Homosexuality genetically determined. Implications?

Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

20 Nov 2014, 10:41 am

Dillogic wrote:
andrethemoogle wrote:
How is being gay a disorder? Seriously, explain that one. It occurs in animals as well, so it's not just related to humans.


I'd say because it's counter to species survival and since it's rare.

Hence, disorder.

It's not counter to species survival. In social species (such as humans), it is common for some individuals to not reproduce. Their relatives seem to benefit from this as they can provide extra-parental care. Source.

There are species - and indeed, cultures - where homosexual activity is the norm and sex with females is only performed out of necessity. For example, there's a species of waterfowl where 20% of pairs are male-male. These significantly outperform male-female pairs in terms of chicks reared to adulthood, even though they need to find a female for short periods or steal eggs.

Rarity is irrelevant.

khaoz wrote:
I have heard of studies saying that the more females that are born from a woman prior to the birth of a male child the more likely a male child of that mother will be homosexual. I don't know.

You haven't remembered quite correctly - the number of older brothers is more important.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long



Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

20 Nov 2014, 11:15 am

Well I dont think that homosexuality can be passed on through natural selection for obvious reasons so it is a genetic cul de sac. Whether its useful or not is a matter of subjective opinion.

Theoretically I suppose bisexuality could be passed on which would result in greater numbers of homosexual individuals.

I also dont understand why gay people use the word straight to refer to non gays. The opposite of straight is bent which is an unfortunate implication


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

20 Nov 2014, 11:50 am

Ectryon wrote:
Well I dont think that homosexuality can be passed on through natural selection for obvious reasons so it is a genetic cul de sac.

It can when genetically related (but childless because gay) family members contribute to the eventual reproductive success of their relatives. This could really matter if there is high mortality in a population. If one or both parents get killed, a gay family member with no children of his own to compete for resources could assist with raising them. That isn't a far fetched scenario at all.

Quote:
Whether its useful or not is a matter of subjective opinion.


But has been studied by anthropologists.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Quote:
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.
Sceptics have pointed out that since on average people share just 25% of their genetic code with these relatives, they would need to compensate for every child they don't have themselves with two nieces or nephews that wouldn't otherwise have existed. Vasey hasn't yet measured just how much having a homosexual orientation boosts siblings' reproduction rate, but he has established that in Samoa "gay" men spend more time on uncle-like activities than "straight" men.


Consider this an add-on to The Walrus's cite of a study from Japan. But this isn't unique to either Samoa or Japan. Other rersearchers have found it elsewhere around the globe. It is probably happening in your neighborhood right now as a gay uncle gives his favorite niece a much more lavish wedding gift than he could have afforded if he had kids of his own to support.

Let's hear it for gay aunts and uncles!

Quote:
Theoretically I suppose bisexuality could be passed on which would result in greater numbers of homosexual individuals.

I also dont understand why gay people use the word straight to refer to non gays. The opposite of straight is bent which is an unfortunate implication


wiki provides a plausible explanation:
Quote:
The term "straight" originated as a mid-20th century gay slang term for heterosexuals, ultimately coming from the phrase "to go straight" (as in "straight and narrow"), or stop engaging in homosexual sex. One of the first uses of the word in this way was in 1941 by author G. W. Henry



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Nov 2014, 11:57 am

Janissy wrote:
The initial research was done many years ago so this already came up and was discussed by Christian fundamentalists*. Google found me a response to the research that I suspect is representative. Note that the article is from 2010.

Quote:
The case for a ?homosexual gene? has evaporated, but let?s say that researchers really were able to identify such a gene. After all, mutations in a cursed, fallen world can cause all sorts of abnormalities and malfunctions. For one thing, that would be a result of the Curse, not creation. And would knowledge of such a gene make right what Scripture clearly says is wrong? Absolute right and wrong exist independent of any secondary causative agencies.


This was a reaction to the initial research, which wasn't overly convincing. Thus the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph makes a good argument for why it would not be acceptable even if genetic. Note that when I say "good", that does not mean I agree with it (I don't). It means that I think it would be convincing for the faithful. It accepts the validity of the science (so can't be counter-argued with "science proves....") while rejecting the implications.

*You did specify "fundamentalist" which is why I'm going with this rather than Kraichgauer's more accepting reply.


Huh, accepting? I was just expressing my own views.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

20 Nov 2014, 12:44 pm

So, perhaps gay couples adopting kids will reduce the selective advantage of homosexuality, because they'll no longer be contributing as much to their relatives reproductive success? On the other hand, they might have biological children of their own. Hmmm, what's the prevalence of homosexuality like in the children of individuals who later came out as gay, as opposed to the average?



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

20 Nov 2014, 1:04 pm

Ectryon wrote:
Well I dont think that homosexuality can be passed on through natural selection for obvious reasons so it is a genetic cul de sac. Whether its useful or not is a matter of subjective opinion.


Then how are the genes for homosexuality passed on? There isn't anything aside from natural selection.



Ectryon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,241
Location: Hundred Acre Wood

20 Nov 2014, 2:57 pm

trollcatman wrote:
Ectryon wrote:
Well I dont think that homosexuality can be passed on through natural selection for obvious reasons so it is a genetic cul de sac. Whether its useful or not is a matter of subjective opinion.


Then how are the genes for homosexuality passed on? There isn't anything aside from natural selection.


There are probably an incredibly wide variety of factors which work alongside environmental factors


_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

20 Nov 2014, 4:15 pm

Magneto wrote:
So, perhaps gay couples adopting kids will reduce the selective advantage of homosexuality, because they'll no longer be contributing as much to their relatives reproductive success?

