sapiens

I'm not sure what you mean. I would argue that our capacity for any choice has been shaped by natural selection. Choice might be "removed" by natural selection, but for it even to exist within us, it was likely built by natural selection because it conveyed some reproductive advantage over our ancestors' competitors.

WillyPete

I was commenting more on the use of 'natural selection' with regard to reducing homosexual activity within a society.

The main principle behind natural selection is a breeding out of specific genetic traits.
The jury is still out regarding homosexual tendencies being socially triggered or genetically triggered, and I think it will stay that way for a LONG time.

Until homosexual tendencies are scientifically proven to stem from a particular portion of genetic code, then I don't think that natural selection will have any part in reducing the numbers of homosexual people. My personal opinion (once again...) is that it's a preference rather than a pre-determined trait.

mo24 offers the best argument I have seen yet.
If offered a female or male option, male animals will most likely attempt to mate with the female.
Female animals, due to anatomical problems would find it a lot more difficult to attempt a homosexual practise, unlike the more flexible humans. I don't know enough to comment on that though. Likewise, don't know if female chimps are recorded as doing so.

sapiens

Presuming that homosexuality is reproductively disadvantageous (not for the individual, but for the gene) and heritable, it would likely take a long, long time for natural selection to remove homosexuality from human populations.


In order for something to be "socially triggered" there must be something designed to accept that social input.

Natural selection doesn't care whether or not it is scientifically proven. If it is heritable and it has a negative affect on genetic fitness, it will likely be selected out. If it is heritable and it has a positive effect on genetic fitness, it will likely increase. If it is neutral, it will hang around until drift removes it.

How is a preference different from a trait? Do you consider one to have a genetic basis and the other to be "socially triggered"?

filtherton

Not to nitpick, but everything that humans do is natural. Cancer and automobiles are just as natural as a bear shitting in the woods.

sapiens

Absolutely! And something being natural does not make it good or bad. I think that I've seen this discussion before: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=45962

1010011010

"If it's not genetic/heritable then it must be choice." is incorrect.

Something can have a biological basis, yet have no genetic component. Fingerprints are not heritable, indeed identical twins will have different fingerprints, but no one chooses their pattern.

Sexual orientation could similarly be left to the chance vagarities of the prenatal environment. Set down from birth, a completely biological basis, but no strict heritability of the trait at all.

Seriously though, WillyPete, I want to hear about when you chose between being attracted to girls or being attracted to boys.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

JustDisGuy

That's a very interesting theory, Ustwo. I had never actually given any thought to WHY there were homosexuals, with an eye to the benefits of having a segment of society that was. My opinion pretty much boiled down to tab 'A' goes in slot 'B', or else the model is broken. Very interesting thought.

I'd be interested in knowing more details about that study you reference.

__________________
"Act as if the future of the universe depends on what you do, while laughing at yourself for thinking that your actions make any difference."

sapiens

Fingerprints do have a genetic component, but your specific pattern is not coded for. (Which you probably meant).

On a more general note, there is a difference between something being heritable and heritability. A heritable trait is one influenced by genes. Heritability is a measure of the proportion of variation in a particular trait in a population due to genetic variation.

Something can have a strong genetic component and have a heritability of zero. Having a head clearly has a genetic component, but has a heritability of zero. The genes affected presence or absence of a head are fixed in the population, there is no genetic variation in the population for presence or absence of heads. So, heritability is zero. (Sorry, a bit of a tangent. I just like talking about heritability).
Certainly a possibility.

WillyPete

I can't recall any specific date.
I remember the games we played as kids and could quite easily consider them as conditioning for boys to kiss girls and stuff like that.

I'm not able to even venture any good argument whether sexual preference leans more toward genetics or social conditioning. I'm not qualified nor do I have the personal experience of having homosexual feelings to reflect upon.
As I said, but you may not have noticed, I was offering my personal opinion. (Yeah I know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some stink. )
However, until someone can prove to me code GCTACCTAGwhatever is responsible for this, then I'll believe that society DOES play a large role in the sexual orientation a person chooses.

