Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?

peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?

I was wondering if any of you had any theories about the "reasons" for homosexuality. Someone I talked to had the idea that it could be our way of "balancing" the population out (not everyone has kids), or maybe partly due to a gender imbalance.

What do you think?

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
RickRebel wrote:ryandiman

RickRebel wrote:

ryandiman wrote:
Who knows...?

And who cares?

I'm gay. I live a good life and I'm happy, so why the hell should I give a damn what makes me gay? I'm a man who is attracted to men. So the fuck what?

Most of the people who argue that homosexuality is a choice or a psychological defect or brain malfunction do so because they believe homosexuality is a problem to be solved. But it's only a problem....FOR THEM.

It's NOT a problem for me.

So to those who have a problem with it; fuck off.

Rick

 

Rick,

 

I never meant to insinuate that homosexuality was a "problem".  I was merely referencing a scientist who claimed to have some evidence as to why some people are homosexual, and why some are heterosexual.

You may not care about discovering and understanding the mechanisms behind this particular aspect, but it's part of a larger goal to understand who we are, where we came from, and how we all work.  If there is an answer (and I'm sure there is), I'd love to learn what it is.

Who wouldn't be intrigued to study and learn about identical twins - where one was homosexual, and the other was heterosexual?  Studying these types of cases can shed new light and understanding.  As far as science is concerned, it has nothing to do with having a "problem" with one vs. the other.

 

-Ryan


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
RickRebel wrote:I remember

RickRebel wrote:

I remember being very attracted to Wild Bill Hickcock on Saturday morning TV back in the early 50s. I was 4 years old. I've been attracted to men all of my life. Chances are that my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my upbringing. The attraction feels completely natural to me.

These studies about homosexuality are amusing to us gay folks. To us it sounds like, "What gives black people rhythm?"

That's not as far fetched as it may appear at first glance. As I recall (I may be a little off on this) smell is the most powerful memory trigger and sight the least powerful. There could be people who are genetically predisposed to have a more powerful sound trigger of memory than other humans. If this trait were present in the vast majority of a race (regardless of which race) it would be carried over in a high percentage of the people and thus be considered a racial trait.

It's already been shown that people can be genetically predisposed to all manner of things such as heart disease, mental illness, and of course the obvious physical traits. Why would it be so surprising that a person might be genetically predisposed to be homosexual or have a better than average sound memory trigger? It doesn't make you any less you, it just offers us a better understanding of what actually makes us, us.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
What amazes me about this

What amazes me about this current belief on the part of some ignoramuses that some scientists are devoting themselves to locating "the homosexual gene" is not so much the depressing fact that there are indeed apparently self-styled "scientists" who do indeed claim to be embarking on such stupid research, but the fact that a justification is equally depressingly frequently presented based on the general assumption that humans who do not contribute to human reproduction are not only "gaily" anomalous compared to "the rest of us" but a significant threat to human survival should they proliferate.

 

So where's the research to establish all other similar "genes" with possibly dissimilar characteristics but with equal potential for adding a bit of negative equity to malthusian projections? Like the grumpy personality gene, the halitosis gene, the catholic priest-stroke-nun gene, the cellar computer geek gene, the man who lost his testicles in an industrial accident gene, the hideously ugly gene, the drunken driver gene (who admittedly can potentially reproduce but can equally potentially cancel out his or her additions to the head count), for that matter - the anyone capable of killing gene, the couch potato gene, the better-things-to-do gene, the "dead before puberty" gene ...

 

... you get my drift. 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:I was

peppermint wrote:

I was wondering if any of you had any theories about the "reasons" for homosexuality. Someone I talked to had the idea that it could be our way of "balancing" the population out (not everyone has kids), or maybe partly due to a gender imbalance.

What do you think?

I really don't know. I hadn't thought about it much. I have three homosexual friends and they certainly don't seem any different than me. One of them is actually very much like me. I have not noticed any mental deficiencies in them, apart from one who is kind of stupid (I actually haven't seen her in a long time, we had a falling out after I made a comment about her religious fanaticism). I wouldn't be surprised if it were genetic. I highly doubt it has anything to do with upbringing, though that would definitely contribute to a desire to hide or express it.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:What amazes

Nordmann wrote:

What amazes me about this current belief on the part of some ignoramuses that some scientists are devoting themselves to locating "the homosexual gene" is not so much the depressing fact that there are indeed apparently self-styled "scientists" who do indeed claim to be embarking on such stupid research, but the fact that a justification is equally depressingly frequently presented based on the general assumption that humans who do not contribute to human reproduction are not only "gaily" anomalous compared to "the rest of us" but a significant threat to human survival should they proliferate.

 

So where's the research to establish all other similar "genes" with possibly dissimilar characteristics but with equal potential for adding a bit of negative equity to malthusian projections? Like the grumpy personality gene, the halitosis gene, the catholic priest-stroke-nun gene, the cellar computer geek gene, the man who lost his testicles in an industrial accident gene, the hideously ugly gene, the drunken driver gene (who admittedly can potentially reproduce but can equally potentially cancel out his or her additions to the head count), for that matter - the anyone capable of killing gene, the couch potato gene, the better-things-to-do gene, the "dead before puberty" gene ...

 

... you get my drift. 

Your point is valid and true. I think we should study the human genome to the fullest extent possible, but research aimed solely at a "Gay Gene" or the like would be wasted effort as we would be better off looking for associations with genetic disorders like down syndrome.

On a side note. I don't think homosexuals are any kind of threat to humanity. If anything they are a huge benefit as they are less likely to procreate. If there's one thing that would help the human species it would be having less of them.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Posts between

ZuS wrote:

Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.

I'm just waiting for a claim such as "Gay people don't really exist" to come out of a particular poster's fingertips...

-Triften


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Posts between

ZuS wrote:

Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.

Any suggestions on how I might respond to what I think I might understand, but I'm not sure I do? I'm not very good with "vague as hell".

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In recent years,

Quote:
In recent years, scientists have focused on digit ratio to explain sexuality. Fingers grow according to levels of androgens in the womb. Higher androgenic steroids typically lead to increased growth in the 4th finger, so most men have 4th fingers that are longer than their second, while most women have a longer second finger or 2nd and 4th fingers that are about the same length. However, the data seems to point to the idea that homosexual men tend to have a more feminine digit ratio, while homosexual women tend to have a more masculine digit ratio.

...Uh. Hm.

My 2nd digit is definitely longer than my 4th, but I'm not homosexual or bisexual. Take that, science! Sticking out tongue

 

Damn I'm an anomaly.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But the idea that you

Quote:
But the idea that you are born gay or strait is false. It's like saying one is born a smoker, religious or alcoholic.

Yeah! Or like saying that someone was 'born' with Downs Syndrome or Schizophrenia

 

Everybody knows that those sons of bitches are just acting-out, enabled by the evil liberals, so that they can get a free ride off of your hard-earned Republican dollars in  5-star luxury asylum.

 

 

...How is it that Conservatives can be wrong about, like, everything?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Posts between

ZuS wrote:
Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.

Yes, I am being vague as there is no definition of homosexuality offered by the Minty Babe or anyone else. I was trying to point out there is no possible definition that is not time and place specific.

Define hetero marriage. Two people who love each other. That is a Western idea barely three centuries old and not commonly accepted until the 20th c. What does love have to do with marriage? Marriage is existed as a duty to have children until that recently in this part of the world. It still does not exist in most of the world. Are we so strange and, in the eyes of the world and our ancestors, so perverted? Our ancestors knew to keep love and marriage separate. If they did not things got complicated quickly. The more they mixed the more divorce.

