|
On November 30 2010 11:55 jello_biafra wrote:
AFAIK homosexuality (in males at least) is caused by a lack of testosterone in the womb and it ends up giving them a female brain somehow, the chances of it happening become higher with every male child a woman has.
It's actually the opposite - higher testosterone in the womb. I believe homosexuals typically have more testosterone even into adulthood.
Source.
|
Gotta love how evolution is still misunderstood. People need to understand what exactly evolution entails, not how it's interpreted by idiots who read 2 lines out of context.
The reason the word/concept of genes is being thrown around in this thread is because that's a mechanism critical to evolution as it serves as the vehicle of transmission across generations. Darwin himself looked for this trans-generational mechanism but was unable to find it.
And it's isn't a simple binary switch, very few biological events function like that, more likely it's a combination of many different factors including environmental. It would also be just as foolish to think that a gene (or set of genes/factors) only influences homosexuality.
|
On November 30 2010 11:55 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
How much is the manner and degree to which you respond to outside stimulus affected by your genes? I don't feel like his quote is entirely wrong, even if it's too black-and-white.
|
On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree.
Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up.
Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
|
On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius.
No.
If that answer is not enough  , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up.
You're missing the point of his posts, he's making assumptions sure, but hardly illogical ones given the current opinion in academia. Go read on the one gene theory so you at least have an idea of what's being discussed, because you are largely going to one extreme rather than putting it into context.
Edit: you would have far better success looking up genes governing aggression, now would it be a leap of faith to go from aggression to masturbation? not really.
|
On November 30 2010 11:57 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source. There are genes that increase your chances of homosexuality, as there are a number of other measurable things that could tip the scales one way or the other. Problem is, these things only change your chances, it's not a binary thing. Interestingly enough, certain genes that cause an increase in male homosexuality actually increase fecundity in women. Homosexuality isn't an evolutionary dead end, it's just a side product.
Just because one study found (I haven't read the actual paper so I'll assume it's statistically significant) a correlation between homosexuality and increased fecundity in close relatives doesn't mean anything. I could easily find a study that demonstrates that toothpick acupuncture is more effective than placebo, but that certainly doesn't prove anything (aside from demonstrating my point). They might be on to something and it'll be really neat if they are, but be careful about repeating everything you hear as fact until there's a mountain of evidence behind it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born.
I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up. Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
Wiki for lack of interest in this sidetopic (see the first subsection Twin studies) : linky
But it is actually not that important to my argument that you have no idea what "governed by genes" means.
EDIT:link is to support the homosexuality is partially hereditary thing, not the masturbation thing
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
And would that "MOSTLY" mean that 90% (arbitrary number) of the proverbial work is done by "social/environmental influences"? Or that the remaining 10% is completely necessary in order of the proverbial work to be done in the first place?
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up. Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
The only things I've asserted can be found in any biology textbook anywhere. What's with your obsession with sources? If there were hundreds of scientific studies providing conclusive evidence regarding the origin and propagation of homosexuality, this thread wouldn't be 12 pages long already.
All we're doing is discussing hypothetical possibilities based on our current understanding of biological mechanisms. Yes I'm aware that you're not talking to me right now, but you did jump on me for not citing a source for something I didn't actually say.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
What i am saying, my dear obnoxious contrarian, is that there may be a reason on why the causes of homosexuality aren't well defined and on a general consensus by now. Maybe it's because there isn't any one particular reason, but rather a variety of factors determined by genetics and/or social environment/upbringing intertwined. I will not expand my theory further since it is not backed by sound scientific proof (nor do i care enough to further research it), but as a general thought i'm sure you all get the gist of it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
actually yes, but not for his reasons. it's a bit semantically ambiguous though; "on certain levels" would merely be: not reaching the standards of attractiveness necessary to reach attraction in a "romantic" way.
the ancient Greek homosexual was not the same as today's. they weren't naturally gay, it was more of a class thing.
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything. Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born. I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
Oh my nonexistent god. How did you come to any of those conclusions about my statements ? Where have I ever said anything remotely like it. I am so far from viewing homosexuality as deviant behaviour as you can get, it is only deviant in the sense it is minority behaviour, but that is as far as I could go and I do not definitely think that homosexuality is wrong, wtf culture do you live in that thinks homosexuality is wrong ?(that was rhetorical).
Also it is actually you who are stating very unsupported beliefs as facts, show some sources for your homosexuality as "dominance displays hypothesis". I would also like to point out that you are mixing scientific enquiry with ethical statements.
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything. Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born. I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
Sources?
See how annoying that is?
Anyway, even if that were true, our tendency to respond to those social and environmental influences is controlled in part by genes.
Say, hypothetically, that a certain mechanism by which one can become predisposed to homosexuality is caused by unnaturally elevated levels of a certain hormone while in utero. A genetic mutation that increases the fetus's affinity for that hormone might increase their predisposition towards homosexuality. Likewise, a genetic mutation that decreases their affinity for that hormone would lower that predisposition. Either of these would likely have secondary consequences, since that hormone is undoubtedly destined for another purpose entirely. Maybe the mother has a genetic mutation that causes her to produce that hormone in excess during the critical time in pregnancy during which it may cause it's effect?
Obviously that is an environmental factor (the mother's hormone levels), but how the fetus responds to it is in large part genetic. You could make a similar argument for other social and environmental factors such as how the child is raised. I'm not saying genetics is everything, but in my opinion it's pretty naive to dismiss it instantly because I don't have sources handy documenting how this works. Once again, we don't know how it works which is why we are having this discussion.
Genetic control provides perfectly plausible mechanisms though, and being an asshat by jumping on everyone who mentions genes and demanding sources just makes you appear annoying and ignorant.
|
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
Well there you go, you just provided the scientific proof to back up my train of thought. Glad to see i was spot on regarding the subject, even though i put in minimal effort into deconstructing it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
Also it should be noted that environmental factors do not equal choice, and in this case it seems it is far from that, see those twin studies.
|
To say that nature tends to be middle ground is hardly correct either; Darwin's finches proves just as much
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Environmental factors does not mean choice. It means things like childhood experiences, diet, etc.
If there's ever a choice for you to make, you're not homosexual but bisexual. At least that's how I view it..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
