"I Still Believe Homosexuality is a choice..."

Started by Aletheia, December 04, 2014, 03:54:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

marom1963

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 20, 2016, 02:04:45 AM
This is one of my major sticking points with homosexuality. Since homosexuals generally aren't inclined to breed, genetic homosexuality should have died out already.

I'm more inclined to believe it happens at a higher level than that. Maybe a chromosomal thing, or something that happens in the womb. Still something you're born with, just not as a result of genetics.
Hello! The gene is carried by - heterosexuals! They're the ones who do all the reproducing. Ergo - they're the ones carrying the gene. Homosexuals have - heterosexual parents. Hello!
OMNIA DEPENDET ...

Mike Cl

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 20, 2016, 01:59:29 AM

What I find really strange, though, is how a genetic component could exist when natural selection is involved. The only thing nature cares about is procreation. If a genetic feature doesn't help you have more babies, it usually gets weeded out, like when deep sea fish lost their eyes.
That's just it, Blackleaf.  Nature does not 'care' about anything.  Nature has no feeling; it is not a 'thing'.  I am as far from an expert in genetics as one can get.  But with recessive genes in play, it would seem normal that homosexuality would be expressed every now and again.  If nature cared about that, then I would wonder.  But since nature cares not, it is not a mystery for me.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Bluewind

In a tribal situation, I can imagine a few advantages to having homosexuals. One would be child care. An active, young, healthy, person with no children or mate could train and watch the young, bring in food and such for the tribe, and pair off with other like minded individuals to keep the tribe from growing too fast to support itself (most likely only mating with the opposite sex if the leader said more children were badly needed). There are similar benefits to the women living well beyond when they lose their fertility, but with the added benefit of youth (thus the reason it only happens every so often). Tribes with the gene that have the potential to create people born homosexual or bisexual (perhaps they were willing to pair with same sex when children weren't needed?) must have been more successful than those who didn't thus the reason it still exists.
There is beauty in a finite life.

Blackleaf

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2016, 08:42:15 AM
That's just it, Blackleaf.  Nature does not 'care' about anything.  Nature has no feeling; it is not a 'thing'.  I am as far from an expert in genetics as one can get.  But with recessive genes in play, it would seem normal that homosexuality would be expressed every now and again.  If nature cared about that, then I would wonder.  But since nature cares not, it is not a mystery for me.

I wasn't speaking literally, but nature tends to weed out traits that don't increase your likelihood of procreating. Even body parts that outlive their usefulness are eventually lost to evolution in order to save energy. Evolution isn't a driving force in itself, but those who have children are the ones who's genes live on, and thus the ones nature "prefers." This is why it puzzles me that there would be such a large number of people who are homosexual if it were purely attributable to genetic predisposition. But Blue's explanation is interesting, and could partly explain it.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Blackleaf

Quote from: Bluewind on April 21, 2016, 12:37:20 AM
In a tribal situation, I can imagine a few advantages to having homosexuals. One would be child care. An active, young, healthy, person with no children or mate could train and watch the young, bring in food and such for the tribe, and pair off with other like minded individuals to keep the tribe from growing too fast to support itself (most likely only mating with the opposite sex if the leader said more children were badly needed). There are similar benefits to the women living well beyond when they lose their fertility, but with the added benefit of youth (thus the reason it only happens every so often). Tribes with the gene that have the potential to create people born homosexual or bisexual (perhaps they were willing to pair with same sex when children weren't needed?) must have been more successful than those who didn't thus the reason it still exists.

Interesting. So you're looking at it from the perspective of the tribal unit rather than the individual. Like with a honey bee that stings a thieving bear, ending its own life but increasing the chances of survival for its hive. This could possibly explain some of it. Perhaps the negative stigma against their "unnatural" desires led them to both hide their orientation (self-preservation) and to contribute to society in unique ways. Social norms could have also led to people who were homosexual to marry the opposite sex anyway, and have children of their own. I don't know how many ancient tribes had a bias against them, but I figure most would follow the knee jerk reaction of, "This is different; I don't like it."
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

trdsf

Quote from: Bluewind on April 21, 2016, 12:37:20 AM
In a tribal situation, I can imagine a few advantages to having homosexuals. One would be child care. An active, young, healthy, person with no children or mate could train and watch the young, bring in food and such for the tribe, and pair off with other like minded individuals to keep the tribe from growing too fast to support itself (most likely only mating with the opposite sex if the leader said more children were badly needed). There are similar benefits to the women living well beyond when they lose their fertility, but with the added benefit of youth (thus the reason it only happens every so often). Tribes with the gene that have the potential to create people born homosexual or bisexual (perhaps they were willing to pair with same sex when children weren't needed?) must have been more successful than those who didn't thus the reason it still exists.
These benefits apply even before there's sufficient intelligence within a species to form tribes.  The same things can apply to pack behavior, or any kind of social unit.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Munch