What is meant by homosexual? Neither heterosexual OR bisexual? Or just not strictly heterosexual? And what does strictly mean? Outside the US and maybe Canada but in the West if a person does not engage in homosexual activity he is not a homosexual.

Now all of this may sound like endless digression but go back to the post that started this. Evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. Evolution is a science. The answer to the question, if there is one, would be the evolutionary pressures for homosexuality. BUT what is meant by that word is not defined in the question, and is different in different places today and in different times in history in the same place.

Which mainly suggests I should have addressed the subject more directly.

The question cannot be answered as only under a modern, strict definition of homosexual relations which polarizes it against heterosexual only can the question even be posed.

Once you put bisexual into the mix then you have degree of bisexual and you can plot a curve of the behavior and find homosexuals are just the tail end of an extreme with the peak of the curve very heavily in favor of heterosexuality. As such there is no more need to find an evolutionary "reason for" homosexuality than there is to find a reason for nearsightedness or color blindness or diabetes or hypertension. It is just one more of those variations we have in our genes. One assumes bisexuality being reproductively ambivalent is what keeps the strictly homosexuality genes in the mix.

And as to the social issue for most all of known human history and still in the majority of the world today marriage is a duty for having children and thus even with exclusive homosexuality "genes" they would only start to die out in a marry for love culture.

So the evolutionary answer is the surest way to eliminate the homosexuality gene, should such a thing exist, is complete acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging them to "marry." That way the genes never produce children. Bisexuals need be encouraged to exclusive homosexual relationships to hasten the process.

Extermination by acceptance and tolerance and even encouragement. How much more liberal can you get?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

...

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
And if we take this back to the "evil" of social pressure forcing gays to marry women where are the bisexuals in all of this? And then we get to all the shepards who loved their flocks and the farmers who helped pigs over fences. And with all of this how do we distinguish any behavior from our tendency to do what feels good for no reason other than feeling good?

Could we not equate sex between people with bestiality? If we're discussing sex between people, I think we can stay there. No need to bring the flock into it.

You've never been attracted to another man. We get it. If you can't understand that, just say so.

While you may have a problem with people and animals at least they are alive. The women-folk in Lysistrada complain their men expect them to be content with inanimate leather objects they leave in their stead while off to war.

As for the rest, I have another post which is more direct as to the post which Minty Babe used to start this thread. It is not a social question but one of evolution.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:ZuS

triften wrote:
ZuS wrote:
Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.
I'm just waiting for a claim such as "Gay people don't really exist" to come out of a particular poster's fingertips...

-Triften

I would not want to suggest they do not really exist but are they simply an extreme variation of which bisexual is an identified intermediate expression? Most people can see all the colors. From there there is decreasing sensitivity, two colors and the least common no colors. That is all in the genes. Are homosexuals just shades of gray?

But this requires a definition of gay that applies all over the world and over all times such as does color blindness. There is no such definition. Without an agreed definition there is no way to talk about it in terms of evolution. Note of course that color blindness has not been eliminated by evolution.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:... you get

Nordmann wrote:

... you get my drift. 

So that was you in the elevator?

Yea, it's understood. There is though a certain something about gayness that is a part of the society on deeper level than drunken driving. You can be drunken driving and no one will accuse you of boneing men; you can be killing people and no one will accuse you of boneing men; you can be geeking away in a cellar, and no one will accuse you of boneing ANYTHING. There is something extra bad about boneing men.

So, the issue is not really the survivability good or bad verdict, noone gives a rats ass for that. The issue is, really, boneing men. In it's nature it is much like abortion or gay marriage - some people forbiding you shit citing a principle they apparently don't give a shit about themselves. Every life is sacred, except our soldiers, Iraqis, Vietnamese, blacks, gays, Jews etc. And marriage is a sacred institution, except when I have to bang my secretary and divorce 30% of the times I get married. None of the principle reasons given should be addressed when talking about a given issue, 'cause those seem to be simple excuses.

We should look at differences between drunken driving and man-boneing, and similarities between man-boneing and abortion.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:So where's

Nordmann wrote:

So where's the research to establish all other similar "genes" with possibly dissimilar characteristics but with equal potential for adding a bit of negative equity to malthusian projections? Like the grumpy personality gene, the halitosis gene, the catholic priest-stroke-nun gene, the cellar computer geek gene, the man who lost his testicles in an industrial accident gene, the hideously ugly gene, the drunken driver gene (who admittedly can potentially reproduce but can equally potentially cancel out his or her additions to the head count), for that matter - the anyone capable of killing gene, the couch potato gene, the better-things-to-do gene, the "dead before puberty" gene ...

 

... you get my drift. 

Come on now...  Let's be serious.

Most of those things you just mentioned (with the exception of the guy who lost his testicles in an industrial accident), ARE caused - at least indirectly - by our genetic makeup.  Someone who has the genes to allow a high inteligence, but shy personality, may become the cellar computer geek.  Someone who is geneticaly susceptible to alcoholism, may be that drunken driver.  And those who are unfortunate enough to have a set of genes that make them hideousely ugly, are... well, just unfortunate - and realistically, less likely to procreate and pass them on.  It's the cold, hard truth.

The fact is, science finds sexual orientation to be particularly fascinating.  After all, as with all mammals, it is sex between a male and a female that keeps the species moving along.  When there is a minority group that exhibits behavior that is against this norm, we become iterested in knowing the reasons why.

I'm convinced that homosexuality has genetic causes.  People are either born heterosexual, homosexual - and in even rarer cases, bisexual.  It's not a "choice", or an environmental cause - granted, the environment affects us in a very major way - but I don't think it determines our sexual orientation. 

I think those few that "try out" homosexuality/bisexuality, are merely confused about how to identify their true sexual orientation.  Apparently, most people are very sure, and some are not.  And I think it all has genetic roots.  It has to, becaus that's what makes us, "us".

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I've been avoiding this

 I've been avoiding this thread because... gee... it's like... I'm the only person who actually tried to explain the real theory of why homosexuality exists, and guess what?  Everybody ignored it and went on their merry way preaching whatever pop psychology drivel they subscribe to.

But seriously, people, this really isn't hard.  "Who I am" as a human being can only be caused by two things:  my genes and my environment.  I've got a news flash for you, though.  There is no debate between nature and nurture.  They're two sides of the same coin.  Let's take schizophrenia, for example, as I don't think anyone in this thread is stupid enough to suggest it's not genetic.

At last count, I think there are 13 or 14 very well established genetic markers associated with schizophrenia.  The thing is, not everyone with any (or even all) of these markers turns up schizophrenic.  The reason for this is that the environment alters gene expression.  There are a lot of theories on what environmental triggers are responsible for the manifestation of schizophrenia, and they range from exposure to certain chemicals in utero to the absorption rate of certain lipids by the brain during adolescence.  Furthermore, there's the identical twin problem.  If schizophrenia were an inevitable conclusion of a particular genetic sequence, all identical twins with the sequence would manifest symptoms.  But they don't.  In fact, there's around a 50% chance that the identical twin of a manifesting schizophrenic will also develop symptoms.  It doesn't stop there, either.  Since schizophrenia's onset is so variable, we can't be sure that (like Magic Johnson's AIDS) some twins' schizophrenia just hasn't manifested yet.  

But.. and this is the one thing on which there is no serious dispute -- schizophrenia is genetic.

Ok, back to homosexuality.  Sexual preference cannot manifest fully in a human until they reach adolescence.  Sure, there are signs of what that preference might be, but they're not foolproof by any stretch.  Adolescence, folks, is a change in gene expression.  You don't get new genes when you turn 13.  Genes you've had your whole life change expression.

