steveox
Well-Known Member
You can bonk the sheep.But im not.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
- Status
You can bonk the sheep.But im not.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Steveox is running out of alternatives: no to bonking sheep, no to robot girl, no mail order bride, another night of gymnastics with Mr. Hand I guess.
drippinhun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 224
I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or a choice. It should be about freedom.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Apparently this topic has generated some interest and (also some harmless buffoonery).
Coyote
Thanks for your comments. As ususal you are knowledgeable and have thought things through within the framework of your preconceptions.
I don't think anyone in this forum would disagree with the statement that gays reproduce at a lower rate that straights. The exact rate is unknown and irrelevant. If you do the math at a 10% rate or at a 90% rate, the results are the same given several generations. Each generation, the gay population will shrink as a percentage of the total, if there were a gay gene. Doesn't matter if there in one gene or a combination. Doesn't matter if there are environmental issues thrown into the mix. If the birth rate is lower any trait will decline in frequency over enough generations.
The example of Sodom and Gomorroh I used was a historic reference from about 4,000 years ago. If my math is correct, that is somewhere around 150 human generations. So we have historic reference that homosexual behavior has existed in humans for at least 150 generations. Even if gays reproduced at the rate of 90% of straights, do the math and see what happens. Same result as my example of 50%, just takes longer. Either way, 150 human generations is plenty of time to make a gay gene extremely rare.
Since somewhere from 3% to 10% of the population is gay and gay behavior is not rare, the "gay" gene is a myth.
The examples you gave tend to support this assertion. All your examples are of rare diseases. That is exactly the same assertion I am making:
If there were a "gay gene" the frequency of it would decline over succeeding generations due to a lower birth rate. Given enough time, the gene would become extremely rare.
coyote and vyo476
As to the objections raised over using prison population, this is perhaps the most telling indicator that homosexuality is a choice. Prisoners chose to have homosexual relations. After they leave prison, if they return to a straight lifestyle, so what? In prison, they chose homosexual relations. A choice is a choice is a choice. Doesn't matter if the cause was trauma or it was an availability problem. It was still a choice.
And homosexuals have always had sex with heterosexuals. There are only 2 options here: intragender sex, or intergender sex. My contention is that gays have reproduced with straight and lesbian women throughout all of history but never at as great a rate as the straight population. Therefore, the mythical gay gene would decline in frequency over the generations.
The example I used citing genetic drift was a poor choice on my part. I don't understand this topic well enough to properly discuss it. One of the topics genetic drift addresses is the case when there are 2 competing genes (such as gay vs straight). I believe genetic drift supports my assertion and applies to this topic but I am not knowledgeable enough to properly discuss it.
There is one additional argument, although I think it to be a weak one, which supports the "Gay lifestyle is a choice" assertion.
Gay proponents love to point out that certain animals (not human) exhibit gay behavior. The examples they quote and actual observations would indicate that such behavior exists but is extremely rare. If there is a "Gay" gene for simians, it is present in only small quantities (well under 1% of the population).
This gay behavior has also been reported in a few other other species, always as a rare occurrence. (I am only referring here to intraspecies gay behavior. Interspecies gay behavior is proabably best categorized as some form of perversion.)
The percentage of gays in our present society is somewhere between 3% and 10%, depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. This is a far higher percentage than any zoologist would claim as a percentage of non-humans exhibiting gay behaviors. Gay behavior is not rare in our society. If gay behavior is genetic and rare in every other sepcies, why is is not rare in humans? ..... Because humans chose gay behavior.
If any one reading this is gay or is close friends with a gay (I am in the latter category), do not think my comments are meant as a slam against gays. I am making no value judgement in any way. I am interpreting data in a logical and scientific manner and have reached the conclusion that gay behavior must be a choice.
My comments concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society should not be interpreted that I think gays are a liability to any society. Those comments are solely an interpretation of what I consider to be a seriously flawed theory (Evolution). On the contrary, some of my favorite music was composed by gays (Queen and Yes) and one of the best wordsmiths in recent history was Truman Capote. Gays have made significant contributions to our present society, particularly but not limited to the arts, and will make similar contributions in the future.
I'm not slammimg anyone or any lifestyle, just presenting my conclusions and the reason for those conclusions. No value judgement attached.
Coyote
Thanks for your comments. As ususal you are knowledgeable and have thought things through within the framework of your preconceptions.
