PDA

View Full Version : Scientific Research for the Homosexuality Debate


Bitty2002
07-03-2004, 11:16
This is very long and took me forever to type up, BUT it is also definitely worth reading, especially for scientific people who like to research these things like Kate.

I wanted to lend some SCIENTIFIC research/evidence for homosexuality, since that is what many people want to have. Sure everyone has a bit of a choice in everything they do. Men do not have to be aggressive, women do not have to like children, but for the most part, evolution and the make-up of our brains leads us to be certain ways.

The research presented below is not simply speculation or hypotheses, but actual data found and re-found by many researchers. Of course that does not make anything 100% and there are still many questions. And please forgive the typos.

I am reading a book called The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley for my Human Sexuality and Mating class at university. Here are a number of excerpts, along with a bit of my own explanations. I may only confuse people further by trying to “clear” things up, but the language used in this book can be rather lengthy and I HOPE to try and make it more understandable…:

“There is no evidence of genes for different brains, but there is ample evidence of genes [that alter] brains in response to male hormones. (For reasons of historical accident, the “normal brain” is female unless masculinized.) So the mental differences between men and women are caused by genes that respond to testosterone.”

This means that there is no evidence that two people have two different genes, but that their gene may cause testosterone to alter the brain differently. Background information is included here:

“There are two periods when testosterone levels rise in male children: in the womb, from about six weeks after conception, and at puberty. …the first pulse of hormone exposes the photographic negative; the second develops it. This is a crucial difference from the way the hormone affects the body. The body is masculinized by testosterone from the testicles at puberty, whatever its womb experience. But not the mind. The mind is immune to testosterone unless it was exposed to a sufficient concentration (relative to female hormones) in the womb. It would be easy to engineer a society with no sex differences in attitude between men and women. Inject all pregnant women with the right dose of hormones, and the result would be men and women with normal bodies but identical feminine brains.”

Brains of men and women ARE different. Not largely, but in some spatial, verbal, etc. ways they are. The biggest thing that separates men and women’s brains is the amount of testosterone the embryo encounters while in the womb. Therefore, the amount of testosterone you are exposed to as a fetus can have large affects on your mind. The test on TheSpark.com, that guesses your sex, actually IS a somewhat valid test. There are statistical differences between the minds of men and women. And the book goes on to show how gay men have minds more similar to women than heterosexual men. Vice versa. As for your body, the second burst of testosterone takes care of that. A person with the mind of a female can have the body of a man.

Bitty2002
07-03-2004, 11:17
“A man develops a sexual preference for women because his brain develops in a certain way. It develops in a certain way because testosterone produced by his genetically determined testicles alter the brain inside his mother’s womb in such a way that later, at puberty, it will react to testosterone again. Miss out on the genes for testicles, the testosterone burst in the womb, or the testosterone burst at puberty—any one of the three—and you will not be a typical man. Presumably, a man who develops a preference for other men is a man who has a different gene that affects how his brain responds to hormones or a different learning experience during the pubertal burst of testosterone—or some combination of these.
The search for the cause of homosexuality has begun to shed a great deal of light on the way the brain develops in response to testosterone. It was fashionable until 1960]s to believe that homosexuality was entirely a matter of upbringing. But cruel Freudian aversion therapy proved incapable of changing it, and the fashion then changed to hormonal explanations. Yet adding male hormones to the blood of gay men does not make them more heterosexual; it merely makes them more highly sexed. (Makes them look more masculine). Sexual orientation has already been fixed before adulthood. Then, in the 1960’s, an East German doctor named Gunter Dorner began a series of experiments on rats which seemed to show that in the womb the male homosexual brain releases a hormone, called luteinizing hormone, that is more typical of female brains. […] Research in Britain, America, and Germany has all confirmed that a prenatal exposure to deficiency of testosterone increases the likelihood of a man becoming homosexual. …Men exposed in the womb to female hormones are more likely to be gay or effeminate, and effeminate boys do indeed grow up to be gay more often than other boys. Intriguingly, men who were conceived and born in periods of great stress, such as toward the end of World War II, are more often gay than men born at other times. )The stress hormone cortisol is made from the same progenitor as testosterone; perhaps it uses up the raw material, leaving less to be made into testosterone.) The same is true for rats: Homosexual behavior is more common in rats whose mothers were stressed during [pregnancy. The things that male brains are usually good at gay brains are often bad at, and vice versa. Gays are also more often left-handed than heterosexuals, which makes a sort of sense because handedness is affected by sex hormones during development….”

So it has been shown that the level of testosterone in the womb can have profound effects on sexuality. Embryos that are exposed to less testosterone or more female hormones are more likely to be gay. This article does not spend much time on gay women, however it has shown that girls whose mothers took progesterone (a hormone that acts much like testosterone) during pregnancy to lessen the chance of miscarriage, are often more likely to be tomboys. It makes sense that if a female embryo is exposed to too much testosterone it will be more likely to be a lesbian and if a male embryo is exposed to too little testosterone it is more likely to be gay. Other studies by other people also add to this. For example a number of years ago I read an article that studied the tension of the eardrum. Men and women are typically different. Because of this, when sound enters the eardrum and bounces back off, it will bounce off at different frequencies. Gay men have frequencies like women and lesbians have frequencies like men. Now the kicker was that fraternal twins, one boy one girl, also have different than normal frequencies for their sex. This gives evidence that it is due to hormone exposure in the womb, since fraternal twins would be giving the other embryo some of its “juices”. Another interesting tidbit: sons of diabetic mothers who were taking female hormones during pregnancy usually have effeminate sons. And ANOTHER interesting tidbit: women under heavy stress are more likely to have girls than boys. How can this be if men pick the sex? I dunno it is complex, but it has evolutionary findings. Poor families tend to have more girls, because poor women can marry up. Rich families have more sons because sons must inherit goods to attract prime women so that the best genes are passed on. It is a race named after the Red Queen in Alice through the looking glass. (If you want to know more about this, let me know)

Bitty2002
07-03-2004, 11:18
Back to the book:
“It is clear, however, that the cause of homosexuality lies in some unusual balance of hormonal influence in the womb but not later on, a fact that further supports the idea that the mentality of sexual preference is affected by prenatal sex hormones. This is not incompatible with the growing evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. The “gay gene” that I will discuss in the next chapter is widely expected to turn out to be a series of genes that affect the sensitivity of certain tissues to testosterone. It is both nature and nurture.
It is no different from genes for height. Fed on identical diets, two genetically different men will not grow to the same height. Fed on two different diets, two identical twins will grow to different heights. Nature is the length of the rectangle, nurture the width. There can be no rectangle without both. The genes for height are really only genes that respond to diet by growing.”