That last sentence was really important.  Read it again, people.  You have the same genes at 13 as you did at birth.  Any capability at all that you have as a human being is a result of you having the genetic programming to have that capability.  Sure, there are people who are "borderline gay."  We've all known them.  There are also people who have been flamingly gay since they were five, and people who were incredibly straight.  Borderline gays are certainly going to be largely influenced by their environment.  If they're raised fundamentalist Christian, they'll probably get married and have kids like they're supposed to.  (Or, perhaps they'll rebel and go whole hog gay... who knows...)  But for the love of the FSM, it's absolutely stupid to suggest that anyone on the planet is equally likely to be gay -- from birth.  Just look around you.  It's obvious, even if you don't know a lick of science.

There is no question that sexual preference is linked to genes.  None.  All the sensationalist headlines are just that -- they're sensationalist shit from journalists who wouldn't know homology if it bit them in the face.  The question -- like the question of schizophrenia -- is just which combinations of genes influence sexual preference, and what environmental factors can trigger changes in the expression of those genes.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I've

Hambydammit wrote:

 I've been avoiding this thread because... gee... it's like... I'm the only person who actually tried to explain the real theory of why homosexuality exists, and guess what?  Everybody ignored it and went on their merry way preaching whatever pop psychology drivel they subscribe to.

But seriously, people, this really isn't hard.  "Who I am" as a human being can only be caused by two things:  my genes and my environment.  I've got a news flash for you, though.  There is no debate between nature and nurture.  They're two sides of the same coin.  Let's take schizophrenia, for example, as I don't think anyone in this thread is stupid enough to suggest it's not genetic.

At last count, I think there are 13 or 14 very well established genetic markers associated with schizophrenia.  The thing is, not everyone with any (or even all) of these markers turns up schizophrenic.  The reason for this is that the environment alters gene expression.  There are a lot of theories on what environmental triggers are responsible for the manifestation of schizophrenia, and they range from exposure to certain chemicals in utero to the absorption rate of certain lipids by the brain during adolescence.  Furthermore, there's the identical twin problem.  If schizophrenia were an inevitable conclusion of a particular genetic sequence, all identical twins with the sequence would manifest symptoms.  But they don't.  In fact, there's around a 50% chance that the identical twin of a manifesting schizophrenic will also develop symptoms.  It doesn't stop there, either.  Since schizophrenia's onset is so variable, we can't be sure that (like Magic Johnson's AIDS) some twins' schizophrenia just hasn't manifested yet.  

But.. and this is the one thing on which there is no serious dispute -- schizophrenia is genetic.

Ok, back to homosexuality.  Sexual preference cannot manifest fully in a human until they reach adolescence.  Sure, there are signs of what that preference might be, but they're not foolproof by any stretch.  Adolescence, folks, is a change in gene expression.  You don't get new genes when you turn 13.  Genes you've had your whole life change expression.

That last sentence was really important.  Read it again, people.  You have the same genes at 13 as you did at birth.  Any capability at all that you have as a human being is a result of you having the genetic programming to have that capability.  Sure, there are people who are "borderline gay."  We've all known them.  There are also people who have been flamingly gay since they were five, and people who were incredibly straight.  Borderline gays are certainly going to be largely influenced by their environment.  If they're raised fundamentalist Christian, they'll probably get married and have kids like they're supposed to.  (Or, perhaps they'll rebel and go whole hog gay... who knows...)  But for the love of the FSM, it's absolutely stupid to suggest that anyone on the planet is equally likely to be gay -- from birth.  Just look around you.  It's obvious, even if you don't know a lick of science.

There is no question that sexual preference is linked to genes.  None.  All the sensationalist headlines are just that -- they're sensationalist shit from journalists who wouldn't know homology if it bit them in the face.  The question -- like the question of schizophrenia -- is just which combinations of genes influence sexual preference, and what environmental factors can trigger changes in the expression of those genes.

 

hellokitty

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
::::Kneeling down on one

::::Kneeling down on one knee::::

Hambydammit... will you marry me?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 By the way, before some

 By the way, before some smartass tries to correct me on it, yes, I am aware that AIDS is caused by a virus, not genes.  The point is that just looking at outward symptoms or behaviors is not scientifically conclusive.  Just as a virus may not be expressing as AIDS, a gene may not be expressing as "gay," but the gene, like the virus, is still there, and might express, given the right environment.

Also, I should add that if we find specific markers for "gay" it's likely that they'll be very much like genes for schizophrenia -- they don't guarantee a career packing fudge.  They allow for the possibility of a particular expression that will shape sexual preference.

Look, sexuality is not an on/off switch.  Homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a dichotomy.  It's a very complicated continuum.  You pussy lovin' fag hatin' conservative types, you may not like to hear this, but in scientific terms, a lot of your oh-so-straight man time is an expression of sexuality.  Do you really think you're only expressing sexuality if your dick is hard?  Come out of the fucking dark ages.  Sexuality is part of being human, and where we stick our dicks, or what makes our pussies wet is only a small part of our overall sexual identity.  Hell, our concept of gender isn't even as clear cut as it used to be from a strictly genetic point of view.

To suggest that there's a "gay gene" is to suggest that gay is an on off switch.  It's not.  As I said in the beginning of this thread, our genes technically "want" men to have sex with women, but sometimes, various combinations of otherwise "good" genes create a template against which gene expression can cause a person to feel attraction to the opposite sex.  Get it?  Without the combination, the environmental trigger doesn't have anything to trigger.  Someone with the combination who doesn't get the trigger?  Gene expression isn't altered.  BUT, and this is very important, at no point can someone choose to alter their own gene expression.  Regardless of whether it's an environmental trigger or a genetic certainty, someone whose genes have expressed in a way to make them attracted to their own sex didn't choose to be gay.  They are gay.

So does that mean gay is genetic?  Yes.  Does it mean it's environmental?  Yes.  See?  No debate.

Go read some science, people.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Go read

Hambydammit wrote:

Go read some science, people.

No need to; I just did Smiling

 

Actually, I put alot of stock in what you write Hamby, so I hope you take that seriously. You are my science teacher

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


ryandinan
Posts: 59
Joined: 2008-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:To suggest

Hambydammit wrote:

To suggest that there's a "gay gene" is to suggest that gay is an on off switch.  It's not.  <snip>

So does that mean gay is genetic?  Yes.  Does it mean it's environmental?  Yes.  See?  No debate.

 

 

So, essentially, what you are saying, is there is no SINGLE "gay" on/off gene; it's the presence of several genes, that happen to get expressed a certain way - which may be impacted by environment.  Yes?

My wife has a gay uncle (raised in a VERY Catholic family), that claims he knew he was "different" (attracted to men) from 5 or 6 years old.  Obviously, adolecense did not have much to do with causing those genes to be expressed any differently, as they were already being expressed.  In fact, most of the gay people I know, claim they knew from a very early age.  This would seem to indicate that adolecense may not be the life-changing, gene expressing, "tipping point" that you think it is.  It may be for some that are "borderline", like you mentioned.  But it would seem that many homosexuals are homosexuals from early childhood.  The identical twin issue may help shed light on why one becomes homosexual, and why the other does not.  Sure, environment may play a role to some degree - but if both twins are raised in the same environment, with largely the same care and experiences, one should expect that IF they are both genetically identical, they should BOTH exhibit the same sexual preference encoded in their genes.  Since we know this isn't the case, there must be some other trigger or cause that is not yet fully understood.  Perhaps identical twins are not fully identical, genetically.

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Pitney was the only gay Gene

Pitney was the only gay Gene I ever heard of. Or was that Marc Hammond? It all gets very confusing.

 

The Hammond gene makes one think of organs played in cinemas mostly by males, which in turn makes me feel a little gay. Or is that guy? Now I'm totally confused.