I'll again risk it and say it's my opinion that there IS some genetic disposition but it's not an either/or situation.
If you believe that sexual orientation is gentically programmed, then it's not a far leap of the imagination to say that criminal or anti-social behaviour could also be gentic in origin. But the Nature/nurture topic is a totally different barrel of fish.
Why is it that generally, those that tend to think that EVERYTHING is choice related are usually those that have a religious background.
Where to claim that a perfect God would permit his creation to be built with defects and an an automatic feature to disobey him. This cannot be correct, in their eyes.
On the other hand, those claiming total genetic responsibility for some of mankind's activities such as sexual, social and deviance from the norms are giving people an excuse to do as they wish and claim it to be impossible to decide what you will be like as a human.

Once again, that's a general view and only my opinion of the two camps. I tend to find myself in the middle of the two schools of thought.

We are constantly at humankind with all sorts of drugs to affect mood, behaviour and sex (both urge and organ). We promote contraception and also push fertilization. I'm really saddened when something that's being going on within the human race for miillenia is suddenly deemed unnatural when all that stuff is considered ok.

Ms.VanHelsing

It is a well known fact( but not a highly admitted one) that people whether male or female who display homophobic tendencies only do so out of fear of discovering some aspect of it in themselves. To protect their feelings of guilt they immediately devise a defence mechanism which by its nature must attack and condemn.

__________________
Ms.VanHelsing

Ms.VanHelsing

Further to the above.... it is all fine and dandy to persue the question as to the origins of homosexuality..be it biological, social or spiritual. Point is...... it is just wonderful that 2 people can find true love and companionship in a world gone mad.

__________________
Ms.VanHelsing

shakran

Ask your friend if he wants to kill the cripples. How about those with a birth defect. Left-handers?

They're all biologically improbable - cripples, birth defects are obvious. Left handers are also biologically improbable because being left handed does not give them any distinct advantage over a right hander, so why would that mutation have survived?

The point, of course, is that yes, homosexuality is biologically improbable - it certainly doesn't enhance a species' survival chances if some of its members won't mate with the opposite sex and therefore have kids. However, just because something is biologically improbable does not mean it is immoral, wrong, or bad. It also does not mean that we should pass laws against it - unless of course he also wants to deny the right of deaf people to marry.

wilbjammin

Well, to make a point against biological determinism making any sense... I don't think looking at evolution as a law, with some sort of environmental judge saying "yes, that's a great mutation, keep it!" and "boooo! bad mutation, you're a goner!" makes much sense. Talking about human behavior as though it is solely determined by genetics misses a lot of the complexities of human existence. Society is structured in a way where we don't really need that much to live and get by. We aren't in the wilds, we're not hunting and gathering, and there are billions of us so obviously something is working. It is much easier to talk about genetic determinism with other animals and plants.

Now, to go along with that, for the sake of humanity, homosexuality makes a lot of sense. Have an overpopulation problem? ... Well, genetically then, it would make sense for more and more humans to be homosexual to save resources for the "tribe" at large. Of course, being homosexual doesn't prevent childbirth in the least... so... it is negligible at best.

Of course, I don't really think the question of homosexuality and genetics matters in the least because I see no problems with homosexuality at all.

And on a final note, why are we still talking about this?

__________________
Innominate.

shakran

Well obviously evolution isn't conscious, but that's essentially how it works. If one moth is black and the other is day-glo pink, and they both sit on a dark tree branch, the bird will see the pink one first and eat it, so the pink moth won't mate and pass its genes on. Meanwhile the black moth escaped to pass its genes on. More black moths will be born and less pink moths will be born. So in a sense, if a mutation is "bad" it will not be continued, for long anyway, because the creatures with the mutation won't be able to mate.

All that aside, however, my point stands - - whether something is biologically improbable or not should have no bearing on how people treat someone with it. Homosexuality IS an abnormality - most people don't have it, therefore it's not normal to have it. The trouble is that for some reason people think "abnormality" and "bad" are synonyms, and they're not.

wilbjammin

My point is that human society has "advanced" to a point where the most decrepid among us typically can go on living, the rest of nature doesn't have that safety web. There is no Social Security in the rain forests. I think the biological/genetic Darwin argument doesn't apply to a lot of human behavior (though in some cases I wish it would). Looking at homosexuality through that lense isn't very helpful for making decisions about what do morally with legislation towards homosexuality.

Agreed.

__________________
Innominate.

jonjon42

Their is a strong correlation between homosexual males and a mutation in the X chromosome..This of course means that the mutation is passed down through the mother..thus any female children may pass on the genetic mutation. No similiar correlation has been found I believe for homosexual women yet. I would get the journal articles but I'm tired and it's late.