What this is saying is that hormones are the nurture part and genes are the nature part. It takes both. The genes most likely determine HOW/To WHAT EXTENT the testosterone affects the brain and HOW MUCH testosterone is released in the first place.

He mentions the next chapter, so I will include the main points of it as well, for they were also interesting:

“In the early 1990s, there was a flurry of interest that a “gay gene” had been found on the X chromosome. The excitement faded as it proved hard to replicate the original study. (A rule in science is that for a study and its results to be respected and accepted it must have results that other people can get when they also do the same study or similar studies. This means that one or a few studies found evidence for this, but others could not match it. It does not mean they contradicted it, simply, that no one could confirm it. ~ Bitty) But twin studies show that homosexuality is heritable, and one day the genes that can cause a man to be gay—perhaps in response to maternal genes expressed in his mother’s womb—will be found.”

I will sum up a bit of the following paragraphs: Basically he mentions that evolutionarily, it seems odd that a “gay gene” would be passed on, since typically gay people do not reproduce as much as straight people. However, much of the research that lead people to believe the “gay gene” must be on the X chromosome led two men, Laurence Hurst and David Haig, to believe that instead of the X chromosome it was the genes found in mitochondria. Here is some background info: Men give half the genes that form a human in his sperm. It mixed with half the genes stored in a female’s egg. They add up to the total genes a person needs. However, sperm are small, they only contain the 24 genes and a tail so it can swim. The egg however is very large and must “feed” the growing embryo as well as supply the cell structures. So the egg has many other parts, including mitochondria, energy producers, look it up if you are confused. It is believed that these evolved from small bacteria, which has small amounts of genetic material. SO, that means that every human receives 24 genes from its mom, 24 for its dad, AND cell structures including mitochondria from its mother. That mitochondria has DNA of its own. Therefore, we all have identical mitochondria DNA as our mother. Some joke that if that is true, then we should all have the same since we are all descended from Eve. Well whatever, I am a Christian and don’t believe in that.

If this is the case and the “gay gene” can be found to be linked to mitochondria DNA, then that would explain why it continues to be passed down.

Bitty2002
07-03-2004, 12:35
I thought I would add something seemingly completely unrelated, but also about evolution and the theory on survival of the fittest or that gays are a waste of space. If you think about it, by today's standards, the "best genes," are held by the most successful: the richest, most "scientific" *rolls eyes*, and the most intelligent. However, this irony is that these "good gene" people aren't reproducing very much...at least not compared to the "average-below gene" people. If you think about it, lower IQ'd people have tons of children, whereas the higher IQ's have 1-3.

Now please do not take this as my view of "good genes." I am simply talking how evolutionists and scientists talk about genes that are deemed good for any species. So is stupidity and promiscuity the "fittest" of our species? If we only look at things with a scientist’s eye we miss something. Or if we only look at things like an evolutionist, like some people seem to look at things, we are a pretty sad race. We should allow for rape and harems, men should hunt and women should gather and nurture children. BUT morals and culture is NOT evolution. We have developed our minds in some ways far beyond others. The primitive parts of the brain were first established, then the more complex cortex was added. So first and foremost we have these primitive ways that are still affected by evolution, such as sex roles. However, we also have a highly evolved cortex that allows for complex reasoning and morals. So if we feed into what evolutionarily makes sense, then a lot of things would need to change. Women's roles in society for one. It is morals and our reasoning that set us apart. So, it is up to everyone whether to let these "rules of science" govern your life and how you view homosexuals or people that are different instead of your morals and reason. If you want to see homosexuals as genetic mistakes that should be aborted, then you are completely ignoring the progress we have made as a human race.

The key is that if you want to be negative, you will be negative. If people are gay solely because they choose to be, well then you can hate them and abhor them because they chose to be that way. If they were genetically and/or hormonally made gay, well then you can hate and abhor them because they are different and genetic mistakes. It is up to you whether or not to hate or just accept. No matter what evidence or lack of evidence there ever is, it is up to you how you view life and those people around you.

forre
07-03-2004, 13:54
Bitty2002, Great analysis! Well put.
Variation is the key to any successful evolution. Without diversity any civilisationed is "sentenced" to death. A universal law of nature.

denial
07-03-2004, 18:04
Bitty2002, thank you for the explaination of the book. I would not able to understand and read it. Really appreciate this.


If this is the case and the “gay gene” can be found to be linked to mitochondria DNA, then that would explain why it continues to be passed down.
aha!


But I have a question.. what is MIND scientifically?

Bitty2002
07-03-2004, 23:33
denial, what exactly do you mean by what is mind scientifically? If I am guessing right, you have a brain, which is completely biological, but it isn't simple like say a toe. The brain is complex and allows for reason, complex thought, personality, etc. So testosterone affects the mind in ways that are obvious: men are agrressive, women are more nurturing. Yes of course this is not true for everyone, but statistically it is. Brain differences between sexes occur in infancy. Boys prefer objects, girls people. Girls prefer dolls and people games like "family", boys prefer aggressive object games. Now some argue this is because of what toys they are give. But numerous studies have shown that when twins, one boy one girl, are set in a pile of toys from birth, dolls and trucks, girls go to the dolls, boys to the trucks. No one showed them how boys should act or what toys they should like. They had options. These little differences are caused by exposure to testosterone in the womb. Different exposure amounts will cause different levels of Masculine or feminine minds. Did that answer your question or were you aksing something completely different?

