What the thread title says.
Does the theory of evolution allow for the possibility of certain genes being selected for not because they are necessarily beneficial to the individual, but because they are beneficial to the survival/well-being of the society/group in which such genes are prevalent?
The question is (as usual for me) motivated by the existence of homosexuality. Obviously, it is not a trait that would be genetically beneficial for an individual, and as such it should "die out" in the populace. However, it seems that the number of gay people is fairly constant.
So what if instead of the "gay gene" there is a gene that "procs" (for non-WoWtards, to "proc", in the context of an ability, is to occasionally produce an effect of some kind, instead of providing this effect on a permanent/constant basis) so that each fetus has some chance (let's say 10%) of being gay, due to some hormonal anomaly during pregnancy.
While such gene would not be useful at an individual level, at a society/group level there could be a benefit to a tribe/group in which certain part of the populace does not have kids, and thus can be expected/counted on to support their child-bearing brothers and sisters, and effectively dedicate more time and energy to the wellbeing of the society as a whole (an example of celibate clergy in many societies comes to mind).
Since in primitive/primal societies, the families were tribal, one can see why having such a minority would actually help the whole tribe survive, even though its individual members would breed less, on average, than another tribe where they were no childless people.
Thoughts?
I would imagine that reverse would be true if what you were saying is possible.
It is only recently in human history that over-population has become an issue. So, if what you are saying is true than it would be more likely that the "homosexual" gene would be turned-off so that off-spring would multiple better to insure survival of the species.
If you're interested in this stuff, you ought to read Darwin's Radio. Fascinating book.
If you believe that such a complex behavior as homosexuality is caused by a gene or other simple biological mechanism, rather than a complex bio-cultural interplay, you might as well believe what you want about evolution.
While not addressing the specific issue of homosexuality, natural selection can select for genes based on their utility at a group level? One only has to look at our level of empathy and generosity compared to the great Apes who are extremely selfish.
Nonsense, Timmy, he shared all the time with Beegle Beagle. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AMThoughts?
I think you seek a sense where there might be none. While it is well possible (or even likely) that homosexuality may be triggered by a hormonal anomaly during pregnacy it doesn't follow that this must have some kind of purpose. Homosexuality (just like life ;)) may just exist without a particular purpose.
Quote from: Caliga on August 11, 2009, 10:58:05 AM
Nonsense, Timmy, he shared all the time with Beegle Beagle. :huh:
What?
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
So what if instead of the "gay gene" there is a gene that "procs" (for non-WoWtards, to "proc", in the context of an ability, is to occasionally produce an effect of some kind, instead of providing this effect on a permanent/constant basis) so that each fetus has some chance (let's say 10%) of being gay, due to some hormonal anomaly during pregnancy.
:bleeding:
Never, ever make a WoW analogy when trying to discuss a serious topic.
The genetic term your looking for is a recessive gene, that only expresses when two such recessive genes are present. The gene for sickle cell anemia is the classic example.
Plenty of gays end up reproducing.
Unlike BB, I approve of the WoW Analogy in a serious topic.
Quote from: PDH on August 11, 2009, 10:55:58 AM
If you believe that such a complex behavior as homosexuality is caused by a gene or other simple biological mechanism, rather than a complex bio-cultural interplay, you might as well believe what you want about evolution.
I dunno. I think asking if homosexuality has an evolutionary role is kinda silly, because humans are the only species that has exlucislvey homosexuals. But it's pretty clear same-sex activities have an important role in other mammals.
More seriously... eh. The short answer is yes, the longer answer is still yes, but I'll have to dig up examples later.
Natural selection works on an individual level. However it can also work on a group level in certain circumstances--if group A has evolved to specialize in eating clams (perhaps a beak adoption within a bird species) and group B specializes in eating worms, if the clams of an area die out group A may go to extinction. That is even true if you are a member of group A and are a part of a minority that can eat worms, assuming there is little interbreeding.
