|
On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. Show nested quote + religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol
I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons?
There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there.
A scientific question requires a scientific response.
|
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice".
|
On November 30 2010 10:03 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.. Doesn't this stand against everything about evolution? If someone was born having evolved the homosexual trait, they wouldn't reproduce (being attracted to the same gender) and the trait would die out, as often happens in non-optimal evolutionary traits. I only see homosexuality working as an evolutionary trait if it first appeared in a woman, who was later raped and had to give birth to someone who then had the homosexuality trait suppressed by other genes and spread it.
how? mutations are a change in the DNA it doesn't have to already be there but it could. the reason why i said the first humans couldnt of been homosexuals because then we would not be alive today, though they could have possessed the trait from an ancestral species.
|
Okay, so I'm at a loss here. If we accept Darwin's theory of Evolution as truth, and assume that there are evolutionary drives for homosexuality, wouldn't homosexuality have died out long ago, seeing as sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex does not yield offspring.
Because of this conundrum, Genetics in an Evolutionary sense CANNOT be the answer. Therefore, either Evolution cannot be accepted as fact, or homosexuality as an evolved trait cannot be accepted as fact.
|
To the people who think there is some strange environmental factor that causes homosexuality across a range of species, cultures, and geographical features (and hey, I'm not going to say that's not possible), what kind of environmental factor exactly would be able to cause such uniform behavior, and why such uniform behavior instead of any other effects? I mean, that sounds kind of... unbelievable, don't you think?
|
On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response.
i mean i just told you what religion has to offer.
|
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
No, you have it backwards. The religious viewpoint argues that homosexuality is wrong on ethical/moral grounds, on no basis other than it's written in a book, or on an individual level more likely because of their own private disgust at the concept (often, not always).
Also biologically, there is no absolute imperative for everyone to reproduce, so that viewpoint would not even hold water.
|
United States313 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:40 Igakusei wrote:
I wonder if hormone mimics have the potential to influence sexual orientation.
We've found estrogen mimics and inhibitors in several different plastics, and the vast majority have never been tested. The ones we have identified so far (BPA, for instance) we found only by accident because they showed up in laboratory plastics that people studying estrogen-sensitive cells were using. Since all steroid hormones have very similar structures, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that there are a lot of other artificial compounds that may influence the activity of other such hormones. We've only barely scratched the surface of what estrogen itself does.
It's impossible to determine if the rates at which people are predisposed to homosexuality have changed over time though, given all the other societal factors involved. Makes it pretty hard to look for any correlations.
I would wager that if there are "gay gene(s)," they are only correlated to homosexuality because they affect our ability to respond to hormones (both real and otherwise). If there is positive selective pressure for such hormone-associated proteins, it could easily outweigh any negative selective pressure when the right environmental conditions combine to cause a homosexual preference.
Mimics definitely have that potential, dulled sexuality is actually a not so uncommon side effect of many main stream medications.
In response to your consideration about pressures though you bring up a good point, the only issue I see with it is our model currently is human beings, and the natural behavioral preference for establishing nuclear family units drastically impacts any type of selective pressure. What percentage of adult men are married, and what percentage have children? Any type of noticible increase in a population of humans is much more a result of culture than of genetics, given our incredibly slow maturation and distinct lack of strong selective forces thanks to the incredibly high number of participants contributing to the next generation.
For even something as strong as an antibiotic added to a bacterial culture, the amount of logarithmic growth required before that specific bacteria's genotype becomes prevalent is more than a you could see humanity change in 10 lifetimes even if a super virus was killing off 85% of the world population.
|
On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer.
Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality.
Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer.
|
I'd just like to point out that homosexuality doesn't need to confer any evolutionary advantage in order to be passed on. If we assume that homosexuality is where sex differentiation "misfires" (not meant in any judgmental way) then it only has to be the case that the genes responsible for sex differentiation provide enough of an advantage to severely outweigh the reproductive loss of any homosexual people.
I think it's clear that it does.
|
On November 30 2010 10:23 Nienordir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:29 emythrel wrote:
A male frog can have sex with another male frog and all that will happen is no pro-creation. The frog does not have to worry about how the other frogs will judge him, it just happens. Frogs have actually developed a special call for when a another male frog attempts to have sex with it that basically says "you're wasting your time". But it has no social context, it is simply natural behaviour. How can you be sure? It's not like someone actually asked the frog what he thinks about it. Maybe he's yelling "Get off of me you pervert!". ^^ Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't.