Kate
08-03-2004, 01:40
forre, Variation is the key to any successful evolution. Without diversity any civilisationed is "sentenced" to death. A universal law of nature.

First of all, civilisation has nothing to do with natural evolution, it is linked to cultural evolution. And how exactly does homosexuality contribute to natural evolution? As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution. If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.

Bitty2002, biological science is mostly based on experimental work. This book that you read might have some so called "proof", but I am sure you can find experimental "proofs" to oppose the research presented here. :) It's all a metter of what you want to believe. Sure, homosexuality might have something to do with hormonal levels. So does Cushing's Disease (excess urinating and excess drinking of water) and POEM Syndrome (Parathyroid disease). :heh: Cushing's disease is a result of a genetic variation, too. Does it contribute to successful evolution? No.

There is nothing wrong about being homosexual. You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality. :rose:

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 04:57
Kate, first I would like to comment on your snide little remark: “There is nothing wrong about being homosexual. You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality.”

That was far from my intention. I don’t need anything but the love I feel to justify my sexuality. It isn’t like I need to justify when I find a male attractive, cause I do find them attractive, does that surprise you? In fact, I am not really sure if “I” personally am someone that has been affected by too much testosterone in the womb. Yes I was more of a tomboy than most as a child, but for the most part I am relatively androgynous and absolutely love babies. What does that mean? I have no idea. All I know is that I happened to open my mind to the possibility of loving a female and I fell in love with a female by chance. I equate it to 40 years ago when people would be hung for loving someone of a different race. Most people would not consider dating another race. To some it is even disgusting. Does that mean that those people who DO love someone of another race is some genetic mistake? I have trouble believing this. To me it just seems like a preference of taste and a state of open-mindedness. However, that does not mean that some people are not hormonally affected. I am sorry but when 5-year-old boy wants to be a girl (see Ma Vie En Rose) they probably DO have some hormonal, genetic influence. Does that mean they should be shot?

No dear Kate, I was not searching for your acceptance. I was merely putting out there some research I found interesting. Take it how you will. And for you to say that there is nothing wrong about being homosexual is a laugh. I think it is pretty obvious that the majority of people see homosexuality as something to be hated, abhorred, shunned, avoided, etc. Please don’t pretend not to have a problem with it when I have read numerous things you have written where you have said gays are disgusting. So truly, can you honestly say there isn’t something about it that bothers you? I don’t think so. The best thing to do is try to UNDERSTAND it. That is all I was doing, shedding some light on something that society is afraid to look at.

Now for the rest of what you said: “As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution.” That was a good choice of words Kate. As far as YOU are concerned, it slows it down. But you don’t know everything there is about the intricacies of evolution do you? Neither do I. So it is your opinion. AND, cultural evolution actually has quite a bit to do with natural evolution. Look at make-up, birth-control, corsets, mate poaching, lying about commitment level, adultery, etc. These are all cultural evolutionary tactics that fight against sexual evolution. Youth and beauty are signals of fertility and good genes. Commitment tells females that a person will be there to help rear her children, giving that child 10% greater chance of survival. But if you lie about these things, with make up and the such, how do those things help natural evolution? Men like thin women. Women 10-15% below average in weight are HIGHLY likely to be infertile. So for men to be drawn to thinness really isn’t helping evolution is it? Yet men are evolutionarily drawn to thin women, call it the “sexy son” theory or “good genes” whatever you want. It is more complex than you think. This is all called the Red Queen theory. It is like an arms race to outwit others. Like I said, stupid people often have MORE children than smart, successful people nowadays. This was not the case thousands of years ago, when harems and the such gave powerful men many children. However, today, that education you respect sooo much, Kate, actually causes people to have less children. So once again culture effects natural evolution. Not everything is natural evolution based. Just because YOU can’t see how it helps natural evolution doesn’t mean that things in life do not have a purpose. Honestly, if being gay were a huge flaw, there wouldn’t be so many gays, for your lovely evolution would wipe those non-breeders out. Look at how we kill ourselves with fatty hamburgers and fries. That is because evolution has programmed us to search out sugar and fat, things that were not found easily when we were cave men. However, today we can find it easily and it is killing us. What does that mean Kate?

I remember a conversation we had a while ago about clones and research with embryos. The “advances of science” and how you absolutely loved the idea. Let me think here…clones are not part of the “natural evolution process” and clones are often discussed because people want to clone organs, to help people dying from defective or diseased organs. We are also searching for embryonic cures, stem cells to treat diseases and genetic problems. Almost all medicine helps those that would otherwise die or be left behind. Now I have a question for you…aren’t all of these things against “natural evolution”? According to your natural evolution we should leave these stragglers behind. The fittest should reproduce. We should not let people who are deaf or blind or with genetic diseases live or reproduce, that would only hurt evolution. However, culture and morals are what drive medicine. We love and so we save. We don’t club deformed people. We do not leave deaf people out to die. Or my favorite is redheads. Did you know that being a redhead with light skin, etc. is a mutation? Do we kill Lena for being a genetic fallacy? Is she a mistake?

Unless rather than curing, your interest in gene research is so that we can abort or kill off the people that are weaker or not normal. However, once again that goes against natural evolution. All people are needed in a society. If there wasn’t diversity, as Forre stated, then there would cease to be a race to improve. Evolution would cease to exist. There would be no Red Queen theory and no change. Where do you draw the line of “evolutionarily acceptable" Kate? Sensitive straight men? Redheads? People who lose their hair? Not having 20/20 vision or perfect hearing? Not having all A’s? Dyslexic? The things you talk about seriously fringe on a Hitler mindset or at least Naturalistic Fallacy (look it up if you don’t know what that means). If it isn’t beneficial or fittest, should it die? Should we not feed the poor because they can’t survive on their own? Men should be allowed to rape, murder, and commit adultery…because that is part of their aggressive nature and desire to spread their seed.