What may be more complicated but a better explanation of an apparent homosexual / genetic link is that there is a complex series of genes that govern sexuality, and certain combinations can result in homosexuality. These combinations are almost certainly bad from an evolutionary perspective, but are maintained because similar combinations are advantageous. The possible oversimplified example of sickle cell anemia in african populations is an example: you have 2 sickle cell trait genes--one from each parent. If both genes have the trait, you will have sickle cell anemia and die. But if you have only 1 gene, you will have some protection from malaria and live longer than people with only normal genes. Thus a balance is reached where much of the population will have the trait where malaria is present, even if that means some must die form it.
Saying homosexuality is only genetic is almost certainly false, however.
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Does the theory of evolution allow for the possibility of certain genes being selected for not because they are necessarily beneficial to the individual, but because they are beneficial to the survival/well-being of the society/group in which such genes are prevalent?
Yes, obviously.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
Plenty of gays end up reproducing.
Yeah and to the best of my knowledge their children do not have a higher chance of being gay than straight people's children.
Of course it does. Whether it explains homosexuality is another question entirely.
Quote from: Barrister on August 11, 2009, 11:06:05 AM
:bleeding:
Never, ever make a WoW analogy when trying to discuss a serious topic.
"Proc" was around long before WoW anyway. If I'm not mistaken before MMOs. I believe if stands for "process request on contact". :nerd:
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
While such gene would not be useful at an individual level, at a society/group level there could be a benefit to a tribe/group in which certain part of the populace does not have kids, and thus can be expected/counted on to support their child-bearing brothers and sisters, and effectively dedicate more time and energy to the wellbeing of the society as a whole (an example of celibate clergy in many societies comes to mind).
Like clubbing, dictating fashion trends and marching down busy thoroughfares in stockings and a boa riding atop a pink tank. I can see it.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:09:06 AM
But if you have only 1 gene, you will have some protection from malaria and live longer than people with only normal genes. Thus a balance is reached where much of the population will have the trait where malaria is present, even if that means some must die form it.
Saying homosexuality is only genetic is almost certainly false, however.
There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 11, 2009, 11:16:16 AM
There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.
Oh, crap, my sister has three children, for now. :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 11:19:20 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 11, 2009, 11:16:16 AM
There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.
Oh, crap, my sister has three children, for now. :unsure:
All Reagan's fault?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 11, 2009, 11:16:16 AM
I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.
So over 1,000 generations it wouldn't have died out or become extremely rare if it wasn't maladoptive? That doesn't seem to make sense.
Your first point (which I deleted) seems possible.
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2009, 11:20:38 AM
All Reagan's fault?
Maybe the oldest one, but the other two are too young.
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Thoughts?
The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material. No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.
Quote from: PDH on August 11, 2009, 10:55:58 AM
If you believe that such a complex behavior as homosexuality is caused by a gene or other simple biological mechanism, rather than a complex bio-cultural interplay, you might as well believe what you want about evolution.
If there wasn't some kind of evolutionary pressure for it, or if it wasn't net beneficial or at least neutral for a species, it presumably would have been weeded out.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Thoughts?
The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material. No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 11, 2009, 11:16:16 AM
There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.
How would that work? Homosexuality gets carried on through straight women?
Would that mean that some families would have more gays than others? Do studies confirm this?
It also strikes me as sort of self selective to point out that families that have more children are likely to have more gay ones.
No idea, however not all of evolution has a specific reason. Not all traits are breed for (or bred against). Many traits are just incidental. Says the gay gene may be tied to another trait. being gay is just co-incidental to this trait. Not all people who have this "good" trait are gay (say recessive gene at it's simplest, though there are many other factors that cause traits to manifest. The "unintended consequence" of gayness at 10% could fall well within the normal die off within a species so that the "good" trait (with gayness attached) doesn't die out. Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.