I don't think anyone in this forum would disagree with the statement that gays reproduce at a lower rate that straights. The exact rate is unknown and irrelevant. If you do the math at a 10% rate or at a 90% rate, the results are the same given several generations. Each generation, the gay population will shrink as a percentage of the total, if there were a gay gene. Doesn't matter if there in one gene or a combination. Doesn't matter if there are environmental issues thrown into the mix. If the birth rate is lower any trait will decline in frequency over enough generations.
The example of Sodom and Gomorroh I used was a historic reference from about 4,000 years ago. If my math is correct, that is somewhere around 150 human generations. So we have historic reference that homosexual behavior has existed in humans for at least 150 generations. Even if gays reproduced at the rate of 90% of straights, do the math and see what happens. Same result as my example of 50%, just takes longer. Either way, 150 human generations is plenty of time to make a gay gene extremely rare.
Since somewhere from 3% to 10% of the population is gay and gay behavior is not rare, the "gay" gene is a myth.
The examples you gave tend to support this assertion. All your examples are of rare diseases. That is exactly the same assertion I am making:
If there were a "gay gene" the frequency of it would decline over succeeding generations due to a lower birth rate. Given enough time, the gene would become extremely rare.
coyote and vyo476
As to the objections raised over using prison population, this is perhaps the most telling indicator that homosexuality is a choice. Prisoners chose to have homosexual relations. After they leave prison, if they return to a straight lifestyle, so what? In prison, they chose homosexual relations. A choice is a choice is a choice. Doesn't matter if the cause was trauma or it was an availability problem. It was still a choice.
And homosexuals have always had sex with heterosexuals. There are only 2 options here: intragender sex, or intergender sex. My contention is that gays have reproduced with straight and lesbian women throughout all of history but never at as great a rate as the straight population. Therefore, the mythical gay gene would decline in frequency over the generations.
The example I used citing genetic drift was a poor choice on my part. I don't understand this topic well enough to properly discuss it. One of the topics genetic drift addresses is the case when there are 2 competing genes (such as gay vs straight). I believe genetic drift supports my assertion and applies to this topic but I am not knowledgeable enough to properly discuss it.
There is one additional argument, although I think it to be a weak one, which supports the "Gay lifestyle is a choice" assertion.
Gay proponents love to point out that certain animals (not human) exhibit gay behavior. The examples they quote and actual observations would indicate that such behavior exists but is extremely rare. If there is a "Gay" gene for simians, it is present in only small quantities (well under 1% of the population).
This gay behavior has also been reported in a few other other species, always as a rare occurrence. (I am only referring here to intraspecies gay behavior. Interspecies gay behavior is proabably best categorized as some form of perversion.)
The percentage of gays in our present society is somewhere between 3% and 10%, depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. This is a far higher percentage than any zoologist would claim as a percentage of non-humans exhibiting gay behaviors. Gay behavior is not rare in our society. If gay behavior is genetic and rare in every other sepcies, why is is not rare in humans? ..... Because humans chose gay behavior.
If any one reading this is gay or is close friends with a gay (I am in the latter category), do not think my comments are meant as a slam against gays. I am making no value judgement in any way. I am interpreting data in a logical and scientific manner and have reached the conclusion that gay behavior must be a choice.
My comments concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society should not be interpreted that I think gays are a liability to any society. Those comments are solely an interpretation of what I consider to be a seriously flawed theory (Evolution). On the contrary, some of my favorite music was composed by gays (Queen and Yes) and one of the best wordsmiths in recent history was Truman Capote. Gays have made significant contributions to our present society, particularly but not limited to the arts, and will make similar contributions in the future.
I'm not slammimg anyone or any lifestyle, just presenting my conclusions and the reason for those conclusions. No value judgement attached.
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
You are ignoring one important fact; the vast majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents. This clearly indicates that the gay gene is a recessive one transmitted by the heterosexual population into their offspring. Your logic would only be correct if the gene was passed exclusively from homosexual parents.
That is an incorrect assertion given the anatomical, physiological, and biological nature of homosexuality.
Of course gay behavior is a choice. You are obviously having trouble making the distinction between gay behavior and homosexuality. Homosexuality is a state of being not a behavior. People don't wake up one day and decide to change the size and function of their hypothalamus.