And, Kate, if science were just a “matter of what you wanted to believe,” then it wouldn’t be respected. If I can claim this to be true and you can claim others to be true, then what truth can there be in science? Please, can you provide some of those studies you talk of that would oppose this research? Because, until you counter it, mine stands strong. And, of those studies you find, can you please make sure that A. it was done by a respectable researcher, B. the results were repeatable and found in others studies, and C. as recent or more recent than these studies? Then maybe we can have a real discussion.

Kappa
08-03-2004, 04:58
katbeidar, why don't you just go all out and instead of saying "If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.", say If you don't know what you are talking about, try shuting the fuck up"? I mean. For all I know, it's your hypocritical closedmindedness that holds back evolution, not the fact that us homos, in your opinion, don't contribute to overpopulating this goddarn planet.

You want evolution? Evolution is the fact that some members of the forum don't have wisdom teeth. Why? Because like someone I know in this forum, they're kind of useless.

Now if there's a reason why Bitty2002 wrote this analysis, it was to counterfeit your 18th century thinking.

forre
08-03-2004, 06:22
Originally posted by katbeidar
forre,

First of all, civilisation has nothing to do with natural evolution, it is linked to cultural evolution. And how exactly does homosexuality contribute to natural evolution? As far as I am concerned, it slows down evolution. If you don't know what you are talking about, try - sshhh.


Our civilisation has very much to do with natural evolution because we evolve on different levels. Spieces with the most variations survive better in different environments. Homosexuality is just another variation. So, try a few more classes at the Uni, Kate, before claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Waves "hello" :rose:

Kate
08-03-2004, 06:27
forre, Spieces with the most variations survive better in different environments. Homosexuality is just another variation.

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I have no intention to start a pointless arguement with you, my dearest forre. :rose:

Whatever happened to short posts?

denial
08-03-2004, 06:27
Bitty2002, thank you for the answer.

shizzo
08-03-2004, 06:29
This is the greatest thread on the planet. :D

Posted by katya :
You don't have to find scientific proof to justify your sexuality.

Yarr - you do.

Otherwise, what do we have to stand on, to support our
lifestyle, to provide as evidence when questioned? The
opinions and thoughts and emotions and experience that
can be acquired via an alternative sexuality?

That'd just sound gay. :D

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

It seemed like a fairly viable point to me. Variation yields
more probable possibilities concerning evolution and growth,
both cultural and physical - adaptation is more reliant in
this case. Rendering a highly logical statement as baseless
would require a more detailed explanation on your side. The
rules of plausibility can't just be ignored without giving a
valid reason.

forre
08-03-2004, 06:31
Originally posted by katbeidar
forre,

I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I have no intention to start a pointless arguement with you, my dearest forre. :rose:

Whatever happened to short posts?

No dissapointment here. Just skip your claims about who is knowing and what and everything will be fine.

Okay, I'll wait until you upgrade your knowledge, including social orientation.

Kate
08-03-2004, 06:37
forre, :blabla: :rolleyes: Do you ever say ANYTHING with substance?

I just wanted to add, Darje, you seem to be the one closeminded to people who have a different view of homosexuals. :heh: I like homosexuals, I have nothing against them. I just think homosexuality doesn't make sense in natural evolution. That's all. :)

forre
08-03-2004, 06:39
katbeidar, :blabla: :lol: :lol: ... Good luck!

shizzo
08-03-2004, 06:43
Posted by katbeidar :
Do you ever say ANYTHING with substance?

Her comments hold just as much substance as yours have.

you seem to be the one closeminded to people who have
a different view of homosexuals.

Something contributed entirely to what's subconsciously
regarded as a "fundamental faith" which shouldn't need a
detailed comprehension. It's one thing to be against a form
of rampant hate - it's another to be indifferent about it.

taty994945
08-03-2004, 06:45
I agree with everyone on this thread. :gigi:

Kate
08-03-2004, 06:54
forre, you are acting you age, good. :lol: By the way, I am sorry if somewhere along the lines of my posts you picked up a hint that you need to reply to my every post. You don't. :heh:

cniaju, forre's post are with no substance, if you can't see that - too bad. She is just trying to insult me, and it's not working, cuz I'm used to it by now.

I don't not mind people hating homosexuals. In fact, I don't respect people who don't approve of homosexuals. Homosexuals are still people, with families, jobs and emotions. And I think they deserve to be treated like normal people.

Ordinary life is the exrtaordinary thing we can give them. :done: And I have changed my views a lot on homosexuality since I've come to this forum and interacted. The first thing I thought when I saw the downloaded ATTSS video was, "Don't let mom see it". Then next thing that went through my mind was, "Tatu are not lesbians, they are faking it for money and popularity". The third things was, "Eww". Now, I can except homosexuals making out in front of me, I can understand that they have the same feelings I have for the opposite sex, but for the same sex. I can interact with them without thinking "s/he's are gay" every second... That's a lot of progress, since I come from a VERY homophobic family, and my parents and sister still don't except the "right" way to look at homosexuality, unfortunatly. I am working on it, though. I debate with them about homosexuality at least once a week. Lol.

shizzo
08-03-2004, 07:06
Posted by katbeidar :
if you can't see that - too bad. She is just trying to insult me

The comment which I'd quoted was posted BEFORE you had
a reply to this thread, and YOU insulted her intelligence before
she made any comment regarding you.

But then, an insult of MY intelligence?
:(

I posted a particular statement from her initial post which has
actual substantial quality, what I think has been THE most
fundamental comment of this entire thread. Diversity is a
strong basis for further growth - regardless of how long you
and forre decide to degrade each other, that comment
would still remain true irrespective of who said it.

This thread is about scientific research, NOT about who
said or thinks what at whichever time.

forre, katbeidar :
Leave your snide comments to private messages, okay? This
thread will end up closed undeservedly at this rate.