Quote from: HVC on August 11, 2009, 11:48:04 AM
Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.
Especially since nature doesn't make very good value judgements.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
The optimal size of a human group before agriculture was tiny, and often kinship bound. IIRC somewhere between 50 and 150. I think there would still be obvious advantages to having fit, sterile or disinterested in reproduction able bodied men about; the fashionable, funny uncle with a *special* relationship with another uncle could take care of children whose parents have died, and would still be useful in conflict and finding food.
Could also presumably be some kind of population control; this would seem to fit with suggestions that boys are more likely to be gay for every older brother they have.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 11:47:15 AM
How would that work? Homosexuality gets carried on through straight women?
X woman and Y man have 6 children, 3 boys, 3 girls. 1 boy is gay. When X and Y are devoured by sabre tooth tigers, the gay boy can help take care of his siblings and eventually his nieces and nephews, therefore the rest of his family thrives.
Quote
It also strikes me as sort of self selective to point out that families that have more children are likely to have more gay ones.
Statisticians aren't stupid.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:41:20 AM
If there wasn't some kind of evolutionary pressure for it, or if it wasn't net beneficial or at least neutral for a species, it presumably would have been weeded out.
Sometimes arguments like that remind of me the joke about two efficient market theorists seeing a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk and not picking it up, because if it were real, someone would've already taken it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 11, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Sometimes arguments like that remind of me the joke about two efficient market theorists seeing a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk and not picking it up, because if it were real, someone would've already taken it.
:D
I guess it is also possible that somehow the proclivity towards homosexuality is thrown in there at some point; perhaps whatever process leads to homosexuality can, in milder form, result in extremely fecund males.
It seems like it would make more sense for a gene to exist to make sure some individuals are sterile. As after all, homosexuals aren't incapable of creating offspring, their just not inclined towards it.*
*which here in the west is again in flux as people get surrogates and the like.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:49:47 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
The optimal size of a human group before agriculture was tiny, and often kinship bound. IIRC somewhere between 50 and 150. I think there would still be obvious advantages to having fit, sterile or disinterested in reproduction able bodied men about; the fashionable, funny uncle with a *special* relationship with another uncle could take care of children whose parents have died, and would still be useful in conflict and finding food.
Could also presumably be some kind of population control; this would seem to fit with suggestions that boys are more likely to be gay for every older brother they have.
You are still wrong--eusocial species have developed systems that cause hyper degrees of relatedness that are not matched in any human (or other primate) group. Most eusocial species have special reproductive systems involving chromosomal number differences between sexes to facilitate extreme kin relationships that aren't in humans.
Quote from: HVC on August 11, 2009, 11:48:04 AM
Not all traits are breed for (or bred against). Many traits are just incidental.
Very debateable--at least in the long term.
QuoteGenetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.
Very true.
Quote
You are still wrong--eusocial species have developed systems that cause hyper degrees of relatedness that are not matched in any human (or other primate) group. Most eusocial species have special reproductive systems involving chromosomal number differences between sexes to facilitate extreme kin relationships that aren't in humans.
This seems to be a debate over degrees more than anything else. Obviously we aren't predisposed towards a complex social existence as much as eusocial arthropods, but I think we have gone through a similar process in that primates since the Eocene have become increasingly social animals, ultimately resulting in humans who are capable of extremely complex vocalizations and other forms of communication, empathy and a division of labor. In this respect, I think we have more in common with, say, bees, who have complex hierarchies and divisions of labor; we've evolved into this niche over the last say 5 million years. Only our females aren't ten times bigger nor can they lay thousands of eggs.....yet.
AF, I remember you asking in a thread once if diapsids evolved from synapsids or separately from anapsids. Did you ever get an answer? I wondered about that too.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 12:17:26 PM
AF, I remember you asking in a thread once if diapsids evolved from synapsids or separately from anapsids. Did you ever get an answer? I wondered about that too.