In Papua New guinea, the Sambia tribe have a strict ritual that young men in their tribe have to first distance themselves from women from ages 8-10 to prove they can stand alone without women to nurse them, and if they manage to, between the ages of 10-15, to achieve manhood, they have to suck off and swallow the older warrior's of the tribe, eating the semen, in order to be called a man.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

The Skeletal Atheist

Quote from: Munch on April 21, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
In Papua New guinea, the Sambia tribe have a strict ritual that young men in their tribe have to first distance themselves from women from ages 8-10 to prove they can stand alone without women to nurse them, and if they manage to, between the ages of 10-15, to achieve manhood, they have to suck off and swallow the older warrior's of the tribe, eating the semen, in order to be called a man.



Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

aitm

Quote from: Blackleaf on April 20, 2016, 01:59:29 AM
gh, is how a genetic component could exist when natural selection is involved. The only thing nature cares about is procreation. If a genetic feature doesn't help you have more babies, it usually gets weeded out, like when deep sea fish lost their eyes.

sometimes we tend to over think the results of our genetics. For all it does to perfection, it still has glitches. Consider that spontaneous abortion is far more reliable in ridding humanity of "undesirable" traits. Sexuality has fallen below the radar for spontaneous abortion because it is not "considered" to be disadvantageous to living. Sexuality is not even a trait anymore that our genetics weeds out embryonically as it is not considered more disadvantageous than mental retardation or physical deformity. Genetics itself has waived a "get out of jail free" card. The human genome does not recognize sexual inclination as a defining/neccessary/important part of the whole to be cause for concern. A gay man can produce sperm, a gay woman can conceive, the genome does not see a problem.

This is not to say that at the same time that genetics tend to push an individual, sexually one way or another based on a myriad of genetic compositions. That humans can be born with both sex organs, is proof enough that human sexuality stretches from one gender to another in a very broad and overlapping road of confusion that sometimes takes years for one person to even recognize the road they are on….was never the road they were on.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

shadyace

Here's a thought, if homosexuality is not a choice then neither is pediofilia, necrophilia and beastiality.
People can't help what they attracted to according to some, so then don't punish the sick bastards sent then to the looney bin [emoji848]



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Absurd Atheist

Quote from: shadyace on May 02, 2016, 11:44:41 AM
Here's a thought, if homosexuality is not a choice then neither is pediofilia, necrophilia and beastiality.
People can't help what they attracted to according to some, so then don't punish the sick bastards sent then to the looney bin [emoji848]



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quite possible but homosexuality is a form of consensual relationship. If a homosexual happens to rape a dude they still go to jail. Pedophilia can never be consensual. One is an adult the other is a child. Raping a dead body or animal can also never be consensual. Also history has shown pedophilia can at the very least be socially instituted (Greece, Japan, child marraige).
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

shadyace

Quote from: Absurd Atheist on May 02, 2016, 11:57:32 AM
Quite possible but homosexuality is a form of consensual relationship. If a homosexual happens to rape a dude they still go to jail. Pedophilia can never be consensual. One is an adult the other is a child. Raping a dead body or animal can also never be consensual. Also history has shown pedophilia can at the very least be socially instituted (Greece, Japan, child marraige).


Sorry I should have been more clear, I'm referring to the attraction not the said acts.

TomFoolery

Quote from: shadyace on May 02, 2016, 11:44:41 AM
Here's a thought, if homosexuality is not a choice then neither is pediofilia, necrophilia and beastiality.
People can't help what they attracted to according to some, so then don't punish the sick bastards sent then to the looney bin [emoji848]

As the previous poster already stated, there's a key difference when consent is involved. I personally don't care about polygamists or incestuous relationships either, as long as everyone's adults and entered into the relationships as adults. Adults can consent to anything as long as they're capable of making sound decisions.