Unplugged
08-03-2004, 07:11
And I have changed my views a lot on homosexuality since I've come to this forum and interacted. The first thing I thought when I saw the downloaded ATTSS video was, "Don't let mom see it". Then next thing that went through my mind was, "Tatu are not lesbians, they are faking it for money and popularity". The third things was, "Eww". Now, I can except homosexuals making out in front of me, I can understand that they have the same feelings I have for the opposite sex, but for the same sex. I can interact with them without thinking "s/he's are gay" every second... That's a lot of progress, since I come from a VERY homophobic family, and my parents and sister still don't except the "right" way to look at homosexuality, unfortunatly. I am working on it, though. I debate with them about homosexuality at least once a week. Lol.

That's great, Kate! :D :done:

Diversity is a
strong basis for further growth

Yeah, cniaju, it's the strongest basis, in my opinion :yes:

Kate
08-03-2004, 07:24
cniaju, I disagree about the whole "diversity is a strong basis to further growth" statement. First of all, if this statement is talking about cultural evolution, then, I do kinda agree. But I disagree if the statement is put in the context of natural selection. Diversity does give rise to Darwin's principles, but we are talking about homosexuality here, and homosexuality is not exactly a favourable trait natural selection wise, don't you think?

Cultural civilization does and will benefit from different views and variety among the people. Homosexual debates will advance our knowledge about the subject socially, as well as scientifically.

But I am still sceptical about the "positive" contributions of homosexuality to the natural selection. Perhaps you will tell me how exactly homosexuality will advance human evolution in the "survival" context?

It's pointless to talk about natural selection of humans. With the ever advancing genetic engineering, in the next few decades humans will take full control of what we will evolve into. :done: Ain't it great? I'll probably be able to chose my baby's eyes! :D

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 07:29
katbeidar, what happened to short posts? I assume that was meant for me. Did I sign something I wasn't aware of? I didn't know I had ever agreed not to write long posts. Are they too complicated? Please read my long reply, I think you will find it very interesting. I would love to hear your response.

Spieces with the most variations survive better in different environments. Homosexuality is just another variation.


I rest my case. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


Kate can you please enlighten me as to what is wrong with Forre's comment? And I wouldn't simply just write it off as she is stupid or has little education, because that won't work for me. I need some actual substantial comments here, otherwise you lose all credibility and look like a sore loser who can't see that their theories are failing in the new light of scientific findings. So please, enlighten me.

EDIT: I see what you are saying about natural evolution not being affected, but please read my long post. I mentioned there that cultural evolution and natural evolution are definitely connected. You cannot seperate them completely like you seem to want to. It isn't like gay people can't have children, Kate. I plan on having children. I also plan on adopting. These children may not have had normal lives and been able to reproduce as much as before, had they not been adopted. In fact with the sky rocketing divorce rates, lesbian relationships are one of the most solid ones. They make good nurturing familes. Perhaps, homosexual relations is one way that helps sexual evolution nurture children. Like I said, children with two investing parents that stay together gives the child 10% more chance of survival. And if you don't think that that is enough to drive evolution, you are wrong. Otherwise, why would men ever marry women? It is an arms race, where women must dupe men into staying with them. What is the benefit to the man if he can go have sex with 50 women and possibly spred his seed to 50 children, rather than one? I don't want to go into the entire theory, because it is long, but if you want me to, I will. Perhaps, the cultural change, where two people of the same sex loving each other and raising children will aid in keeping families together. If you don't believe that, look at the statistics of life long partners of lesbians compared to straight partners.

Kate
08-03-2004, 07:39
Bitty2002, read my post to cniaju above, I explained everything there. Forre's confusing natural evolution and cultural evolution... :rolleyes:

I will read you long post. Gimme a few minutes.

Edit: Bitty2002, you are right. I am very positive about the fact that there are gay couples that will provide a much better family to a child then some heterosexual couple. I am sure you'll be a great mom/dad.

In my post I was assuming that homosexuals don't reproduce. Since I was talking about pure natural evolution. Adopting and artificial insemination involve both cultural and natural evolution. It's a whole different story. And I agree on what you said in the "edit" part of your post.

I am off to watch Nip/Tuck. :gigi:

shizzo
08-03-2004, 07:44
Posted by katbeidar :
I disagree if the statement is put in the context of
natural selection.

Diversity provides a more plentiful selection to pick from - it
not only furthers variety itself, but it also allows "filtering" of
so-called pure traits and mixed ones. It can be controlled
in contemporary society with the technology now known.

Perhaps you will tell me how exactly homosexuality will
advance human evolution in the "survival" context?

Sure, most indeedily.

It won't. :D
Homosexuality obviously can't spawn offspring. It can't
"advance" evolution in the sense of the birth of future
generations.

But does every factor about living organisms promote survival?
Nope.
Instead, natural genetic malfunctions occur constantly. Mental
retardation, physical handicaps - all of these impair what can
be regarded as an "ideal maintenance" of natural selection.

And just as I think homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, I
also know that it has to coexist with heterosexuality for the
benefit of survival tactics. It's obvious fact - can't be ignored.

But I think that the "obscurity" of homosexuality's existence
is no different than the so-called "abundance" of natural
handicap caused by the tiny bits of DNA inside a genome. In
natural selection, variation occurs - naturally.

Kate
08-03-2004, 07:50
cniaju, Homosexuality obviously can't spawn offspring. It can't "advance" evolution in the sense of the birth of future generations.

My point exactly. And that's why forre's posts were biased. I didn't mean to insult her, it's just that I get annoyed when people don't know basic things. :(

I appologise, Forre, if I insulted you.

See? Wasn't that hard to appologise. :D

taty994945
08-03-2004, 07:51
Here's another article I just read: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/08/1078594273362.html

shizzo
08-03-2004, 08:01
katbeidar :
You were focusing almost exclusively on the survival aspect of
evolution and culturization. In this case, forre's comments
concerning diversity's role in evolution wasn't biased, but instead
just based on a different set of fundamentals.