 

Thanks Hamby.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:So, essentially,

 

Quote:
So, essentially, what you are saying, is there is no SINGLE "gay" on/off gene; it's the presence of several genes, that happen to get expressed a certain way - which may be impacted by environment.  Yes?

That's where the vast majority of the evidence is pointing.  Like I said, gay is not an all or nothing thing.  Consider how many girls are ok kissing and making out with other girls, but don't want to get down and dirty.  The most likely answer is that there are a lot of combinations that can express as widely varying degrees of homosexual preference.  Within these degrees, there are almost certainly environmental triggers which can suppress or exacerbate the preference.

Quote:
My wife has a gay uncle (raised in a VERY Catholic family), that claims he knew he was "different" (attracted to men) from 5 or 6 years old.  Obviously, adolecense did not have much to do with causing those genes to be expressed any differently, as they were already being expressed.  In fact, most of the gay people I know, claim they knew from a very early age.

Yes.  Sexuality is not fully expressed until after puberty, but it's not completely absent before, as many people like to think.

Quote:
 This would seem to indicate that adolecense may not be the life-changing, gene expressing, "tipping point" that you think it is.

I didn't mean to imply that adolescence was the only tipping point.  In fact, IIRC, I was only pointing out that the rush of hormones at adolescence is a change of gene expression, not that it was the tipping point for homosexuality.  The illustration was meant to show that the same set of genes can express differently at different times.

Quote:
But it would seem that many homosexuals are homosexuals from early childhood.

I believe so, yes.  I'm with Kinsey on the scale of sexual preference, and it certainly does appear to be a kind of bell curve, where there are very few "completely straight" or "completely gay" individuals, and lots in the middle who have varying likelihoods to go one way or another.  That's what I was talking about when I said there are varying degrees.  In the same way that 10 is the ultimate number on a scale of 1 to 10, "completely gay" is a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Quote:
The identical twin issue may help shed light on why one becomes homosexual, and why the other does not.  

What we really need are monochorionic twin studies, and those are really hard to come by, simply because of the rarity of monochorionic twins.

Quote:
Sure, environment may play a role to some degree - but if both twins are raised in the same environment, with largely the same care and experiences, one should expect that IF they are both genetically identical, they should BOTH exhibit the same sexual preference encoded in their genes.

Remember, what seems at face value to you to be an identical upbringing is really quite different.  When we're talking about potential environmental triggers, we could be talking about thousands of things that one twin could do without the other one present.  Even in the same household with essentially the same upbringing, we're talking about two substantially different individual experiences.

Quote:
Since we know this isn't the case, there must be some other trigger or cause that is not yet fully understood.  Perhaps identical twins are not fully identical, genetically.

No, you're just putting too much stock in apparent similarity of upbringing.  Consider that when the happy couple goes to the local fishing hole with two new babies, the mother might rub a smudge off one child's ear with some lake water and not rub the other child.  That's a different experience.  In each day, each twin is potentially subjected to hundreds of unique experiences, and it's incredibly difficult to think of every possible variation.  

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
What a wasted exchange

All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

The issue is evolution. I pointed out if it is a gene or genes the way to exterminate homosexuality is complete acceptance and encouragement of gay marriage. Not a single comment. How strangely silent. No one even attempts to address the bisexual fraction which by AIDS transmission studies appears to be more common than homosexuality. And not a single comment on lesbian although at one time an adolescent love interest was considered normal.

Instead there are only anecdotal recitals of what it means in recent decades in the US and possibly Canada and maybe a little bit in England.

These anecdotes have the non-european assumption that a tendency or an interest is equivalent to the act which is not shared by continental Europe. Of course you can look down your nose at Europeans in the same way they look down their noses at us.

The discussion has ignored the entire evolutionary aspect by failure to even attempt to address a definition so that the discussion can go forward.

So let me give you something to shoot at.

Homosexuality is no more than an extreme of sexual expression on the axis of same/different sex partners. If we take that as the extreme left of this axis then there is a left of center cohort which is bisexual. From the center to the far right is the heterosexual cohort.

If that is not enough to shoot at let me add another axis, transgendered. This has at least two sub-axis from a desire to be the other sex to actual physical alteration and another that is cross-dressing but also varying from homo to hetero.

Now take notes next time you are in an adult bookstore on all the other axis of human behavior. There is a huge variety of behaviors to mix and match. Like nyphettes, incest and B&D? You are in luck. Give her a spanking for tempting you. Her father might even thank you and invite you to do it again. Talk about dumb luck!

Think of that adult bookstore and trying to assign genes to everything you see on the kinky racks. The idea is patently absurd. Yet the current public discourse attempts to pretend it is possible to simplify it all to homo and hetero and then talk genes.

Anyone here with a math background? Your assignment is to define an N-dimensional space with all sexual variations represented.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:All of

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

The issue is evolution. I pointed out if it is a gene or genes the way to exterminate homosexuality is complete acceptance and encouragement of gay marriage. Not a single comment. How strangely silent. No one even attempts to address the bisexual fraction which by AIDS transmission studies appears to be more common than homosexuality. And not a single comment on lesbian although at one time an adolescent love interest was considered normal.

Instead there are only anecdotal recitals of what it means in recent decades in the US and possibly Canada and maybe a little bit in England.

These anecdotes have the non-european assumption that a tendency or an interest is equivalent to the act which is not shared by continental Europe. Of course you can look down your nose at Europeans in the same way they look down their noses at us.

The discussion has ignored the entire evolutionary aspect by failure to even attempt to address a definition so that the discussion can go forward.

So let me give you something to shoot at.

Homosexuality is no more than an extreme of sexual expression on the axis of same/different sex partners. If we take that as the extreme left of this axis then there is a left of center cohort which is bisexual. From the center to the far right is the heterosexual cohort.

If that is not enough to shoot at let me add another axis, transgendered. This has at least two sub-axis from a desire to be the other sex to actual physical alteration and another that is cross-dressing but also varying from homo to hetero.

Now take notes next time you are in an adult bookstore on all the other axis of human behavior. There is a huge variety of behaviors to mix and match. Like nyphettes, incest and B&D? You are in luck. Give her a spanking for tempting you. Her father might even thank you and invite you to do it again. Talk about dumb luck!

Think of that adult bookstore and trying to assign genes to everything you see on the kinky racks. The idea is patently absurd. Yet the current public discourse attempts to pretend it is possible to simplify it all to homo and hetero and then talk genes.

Anyone here with a math background? Your assignment is to define an N-dimensional space with all sexual variations represented.

 

 

Anonymouse,

I think you're confusing sexual fetishes with sexual preferences.

I also think people either aren't reading Hamby's posts, or just aren't understanding... so before you click the reply button, I'd suggest reading them several times beforehand.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I also think people

 

Quote:
I also think people either aren't reading Hamby's posts, or just aren't understanding... so before you click the reply button, I'd suggest reading them several times beforehand.

Welcome to my own little version of hell.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:All

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

 

That is actually a point that I find rather good. Surely, there are genes that have a powerful influence on behavior. I don't see a problem there but past that, human behavior is much too complicated to simply say that any given individual is one thing or another.

 

Let me take this further. There are people with brown eyes and people with blue eyes. Since the trait of blue eyes is normally recessive, people with blue eyes are homozygous for blue eyes. However, people with brown eyes can be heterozygous for blue eyes and when a pair of brown eyed hets marry, a quarter of their children will have blue eyes.

 

If the whole gay/straight thing were that simple, then the data on that would be similarly clear. If you had a gay uncle on either side of the family, then both of your parents would be heterozygous for the gay gene and you would have a 25% chance of being gay. If this were the case, then being gay would be about as controversial as going bald in your 20's.

