Sexual Orientation is Biologically Determined?

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...if gay people can't procreate, and being gay is wholly biological, and being gay is an anti-survival trait...why are there gay people?

Aggressivity on the Serengeti plains a million years ago? Arguably pro-survival, though I think you will find that you are relying upon theories of human history that have few (if any) supporting facts. Aggressivity now? With nuclear weapons? A pro-survival trait?

 

[arnisador]

As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.

Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.

I don't know of any theory taht has been suggested along those lines, mind you.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by arnisador
As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.

Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.

I don't know of any theory taht has been suggested along those lines, mind you.

Arni,

I am not sure, if I dreamt it or ot, yet I think there is such a theory. There was a biological study that showed how Female Frogs in Africa would change/Mutate into male Frogs to be able to reproduce (* OK I am going from memory here, so I may have it backwards *) So, when there is not enough males to reproduce the species adjusts.

The study I remember leads you to believe that since the population of certain areas have elevated to the point that teh survival of the species is not required for them to reproduce, the no reproducing portion has increased. This study also had a similar section about the increased in infertility and the population.

Now, if I can only remember where I read this. They say the memory is the second thing to go, I just wish I could remember what the first was?

 

[arnisador]

I know that there are fish like that.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by arnisador
As the Evolutionary Psychologists (the new Sociobiologists) say, one must look to the evolutionary environment to understand why a trait like agressiveness might have been valued.

Once could imagine a value to apercentage of the population not being heterosexual if there was a need for more labor but not a significantly larger population--non-reproducing members might fit the bill.

I don't know of any theory taht has been suggested along those lines, mind you.

or a "throw away" entity in times of war or duress. Some might argue that clones might follow that path were they to become common place. But thats a whole 'nother discussion.

and to address the other issue, no one said gays CAN'T procreate, they just don't as much as Hetero's because the very nature of being gay. Also, just by the number of gays procreating would be a ever decreasing number if it was genetic. Because "you can't pass on those genes" with male to male sex.

 

[arnisador]

It's not quite that simple--the genes might not manifest unless there were two copies, so anyone could be a 'carrier'. More likely there would be a cluster of genes.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, a quote: "the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)."

Second off: the problem lies in using pseudo-science to ground moral and religious beliefs. If you wanna get scientific, the evolutionary advantage of sex in our species doesn't seem to ever have simply been a matter of procreation...

Third off--as far as I can see, "straight," men are a hell of a lot bigger threat to our continued survival than gay people, taken all together, have ever been. I mean, why're gay people even the issue? They've never hassled me...which is more than I can say of others...

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
First off, a quote: "the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)."

Second off: the problem lies in using pseudo-science to ground moral and religious beliefs. If you wanna get scientific, the evolutionary advantage of sex in our species doesn't seem to ever have simply been a matter of procreation...

Third off--as far as I can see, "straight," men are a hell of a lot bigger threat to our continued survival than gay people, taken all together, have ever been. I mean, why're gay people even the issue? They've never hassled me...which is more than I can say of others...

I don't think "gay people" are an issue, at least not for me. I am more so just curious about the science behind it (and not pseudo science to ground moral and religious beliefs; the science behind it doesn't jeprodize my beliefs either way anyways). I also am facinated in how our society twists the issue around.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by arnisador
It's not quite that simple--the genes might not manifest unless there were two copies, so anyone could be a 'carrier'. More likely there would be a cluster of genes.

a cluster of genes would make it harder to replicate and therefor make it more rare.

 

[MA-Caver]

Well, here's one test to see if you carry the supposed gene or not...

http://www.hekkuli.org/~hekkuli/flash/gaytest.swf


p.s. this is just for fun... you'll have to click on yes to get the joke but go ahead and click on no first...

 

[michaeledward]

Wow ... to my reading, there are a lot of scared, bigoted, people posting here. I find it kind of spooky.

My hope is that all of you someday discover that your mother or father, brother or sister, son or daughter, is gay.

I think you will then see that whether it is nature or nurture is totally irrelevant, what will really matter then is YOUR attitude.

Peace - Mike

 

[arnisador]

Fair enough, but this thread is for the issue of nature vs. nurture--be it relevant or no.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Wow ... to my reading, there are a lot of scared, bigoted, people posting here. I find it kind of spooky.

Confused....

You say "alot," but I am not sure "alot" of people have even been a part of this conversation. So...what is your definition of "alot." Why don't I just ask this as well: What statements have indicated "scared bigotry," with quotes please. I am not necissarily disagreeing with you at this point, I am just asking for more clarification.

Thank you,

PAUL

 

[michaeledward]

You say "alot," but I am not sure "alot" of people have even been a part of this conversation.

Paul, may I refer you to http://www.m-w.com where you might reference the word 'alot' ... and you may find that it does not exist.

However, if you look up the word 'lot' .. you will find the defintion (please note, not my definition), " 6a : a number of associated persons ". Let's see how this reads now:


Wow ... .to my reading, there are a number of associated persons [who are] scared [and] bigoted, posting here.


Now, I will post, with quotes, some of the phrases that I think may be interpreted as 'scared bigotry'.

Still wishing you Peace - Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies.

It can be genetic or biological, I for one do not know, I have only known myself

A gay person may have never been taught "normal" biological pairings when they were a child.

My opinion is that it is a chemical imbalance. But if there is an imbalance, there can also be a way to “balance”

the Biological "reason" for sex is simple: procreation. Homosexuality violates this biological reason.

Peace - Mike

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies.

I am going to say that I think your interpretation is incorrect. This is really a discussion on the science/physiology behind homosexuality, not so much on the social impact, or our personal morals/opinions regarding homosexuality.

Some of the comment here may have seemed cold and impersonal to you, but that is because we are talking about the scientific reasoning behind the issue, and not talking about it as a social issue. As you might know, science can be cold and impersonal, making it SOUND scared/bigoted if you don't realize the premises of the conversation.

So, I conclude, that I think you might be reading into some of these comments with a different perspective then what was intended by the writers.

 

[MA-Caver]

Could these phrases be interpreted scared or bigoted? I did so. If my interpretation was incorrect, I offer my apologies.

Apology accepted. As Paul pointed out this particular discussion is to look at the science of it. My background revolves around sociology and psychology and thus any of my own comments are derived from that.

I've several life-long friends that are gay/lesbian and if I were bigoted then I wouldn't acknowlege them and call them the honorific: Friends. I may not particularly agree with their lifestyle choices but they are just that: choices. Just as a person has trained in a particular MA style as a result of their choice of art.
They're grown mature adults and thus able to decide for themselves on how they want to live.
While I may not advocate it, I won't deny that it exists.

Enough defending myself (this IS a MA forum you know ).

:asian:

 

[Mon Mon]

Okay my view on homosexuality is that it is wrong and an abomination. I don't belive people are born gay. Now just in case anyone dose not like my views i really could care less. I will not condone the behavior as normal. well see ya

 

[rmcrobertson]

We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture now? What happened to the title of the thread?

Hey, I have a question: is the unmotivated fear of difference biologically determined? or is it a byproduct of education?

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture now? What happened to the title of the thread?

We're on the issue of nature vs. nurture where sexual orientation is concerned, not more generally.