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Killconey

Hmmm... Using this same logic, wouldn't chastity be unnatural as well? The only natural course of action I can see would be for me to just go out and have sex with every woman in sight, thus increasing the chances for my offspring ruling the world.

A shame that nature doesn't dictate our behavior.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

MageB420666

As for the clitoris argument, it is a very valid and strong argument, it could do it's job just as well if it was located inside the vagina, so if there is a God and he did create man and woman, why did he put the clitoris on the outside? It seems that your friend is basing is argument on the idea that sex is for reproductive purposes only. He is saying that it has nothing to do with creating a strong emotional bond between people and a sense of security and safety.

And these ARE biological factors. It was proven by Nazi experiments in trying to find a more effecient way of raising children, that babies need to be held and cuddled. If they are not they stop eating and eventually die. Humans need companionship to live a healthy life, there is no definition as to what this companionship consists of, be it man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman; It can even be nothing more than a friendship. Lack of companionship as great biological effects.

And think about this:
Of the five(I'm pretty sure it's five) requirements that an organism must meet to be considered alive, the one concerning reproduction, says that it must only have the ability to reproduce, not the desire. Sure human sex organs are designed for reproduction, just like a screwdriver is designed to turn screws, but that doesn't mean that you can't put the screwdriver or genitals to other uses. Fucking can be done solely for the purpose of pleasure and/or bonding between two people.

And what do you mean he doesn't believe in anal or oral sex? Has he never watched a porno? (ok, that's kinda picking on the wording so I'll try to respond to what I think your really trying to say):

Sex is not just for reproduction, oral sex and anal sex cause pleasure for many people. Sex is about pleasure, the reproductive aspect really comes in as a side note. Do you really think people would have sex if it caused them no pleasure, did not create a bond between them and their partner, and gave them another mouth to feed? Not to mention the risk of the woman dying in child birth. The only reason many animals are able to do it that way is because of the overwhelming genetic drive they have to do it. Humans don't have that same reproductive drive, our reproductive drive is based off of a need to feel pleasure.

Edit: oops, just noticed the second page, sorry if this is late in the discussion.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

mandal

Biologically improbable and biologically "unnatural" are two different things. I have to say that the words i'm using are very porr since unnatural seems to be causing a lot of ambiguity. when I say biologically unnatural i mean:

1) Two penises don't go together and neither does two vaginas.
2) Without one or the other, no reproduction happens

Forget all that pleasure talk, this is just a response to the improbable statement.

mandal

Very good arguements here. Definitely points I will bring up.

No he doesn't watch porno, never has. Also he's very conservative. Been going out with his gf for 2 years yet no sex yet and he's 21.

Here it can well be argued either way, sex is pleasurable and that's why we have sex, or we were meant to have sex and that's why it's pleasurable.

overall, i think everybody made very strong arguments. The chasity one is also a good arguement. I am proud of the pro-gay community or at least the gay understanding community for quickly coming up with good responses.

adysav

If neither handedness has an advantage over the other it doesn't make sense that either one would die out rapidly.
In the case of birth defects and such, people who appear otherwise healthy carry the recessive defective gene and perpetuate the defect unknowingly.
There's nothing to stop a mutation occuring again once the inherited form previously experienced has died out.
Politically correct nonsense.

zen_tom

How can something that occurs naturally be biologically unreasonable? Does biology have any notion of reason? Just my 2 cents.

MuadDib

As many people have already pointed out homosexuality is either natural or nothing human is natural. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom and beyond that, by definition if it is occuring at all it must be natural. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument alone, that it is unnatural then so what? Why does it being unnatural lead to the conclusion that it must be stopped? This is poor logic at best and downright untrue at worst.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

joeshoe

Hmm, that's a new take on why people may be homosexual. I've always heard either the "it's genetic" or "it's a choice" arguments. But a developmental reason is quite feasible. Thanks for the insight.

Aribaderche

Just a clarification - I believe the "Natural Law" argument typically used in the legal system has to do with the principle of "function by design". So, homosexuality would become unideal for the reason that the human body was not designed to do it, even if it can be made to. This is similar to the reason we use to outlaw bestiality and paedophilia - the individuals are not designed to be ideally compatible (though in all cases above such things can be forcibly accomodated).

So, it's not per say a matter of citing what happens "in nature". For instance, it is very "natural" given the design of the Bonobo that it would mate 24/7 with all kinds of partners. the sexual potential of a Bonobo is immesnsely greater than a human being. Interestingly, AIDS is killing several primates at a rapid pace... Bonobos I believe are included.

