| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2010 02:34:25 PM · #4476 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Here's an interesting question related to the topic...
What's up with CBS banning the commercial for the same-sex dating site and accepting the anti-abortion commercial for the Super Bowl? Seems like a strange decision from the liberal media... |
The media are not as liberal as some would like to think. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 03:40:50 PM · #4477 |
What do you think about this?
article
These psychologists believe they discovered the function of the gay gene that has allowed it to survive the evolutionay process. Apparently the gay gene creates "super uncles" so that even though gay men might not have their own kids they can at least care for their nieces and nephews.
So, are gay men really super uncles?
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 15:49:27. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 03:48:00 PM · #4478 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What do you think about this?Gay Gene and Super Uncles
These psychologists believe they discovered the function of the gay gene that has allowed it to survive the evolutionay process. Apparently the gay gene creates "super uncles" so that even though gay men might not have their own kids they can at least care for their nieces and nephews.
So, are gay men really super uncles? |
Parsed link. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 03:52:01 PM · #4479 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, are gay men really super uncles? |
So, are all heterosexual men super dads?
Really, the question is pretty ridiculous -- gay men run the same gamut of personality types and parenting abilities as everyone else ... I think that's part of the whole point of this discussion, that gay men are pretty much like everyone else in every respect except for whom they find sexually attractive. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 04:14:12 PM · #4480 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What do you think about this?
article |
The first sentence reads; "Male homosexuality doesn't make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable"
So the whole article is based on the premise that there is an identifiable homosexuality 'gene' - And that gays only look after their nephews and nieces because they have some of their gay genes and they secretly want to perpetuate their gayness. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 05:37:47 PM · #4481 |
I think the article is trying to make sense out of a condition that is assumed to be genetic from an evolutionary viewpoint. The question is as relevant as making conjectures about the role of the family unit in evolution, or the evolutionary advantage of social structures. All such questions are interesting and perhaps gives insight into why things are the way they are, but ultimately have little to do with the way people live their lives. Given the sensitive nature of this particular subject, such endeavours are likelier to annoy than edify (even judging by the responses so far).
The study focused solely on effeminate homosexual males. It doesn't represent all (or even most) homosexual males. This fact alone is likely to present unreliable data. Do effeminate gay men "nurture" more? Do effeminate gay men have "female" brains? Are effeminate gay men in reality transgendered females? Do effeminate gay men have the only true (as yet undiscovered) "gay gene"? These questions, in my opinion, do not help us to deduce the origin or persistence of homosexuality. They narrow the field too much.
My contention is that the species is innately bisexual, and all individuals fall on the Kinsey scale of homo/bisexuality for environmental, rather than biological, reasons. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 06:30:38 PM · #4482 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My contention is that the species is innately bisexual, and all individuals fall on the Kinsey scale of homo/bisexuality for environmental, rather than biological, reasons. |
Sounds like everyone is born sitting on the fence of bisexuality and environmental factors tip you to either side. How far off am I? |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 06:42:45 PM · #4483 |
| that was an interesting link, but it seems to pre-suppose that gayness is inherited, which I don't think there is any evidence for. I think Louis also stated some of the questions about the study group and the study itself that crossed my mind (though he phrased it much more eloquently than I could) |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 07:57:31 PM · #4484 |
Originally posted by frisca:
that was an interesting link, but it seems to pre-suppose that gayness is inherited, which I don't think there is any evidence for. I think Louis also stated some of the questions about the study group and the study itself that crossed my mind (though he phrased it much more eloquently than I could) |
Twin studies do indicate there likely is a genetic link for homosexuality. Identical twins are more likes to both be gay than fraternal twins. However, it also bears noting that the concordance in Identical twins is not 100% (IIRC it's in the 60-70% range) so genetics do not completely explain the etiology either.
I will scold the reactionary posts to the journal article. It's a totally germain discussion. If homosexuality is genetic and if it persists in the population, evolutionary theory will assume there is a reproductive advantage that outweighs or at least offsets the obvious disadvantage of homosexual men having fewer offspring than heterosexual men. While the study is interesting, I don't think it's anywhere close to a smoking gun. The proof of the pudding would come into higher survival rates of nieces and nephews of gay men than non-gay men. They make no mention of this in the article and my guess is it is likely because such a benefit was not seen (why else would they not mention it?). There was a similar study which tried to look at the same thing in Italian gay men. I've linked it somewhere before.