 

Since this is clearly not the case, then it really makes very little sense to speak of the gay gene as if it really existed. Rather more probable would be that any genetic basis for gayness is a complex interaction of many genes, as Hamby demonstrated with his example of rolling several dice.

 

We can look at this another way. Everyone who is not completely asexual has some idea of who they think is hot and to my knowledge, none of us really gets a choice on that account. If we consider Dawkins selfish gene concept, then perhaps blond people would be more likely to prefer other blonds as that is a mating strategy that encourages positive reenforcement of your basic genetic work up.

 

However, some people have a preference for people of other races. Think about white guys who like Asians as an example. On the surface, that would seem to repudiate the selfish gene model. Yet if you happened to be heterozygous for several recessive but lethal traits, then those genes might predispose you to prefer mates who are fairly different from you genetically as a way to limit the chance of a bad pairing.

 

Don't get me wrong on this, I think that selfish genes are not even adequate to explain human sexuality. At best, they are a point on which such a discussion could turn. Since we don't have a choice of who we think is hot, perhaps the genetic basis of gayness is related and some people just think that MOTSS counts as hot.

 

But getting back to how we define what is gay, again human behavior confounds the matter quite a bit. Some guys like to bend other guys over the kitchen table and other guys like to be bent over the kitchen table. Those are very different behaviors but both are socially defined as gay. Any concept of genetic gayness has to account for such differences. Is the “likes to bone other guys in the pooper” gene different from the “likes balls across the chin” gene?

 

What seems more likely to me is that that aspect of sexuality is not really encoded genetically. Rather, as Hamby points out, there are profound changes in the way such genes are expressed at puberty. At that point, the neurological pathways that express sexuality open up and we all become curious about who we are going to be in the future. Many of us experiment with a variety of sexual acts and we eventually settle with the ones that seem to work out the best for us.

 

Further, while genetics may play a large role in our psychological development, we should not discount the environmental variables. Some people may be disposed to develop an addiction and if they are exposed to addicting substances as teens, then that may set a powerful tone for their future. If they don't try drugs, then those neurological pathways may attenuate after a while. The same could hold true for sexuality. Those who try more varieties of sexual acts may become more adventurous adults and those who try fewer may become more prudish.

 

Which brings me to another point. Just because a psychological pathway attenuated early on does not mean that it is forever sealed off. Some people may live a fairly vanilla life for many years and then decide to try new experiences later on. That would put the concept of people changing their sexual orientation later in life on a much firmer footing that saying that you must be genetically gay or genetically straight. The same idea allows for bisexuality. Perhaps a bisexual is someone who simply developed a set of neurological programs that allows them to be twice as likely to not spend Saturday night alone.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:I

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:

I also think people either aren't reading Hamby's posts, or just aren't understanding... so before you click the reply button, I'd suggest reading them several times beforehand.

Welcome to my own little version of hell.

 

Would you mind if I put out a bid spec to have it air-conditioned?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
If the whole gay/straight thing were that simple, then the data on that would be similarly clear. If you had a gay uncle on either side of the family, then both of your parents would be heterozygous for the gay gene and you would have a 25% chance of being gay. If this were the case, then being gay would be about as controversial as going bald in your 20's.

If genetic, which I do think it is, it's probably not the expression of a single gene. It''s probably many genes acting in concert. If more then one gene is necessary that completely changes the odds and makes it much harder to find any carriers of the specific genes in question. I believe Hamby already stated this, probably more eloquently too.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:All of

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

A good point I suppose. We do need a working definition to discuss it. I would not define it as an absolute, but rather a range. That is to say, someone might be slightly sexually attracted to members of their own gender, or maybe very attracted. Likewise with heterosexuality. I think this attraction would be controlled mostly by hormones and thus place it completely under the umbrella of genetic disposition.

I believe someone posted a topic about sexual attraction and hormones here recently. I think Hamby or Deluded.

I would define it as 2 dimensional, x = attraction to own gender, y = attraction to other gender. It may not be as simple as that, but if we are going to include fetishes there will be no end to it.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:triften

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

triften wrote:
ZuS wrote:
Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.
I'm just waiting for a claim such as "Gay people don't really exist" to come out of a particular poster's fingertips...

-Triften

I would not want to suggest they do not really exist but are they simply an extreme variation of which bisexual is an identified intermediate expression? Most people can see all the colors. From there there is decreasing sensitivity, two colors and the least common no colors. That is all in the genes. Are homosexuals just shades of gray?

But this requires a definition of gay that applies all over the world and over all times such as does color blindness. There is no such definition. Without an agreed definition there is no way to talk about it in terms of evolution. Note of course that color blindness has not been eliminated by evolution.

Sexuality is definitely a continuum. I suppose it may be more an issue of many people wanting to be able to draw solid lines in the sand and make sure things are black and white. Perhaps the discussion should focus on "What are the evolutionary reasons for homosexual behavior?" since that can be solidly defined. I think it could be answered pretty succinctly, though, with someone's previous response of "affection is social glue that holds us together."

-Triften


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So does

Hambydammit wrote:

So does that mean gay is genetic?  Yes.  Does it mean it's environmental?  Yes.  See?  No debate.

Go read some science, people. 

Exactly what I said in my first post. It's a combination of environment and genetics. Yet you attracted me for it. So there is no no gay gene, like a gene for blue eyes. The genetic bias toward being gay can be triggered or not triggered depending on environmental conditions.

Maybe this is a topic for another post, people here are skeptical. So why not be skeptical about all 'scientific' conclusions?

OK so I read the science articles people post here, one tells me all brain development that leads to being gay ends early in the womb. The other tells me problems caused by child abuse after birth greatly affect brain structure and behavior as adults. You praise both studies that offer no explanation of the differences. You can't have it both ways without a rational explanation of why.

On the news today, one group of economic scientists are saying 4 trillion is not enough spending to get out the the economic crisis. The government needs to spend trillions more, just print and borrow as much as possible to fix the economy. The other group says cut spending and taxes, the problem will work itself out soon and we'll be back to prosperity. So which scientists do we believe?

The problem is you refuse to acknowledge experimenter bias and science corrupted by political views. What would draw someone to study gay genes and brain structure of gay people if they didn't already have a strong opinion about this issue? What would cause someone to study child abuse if they didn't already have strong feelings about it. So the 'scientists' that study something are often the worst people to come up with objective conclusions because the feel so passionate about the subject they devoted their careers to.

So that's why we have a so-called science that is largely driven by politics and money. So people can find what ever studies, they want and make conclusions based on false premises. Creation science is an extreme example of this. If people can let their religion influence their science, why not their politics?

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I've been avoiding

Quote:
I've been avoiding this thread because... gee... it's like... I'm the only person who actually tried to explain the real theory of why homosexuality exists

...What?

Quote:

What I am about to post is sort of in keeping with Hamby's explanation. I'm not sure there's really a reason for homosexuality to be favored, per se. It just happens, due to the expression of certain gene combinations, and conditions in the womb during fetal development. Homosexuality is essentially a congenital condition.

In recent years, scientists have focused on digit ratio to explain sexuality. Fingers grow according to levels of androgens in the womb. Higher androgenic steroids typically lead to increased growth in the 4th finger, so most men have 4th fingers that are longer than their second, while most women have a longer second finger or 2nd and 4th fingers that are about the same length. However, the data seems to point to the idea that homosexual men tend to have a more feminine digit ratio, while homosexual women tend to have a more masculine digit ratio.

This website explains it well, and in greater detail: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

Incidentally, I am a bisexual woman, and I have a digit ratio that does not match that of the average female. On my right hand, 4D is significantly longer than 2D, while the two fingers are a bit closer in length on my left hand, though 4D is still longer - this supports the idea on the aforementioned website that the right hand is more sensitive to fetal androgens.