Think of this analogy, though faulty, as a means of understanding the argument.

1. We're looking to draw fences around our societal "ideals".
2. "Ideals" are those things which function "the best" or "the most efficiently."
3. Homosexuality is not efficient since it does not function by design. There are highly increased rates of diseases, tissue problems, rectal problems, etc. associated with said behavior.

Societal taboos therefore are drawn around these sorts of behaviors. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it always works. Homosexuality, for a variety of reasons, does not seem like a potentially ideal situation, so society taboos it.

filtherton

I think you're trying to justify a taboo after the fact with a nice sounding rationalization. Homosexuality was a taboo long before it could be linked with disease rates(since before the concept of disease existed). Rectal problems only result from not knowing how to have the anal sex.

"Function by design" doesn't really mean anything, since the human body doesn't come with an instruction book there is no credible way to say whether something is supposed to function as it is being used. I would argue that if humans stuck to using their bodies as they were "designed" to be used, we'd still be flinging shit in the woods. We certainly wouldn't be using our opposable thumbs to type phone numbers into cell phones.
Even if certain members of a species are using body parts in ways contrary to their accepted functions, that doesn't mean that the new usage is automatically "unideal", or even that being unideal will have a negative effect on the species in question.

ydouhauntme

I recently heard a report about a study in which the brains of both heterosexual women and homosexual men were viewed to see how they reacted to pheremones given off by men. In both the gay men and the straight women the same part of the brain responded to these pheremones (apparently this is the part of the brain that causes a person to be turned on). However, when straight men and gay women were tested, this part of the brain did nothing at all. I found it very interesting because it lends credibility to the belief that a person is born either hetero or homosexual.

Lak

If homosexuality was genetic, you'd think it would have been wiped out LOOOONG ago. In evolutionary terms... let's just say "It's a bold strategy, let's see how it pans out."

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

filtherton

It doesn't work like that. You could say the same thing about any number of hereditary conditions that cause infertility in men and women. Homosexuality is quite possibly the result of a mutated gene, in which case it would make complete sense that it would stick around in our species. You don't even need to explain it like that though, since homosexuals having been having children since the beginning of time.

RCAlyra2004

MANDAL

Here is where the essence of your freinds bigotry seems to have come out.

"Homosexuality is biologically unnatural, therefore a line must be drawn somewhere."

There are quite a few things wrong with this statement:

1. From an evolutionary perspective homosexuality is perfectly natural, normal and acceptable. We don't have to regulate it as it is self regulating from an evolutionary perspective IF it is actually a genetically driven behaviour. If it isn't genetic and it's a memetically driven behaviour there is no difference as the "MEME" can only reproduce to a certain extent before the species will have to become HETRO in it's behaviour or face extinction. (not likely to be an issue in the first place)

If you don't know what a meme or a gene are please feel free to do a search in the philosophy section for these words. They have ample explanations in that section.

2.Homosexuals can and should do as they please. You are not the one to draw any line that controls their behaviour. They are free people just like you and I.

3. Even if you were one to draw a line regarding homosexuality, you could not possibly enforce it. It has been tried for thousands of years, homosexuality has survived regardless of efforts to quench it. History proves your freind wrong, especially if he thinks he is the one to "draw the line". Perhaps he should visit the history of some other "line drawers" like "HITLER" and "THE POPES OF THE 11th through the 17th centuries" or perhaps the "Taliban".


4.Your freinds outright bigotry (sorry if I offend but this spade has to be called a spade) is much more damaging to our culture and to our nation and any homosexual could ever be. If you don't beleive this then check out history again:
People who try to rule the world through "dogma" inevitably end up demonizing certain groups (often homosexuals, more often other cultures) and go out find them and kill them. This is much worse than any of the behaviours homosexuals have ever exhibited. 90 million died in the last century because of wars over "dogma". Nazi Dogma included.

Some one had to say it.

RCALYRA

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

hiredgun

The points that I thought to make against the original argument have already been made more thoroughly than I can make them here. I just wanted to chime in and agree that the argument does not appear valid to me, for the reasons outlined above, including the difficulty of acceptably defining what is "natural" and whether homosexuality can be included in it, as well as the arbitrariness of "drawing a line" at "natural" behavior in human societies.