No, I emailed a couple professors from Harvard that specialized in that era, and only one emailed me back to say he didn't know. I gave up.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 12:12:58 PM
Quote
You are still wrong--eusocial species have developed systems that cause hyper degrees of relatedness that are not matched in any human (or other primate) group. Most eusocial species have special reproductive systems involving chromosomal number differences between sexes to facilitate extreme kin relationships that aren't in humans.
This seems to be a debate over degrees more than anything else. Obviously we aren't predisposed towards a complex social existence as much as eusocial arthropods, but I think we have gone through a similar process in that primates since the Eocene have become increasingly social animals, ultimately resulting in humans who are capable of extremely complex vocalizations and other forms of communication, empathy and a division of labor. In this respect, I think we have more in common with, say, bees, who have complex hierarchies and divisions of labor; we've evolved into this niche over the last say 5 million years. Only our females aren't ten times bigger nor can they lay thousands of eggs.....yet.
It isn't a difference of degrees--I think it is fundamental. Eusocial species appear (at least at first glance) to overcome limits of selfish behavior through the development of extreme kin relationships. We don't have the extreme kin relationships, and aren't eusocial.
It's called group selection. Remember you possess many of the same genes as your group or society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
As for a gay gene if there is one. It doesn't necessarily result in diminished reproduction. It might be individually beneficial and only become the gay gene when interacting with some other otherwise beneficial gene. Gayness might be an extreme expression of a trait that is otherwise beneficial, like some have suggested a connection between the god gene and epilepsy, one beneficial, the other harmful. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57809
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:49:47 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
The optimal size of a human group before agriculture was tiny, and often kinship bound. IIRC somewhere between 50 and 150. I think there would still be obvious advantages to having fit, sterile or disinterested in reproduction able bodied men about; the fashionable, funny uncle with a *special* relationship with another uncle could take care of children whose parents have died, and would still be useful in conflict and finding food.
Could also presumably be some kind of population control; this would seem to fit with suggestions that boys are more likely to be gay for every older brother they have.
Spitballing, if this is the case, it could also be a mechanism for managing not only population but also intragroup rivalry, by eliminating male competitors for the limited amounts of female breeding stock, who may be dominated outside of social-contract-enforced monogamy by the strongest males.
Gayness is genetic?
I thought studies had proven it was just a small factor?
Thinking of it was...I just can't see a way to make it work unless you tie in homosexuality with submissive behaviour or other such things (which of course isn't so).
I was thinking down lines of only the alpha male being able to breed and so the other straight males would challenge him and die whilst the gays would accept this- but this would still end up with the gays not breeding to prove gayness is a positive attribute....No other ideas come to mind.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
X woman and Y man have 6 children, 3 boys, 3 girls. 1 boy is gay. When X and Y are devoured by sabre tooth tigers, the gay boy can help take care of his siblings and eventually his nieces and nephews, therefore the rest of his family thrives.
What does that have to do with anything? It is not like the nuclear family was around during the Sabre Tooth tiger days. I am pretty sure everybody in the group would have helped out.
I was not even denying it might not be somehow advantageous to have gay men (and women....) around I just didn't get the correlation between ferility and gayness thing.
QuoteStatisticians aren't stupid.
Yet strangely 95% of all statistics posted on the internet are.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:58:47 PM
Yet strangely 95% of all statistics posted on the internet are.
Don't confuse tabulating numbers with doing statistics. Being able to calculate a percentage of something is not a sufficient qualification to be a statistician.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
X woman and Y man have 6 children, 3 boys, 3 girls. 1 boy is gay. When X and Y are devoured by sabre tooth tigers, the gay boy can help take care of his siblings and eventually his nieces and nephews, therefore the rest of his family thrives.
What does that have to do with anything? It is not like the nuclear family was around during the Sabre Tooth tiger days. I am pretty sure everybody in the group would have helped out.