Why me? I'm not sure. My mother has a longer 2nd finger, and my younger sister has a 2D:4D ratio that is pretty close to one - her 2nd fingers are slightly longer. So clearly my exposure to high androgens was not caused by any preexisting condition in my mom, and it did not influence the development of my sister in the womb 4 years after me. Neither of the other two are bisexual, and they do not have sex drives anywhere near as high as mine.

Anyways, the point is that most of the time, development proceeds normally. Every so often, certain genes leading to testosterone production are overexpressed, or are inhibited, leading to subtle effects on the sex of the fetus.

...So how is GG's explanation not a 'real theory', and just some 'pop psychology drivel', out of curiousity?

I mean, she even cited sources. Did you?

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No, you're just

Quote:
No, you're just putting too much stock in apparent similarity of upbringing.  Consider that when the happy couple goes to the local fishing hole with two new babies, the mother might rub a smudge off one child's ear with some lake water and not rub the other child.  That's a different experience.  In each day, each twin is potentially subjected to hundreds of unique experiences, and it's incredibly difficult to think of every possible variation.

This sounds suspiciously like Freudian nonsense. Human beings do not have an infinite capacity for remembering every little incident to ever have happened to them during childhood, and these do not somehow 'build-up' over time; particularly significant environmental impacts will alter behavior, as well as particularly repititious impacts.

Something as superificial as your mother rubbing your ear one day will not form a brand new nueral pathway somehow, and will likely be entirely forgotten by the day's end.

 

Hamby, I haven't read a single post (other than EXC's) that explicitly disagrees with the notion that the environment and your genes work in tandem to create your overall personality (sexual orientation included). I think the problem is that you're putting them on even footing, which clearly they aren't; if they were, attributes like homosexuality, sociopathism, schizophrenia, etc, would not occur in individuals prior to a given age range - and this is not what we see.

If you think that this is all just 'pop psych nonsense', would you mind backing-up your assertions with some citations and data, like Greek Goddess did earlier?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Exactly what I said in

Quote:
Exactly what I said in my first post. It's a combination of environment and genetics. Yet you attracted me for it. So there is no no gay gene, like a gene for blue eyes. The genetic bias toward being gay can be triggered or not triggered depending on environmental conditions.

That's nt what you said at all. If it's what you meant, you weren't very clear about it.

You equated homosexuality to being a picked-up habit, like smoking. This is not what the growing body of evidence suggests. Moreover, you're still missing the fact that there is (likely) a genetic gradient for sexual orientation; those towards the middle of the gradience perhaps will have homosexuality expressed through environmental factors, those at either end of the spectrum are effectively already set as homosexual  or heterosexual. No amount of environmental influence will change them.

Why is it, if you're correct, that homosexuals can't be 'turned straight'? All that we should have to do is change their environment to one that would strongly enforce heterosexuality, right? So why doesn't that work? Are the current programs just 'doing it wrong'?

Quote:
Maybe this is a topic for another post, people here are skeptical. So why not be skeptical about all 'scientific' conclusions?

OK so I read the science articles people post here, one tells me all brain development that leads to being gay ends early in the womb. The other tells me problems caused by child abuse after birth greatly affect brain structure and behavior as adults. You praise both studies that offer no explanation of the differences. You can't have it both ways without a rational explanation of why.

Which articles? None of the ones in this thread gave an absolute conclusion to the reader; each has suggested a candidate (based on empirical data) that might contribute to a person's sexual orientation. Both studies may very well be correct - just like two different studies might demonstrate two different ways for a person to become mentally retarded (one study might show that a person can be born mentally retarded, another might show that a person can become mentally retarded by recieving severe head trauma. These are not mutually exclusive explanations).

Quote:
The problem is you refuse to acknowledge experimenter bias and science corrupted by political views. What would draw someone to study gay genes and brain structure of gay people if they didn't already have a strong opinion about this issue? What would cause someone to study child abuse if they didn't already have strong feelings about it. So the 'scientists' that study something are often the worst people to come up with objective conclusions because the feel so passionate about the subject they devoted their careers to.

You're right - experimenters do bring some bias to the table. However, science is a self-correcting process; data does not have any bias. Hypothetically, if we were to experiment with mice and discover that 'turning-off' a specific set of genes always resulted in mice with a homosexual orientation, would it matter that the scientist conducting the experiment was gay? Would you argue that the experiment is somehow fundamentally flawed because of the experimenter's bias?

Now, unfortunately, there aren't many discoveries to be made in science that are so simple - and sexual development is hardly an exception. We don't yet have a conclusive answer because development as a whole is not fully understood. What we d currently have is a strong body of evidence that suggests that your genes establish a significant portion of what kind of personality you will have, and that the environment 'tweaks' the less firmly established parts of your behavior.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
lokipro wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

lokipro wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

The issue is evolution. I pointed out if it is a gene or genes the way to exterminate homosexuality is complete acceptance and encouragement of gay marriage. Not a single comment. How strangely silent. No one even attempts to address the bisexual fraction which by AIDS transmission studies appears to be more common than homosexuality. And not a single comment on lesbian although at one time an adolescent love interest was considered normal.

Instead there are only anecdotal recitals of what it means in recent decades in the US and possibly Canada and maybe a little bit in England.

These anecdotes have the non-european assumption that a tendency or an interest is equivalent to the act which is not shared by continental Europe. Of course you can look down your nose at Europeans in the same way they look down their noses at us.

The discussion has ignored the entire evolutionary aspect by failure to even attempt to address a definition so that the discussion can go forward.

So let me give you something to shoot at.

Homosexuality is no more than an extreme of sexual expression on the axis of same/different sex partners. If we take that as the extreme left of this axis then there is a left of center cohort which is bisexual. From the center to the far right is the heterosexual cohort.

If that is not enough to shoot at let me add another axis, transgendered. This has at least two sub-axis from a desire to be the other sex to actual physical alteration and another that is cross-dressing but also varying from homo to hetero.

Now take notes next time you are in an adult bookstore on all the other axis of human behavior. There is a huge variety of behaviors to mix and match. Like nyphettes, incest and B&D? You are in luck. Give her a spanking for tempting you. Her father might even thank you and invite you to do it again. Talk about dumb luck!

Think of that adult bookstore and trying to assign genes to everything you see on the kinky racks. The idea is patently absurd. Yet the current public discourse attempts to pretend it is possible to simplify it all to homo and hetero and then talk genes.

Anyone here with a math background? Your assignment is to define an N-dimensional space with all sexual variations represented.

Anonymouse,

I think you're confusing sexual fetishes with sexual preferences.

I also think people either aren't reading Hamby's posts, or just aren't understanding... so before you click the reply button, I'd suggest reading them several times beforehand.

If you believe there is a difference between a preference and a fetish then I invite you to define the difference. I have never seen a credible attempt much less a working definition. Of couse anyone can make up anything and call it a definition but it has to be an unambiguous and complete and usuable in making the distinction between the two. The first problem you will encounter is not being able to ignore bisexuals, i.e., no sexual preference. Another problem you will face is a non-human preferance. Another is a non-living preference. Another is a never having lived preference.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

 

That is actually a point that I find rather good. Surely, there are genes that have a powerful influence on behavior. I don't see a problem there but past that, human behavior is much too complicated to simply say that any given individual is one thing or another.

Although we say it a lot I know of no evidence of genes affecting behavior. What I have seen is the resulting physical person tends to be in a field which it supports. IQ is heritable. Yet the best we can say is some professions appear to have minimum IQ requirements to get into but do not determine what a person chooses. (Why the hell wasn't Goethe a mathematician only?) Certain body types can lead to success in sports but nothing determines a particular sport or even an interest in sports. The only place genes seem to control behavior is when it is a defect and then only physical behavior -- if legs are different lengths you will limp -- but I don't see any more than that.