Children, dead people, animals, none of those will ever be legally able to check the consent box. I don't hate people who are attracted to those things, just as I don't hate anyone who has any kind of impulse whether it's gambling, shoplifting, drinking, or even homicide, so long as whatever they're doing only affects them or they don't act on it.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

shadyace

#238
Shoplifting and homicide are crimes and generally the results of social/economical factors.

The things I've mentioned are better off being considered developing from mental illness as it is not natural in any way.

If homosexuality is not a choice why hasn't there been proof in some sort (even brain activity) to show a difference?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, at work and cannot research anything at the moment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TomFoolery

Quote from: shadyace on May 02, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
If homosexuality is not a choice why hasn't there been proof in some sort (even brain activity) to show a difference?

Compulsive shoplifting is a mental disorder called kleptomania. They can't help it. It's an addiction. Having an addiction isn't a choice.

Furthermore, there is AMPLE evidence to suggest homosexuality isn't a choice, from epigenetic factors to evidence of it in nature across a wide variety of species including dolphins, lions, bonobos, dogs, and countless bird species etc. If sex really was only about reproduction, you would think animals wouldn't waste their time with members of the same sex. Much of the research is heavily dependent on males, but it makes sense from a biological standpoint. Men tend to be absolutely oriented toward only men or only women, whereas there is a lot more plasticity to female sexuality. Female sexuality tends to be more greatly influenced by culture, altered by positive or negative experiences, and intensified by feelings of love or attachment.

Anyway, when you look at humans, humans are social. Social species don't follow the typical model of 1. get born, 2. get old enough to breed and fast, 3. screw your brains out 4. pop out all the babies you can and finally, 5. die. If that were the case, you wouldn't think humans (females especially) would live beyond reproductive age. There's no point to having grandma stick around if she's already had a litter or two. You might argue that science has made that possible and it certainly has to a degree, but think about the long childhood of humans. It's longer than almost any other species, and intergenerational social interactions help ensure offspring live to adulthood. It takes a village, you know? And so while two gay men wouldn't reproduce with one another, they would certainly help raise and provide for nieces and nephews and their offspring.

From a biological perspective, males are extraneous but they have been beneficial enough to shuffling the alleles of a population that they are worthwhile. There are species which reproduce asexually, but they pay a heavy price for it and can only adapt to their environment though random mutations. Sexually reproducing species have the ability to shuffle genes around each generation to test out better and better combinations and to compensate for defects in particular genes through dosage compensation. If you get a crap gene from mom, as long as dad's is normal, you'll generally be fine.

But there's still a problem of ratios. Very few species are truly monogamous: it makes little evolutionary sense. But generally, all females are capable of reproducing, big or small, healthy or sick, from an evolutionary standpoint, they're all capable, and males have nothing to lose by trying to impregnate as many as possible. But the problem is they start fighting for it, and in many species males are far less likely to live to adulthood or survive as adults for long for a number of reasons. Competition between other males for territories and mates is a large factor. In many species, mothers will abandon male offspring more readily during difficult conditions. In a study of human populations, females are actually more likely to be born during times of famine or drought due to biological reasons that are still poorly understood. Also interestingly, many species have the ability to preferentially select for sex based on environment, though this is far more common in oviparous than placental mammals. Anyway, at virtually every turn, males get the short end of the stick because they have less invested in physically producing offspring than females.

That being said, raising children to adulthood is time-consuming and expensive, so evolutionary anthropologists have put forth the idea that homosexuality is beneficial as it conserves the resources that the group put into raising an equal number of males by having some pair off with each other rather than compete with and kill one another for available female mates. Studies have shown that a woman who gives birth to multiple sons has a higher chance with each pregnancy of producing gay sons due to DNA methylation and other epigenetic factors.

A lot of naysayers have liked to point to twin studies and highlight that if it were truly genetic, both twins would always have to be gay and since there are identical twins with only one being homosexual, this is impossible. Autism is undoubtedly genetic, but the ratios there aren't even close to 100% either. It's mostly likely an epigenetic phenomenon, so just like there's no one gene for intelligence or athletic ability, homosexuality has a lot to do with fetal environment, interactions between genes, and non-sequence issues like transposable elements and histone modifications.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?