I was not even denying it might not be somehow advantageous to have gay men (and women....) around I just didn't get the correlation between ferility and gayness thing.
This is an altered menopause argument. Women live beyond menopause because grandmothers can help raise their grandchildren. This is something we know from all cultures. Is there any similar tradition for childless men helping their nieces and nephews? Not that I know of.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 11:47:15 AM
How would that work? Homosexuality gets carried on through straight women?
X woman and Y man have 6 children, 3 boys, 3 girls. 1 boy is gay. When X and Y are devoured by sabre tooth tigers, the gay boy can help take care of his siblings and eventually his nieces and nephews, therefore the rest of his family thrives.
And the straight boys couldn't help take care of their siblings and their nieces and nephews? I don't see your point.
And yet another option could be that a gay man would only make babies early on , so being able to pour all his resources into ensuring the survival of said kid into a healthy, robust and reproductively sound adult
Quote from: swallow on August 11, 2009, 05:03:32 PM
And yet another option could be that a gay man would only make babies early on , so being able to pour all his resources into ensuring the survival of said kid into a healthy, robust and reproductively sound adult
Doesn't make sense--why wouldn't that type of person have a hyper heterosexual drive early in life, followed by the absence of a drive later in life?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 05:15:17 PM
Quote from: swallow on August 11, 2009, 05:03:32 PM
And yet another option could be that a gay man would only make babies early on , so being able to pour all his resources into ensuring the survival of said kid into a healthy, robust and reproductively sound adult
Doesn't make sense--why wouldn't that type of person have a hyper heterosexual drive early in life, followed by the absence of a drive later in life?
I just thought they might make a couple of babies by accident, early on, before they worked out what they liked best
Quote from: swallow on August 11, 2009, 05:18:37 PM
I just thought they might make a couple of babies by accident, early on, before they worked out what they liked best
Does homosexuality work like that?
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 05:22:56 PM
Quote from: swallow on August 11, 2009, 05:18:37 PM
I just thought they might make a couple of babies by accident, early on, before they worked out what they liked best
Does homosexuality work like that?
I don't know actually. I think in some ways hetero does - as it becomes more relationship based, it becomes more fixed maybe?
My guess is that complex behaviours like human sexuality are not "created" by any simple genetic process, but rather the interaction of numerous genes with social and environmental factors - the fact that gays will, on average, have less children than non-gays may be meaningless in terms of the ability of the genes involved to propigate, as they may not always be associated with gayness ...
Quote from: Malthus on August 11, 2009, 05:58:25 PM
My guess is that complex behaviours like human sexuality are not "created" by any simple genetic process, but rather the interaction of numerous genes with social and environmental factors - the fact that gays will, on average, have less children than non-gays may be meaningless in terms of the ability of the genes involved to propigate, as they may not always be associated with gayness ...
I think Marty's constant stream of threads has caused us all to put far too much thought into this. :P
Anyway Marti, if you're actually curious about this, here are some articles to look into from a presentation I did for a seminar on sexual selection a while ago.
Blount B. 1990. Issues in bonobo (pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist 92 (3): 702-714.
Braithwate L. 1981. Ecological studies of the black swan III: Behaviour and social organization. Australian Wildlife Research 8:135-146.
Camperio-Ciani A., F. Corna, C. Capiluppi. 2004. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society 271(1554): 2217-21.
Field K., T. Waite. 2004. Absence of female conspecifics induces homosexual behaviour in male guppies. Animal Behavior 68 (6): 1381-1389.
Mann, J. Establishing trust: socio-sexual behaviour and the development of male-male bonds among the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. In Summer V., P. Vasey, editors. Homosexuality in animals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006 p. 107-130.
Meek L., K. Schulz, C. Keith. 2006. Effects of prenatal stress on sexual partner preference in mice. Physiology & Behavior 30 (2):133-138.