And the same applies to my own comments. I don't think
that homosexuality is going to promote survival, but I do think
it occurs naturally as the result of biological means. And, if it
didn't exist initially as a biological feature to the genome, then
it could have been an effect of adaptation : a biological
response to an acquired feature. In either case, it's a logical
observation of the situation, regardless of which is true. And
it holds true to natural selection all the same.

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 08:04
I won't be a dad, Kate. And neither will my girlfriend. Just thought I would clarify that for you. I don't plan on changing my anatomy.

Kate, things aren't like they were in the time of cavemen. We have children regardless of love. We have sex for pleasure and usually try NOT to have children. We do not need the primative impulses that prod us to propagate and raise children. We decide when to have kids now. Parents who aren't even related raise children. Families are not always the same. Culture has played a large part. Gay people CAN have children and can raise them how they want.

Today evolution does not work the same way with humans as it used to. Everyone mates. It isn't just for the fittest. Everyone propogates, even gay people. Stupid people keep having children, if not more that smart people. Nothing honestly makes sense evolutionarily today. Why do we save the weak. Why do we allow people will low sperm count who naturally would never reproduce have children? None of that makes natural sense. It doesn't have make natural sense to be accepted. Back in that day it didn't used to be about love. It was arranged, for mutal benefit. OR women were just raped, pimped, or one male would get all the females. Yet, today in modern society, love rules everything. Love is what creates families, not natural evolution sense.

Kate
08-03-2004, 08:21
Bitty2002, I wasn't sure whether you were a guy or a girl. Lol. Didn't mean to imply sex-change or anything.

Gay people CAN have children and can raise them how they want.

That's exactly what I said. Why are you repeating it? Hmmm. :ithink:

Natural selection doesn't make sense now, I said it in my previous post, didn't I?

I am confused. What are we discussing if we agree?

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 09:24
katbeidar, don't pretend like you aren't on some opposing side of this issue. You have a problem with homosexuality. You say that you are fine with it. But I think it is pretty obvious to most people that that is not entirely true. Perhaps you WANT to believe that and I hope that eventually you do. However, just like you said, you have made progress, but you aren't there yet. You still have a problem with it, and your problem with it is that is makes very little evolutionary sense. My objective is to point out the inherant contradiction in that claim, since you do not seem to have any problem with a plethora of other things that clearly make little evolutionary sense.

So I ask you, what exactly is it that bothers you about homosexuality? I am just curious. Please don't say that it doesn't bother you... in some form or fashion...like it disgusts you. I know it does. You have said that yourself.

And you didn't know I was a girl? We have talked quite a few times; you aren't very observant. Not trying to diss you or be rude, but that just surprised me.

Kate
08-03-2004, 09:33
Bitty2002, You still have a problem with it, and your problem with it is that is makes very little evolutionary sense.

That's not a problem. That's an opinion based on the little scientific knowledge that I have.

Something in your post makes me think that I will never be "there" unless we have identical opinions. Well, that's not gonna happen. Like it was said in this thread, civilization benefits from the diversity. I am part of that diversity. If you can't except me with my opinions, or problems, as you like to call them, then you have no right to expect the same from me. :)

As I said before, I am working on my views on homosexuality. It's hard, because of my homophopic, 18th century (as Darje put it) background. I don't want anyone here to be upset because of my current views on homosexuality. I don't like hurting people.

freddie
08-03-2004, 11:51
First of all, thanks for the article Bitty2002. It was very insightful. Many interesting points mentioned which are quite logical and go well with my view of things. I've always been a supporter of sexuality being determined by hormones in the genes that somehow alter our brain in a specific way and sets up a platform for a future sexual orientation of a person. Quite logical.

And the whole "survival of the fitest" stuff... evolution would "eliminate" the gay part of population a long tiime ago if they were really a danger to further development of the species... but since homosexuality is so common, you'd think it deserves a bit higher status then genetical disease and gene mutation, like Kate would try to suggest. If there is a certain amount of population, (that goes beyond a single case here and there) affected by this seemingly random mutation they it MUST have a purpose... evolution wouldn't allow it to exist in such quantity if it wouldn't have a role in society. You think that there's only one model for a succesful evolutionary path, which should lead us trough a whole line of genenticaly perfect, flawless and most importantly non-diverse set of genes? If we play that game I can easily say you have a terrible skin mutation which makes you "white", while we all now that the human in it's original geneticaly flawless form somes from Africa and was therefore black. I guess all us white and oriental folks are just a set of natures errors that should never have occured? Or are we a result of body-adaptation to climate change because of mankind moving out of Africa? There was a reason all those sets off changes occured... almost nothing permanent in evolution is "accidental".. it all has a purpose. And since homosexuality is permanent and constant it must have a reson for evolution to keep it. Cause there ar random mutations that occur on fetuses every day. Mutations which would never work... which are purely an incident of a gene being missplaced or an extra gene added by natures mistake in fetal development (like the downs syndrome). But when you read Bitty's article you can't help but getting a feeling that homosexuality is more then just "a mistake" - it seems like "a mechanism"... something that is planed to happen on a certain amout of child-births. Not always of course as we read that something it can be affected by medicine's and hormonal treatments that mother takes, but offten enough for it not to be disregarded as just a mistake. IMO it's a mechanism that is a part of all mankind, and was a pert of our ancestors as well... something that widens the gene poll. Cause like Forre said... diversity is the key. All teh changes in nature were created by random mutations... the ones that survived survived with a purpose. Like you being white. Or a percentage of popualtion being bi or homosexual.

And even if homosexuality WOULDN'T be natural... if it was simply a sociological phenomenon (although gay animals would be hard to explain in this case), you should be very careful on what you regard as "natural". Nature is cruel, girl... survival is a dirty business... it involves murder, rape, cruelty, selfishness. Just like Bitty mentioned. Cause if we were in nature right now you'd probably be gang-raped by the most succesful males for the herd... And by most succesful I don't mean the cutest metrosexual out there. I mean by the strongest, most sucessful hunters that would "rightfully" win you in a fight (I'm talking all the big guys here...Pasha, Leonid... Rambo :D). Did you know that in nature the female of the species often has to be raped violently in order for her to ovulate and consequently reproduce? Interesting isn't it? Would you want to be a part of this 100% natural selection process? Doesn't civilization and morality look quite appealing by this point?
So hold your horses before you start throwing homosexuals, old people and downs syndrom victims off a cliff. :p

And Kate... lets be honest here... you DON'T accept the hormone theory so don't pretend you do. We talked about this many times and you clerarly said it was in no way hormonal, that homosexuality is purely by choice. I distinctly remember since I tried to make you aware of other possibilities but it was all futile. You kept insisting it's a choice you make. "A state of mind" as you so vividly expressed yourself.

And talk about structured conversation Kate ... what did you say in this thread that carried some weight? You said that this is just one theory while you could surely find some other theories that could prove the opposite. Excuse me? I could say I can see your point that you're a heterosexual girl, but I can just as easily prove that you're as gay as a dafodil... I'm just not gonna bother. That caries the same weigth as any of the claims you made. It's NOT what you'd call a valid debate based on disputing the facts given. It's so easy to just dismiss everything. You didn't even aknowledge or comment on some of the claims Bitty made. And I was pretty disapointed with that. I'd love to hear your views on some of them, as I'm sure they're very interesting.

EDIT: Oh just thought I'd mention this. I come from a homophobic, racist family. My parents told me that you're not worth crap if you're not straight, white and (preferably) Slavic (or at least Aryan)... Gay people were/are just disgusting anomalies to them. Horrible perversions of a "normal" human being. And all the oriental, black, jewish and middle eastern people should go back "where they belong" and not bother us with their inferior genes.
But I guess something happened while I was growin up. It's called "BUILDING YOUR OWN OPINION OF THE WORLD." I belived my parents blindly. But then I turned 10. And I started reading. And thinking with my own head.
However we are all different. I can accept the possibility that you were more heavily influenced by your parents then I was.

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 12:03
katbeidar, You don't seem to understand me either. You want exactly what I want. To be accepted. I am not straight, therefore, I am abhorred by many. My country is going through a daunting time and I am one of those hated because I love a female. I didn't choose to love her, I was meant to love her.

You think homosexuals are disgusting. You have said so, and numerous other things. In an indirect way, I am disgusting because of who I love.

You claim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, yet you think it is disgusting. How can you have both opinions?

I do not expect you to share my opinions, whatsoever. I grew up homophobic. Hard to believe? Well it is true. I grew up in a homophobic family. I was uncomfortable with homosexuality because it went against my religion. Well I didn't drop my religion...I just finally asked why it was wrong. I couldn't give an answer.

You always use the excuse that you are needed for diversity. Sure we need hate. But most people aren't going to like it, especially when they are the ones hated.

Sorry I shouldn't say "problem." I guess I see you thinking homosexuals as disgusting as you having a problem with homosexuality. I guess for you that isn't a problem, it is just an opinion. But you have to understand that I don't like that opinion and it hurts that you have that opinion, especially when you can't logically explain why you have that opinion. It is just like having the opinion that black people are disgusting. Don't expect that black people will open their arms to you if you have that opinion. People don't like being hated. And you have to understand that it is a little hard for them to "accept" your opinion. So I guess we can just agree to go in circles on this, because I am sorry, you are right, I will never accept or like your opinion that I, by being homosexual (which actually I am not since I am bisexual), am disgusting to you.

Kate
08-03-2004, 19:34
freddie, And Kate... lets be honest here... you DON'T accept the hormone theory so don't pretend you do. We talked about this many times and you clerarly said it was in no way hormonal, that homosexuality is purely by choice. I distinctly remember since I tried to make you aware of other possibilities but it was all futile. You kept insisting it's a choice you make. "A state of mind" as you so vividly expressed yourself.

I am open minded to the scientific research posted by Bitty2002. :) It has some good stuff, and has good scientific arguements in it. Doesn't mean that I trust it 100%, but I can accept it.

Bitty2002, just because I don't think homosexuality contributed to natural evolution, doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals. Stop trying to make me say that I hate homosexuals, cuz I don't hate them. It's really annoying. So, get off my back. Ok?

Bitty2002
08-03-2004, 22:53
freddie, That was an awesome post. I already told you how much I agreed with what you said and how well you expressed yourself...better than my rambling self can. Thank you for adding your thoughts!



katbeidar, I am sorry Kate I should not have used to word hate.

You think it's yucky, repulsing, just taking up space...we are as perverted as pedophiles. Is that better? I shouldn't have taken those feelings to equate to hate, my mistake.

You see, Kate, it is people like you that will cause us never to feel free, so we do get defensive. You say that it has absolutely nothing to do with genetics and that it is just a state of mind. You are very adamant about this. So it seems like you find homosexuals disgusting because we choose to be that way. How can we be so gross to choose something like that? So I am sorry, you don’t hate us. You just never want to be close friends with us, you think we are disgusting, and you don’t understand why the hell we exist. I am very sorry I misspoke.

Well I supplied you with some research that found ample evidence that homosexuality is NOT simply a state of mind. You don't trust the research, most likely because it came from me. But I will let you know that I didn't look this stuff up. I am simply in a human sexuality class, and it talks about straight mating relations about 99% of the time. So believe me it isn't a biased class. It is based on evolution and science, the things you hold so dear.