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. That doesn't make sense. They're no harm to the species, even if it was a defective gene they don't reproduce, they don't contribute to the future gene pool, therefore it will never become a problem that could endanger the species, which means there is absolutely no biological reason to disallow it.
its a mutation, an inactive mutation in all of us maybe. and with a chance it becomes active during embryonic stages.
|
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
|
On November 30 2010 10:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer. Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality. Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer.
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
On November 30 2010 10:30 Masamune wrote:
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
lol ok. say something productive
|
On November 30 2010 10:03 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.. Doesn't this stand against everything about evolution? If someone was born having evolved the homosexual trait, they wouldn't reproduce (being attracted to the same gender) and the trait would die out, as often happens in non-optimal evolutionary traits. I only see homosexuality working as an evolutionary trait if it first appeared in a woman, who was later raped and had to give birth to someone who then had the homosexuality trait suppressed by other genes and spread it.
I haven't read all 6 pages so I'll just pick up here (and ignore the petty argument that's going around).
First off, when we talk of the "first humans", we're not talking about two people, but of many Hominid species interbreeding and such and eventually a large portion of the hominid species dies out, leaving only a small group of homo sapiens which is why we have such a small gene pool today (correct me if I'm off, it's been a long time since I took evolutionary biology).
Second, I think there is a general misconception in this thread and in society as a whole that every person is either "straight" or "gay". Ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It basically says that few people are actually exclusively straight or exclusively gay, and most lie somewhere in between.
Also, I think homosexuality is really just a variation genetically that isn't harmful enough(because it isn't common) to the species to be rooted out completely. And there are plenty of non-optimal traits that exist in all species. Evolution doesn't eliminate everything non-optimal.
|
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
If we accept morality is relative, and accept religion as culture, both standard nonreligious secular intellectual viewpoints, then it certainly tells us a lot about morality.
And if we don't accept morality as relative, well...then it tell us even more lol.
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
This thread is specifically not stated by the OP not to discuss that, but instead to focus on the scientific element ~_~. Also, that isn't why (christian) Religion is against Homosexuality, it's against homosexuality because God/Moses/Bible said so.
The reason you gave is why a misguided Darwinist Cultist who is terribly misinformed would be against Homosexuality.
edit
lol ok. say something productive
go away troll kthx.
|
I'd rather use philosophy and ethics as a guide for morality than religion.
|
United States313 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:25 whiteguycash wrote:
Okay, so I'm at a loss here. If we accept Darwin's theory of Evolution as truth, and assume that there are evolutionary drives for homosexuality, wouldn't homosexuality have died out long ago, seeing as sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex does not yield offspring.
Because of this conundrum, Genetics in an Evolutionary sense CANNOT be the answer. Therefore, either Evolution cannot be accepted as fact, or homosexuality as an evolved trait cannot be accepted as fact.
People haven't been taking Darwin as verbatim truth for quite a while now, if there wasn't so much evolution / creationism debate nonesense I'd try to find you a higher level resource than this, but it should give you a starting place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
|
On November 30 2010 10:33 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
If we accept morality is relative, and accept religion as culture, both standard nonreligious secular intellectual viewpoints, then it certainly tells us a lot about morality. And if we don't accept morality as relative, well...then it tell us even more lol. Show nested quote +
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
This thread is specifically not stated by the OP not to discuss that, but instead to focus on the scientific element ~_~. Also, that isn't why (christian) Religion is against Homosexuality, it's against homosexuality because God/Moses/Bible said so. The reason you gave is why a misguided Darwinist Cultist who is terribly misinformed would be against Homosexuality.
and what benefit does homosexuality contribute to a species?
|
On November 30 2010 10:36 Masamune wrote:
I'd rather use philosophy and ethics as a guide for morality than religion.
And? The Study of ethics isn't just limited by your own personal guidelines of ethics.
|
On November 30 2010 10:32 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:29 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer. Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality. Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer. i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101 Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:30 Masamune wrote:
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing. lol ok. say something productive
READ ABOVE EINSTEIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