JavaBlack
Well-Known Member
...
Read this article for more insight into how the genetics actually works:
According to science apparently, men are hard-wired to be gay or straight... Women are not.
But for the record I always felt the argument was pointless. If it is a choice... how does that make it any more anyone's business. It affects no one other than the consenting adults involved.
Read this article for more insight into how the genetics actually works:
HTML:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?ei=5070&en=764069fdec4b2bd1&ex=1182571200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1182450983-GfqlRNqsJlsfwokUXSLwCgAccording to science apparently, men are hard-wired to be gay or straight... Women are not.
But for the record I always felt the argument was pointless. If it is a choice... how does that make it any more anyone's business. It affects no one other than the consenting adults involved.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Errr...MY preconceptions?
Invest07, you're missing the points I made entirely.
Polygenetic traits - especially recessive and/or enviornmentally mediated traits - are extremely difficult to irradicate because you have a lot of unknowing carriers.
Certain genetic diseases are due to mutations that spontaneiously arise, often due to a weak area on the sequence (and are not inherited by the sufferer) - such as cystic fibrosis. It wouldn't matter how many generations you had the mutation would continue to occur at the same rate - it would not decline.
Environmental issue - yes, it does matter. If a genetic trait requires an environmental trigger to manifest itself - it could go for generations unexpressed in the phenotype until the right conditions are met. This means that the person with it breeds. The birth rate is unaffected until something in the environment triggers it in an individual.
If the so-called gay gene fits in the above criteria (as well it might) then you will not see a decrease. What if ALL those factors are involved?
Average consensus is 3-6% - a very small number. You have not proved that a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality is a myth.
They are rare diseases - yet their rate of occurence has not lessoned any. If your theory were correct we would see diminishing rate of occurance. Now we may - eventually, through advances in research on genetic markers and genetic counseling to prospective parents, but that is a different thing.
There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality. People can engage in homosexual behavior but their basic sexual identification remains the same - heterosexual. In that respect it is a choice. That is not the same as people who are actual homosexuals. Their orientation remains fixed.
That's quite a leap of imagination here...and again, while it could be true - it still does not take into account any of the genetic scenarios above which would account for the continuing presence of a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality.
I don't think genetic drift is the right concept for what you are trying to express...however...if a trait is polygenetic then the whole idea of 2 competing genes becomes no longer matters.
This gay behavior has also been reported in a few other other species, always as a rare occurrence. (I am only referring here to intraspecies gay behavior. Interspecies gay behavior is proabably best categorized as some form of perversion.)[/quote]
The fact is that it does exist in other animals and in some species, such as bonobo chimps the prevaelance of homosexual behavior (and just heterosexual behavior) is very high and is thought to be part of the process they use to maintain social ties and peace (sort of like - make love not war). The fact that it exists in nature means that it is natural. The fact that it is rare is not surprising since in a lot of species it would not be conducive to survival. But I could see an argument for it being benificial in a cooperative social species - such as humans, and if it benefits the group, it survives and the group survives.
Do we have an accurate way of really measuring the prevelance of homosexuality in other species, particularly in the wild? Even 3-10% is still very small. If it is more common in humans then other species the reason might be because it benefits human society in some way and that ensures it's survival since we don't live by the law of the jungle. Genetic survival in cooperative social species goes beyond survival of the individual - and what benefits the group as a whole carries more weight then what benefits the individual.
Actually, you make very well spoken arguments - free of nastyness - I wholly applaud you
Let me ask you to consider a question concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society.
In any primitive society cooperation is essential. Cooperation in food gathering, hunting, child rearing. Some must engage in hunting/gathering, some in guarding, and some must stay home to raise the young.
Another form of cooperation early societies is in war. Large groups of young males, living closely together, and fighting together - wholly seperate from women for long periods of time. This could conceivably create a great deal of sexual tensions. Homosexual love was not uncommom or villified in ancient Greek or Roman society for example (at least I don't think so).
I could see in both of the above examples where there might be a benifit to homosexuality - one in having non-competing/non-breeding males, to help with care, particularly if there are more males then females and the other, in diffusing tensions and promoting social cohesion.
Coyote
Well-Known Member
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
Napoleon,
Thanks for your input.