Shearer M., L. Katz. 2006. Female-female mounting performance among goats stimulates sexual performance in males. Hormones and Behavior 50:33-37.
Smuts B., J. Watanabe. 1990. Social relationships and ritualized greetings in adult male baboons (papio cynocephalus anubis).
Vasey P., B. Chapais, C. Gauthier. 1998. Mounting interactions between female macaques: testing the influence of dominance and aggression. Ethology 104: 387-398.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 11, 2009, 06:34:34 PM
Blount B. 1990. Issues in bonobo (pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist 92 (3): 702-714.
What is with biologists' hard-on for bonobos?
Quote
Shearer M., L. Katz. 2006. Female-female mounting performance among goats stimulates sexual performance in males. Hormones and Behavior 50:33-37.
:lmfao:
I suppose I should have guessed that humanity didn't invent lesbian porn.
Quote from: Strix on August 11, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I would imagine that reverse would be true if what you were saying is possible.
It is only recently in human history that over-population has become an issue. So, if what you are saying is true than it would be more likely that the "homosexual" gene would be turned-off so that off-spring would multiple better to insure survival of the species.
I am not saying it is there to deal with overpopulation but to provide a different hands-to-work-to-mouths-to-feed ration than in a group where everybody has several offspring. There is a reason why many societies had a celibate caste of priests that goes beyond simple overpopulation concerns, for example.
Quote from: Barrister on August 11, 2009, 11:06:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
So what if instead of the "gay gene" there is a gene that "procs" (for non-WoWtards, to "proc", in the context of an ability, is to occasionally produce an effect of some kind, instead of providing this effect on a permanent/constant basis) so that each fetus has some chance (let's say 10%) of being gay, due to some hormonal anomaly during pregnancy.
:bleeding:
Never, ever make a WoW analogy when trying to discuss a serious topic.
The genetic term your looking for is a recessive gene, that only expresses when two such recessive genes are present. The gene for sickle cell anemia is the classic example.
See, this is NOT what I meant. I meant a gene that triggers "at random" (and has a certain percentage chance of triggering in each offspring), not a gene that triggers only if another gene is present.
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 11:10:02 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
Plenty of gays end up reproducing.
Yeah and to the best of my knowledge their children do not have a higher chance of being gay than straight people's children.
Which would example prove my point, wouldn't it, that there isn't a "gay gene", right?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
Plenty of gays end up reproducing.
And yet their offspring is no more likely to be gay than offspring of straight people, which is the point I am trying to make.
Just for a SECOND I hoped this would be a Marty post NOT about homosexuality. Then I started reading the OP
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Thoughts?
The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material. No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
I don't know - remember that the gene would have appeared and selected for before we formed advanced societies, not to mention any civilization. Wouldn't early humans have close kin relationships too?
Oh and without reading the thread, I kind of thing that homosexuality cannot be purely genetical because it could not survive: altough for the last couple of thousand years it was a social obligation to reproduce, pre-society times it was probably not: if you wanted to fuck females, you took on the alpha male and either won or lost. If you were not interested to boot, you prolly did not bother.
Quote from: HVC on August 11, 2009, 11:48:04 AM
No idea, however not all of evolution has a specific reason. Not all traits are breed for (or bred against). Many traits are just incidental. Says the gay gene may be tied to another trait. being gay is just co-incidental to this trait. Not all people who have this "good" trait are gay (say recessive gene at it's simplest, though there are many other factors that cause traits to manifest. The "unintended consequence" of gayness at 10% could fall well within the normal die off within a species so that the "good" trait (with gayness attached) doesn't die out. Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.
