Homosexuality genetically determined. Implications?
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.
You haven't remembered quite correctly - the number of older brothers is more important.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long
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
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.
But has been studied by anthropologists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
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!
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:
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
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
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?
Then how are the genes for homosexuality passed on? There isn't anything aside from natural selection.
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
But on the other hand, new reproductive technologies are making it easier for homosexual couples to have their own children.
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.
Ah, that's a very good point.
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.
(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.
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
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.