolute, literal truths by Christians around the world.
Were Christianity not a major world religion, and some Joe Blow started trying to tell everybody that all of the above things had happened and that he knew them to be true, he would most certainly considered to be delusional.
The only reason that adherents to those beliefs are not considered to be delusional is that there are a whole bunch of them, and it would not be politically expedient to classify them all as nut-jobs.
Which I find appropriate to the topic, because prominent Christians have often tried to characterize homosexuality as a mental illness.
Ironic, no?
:yes:
Because once they die, they're gone. Biologically speaking, the most successful are supposed to pass on their successful genes for future generations. Again, you're - perhaps unintentionally - confusing social benefit with genetic benefit.
but we are a societal species.
ICantSpellDawg
12-13-2007, 18:25
Religion and homosexuality are only similar if homosexuality is a choice. If It is not a choice and is an actual psychological anomaly, it belongs in the DSM. If it is another type of physiological anomaly, It does not. They have not been able to find the physiological reason for homosexuality so far, so the cause is thought to be in the brain. I think that it should have stayed in the DSM until they had a reason to remove it (not just a political one).
woad&fangs
12-13-2007, 18:34
Time magazine had an article a year or two ago about how their was a set of genes that make people more or less likely to be highly spiritual. I'll see if I can find the article some time.
ICantSpellDawg
12-13-2007, 18:48
Time magazine had an article a year or two ago about how their was a set of genes that make people more or less likely to be highly spiritual. I'll see if I can find the article some time.
I remember, but it is a sham. Some people can't handle the fact that they make choices and those choices have repercussions. They always have to chalk it up to fate, God or "genes".
Seamus Fermanagh
12-13-2007, 20:17
It's just Greek, don't be afraid of it. "Phallo" would be phallus, as in your male dangly bit. "Logo" is word or language. "Centrism" we all know. So it's something to do with male language or male word preference.
Heck of a kink.
Phallo = of or having to do with the penis
Logo = language (but also referential of thought)
Centric = point of focus
So, to be phallologocetric means that you do most of your thinking with the wrong....organ...:devilish:
And I am supposed to get that! Or was all that contextualy speaking a monologue?
Time magazine had an article a year or two ago about how their was a set of genes that make people more or less likely to be highly spiritual. I'll see if I can find the article some time.
There was some professor on TV who said it has to do with some region of the brain behind the left ear, the bigger the more spiritual people are, according to him. :shrug:
They have not been able to find the physiological reason for homosexuality so far, so the cause is thought to be in the brain. I think that it should have stayed in the DSM until they had a reason to remove it (not just a political one).
Depends on your perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DSM does not claim be an index of every known mental condition; it only categorizes the diseases, the ones that have adverse effects on a patient. Neutral and beneficial mental conditions aren't listed.
By keeping homosexuality in the DSM, a statement was being made, i.e. This is a disease. By omitting it the editors are at least allowing for the possibility that sexual orientation is neither boon nor bane.
ICantSpellDawg
12-13-2007, 22:29
Depends on your perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DSM does not claim be an index of every known mental condition; it only categorizes the diseases, the ones that have adverse effects on a patient. Neutral and beneficial mental conditions aren't listed.
By keeping homosexuality in the DSM, a statement was being made, i.e. This is a disease. By omitting it the editors are at least allowing for the possibility that sexual orientation is neither boon nor bane.
I could have sworn that It documents "disorders". Neutral and beneficial mental conditions? What are those? Why would you consider homosexuality beneficial to the individual?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
I could have sworn that It documents "disorders". Neutral and beneficial mental conditions? What are those? Why would you consider homosexuality beneficial to the individual?
If "disorders" is the proper word, then you are more awake than I am. Sorry, the little lemurs successfully communicated their flu to me, so if I'm punching a little light for my weight, you'll know why.
What are neutral and beneficial mental conditions? Left-handedness is rare, but I wouldn't call it a disorder, so I would call it neutral. Perfect pitch is extremely rare, but I wouldn't call it a disorder, I would call it a benefit.
Look, I'm not a psychologist, and I took maybe one psych class in college, so I've no idea if my notions are congruent with today's psychological theories. But it seems to this lemur that the variety of mental abilities and disabilities among human beings is near-infinite. Some things are crippling (think autism), some disruptive (think aquaphobia), some neutral (think how many people live perfectly normal lives without a sense of humor).
This doesn't touch on the many mental variations that give some people a huge leg up in life. Perfect recall would be nice, but it's very rare. Polyglots intimidate me and fill me with envy.
Anyway, all I was saying was that by automatically classifying homosexuality as a disorder, the boys in white coats were already editorializing. By leaving it out, they have more options. Let me know if that makes any sense at all. My brain is a little muzzy right now.
Louis VI the Fat
12-14-2007, 01:26
So, to be phallologocentric means that you do most of your thinking with the wrong....organ...Now just a second there!
Phallocentrism is a term from the 1920's. It is a pejorative term, to denounce psychoanalysis as centered on the phallus.
Phallolocentrism was coined by Jacques Derrida in the 1960's. He combined psychoanalytical phallocentrism with postmodern logocentrism. Logocentrism means that philosophy is centered on logos, or, as Derrida understood it, a Platonic search for truth. Phallolocentrism then is a pejorative term, deconstructing Western philosophy as a search for truth based on the symbolic system of the phallus.
Phallologocentrism, coined by Seamus, 2007, then, should not mean doing most of your thinking with the fallus. It is a pejorative term to denounce being centered on thinking thinking is about the phallus. To put it differently, it doesn't denounce those who 'think with their phallus', it denounces 'those who think that thinking is done with the phallus'.
....must resist snide remarks about phallologocentrism.....
In other words, this quote above is itself an act of phallologocentrism. ~;p
:study:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.