Still, I don't think my theory is totally bunk. I mean, at least retrospectively, it seems that having a "drone caste" in a society is beneficial to the society as a whole. It is not a coincidence that a lot of work of art and science came from men who were childless (whether because of their celibacy - religiously ordained or not, homosexuality or another lifestyle choice). Children just take a lot of energy and resources.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
It seems like it would make more sense for a gene to exist to make sure some individuals are sterile. As after all, homosexuals aren't incapable of creating offspring, their just not inclined towards it.*
Well, I may be grasping for straws here, but if someone was looking for a more "intelligent design" as it were, making them disintrested (but ultimately capable of) creating offspring would work better in a situation when suddenly, due to a demographic upheaval, you don't have enough children and fecund men to keep the population going.
Something like President Roslin declaring a moratorium on abortions, and whatnot. ;)
Essentially, in prosperous, populous societies with high access to resources and low child mortality rate you could "let them be" disinterested thus controlling the population and providing for additional work force that is more "selfless".
In struggling, undeveloped, high child mortality societies you could apply various pressures to make them reproduce.
Which has actually historically happened.
Quote from: Tyr on August 11, 2009, 12:56:18 PM
Gayness is genetic?
I thought studies had proven it was just a small factor?
Thinking of it was...I just can't see a way to make it work unless you tie in homosexuality with submissive behaviour or other such things (which of course isn't so).
I was thinking down lines of only the alpha male being able to breed and so the other straight males would challenge him and die whilst the gays would accept this- but this would still end up with the gays not breeding to prove gayness is a positive attribute....No other ideas come to mind.
The studies has proven that gay people are not more likely to have gay offspring and in that sense it isn't genetic.
However, if you bothered to read my post, you would realize that is exactly not what I am saying.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2009, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 11, 2009, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
X woman and Y man have 6 children, 3 boys, 3 girls. 1 boy is gay. When X and Y are devoured by sabre tooth tigers, the gay boy can help take care of his siblings and eventually his nieces and nephews, therefore the rest of his family thrives.
What does that have to do with anything? It is not like the nuclear family was around during the Sabre Tooth tiger days. I am pretty sure everybody in the group would have helped out.
I was not even denying it might not be somehow advantageous to have gay men (and women....) around I just didn't get the correlation between ferility and gayness thing.
This is an altered menopause argument. Women live beyond menopause because grandmothers can help raise their grandchildren. This is something we know from all cultures. Is there any similar tradition for childless men helping their nieces and nephews? Not that I know of.
Most definitely. It has even been observed in many primitive societies that still exist. And remember - this does not have to be something prevalent today, since we have moved beyond the environment for which our genes evolved.
Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2009, 02:01:04 AM
Oh and without reading the thread
Yeah, well you didn't need to say that - the rest of your post shows it clearly enough.
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2009, 01:02:57 PMthere any similar tradition for childless men helping their nieces and nephews? Not that I know of.
Viking, meet CdM, CdM, Viking.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:13:24 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2009, 02:01:04 AM
Oh and without reading the thread
Yeah, well you didn't need to say that - the rest of your post shows it clearly enough.
I think the post which nailed it is that homosexuality can very well exist 'just because'. Just that it has not died out it does not mean it has any evolutionary function.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:05:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
It seems like it would make more sense for a gene to exist to make sure some individuals are sterile. As after all, homosexuals aren't incapable of creating offspring, their just not inclined towards it.*
Well, I may be grasping for straws here, but if someone was looking for a more "intelligent design" as it were, making them disintrested (but ultimately capable of) creating offspring would work better in a situation when suddenly, due to a demographic upheaval, you don't have enough children and fecund men to keep the population going.
Something like President Roslin declaring a moratorium on abortions, and whatnot. ;)
That didn't make that much sense, anyway. A moratorium once planetfall had been acheived would have been logical, but not before that.
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 01:58:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 11, 2009, 11:41:43 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 11, 2009, 11:36:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Thoughts?
The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material. No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.
Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.
I don't know - remember that the gene would have appeared and selected for before we formed advanced societies, not to mention any civilization. Wouldn't early humans have close kin relationships too?