But on the other hand, new reproductive technologies are making it easier for homosexual couples to have their own children.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

20 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

Magneto wrote:
So, perhaps gay couples adopting kids will reduce the selective advantage of homosexuality, because they'll no longer be contributing as much to their relatives reproductive success? On the other hand, they might have biological children of their own. Hmmm, what's the prevalence of homosexuality like in the children of individuals who later came out as gay, as opposed to the average?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

20 Nov 2014, 4:57 pm

Ah yes, I didn't read that in terms of any trend or change so I discounted it a bit prematurely.

One thing that nobody has mentioned: might we see homophobes calling for pre-natal screening?



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

20 Nov 2014, 5:40 pm

I doubt it, given that most of those "homophobes" seem to be pro-life. What would be the point? Unless you identify a means to turn them straight in childhood...



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

20 Nov 2014, 6:10 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
It's not counter to species survival.


There's definitely instances where it would be counter to species survival.

It could also have benefits too in certain instances.

And as much as people hate to admit, the innate behavior of people against taboo social behavior is a normal reaction -- which means it can take away any benefit it may have if society isn't accepting of it.

It's the same as any rare behavioral condition (like the personality disorders). Since it doesn't affect much of anything outside of sexuality and expected social behavior, it's really not much of a problem in regards to functioning in society.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

20 Nov 2014, 7:50 pm

Magneto wrote:
I doubt it, given that most of those "homophobes" seem to be pro-life. What would be the point? Unless you identify a means to turn them straight in childhood...

Ah, that's a very good point.

Dillogic wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It's not counter to species survival.


There's definitely instances where it would be counter to species survival.

It could also have benefits too in certain instances.

And as much as people hate to admit, the innate behavior of people against taboo social behavior is a normal reaction -- which means it can take away any benefit it may have if society isn't accepting of it.

It's the same as any rare behavioral condition (like the personality disorders). Since it doesn't affect much of anything outside of sexuality and expected social behavior, it's really not much of a problem in regards to functioning in society.

Well yes, if everyone was homosexual we'd have a problem. However, much like species that can naturally change sex, homosexuality often seems to more or less disappear when population is low. If you had a background in biology you'd probably be less willing to talk in broad brush strokes about complex phenomena, I forget that many people aren't so open to nuance. I'm glad you recognise that your original point was wrong. Of course, if anything that could be counter to species survival in certain circumstances were a disorder, then everyone would be disordered in dozens of ways.

(It should also be noted that the drive to reproduce is separate from the sex drive. That is why gay couples adopt or find ways of conceiving)

I think most people are perfectly happy to accept that hatred of out groups is normal. However, normal is not synonymous with moral... I would also question whether it makes sense to talk about "innate" hatred of "taboo social behaviour". Of course, in general terms that's true, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Homophobia is not an innate condition, it's a societal one. Many societies over the course of history have overtly promoted homosexuality. Today, most Western societies accept homosexuality and condemn homophobia.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

20 Nov 2014, 8:40 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Well yes, if everyone was homosexual we'd have a problem. However, much like species that can naturally change sex, homosexuality often seems to more or less disappear when population is low. If you had a background in biology you'd probably be less willing to talk in broad brush strokes about complex phenomena, I forget that many people aren't so open to nuance. I'm glad you recognise that your original point was wrong. Of course, if anything that could be counter to species survival in certain circumstances were a disorder, then everyone would be disordered in dozens of ways.

(It should also be noted that the drive to reproduce is separate from the sex drive. That is why gay couples adopt or find ways of conceiving)

I think most people are perfectly happy to accept that hatred of out groups is normal. However, normal is not synonymous with moral... I would also question whether it makes sense to talk about "innate" hatred of "taboo social behaviour". Of course, in general terms that's true, but it doesn't really apply in this case. Homophobia is not an innate condition, it's a societal one. Many societies over the course of history have overtly promoted homosexuality. Today, most Western societies accept homosexuality and condemn homophobia.


Hence, there's ways it can be a negative [and a positive]. Much like any deviate behavior.

Why would homosexualiaty disappear if the species overall numbers are low? The ratio should be about the same -- there'd just be less of both. A population of 100 with 2% being homosexual shouldn't be different than a population of 1,000,000 with the same 2%. The only way it'd be less is if there's some actual choice involved by societal expectations/pressure, which doesn't seem to be the case with homosexuality.

(Yes. I'm sure many homosexual couples would be happy if anal/manual sex could produce a child though, as there'd be no need to find other ways.)

The same can be said for any deviate behavior -- the expectation of dislike being related to how much it negatively affects the whole, in addition to its morality. What society deems as level of effect, is what changes, as you said. It's easy to say that people should be tolerant of others as long as they're not harming others, but that's something even modern and so-called progressive societies seem to pick and choose based on their preferences at the time (whether it's drugs, guns, religion, sexuality and others -- all of those don't harm anyone unless the person chooses to harm another with them, such as murder, rape and drugging people). I see a lot of double standards on what's accepted and what's not, even though they're all the same thing, behavior that doesn't harm anyone.



anthropic_principle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 300

21 Nov 2014, 2:11 am

Really? we've known this for quite some time now.. i mean it's been observed in animals for god's sake.
I don't understand how people are stupid enough to think gays choose to not only suppress their supposed natural sexual urges, but to go through all the crap that society puts them through.
That's an absurd notion.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Nov 2014, 2:52 am

Like Bill Maher had sarcastically observed, gay teens are really going make the choice to be beaten up.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer