Scientific Research for the Homosexuality Debate

[shizzo]

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]

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!

Diversity is a
strong basis for further growth

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

[Kate]

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. Ain't it great? I'll probably be able to chose my baby's eyes!

[Bitty2002]

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]

Bitty2002, read my post to cniaju above, I explained everything there. Forre's confusing natural evolution and cultural evolution...

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.

[shizzo]

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.
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]

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.

[taty994945]

Here's another article I just read: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...594273362.html

[shizzo]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ). 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bitty2002]

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]

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' why try to convince someone something when you know all that they desire is attention/acceptance/recognition/etc at any price there you go, Ive said it, burn me now

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

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 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' ... 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? ...