Problem is we have the idea that genes determine behavior but we have damned little evidence for it. Just a few years ago the XYY genes were going to explain male violence. A few selected cases, no better than anecdotes, supported further research. Further research found no significant correlation. Yet it is still in the popular imagination.

The same is true for "gay" genes. Over the years I have no idea how many anecdotal correlations between gays and other physical characteristics have been published in sources I read. At least a dozen. Not a single one of them has been determinative. Nor has any collection of them been determinative. Once the anecdotes justify the research properly conducted blind tests shitcan the ideas, all of them so far. And yes, there is always a new one in the news. I have no interest until a few years later to see if it is confirmed. And if not there will be several new ones in the interim.

It also strikes me as odd to be claiming homosexuality is perfectly normal and at the same time blaming it on a genetic compulsion or predisposition or whatever. Which way do they want it? Back to sports. Genes offer opportunity in sports but have nothing to do with interest in sports. There is no particular capability conferred by genes that lead to a sexual preference. So why should these be different?


Then we have the claim of gays remembering an interest in men even as young children. Pardon but early memories are more than likely to have been invented later than to be real. With very little effort anyone can remember being abducted by aliens. It happens all the time. And there is no way to verify early memories so it is sort of a waste even bothering with the idea.

It is one of the varieties of human behavior. It does not have to be explained first. It just is. Explanations are curious things we leave to scientists should be be interested. But us humans have a fascination with sex. In fact an argument can be made that sex is the foundation of all human behavior. Ever notice all the studies of women? Men are fascinated by women and women love the attention. It increases reproductive options.

So why the interest in studying gays and explaining the behavior? There is sex involved. Who cares if there is an explanation? Everyone with a natural curiosity does but not much more. If there is a fixed research budget on human behavior this is way down on the list of priorities for study. There is an entire range of self-destructive and other-destructive behaviors with a higher priority in any rational allocation of limited resources. And then there is another problem, merely studying human behavior changes human behavior.

I got a derisive response to my first post in attempting to explain the difficulties without identifying the basic problem of not having a working definition for homosexuality such it could be used by science to address evolutionary questions.

The above is doing the same again but hopefully with enough mentions of the reasons these attempts falls short of the specifity required to deal with this in a scientific sense.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
All of this exchange and still no one offers to define homosexuality.

A good point I suppose. We do need a working definition to discuss it. I would not define it as an absolute, but rather a range. That is to say, someone might be slightly sexually attracted to members of their own gender, or maybe very attracted. Likewise with heterosexuality. I think this attraction would be controlled mostly by hormones and thus place it completely under the umbrella of genetic disposition.

Hormones are produced by organs which are created by genes. So to add to the difficulties in this discussion let me add one more complication.

Our genes are not fixed things. Shades of Lamarck, external factors will cause genes to switch on or off and thus make their cells do different things. Genes are not forever isolated inside cells. Shades of Lamarck well fed parents produce eggs and/or sperm which produce larger children which continues for an unknown number of generations.

Being well fed is nurture but still genes.

I am not prepared to discuss how this affects the discussion.

spike.barnett wrote:
I believe someone posted a topic about sexual attraction and hormones here recently. I think Hamby or Deluded.

I would define it as 2 dimensional, x = attraction to own gender, y = attraction to other gender. It may not be as simple as that, but if we are going to include fetishes there will be no end to it.

I think the matter is incontestable that there are as many axis of sexual expression as human imagination can invent. And the idea of smooth axis from college level math does not really fit. (There are others and they can be mixed. It is quite arbitrary.)

Someone suggested I am mixing preference and fetish. I do not see any functional difference between the two. The mere sight of a thing can be a turn on. A kitchen spatula maybe. It is foolish to ask if it is a male or female spatula.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

triften wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

triften wrote:
ZuS wrote:
Posts between HisWillness and A_Nony_Mouse must be read while hiting oneself with something on the head. A_Nony_mouse is vague as shit, while HisWillness is picking bits and pieces of the other's post and responding one detail at a time, as if totally not understanding the general form the other guy is writing in.
I'm just waiting for a claim such as "Gay people don't really exist" to come out of a particular poster's fingertips...

-Triften

I would not want to suggest they do not really exist but are they simply an extreme variation of which bisexual is an identified intermediate expression? Most people can see all the colors. From there there is decreasing sensitivity, two colors and the least common no colors. That is all in the genes. Are homosexuals just shades of gray?

But this requires a definition of gay that applies all over the world and over all times such as does color blindness. There is no such definition. Without an agreed definition there is no way to talk about it in terms of evolution. Note of course that color blindness has not been eliminated by evolution.

Sexuality is definitely a continuum. I suppose it may be more an issue of many people wanting to be able to draw solid lines in the sand and make sure things are black and white. Perhaps the discussion should focus on "What are the evolutionary reasons for homosexual behavior?" since that can be solidly defined. I think it could be answered pretty succinctly, though, with someone's previous response of "affection is social glue that holds us together."

-Triften

The problem is it cannot be solidly defined. Fit bisexuals into any definition you think you have. Consider in most of human history gays married like other men as a duty to have children. Clearly they were not turned off by their wives even if they preferred men. (All subject to the issue of infidelity of course.) In any event if homo is to mean exclusive they only recently appeared in human history. (tongue in cheek)

As for affection holding us together, maybe back when family and clan ruled society but pick any city in any country today and tell me how affection fits in.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:triften

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

triften wrote:

Sexuality is definitely a continuum. I suppose it may be more an issue of many people wanting to be able to draw solid lines in the sand and make sure things are black and white. Perhaps the discussion should focus on "What are the evolutionary reasons for homosexual behavior?" since that can be solidly defined. I think it could be answered pretty succinctly, though, with someone's previous response of "affection is social glue that holds us together."

-Triften

The problem is it cannot be solidly defined. Fit bisexuals into any definition you think you have. Consider in most of human history gays married like other men as a duty to have children. Clearly they were not turned off by their wives even if they preferred men. (All subject to the issue of infidelity of course.) In any event if homo is to mean exclusive they only recently appeared in human history. (tongue in cheek)

As for affection holding us together, maybe back when family and clan ruled society but pick any city in any country today and tell me how affection fits in.

What? Maybe you misread what I typed. Are you really saying that "homosexual behavior" cannot be solidly defined? I'm speaking of individual actions. If an interaction between two people is sexual and they are of the same sex, then that was a homosexual action. Of course, what happens if you have multiple people of different genders? Perhaps the action is both.

Anyway, I agree that most people can't be solidly slapped with a single "homo" or "hetero" label. I suggested we shift the discussion to the behaviors themselves.

-Triften


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Let me try again.

 Let me try again.  Homosexuality/heterosexuality is NOT a dichotomy.  Get it?

Human sexuality is not and cannot be reduced to where someone happens to put their dick.  The acting out of sexual urges centered on members of the same sex is a small part of what defines a person as a sexual being.  Sex for humans is reproductive and social and personal, and it is not restricted to sexual desire or intercourse.  I notice most of the commenters have been male.  All of you guys find a girl you trust and ask her about how sex is an all day thing, and how even things that aren't even remotely sexual in the traditional sense have an impact on a woman's feelings of her own place in the sexual universe as well as everyone else's place.  Women, I think, are often more aware of the underlying sexual themes inherent in large parts of our life.

There's a big picture here.  First, you must understand that People Are Not Free Willed.  Then, you must understand that sexuality and humanity are the same thing.  Finally, you must understand that while sexuality may ultimately manifest itself in butt sex, we are all a product of our genes expressing through our environment.  It's an endless loop.  The variables are too numerous to condense down into a trite observation that so-and-so is queer and so-and-so is straight.