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 19:58:16. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 08:11:57 PM · #4485 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If homosexuality is genetic and if it persists in the population, evolutionary theory will assume there is a reproductive advantage that outweighs or at least offsets the obvious disadvantage of homosexual men having fewer offspring than heterosexual men. |
Evolutionary theory would make no such assumption. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 08:22:36 PM · #4486 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If homosexuality is genetic and if it persists in the population, evolutionary theory will assume there is a reproductive advantage that outweighs or at least offsets the obvious disadvantage of homosexual men having fewer offspring than heterosexual men. |
Evolutionary theory would make no such assumption. |
Why wouldn't it? That seems to be what the article is implying. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 08:29:13 PM · #4487 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If homosexuality is genetic and if it persists in the population, evolutionary theory will assume there is a reproductive advantage that outweighs or at least offsets the obvious disadvantage of homosexual men having fewer offspring than heterosexual men. |
Evolutionary theory would make no such assumption. |
It f'ing would. An obvious reproductive disadvantage must be offset with a commensurate reproductive advantage or the gene will be removed from the pool over time. This is especially true for "common" genes (like 2% of the population). Rarer genes that cause reproductive disadvantage could survive purely from de novo mutation. We could also say that homosexuality is on the way out and that eons from now will not exist. That's a second possibility and perhaps you were allowing for that scenario.
Sickle Cell anemia is the poster child for this phenomenon.
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 20:30:32. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 08:46:33 PM · #4488 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If homosexuality is genetic and if it persists in the population, evolutionary theory will assume there is a reproductive advantage that outweighs or at least offsets the obvious disadvantage of homosexual men having fewer offspring than heterosexual men. |
Evolutionary theory would make no such assumption. |
I probably shouldn't fall into these traps and just ask you to explain what you mean or why you feel your statement is true. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 08:47:28 PM · #4489 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An obvious reproductive disadvantage must be offset with a commensurate reproductive advantage or the gene will be removed from the pool over time. |
Horsefeathers. There is no requirement that every change be beneficial or you'd still be covered in fur and have no nipples. Heck, a particular trait could be totally negative and the species will still continue as long as population growth outweighs a given disadvantage. As a minority of 10-15% of the population, homosexuality need not confer an advantage any more than left-handedness or green eyes... and a check on population growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage!
There's another "negative" trait that occurs with the same frequency in identical twins (about 70% vs. 40% in fraternal twins), yet has not been weeded out over time: ALLERGIES.
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 21:37:45. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 09:22:18 PM · #4490 |
I have to say, I do adore my super niece and nephew, and have this really strange urge to help fund their education. :)
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 21:27:51. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 10:06:36 PM · #4491 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An obvious reproductive disadvantage must be offset with a commensurate reproductive advantage or the gene will be removed from the pool over time. |
Horsefeathers. There is no requirement that every change be beneficial or you'd still be covered in fur and have no nipples. Heck, a particular trait could be totally negative and the species will still continue as long as population growth outweighs a given disadvantage. As a minority of 10-15% of the population, homosexuality need not confer an advantage any more than left-handedness or green eyes... and a check on population growth isn't necessarily a disadvantage!
There's another "negative" trait that occurs with the same frequency in identical twins (about 70% vs. 40% in fraternal twins), yet has not been weeded out over time: ALLERGIES. |
Did you know "Some research has found that people with allergies or allergy-related conditions, such as asthma or eczema, have a reduced risk of cancer. These studies imply that an immune system's hyperreaction to allergens might protect against tumors. " That would prove my point exactly.
However, the effect for something like allergies may be very mild compared to homosexuality since the reproductive disadvantage is likely to be quite small compared to the general population. If you die from food allergy before you can reproduce, that would be bad, but that's pretty rare.
I'm trying to find my undergrad genetics textbook so I can quote the proper passage about the theory. But dang if I can find it. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 10:24:36 PM · #4492 |
One can speculate other mechanisms as well. Perhaps those with the genetic predisposition to homosexuality who remain heterosexual have more offspring than their wild-type heterosexual competition. It would be another mechanism where the deleterious effect would be negated by an advantage.