As to your first comment, remember that I reject any notion of a "gay" gene. Therefore the comments I made were to present the case against a "gay" gene. Even if the mythical "gay" gene were passed from heterosexual parents, the gays themselves (who would have recieved the gay gene from both parents), still reproduce at a lesser rate than straights. I never said the homosexual gene would disappear. I only said if homosexuality was genetic in nature, the lower birth rate would result in declining frequency over many generations. Because this is not the case, I assert that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.
Even if the hetero parents continue to spread the mythical gene, there is still a lower birth rate among gays than straights.
As I asserted, the exact rate is unknown and may be unknowable. But the exact rate doesn't matter. If you assume a higher rate of gay reproduction, it takes more generations but the end affect is the same: The gene becomes very rare. And we have at least 150 generations of humans since the first recorded instances of homosexuality. (And there may be other historical references earlier than the Genesis example I cited. If homosexuality existed from an earlier point in time, more generations would have elapsed and the decline factor would be even more pronounced. If you beleive in evolution, you must accept considerably more generations, several thousand perhaps, to have elapsed.)
I also reject any notion that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. If there is any difference to be found, there is no genetic basis for either case. Both are a choice. (And I maintain they are one in the same.) The example I cited using prison inmates
demonstrates that certain people may turn on or off homosexual behavior. This reinforces my assertion that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice.
Thanks for your input.
As to your first comment, remember that I reject any notion of a "gay" gene. Therefore the comments I made were to present the case against a "gay" gene. Even if the mythical "gay" gene were passed from heterosexual parents, the gays themselves (who would have recieved the gay gene from both parents), still reproduce at a lesser rate than straights. I never said the homosexual gene would disappear. I only said if homosexuality was genetic in nature, the lower birth rate would result in declining frequency over many generations. Because this is not the case, I assert that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.
Even if the hetero parents continue to spread the mythical gene, there is still a lower birth rate among gays than straights.
As I asserted, the exact rate is unknown and may be unknowable. But the exact rate doesn't matter. If you assume a higher rate of gay reproduction, it takes more generations but the end affect is the same: The gene becomes very rare. And we have at least 150 generations of humans since the first recorded instances of homosexuality. (And there may be other historical references earlier than the Genesis example I cited. If homosexuality existed from an earlier point in time, more generations would have elapsed and the decline factor would be even more pronounced. If you beleive in evolution, you must accept considerably more generations, several thousand perhaps, to have elapsed.)
I also reject any notion that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. If there is any difference to be found, there is no genetic basis for either case. Both are a choice. (And I maintain they are one in the same.) The example I cited using prison inmates
demonstrates that certain people may turn on or off homosexual behavior. This reinforces my assertion that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice.
invest07
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 550
coyote,
You make an interesting case for homosexuals in a primitive society. There might be something there.
Remember that I reject many elements of evolution and I prefaced the argument using evolution with "If you believe in evolution". To me it is a moot point. I reject any notion that humans or birds or flowers have evolved due to unintelligent, random and unfocused forces. I reject as absurd the notion that any organism has been improved by a long series of sequential mistakes.
Any argument using evolution as it's basis is predicated on the reader's acceptance of evolution. If evolution is false, and the evidence that it is false is overwhelming and growing daily, the argument is unfounded.
And I guess that was a cheap shot about preconceptions. Like many other evolutionists, You seem to believe there is only one possible way to interpret evidences from the past: that is using evolutionary theory as the framework for any analysis. There are other interpretations of the data from the past and many of those interpretations explain the mysteries of origins which evolution can't.
My comment about preconceptions is that if you have closed your mind to other interpretations, you indeed have preconceptions. In my eyes, a person of science should never close their mind to competing ideas, even if those new ideas require a total overhaul of their current beliefs. The ONLY question should be: "What best explains the evidence?"
And this closed mindedness among evolutionists has resulted in a stubborn resistance to ANY different interpretation. To the point of ridiculing other interpretations (the politics of personal destruction are alive and well among academic evolutionists).
The evidence against evolution is piling up. We haven't even had the opportunity to discuss the new science of Information. This is an area in which the mathematical probabilites of evolution can be computed and the odds are slim, indeed. If evolution were a horse, no way you'd bet your own money.
Talk to you later.
You make an interesting case for homosexuals in a primitive society. There might be something there.