Then again, even if it were found that homosexuality was something evolution/biology created and you believed it...you would probably turn it around that the only reason people allow us to live is out of morals. That we are weaker and should be left to die? The irony is that, I bet if you compared income rates, gay people probably are pretty high up there on the successful, good-looking, intelligent scale. We function in life with no difficulties other than social discrimination. If people accepted us, we hurt know one and contribute highly to the success of the world, through art, medicine, law, business, etc. So the only down fall is that we can't have children together. But I have already said numerous times that most families today are not normal. Divorce rates are high. Parents adopt, people inseminate, people are raised by stepparents. And my favorite is the "better-genes" adultery employed by women. They get their genetic cake and eat it to by marrying a well off man, with lower gene quality and then have affairs with higher gene people. And oddly enough, these women often unconsciously time their affairs around ovulation. Crazy huh. In a study done in part of Mexico it was found that 5%-20% of the children raised by who they thought was their genetic father was actually the result of genetic cuckoldry (affairs). So I guess my point is that two people marrying and having genetically mixed children together isn’t necessary to keep our world running today. Each can inseminate, therefore passing on their genes. And in fact, they can look through a little book and pick someone’s semen with FAR greater mate-value than you ever would have normally (means say you are a 2 genetically, you can pick the semen of someone that is a 10). So not only will I propagate my gay genes, Kate, but I am poaching the good male genes from people like you. Isn’t that cool?

Kate
09-03-2004, 05:37
Bitty2002, You think it's yucky, repulsing, just taking up space...we are as perverted as pedophiles. Is that better? I shouldn't have taken those feelings to equate to hate, my mistake.

I DO NOT!!! God, what do I have to say to make you believe me. It's annoying that you keep putting words in my mouth.

I will be fine to have close homosexual friends. OK? Maybe it's you who is disgusted with straight people, huh?

And I do give some credibility to your research. I just never take ANY scientific research and believe it 100%. There is always room for doubt.

Oh, why am I even bothering?

I am outta here. Think what you want, I don't give a fcuk. I am done convincing you, since it's in your one ear and out the other. :rolleyes:

Bitty2002
09-03-2004, 06:29
katbeidar, LOl Things are not in one ear and out the other for me Kate. You have specifically said those very words! lol, I was quoting things you have said to me or elsewhere. You crack me up. Unless of course you DID say those things but have changed your bigotted view on things and in that case *thumbs up* for you!

Disgusted by straight people?! HAHAHA, that is hilarious. I only came out last year Kate. I still have the mentality at times of seeing MYSELF as straight! I am bisexual, so obviously I can't be worlds apart from understanding straight people. I have never said anything bad about straight people, only you, because I think you are a bigot, and I don't have to love the fact that you find people like me repulsive, sorry. You are welcome to that opinion, but I don't have to like it.

Straight people... disgusting, lol. Thank you...hilarious.

coolasfcuk
09-03-2004, 17:56
ok, I was gonna write lots in here, but then I thought: WHY? absolutely no need to waste time and energy in this, since seems like everybody is understanding by now that this is 'pointless' :heh: why try to convince someone something when you know all that they desire is attention/acceptance/recognition/etc at any price :gigi: there you go, Ive said it, burn me now :laugh:

now onto better things: Thank you very much Bitty2002 for the great analysis! :rose: I enjoyed reading it very much, sometimes long posts are hard to read, but such longs posts are a pleasure :D

Of course, I am like a lot of you here hihi, that doesnt believe attraction to the same sex is by choice ... mainly judging from personal experience :) so it was very interesting to read that theory.

And since Darwin was mentioned.... it is not 681... or 1300...or.....1859 anymore :heh: it is 2004 .... and since there was a talk about evolution - why talk to me and trying to convince me about Natural Selection and so on, if you arent 'open' enough to the idea of evolution at all. I love coversating with 'book warms' :laugh: ... Natural and Un-natural in this moment in time are quite a bit different than what they were 150 years ago. Do you think Darwin was sitting at his desk eatting apples or grapes that have NO seeds? Now a person can receive someone elses heart implanted in their body... and as it was already mentioned, do you think Darwin was using condom every time he was having sex and didnt want to get the woman pregnant or get a STD? Or how about eating beef that has so much hormones in it that girls enter puberty at 8 years old! eat cheese that is made of fake powder.....and we can keep on talking and talking .... how are we to know which variation is 'usefull' right now and which is not? ... :coctail:

Kappa
10-03-2004, 05:11
Originally posted by katbeidar
I just wanted to add, Darje, you seem to be the one closeminded to people who have a different view of homosexuals. :heh: I like homosexuals, I have nothing against them. I just think homosexuality doesn't make sense in natural evolution. That's all. :)

The fact that you did not diss forre when she wasn't with Nath ought to direct me some way. I'm betting my socks you've never had sex less than less made love (and good god would that explain why you have a stick up your sphincter), and I bet even more on the fact that you've never thought of your sexuality as something that can change over time and over your social life. Just because mommy and daddy are scared of homos doesn't mean you've got to be third sheep in the herd and be one big bigot too, papa's girl.

Originally posted by Kate
Natural selection doesn't make sense now, I said it in my previous post, didn't I?

If natural selection made any sense, I would have beaten you with a cub and proven who's the fittest for survival already. As thought by Hobbes and a number of political phylosophists whom I am not daring write down here because I am afraid I'll screw up their names said it like you ought to hear it, Unniversity Girl. Nature state is that state in which we all had no rules but the rules of the strongest, the rules of the fittest. And you, college student, have shown you support the lifestyle humanity sported as soon as it hit the Cromagnon stage. Okay, let's go your way: tell me your adress and we'll see who's fittest and who deserves to propagate the species. Jesus! To be 17, you have the soul of a 95 year old and the mentality of a person living in Oscurantism.

Accept it. What you don't want to face is that we are not better than you but you aren't better than us either. Woo! You're in University at 17. Big deal, woman: you'd earn our respect more by behaving like an equal instead of a seeming superior.

One last thing, totally offtopic now: stop talking to forre like she's senile. For all I know, she's all the more worthy of my respect than you'll ever be if you continue to be the face of hypocracy.

Edit: Hobbes as in who wrote The Leviathan, not Hobbes as in Calvin and Hobbes.