Message edited by author 2010-02-04 22:24:54. |
|
|
|
02/04/2010 10:44:53 PM · #4493 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One can speculate other mechanisms as well. Perhaps those with the genetic predisposition to homosexuality who remain heterosexual have more offspring than their wild-type heterosexual competition. It would be another mechanism where the deleterious effect would be negated by an advantage. |
I was gonna point that out, actually; that "having the gene for homosexuality" doesn't necessarily mean you *are* a homosexual, behaviorally. Or, in any case, it didn't used to. Things may be changing now. But there are an awful lot of children of "repressed homosexuals" out there reproducing, that's for sure.
R. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 11:31:55 AM · #4494 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was gonna point that out, actually; that "having the gene for homosexuality" doesn't necessarily mean you *are* a homosexual, behaviorally. Or, in any case, it didn't used to. Things may be changing now. But there are an awful lot of children of "repressed homosexuals" out there reproducing, that's for sure.
R. |
So there is some level of "choice" involving a person's sexual orientation? For example, you could be born with the "gay gene" and have various influential environmental factors, both of which are beyond control, but then you can "choose" to suppress the homosexual within and essentially live as a heterosexual. This begs the question then, what does it mean to be a homosexual? Does simply feeling attracted to a person of the same sex define a person as homosexual, or is it a persons actions that do it? If Louis is right about everyone being innately bisexual, then then all the homosexuals and heterosexuals in the world must be choosing to suppress their true feelings. In other words, everyone has a choice, it's just that the choice becomes either harder or easier based on genetic and environmental factors. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 12:22:26 PM · #4495 |
| It's hardly a choice to act on environmental factors as persuasive as those that determine sexual behaviour. Use of the word "choice" is misleading. Environmental factors may play a role in the development of allergies, for example, but we don't call the outcome of such factors a "choice" to be allergic. There is no choice involved in sexual orientation. Period. Full stop. End of story. (etc.) |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 12:39:23 PM · #4496 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If Louis is right about everyone being innately bisexual, then then all the homosexuals and heterosexuals in the world must be choosing to suppress their true feelings. In other words, everyone has a choice, it's just that the choice becomes either harder or easier based on genetic and environmental factors. |
Don't think that "environment" necessarily means being brought up by a single mum, or two dads etc - that will lead to many misunderstandings.
People don't have a choice about most of the important developmental environmental factors. For example, the temperature of your mother's womb at various points in your foetal growth is an environmental factor that will have affected you biologically, but not genetically.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2010 01:13:45 PM · #4497 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
People don't have a choice about most of the important developmental environmental factors. For example, the temperature of your mother's womb at various points in your foetal growth is an environmental factor that will have affected you biologically, but not genetically. |
As a simple and obvious example, "identical" twins have exactly the same DNA but different fingerprints. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 01:29:19 PM · #4498 |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's hardly a choice to act on environmental factors as persuasive as those that determine sexual behaviour. Use of the word "choice" is misleading. Environmental factors may play a role in the development of allergies, for example, but we don't call the outcome of such factors a "choice" to be allergic. There is no choice involved in sexual orientation. Period. Full stop. End of story. (etc.) |
But if everyone is born innately bisexual then doesn't that mean all the gay and straight people are suppressing their bisexuality somehow? |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 01:31:34 PM · #4499 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's hardly a choice to act on environmental factors as persuasive as those that determine sexual behaviour. Use of the word "choice" is misleading. Environmental factors may play a role in the development of allergies, for example, but we don't call the outcome of such factors a "choice" to be allergic. There is no choice involved in sexual orientation. Period. Full stop. End of story. (etc.) |
But if everyone is born innately bisexual then doesn't that mean all the gay and straight people are suppressing their bisexuality somehow? |
All people are born with taste buds (and olfactory nerves), but not everyone likes the same kinds of foods. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 02:15:06 PM · #4500 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
But if everyone is born innately bisexual then doesn't that mean all the gay and straight people are suppressing their bisexuality somehow? |
All people are born with taste buds (and olfactory nerves), but not everyone likes the same kinds of foods. |
So everyone is born innately bisexual and then we acquire a taste for same-sex or opposite-sex people? I'm just trying to understand. We are sexual beings by nature but sexual attraction id developed over time, otherwise there is no explanation for asexuality. So if sexual attraction develops over time doesn't that also mean that sexual orientation is developed as well? If we're all born innately bisexual, or maybe even asexual, that means we are born with the potential to be gay (or straight) but that "taste" is acquired later. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 10:17:52 AM EDT.
