Homosexuality and Biology

[MrFun]

Originally posted by mindseye

As for the stereotype of butch ****s, it is irrelevant given the larger number of lesbians who are not butch ****s. Likewise, the business about ...

the higher the ratio of estrogen, the more attractive men become and the more effeminate the child will be.

... also does not fit with the high number of extremely masculine gay men, not to mention the less-than-attractive ones, for which I offer myself as a living example.

Yeah, no kidding. I get tired of people who still think that the extent of one's feminity or masculinity is affected by one's sexual orientation.
Neither affects the other.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Asher, what was the point of that link to the mug you provided??

That mug is what makes people gay. Can't you see the text?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

That mug is what makes people gay. Can't you see the text?

Yeah, I saw the lovely pink text.

I just cannot connect the mug joke, with my joke??

I must be having a blonde moment.

[Asher]

Oh, it wasn't related to your comment.
It's just something you should consider getting.

[KrazyHorse]

Now, alot of liberals (I myself am a liberal, but for now lest just call this group the lefties in order to make the distinction) are convinced that homosexuality is genetic. This assertion makes no sense if you consider evolutionary biology. According to evolutionary biology, genetic traits that would inhibit reproduction would rather quickly get eliminated since they serve no evolutionary purpose. If there were at any time a homosexuality gene, it would quickly have disappeared from the gene pool for the simple reason that homosexuals tend not to reproduce

It's fairly obvious, given evidence from the animal kingdom, that homosexuality is not a learned behaviour; whether it's genetic or due to some abnormal (used purely in statistical sense) chemical environment in the womb is a moot point. Either way, it should be obvious to most that there are some people who are born with a very strong tendency to homosexuality, and it's not some sort of psychological disorder which can be cured...

[David Floyd]

Homosexuality must be a simple choice, because it is a sin, and God would not create anyone who was gay by nature, because sin is repugnant to God.

See, flawless argument

Hey, someone had to make it, this way I'm just pre-empting the people who actually believe that's a valid argument

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If the trait were recessive then natural selection would never get rid of it because the carriers are unaffected.

It would get rid of it, albeit rather slowly. Unless there is a positive benefit from getting gene from one parent but not both (e.g. sickle-cell gene) there is notheing to counteract downward trend.

[Lung]

Re: Homosexuality and Biology

Originally posted by Hoek

On the other hand, the right often argues that homosexuality is "learned." Now, it seems to me that neither side has it right here. It seems fairly obvious that homosexuality, like almost every other human behavior is a combination of environment and biology (nature AND nurture, so to speak).

Thoughts?

The "learned" argument just doesn't cut it for me! It's not like you just wake up one morning and think "anal sex with another bloke? Hell, why don't i give it a try?!" As a rampant heterosexual, i must say that if you're not inclined, you're just not inclined!

No matter how hard it may be to imagine being born that way, the alternative is only more difficult.

[Boris Godunov]

Another gay thread?

Jesus, what is up with y'alls obsession of why I put my willy where?!

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, if you're going to post in the thread, Boris, at least give us your theory on the topic!

[Boris Godunov]

I've given it before, do I hafta again?

[Lorizael]

Yah I've noticed that too, Boris. Don't know where it came from. Maybe it was my Encounter with Ignorance thread.

As far as my opinion, I must say that I don't know yet.

And I'm stickin to that!

[Sikander]

I tend to discount the genetic arguments in general, and especially when they claim that one's sexual orientation is set in stone from conception or birth. For starters, while these theories tend to focus on homosexuals they tend to ignore a larger group, namely bisexuals (in this instance I am defining bisexuals as people who have had sex with people of both genders regardless of how many times or what they are doing now). As is often the case this whole issue is muddied with dualistic arguments, the two most common and IMO useless being Good : Evil, and Heterosexual : Homosexual. IMO because so much attention has been placed on the first duality due to Abrahamic religious doctrine, too much emphasis has been placed upon the second duality.

The fact that so many people have had sexual relations or sexual feelings about people of both genders seems to demand some sort of attention. It seems that for many, things are not set in concrete, which IMO shoots the most rigid genetic arguments down in flames. A more complex scheme involving multiple genes interacting is possible, but one wonders how that can explain the fairly large number of people who switch back and forth one or more times in their lifetime. One also wonders how a genetic trait like this would be more useful than a purely behavioral trait. It seems much more useful to be able to adjust things via behavior all along rather than setting things in stone at conception or during the pregnancy.

I guess my vote goes for a more developmental model. This would act like the complex genetic model to some extent (including the way that it's effects are perceived), except that many of the factors would be capable of changing. It would explain a number of common behaviors fairly well, including those of ambivalent orientation (bisexuals).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
Oh, it wasn't related to your comment.
It's just something you should consider getting.

My birthday is on August 29 -- buy it for me.


As for the different theories --- I think we are all fundamentally bisexual, with one sexual orientation predominating over another.

For instance, if you're a seemingly complete hetero, (and flamboyant hetero, like Lung) you could still be fundamentally bisexual -- it's just that heterosexuality in that person is dominate over his/her homosexuality.

Now I can't figure out what would cause a fundamentally bisexual person to have either heterosexuality or homosexuality predominate.

And as for people like Asher, they are the ones who are truly bisexual, since they do not have a sexual orientation that predominates -- the two are more closely balanced in those who are truly bisexual.

But again, the cause would be . . . . .???

[chequita guevara]

Evolutionary biology doesn't explain everything about human beings. All humans have an appreciation for music. Music serves no useful function.

Also consider that people's sexuality is highly influenced by societal views. For example, today women are considered extremly attractive if they are skeletons with breast implants (lord only knows why). A generation ago, women had to have some meat on them. Marylin Monroe and Dorris Day would be considered fat pigs today. Jenifer Anniston and Calista Flockhart would have been considered undesireably skinny 40 years ago.

The prohibition against sexual interest in one's own sex doubtlessly prevents many heterosexuals from even considering bisexuality, where a in a more neutral society that might not be the case.

All we know for certain is the sexuality deelops in a highly chaotic interplay of genes, hormones, and social mores. Exactly how much one contributes and influences the other is unlikely to be determined. All one can say with any certainty is that it is not a choice.