Remember that I reject many elements of evolution and I prefaced the argument using evolution with "If you believe in evolution". To me it is a moot point. I reject any notion that humans or birds or flowers have evolved due to unintelligent, random and unfocused forces. I reject as absurd the notion that any organism has been improved by a long series of sequential mistakes.
Any argument using evolution as it's basis is predicated on the reader's acceptance of evolution. If evolution is false, and the evidence that it is false is overwhelming and growing daily, the argument is unfounded.
And I guess that was a cheap shot about preconceptions. Like many other evolutionists, You seem to believe there is only one possible way to interpret evidences from the past: that is using evolutionary theory as the framework for any analysis. There are other interpretations of the data from the past and many of those interpretations explain the mysteries of origins which evolution can't.
My comment about preconceptions is that if you have closed your mind to other interpretations, you indeed have preconceptions. In my eyes, a person of science should never close their mind to competing ideas, even if those new ideas require a total overhaul of their current beliefs. The ONLY question should be: "What best explains the evidence?"
And this closed mindedness among evolutionists has resulted in a stubborn resistance to ANY different interpretation. To the point of ridiculing other interpretations (the politics of personal destruction are alive and well among academic evolutionists).
The evidence against evolution is piling up. We haven't even had the opportunity to discuss the new science of Information. This is an area in which the mathematical probabilites of evolution can be computed and the odds are slim, indeed. If evolution were a horse, no way you'd bet your own money.
Talk to you later.
JavaBlack
Well-Known Member
...
I can tell you already have your mind made up over evolution and no amount of evidence can change that... but the above line is jaw-dropping.
All of your points are made on the basis of experience and philosophy rather than science...
yet somehow you still come out saying that a series of sequential mistakes cannot improve an organism?
Our lives and especially our minds are improved by such mistakes. We learn and grow through mistakes.
I can tell you already have your mind made up over evolution and no amount of evidence can change that... but the above line is jaw-dropping.
All of your points are made on the basis of experience and philosophy rather than science...
yet somehow you still come out saying that a series of sequential mistakes cannot improve an organism?
Our lives and especially our minds are improved by such mistakes. We learn and grow through mistakes.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
In order to say that homosexuality and homosexual behavior are the same thing (which more or less says that there is no such thing as homosexuality), one would have to say that heterosexuality and heterosexual behavior are also one and the same (which means that there is also no such thing as heterosexuality). Therefore both are entirely and completely equal.
Once again you're ignoring a few things.
Firstly, why would gays reproduce less than heterosexuals? Obviously because they feel no inclination to mate with the opposite sex. However, over the centuries persecution of homosexuals more than gave them the inclination to mate with the opposite sex - as a way of disguising who and what they really were.
Secondly, there's the issue of recessive traits that you still haven't dealt with. A "gay" gene could survive a dozen generations as a recessive trait.
I have to go to work. I look forward to your response.
Once again you're ignoring a few things.
Firstly, why would gays reproduce less than heterosexuals? Obviously because they feel no inclination to mate with the opposite sex. However, over the centuries persecution of homosexuals more than gave them the inclination to mate with the opposite sex - as a way of disguising who and what they really were.
Secondly, there's the issue of recessive traits that you still haven't dealt with. A "gay" gene could survive a dozen generations as a recessive trait.
I have to go to work. I look forward to your response.
JavaBlack
Well-Known Member
...
Also in the article I posted, it explains differences in the mutation rates between the Y and X chromosome. The article explains how studies show men being hardwired to heterosexuality or homosexuality, while women are not.
Thus a gay gene could travel through many generations of women before reaching a man that is even a candidate for the gene.
Also in the article I posted, it explains differences in the mutation rates between the Y and X chromosome. The article explains how studies show men being hardwired to heterosexuality or homosexuality, while women are not.
Thus a gay gene could travel through many generations of women before reaching a man that is even a candidate for the gene.
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
Again, that only holds water if you assume that only homosexuals pass the gene. The birth rate of heterosexuals has increased significantly which means that the gene would manifest itself with greater frequency. Whether or not homosexuals reproduce is irrelevant because we have already established that the gene would be recessive and is passed through heterosexuals.
You don't distinguish between a state of being and a behavior?
There are anatomical, physiological, and biological differences. Are you suggesting that people chose the size and function of their hypothalamus?
You can behave like a monkey without actually being a monkey.
Werbung:
Coyote
Well-Known Member
Reject it based on what sort of scientific evidence?
- Status