For the purposes of social interaction, it's fine to say that John is gay, but when someone asks for a "definition of homosexuality" they're asking for a map of the human genome.  It's been done, but it's not going to answer the questions you're asking.  You've got to separate your political questions from your scientific questions.  (By political, I mean things that are important to society but don't reflect a scientific understanding of a phenomenon.  For instance, abortion is killing a living thing, scientifically, but it's a political question whether that thing is human or not.  "Human" is a species designation, and life is not neatly divided.  It is a continuum.)

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

triften wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

triften wrote:

Sexuality is definitely a continuum. I suppose it may be more an issue of many people wanting to be able to draw solid lines in the sand and make sure things are black and white. Perhaps the discussion should focus on "What are the evolutionary reasons for homosexual behavior?" since that can be solidly defined. I think it could be answered pretty succinctly, though, with someone's previous response of "affection is social glue that holds us together."

-Triften

The problem is it cannot be solidly defined. Fit bisexuals into any definition you think you have. Consider in most of human history gays married like other men as a duty to have children. Clearly they were not turned off by their wives even if they preferred men. (All subject to the issue of infidelity of course.) In any event if homo is to mean exclusive they only recently appeared in human history. (tongue in cheek)

As for affection holding us together, maybe back when family and clan ruled society but pick any city in any country today and tell me how affection fits in.

What? Maybe you misread what I typed. Are you really saying that "homosexual behavior" cannot be solidly defined? I'm speaking of individual actions. If an interaction between two people is sexual and they are of the same sex, then that was a homosexual action. Of course, what happens if you have multiple people of different genders? Perhaps the action is both.

Anyway, I agree that most people can't be solidly slapped with a single "homo" or "hetero" label. I suggested we shift the discussion to the behaviors themselves.

-Triften

While it is not that difficult to define hetero and homo behavior is not possible to describe a person as homo or hetero without including bi in the mix. A bi can exhibit both behaviors. What is he or her? or they?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
My neighbour had a dog which

My neighbour had a dog which apparently had been genetically predisposed to fornicate with human legs, and tended to pal around with others of the same bent I noticed. When they went out as a gang they terrorised the entire ambulent human population from the thigh down.

I assume that discussion of the "leg gene" and "leg-fucking behaviour" amongst canines reaches the same contentious levels of stupidity.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Let me try again.

Quote:
Let me try again.  Homosexuality/heterosexuality is NOT a dichotomy.  Get it?

That's still not an explanation as to why a very well detailed analysis of human sexuality as it related to embryological development is just 'pop psych drivel'.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:That's still not an

 

Quote:
That's still not an explanation as to why a very well detailed analysis of human sexuality as it related to embryological development is just 'pop psych drivel'.

I'm totally lost.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm totally lost.You

Quote:
I'm totally lost.

You had said that you were the only person in this entire thread who had posted actual science to back-up their claims, and that everyone else was just offering conjecture while being armchair psychologists.

Greek Goddess wrote:
What I am about to post is sort of in keeping with Hamby's explanation. I'm not sure there's really a reason for homosexuality to be favored, per se. It just happens, due to the expression of certain gene combinations, and conditions in the womb during fetal development. Homosexuality is essentially a congenital condition.

In recent years, scientists have focused on digit ratio to explain sexuality. Fingers grow according to levels of androgens in the womb. Higher androgenic steroids typically lead to increased growth in the 4th finger, so most men have 4th fingers that are longer than their second, while most women have a longer second finger or 2nd and 4th fingers that are about the same length. However, the data seems to point to the idea that homosexual men tend to have a more feminine digit ratio, while homosexual women tend to have a more masculine digit ratio.

This website explains it well, and in greater detail: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

Incidentally, I am a bisexual woman, and I have a digit ratio that does not match that of the average female. On my right hand, 4D is significantly longer than 2D, while the two fingers are a bit closer in length on my left hand, though 4D is still longer - this supports the idea on the aforementioned website that the right hand is more sensitive to fetal androgens.

Why me? I'm not sure. My mother has a longer 2nd finger, and my younger sister has a 2D:4D ratio that is pretty close to one - her 2nd fingers are slightly longer. So clearly my exposure to high androgens was not caused by any preexisting condition in my mom, and it did not influence the development of my sister in the womb 4 years after me. Neither of the other two are bisexual, and they do not have sex drives anywhere near as high as mine.

Anyways, the point is that most of the time, development proceeds normally. Every so often, certain genes leading to testosterone production are overexpressed, or are inhibited, leading to subtle effects on the sex of the fetus

 

...I'm saying that your claim is rather unfair.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ahh... fair enough.  My

 Ahh... fair enough.  My claim is unfair.  I've said "fair" enough times now.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I opened up a can of

Wow, I opened up a can of worms, didn't I?

For the record Hamby, I'm very interested in what you've been posting.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Wow, I opened up a

 

Quote:
Wow, I opened up a can of worms, didn't I?

For the record Hamby, I'm very interested in what you've been posting.

I've been writing a book for well over a year now, and everytime I look at my outline, I see the chapter on homosexuality and "alternative" sexuality staring me in the face.  Mind you, it's the title for the chapter in the outline.  The chapter isn't written because I'm scared.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:My neighbour

Nordmann wrote:

My neighbour had a dog which apparently had been genetically predisposed to fornicate with human legs, and tended to pal around with others of the same bent I noticed. When they went out as a gang they terrorised the entire ambulent human population from the thigh down.

I assume that discussion of the "leg gene" and "leg-fucking behaviour" amongst canines reaches the same contentious levels of stupidity.

Excelent way to put it.

When you put a definition to it and start "discovering it's origins", it stops being just an action following preference, but becomes a whole identity, entirely made up by us. The identity then takes a life of it's own, producing a subculture of people who think the ARE this thing we conjured up purely in language, not that they just prefere to do this rather than that.

There. I explained your post and destroyed the irony in it. zus - enemy of all things fun.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Greek

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Greek Goddess wrote:
What I am about to post is sort of in keeping with Hamby's explanation. I'm not sure there's really a reason for homosexuality to be favored, per se. It just happens, due to the expression of certain gene combinations, and conditions in the womb during fetal development. Homosexuality is essentially a congenital condition.

In recent years, scientists have focused on digit ratio to explain sexuality. Fingers grow according to levels of androgens in the womb. Higher androgenic steroids typically lead to increased growth in the 4th finger, so most men have 4th fingers that are longer than their second, while most women have a longer second finger or 2nd and 4th fingers that are about the same length. However, the data seems to point to the idea that homosexual men tend to have a more feminine digit ratio, while homosexual women tend to have a more masculine digit ratio.

This website explains it well, and in greater detail: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

Incidentally, I am a bisexual woman, and I have a digit ratio that does not match that of the average female. On my right hand, 4D is significantly longer than 2D, while the two fingers are a bit closer in length on my left hand, though 4D is still longer - this supports the idea on the aforementioned website that the right hand is more sensitive to fetal androgens.

Why me? I'm not sure. My mother has a longer 2nd finger, and my younger sister has a 2D:4D ratio that is pretty close to one - her 2nd fingers are slightly longer. So clearly my exposure to high androgens was not caused by any preexisting condition in my mom, and it did not influence the development of my sister in the womb 4 years after me. Neither of the other two are bisexual, and they do not have sex drives anywhere near as high as mine.

Anyways, the point is that most of the time, development proceeds normally. Every so often, certain genes leading to testosterone production are overexpressed, or are inhibited, leading to subtle effects on the sex of the fetus

that actually does sound like 'pop psych drivel' Smiling

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.