No--because most eusocial species have haploid/diploid sex differentiation. (haploid only having one set of chromosomes, diploid having 2). For example, in bees males only have one chromosome set (thus are haploid), while females have 2 (are diploid)--humans and most animals are all diploid. The result is that female worker bees are 75% related to their sisters, as opposed to the 50% relation humans are to their true siblings. This means that for a female worker bee, they are actually more related to the members of their hive then they would be to their own offspring, and thus in terms of inclusive fitness have an incentive to favor the other members of the hive over their offspring. This reduces any advantage they would have to "cheat" and "be selfish" by reproducing on their own.
Human biology just doesn't facilitate that level of kin relationship.
Also, I don't buy that evolution hasn't been active to any significant degree since we formed civilization.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 03:29:01 AM
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I think homosexuality could enhance male-vs-male sexual conflict; now in addition to competing with other males for women, males have to worry about competing with other males for each other, not to mention the possibility of being sexually coerced by other men.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 10:42:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 03:29:01 AM
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I think homosexuality could enhance male-vs-male sexual conflict; now in addition to competing with other males for women, males have to worry about competing with other males for each other, not to mention the possibility of being sexually coerced by other men.
That doesn't make much sense, really.
Sexual competition for men is not exclusive - unlike women, we do not get pregnant so there is no biological limit on the number of sexual partners we can have.
As for sexual coercion of men by men, I believe that in environments where women are available, it is practically non-existent. I think your post just displays what I think the basis for homophobia is - that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:02:11 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 11, 2009, 11:48:04 AM
No idea, however not all of evolution has a specific reason. Not all traits are breed for (or bred against). Many traits are just incidental. Says the gay gene may be tied to another trait. being gay is just co-incidental to this trait. Not all people who have this "good" trait are gay (say recessive gene at it's simplest, though there are many other factors that cause traits to manifest. The "unintended consequence" of gayness at 10% could fall well within the normal die off within a species so that the "good" trait (with gayness attached) doesn't die out. Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.
Still, I don't think my theory is totally bunk. I mean, at least retrospectively, it seems that having a "drone caste" in a society is beneficial to the society as a whole. It is not a coincidence that a lot of work of art and science came from men who were childless (whether because of their celibacy - religiously ordained or not, homosexuality or another lifestyle choice). Children just take a lot of energy and resources.
What a terrible way to achieve a drone caste! One thousand plus years of rather harsh discrimination would seem to reduce the prevalence of such a trait when any group advantage would be equally achieved through the absence of a sex drive.
If you think about sexuality, we share almost all our genes with the other sex, and the biology of sexuality is very complex. Many of the hormones used as triggers of male and female sexuality are shared by both sexes. Sexuality and desire is also clearly influenced by the culture to which we are exposed to a significant degree. Is it really suprising that we end up with a wide variety of behaviors and people with different tastes?
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 10:46:05 AM
that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women. ;)
Why would I fear that? I am putty in women's cute little shapely hands curse me.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 10:42:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 03:29:01 AM
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I think homosexuality could enhance male-vs-male sexual conflict; now in addition to competing with other males for women, males have to worry about competing with other males for each other, not to mention the possibility of being sexually coerced by other men.
Actually, IMO it wouldn't be leading to competition for males. If we are anything like our primate kindred, it would be a way for lower ranking males to gain favors from the more dominant ones.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 10:52:56 AM
Sexuality and desire is also clearly influenced by the culture to which we are exposed to a significant degree.
Meh. I am definitely more in the nature over nurture camp. I guess I could be brainwashed to be sexually attracted to badgers...but I have a hard time seeing it.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 10:42:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 03:29:01 AM
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I think homosexuality could enhance male-vs-male sexual conflict; now in addition to competing with other males for women, males have to worry about competing with other males for each other, not to mention the possibility of being sexually coerced by other men.
That doesn't make much sense, really.
Sexual competition for men is not exclusive - unlike women, we do not get pregnant so there is no biological limit on the number of sexual partners we can have.
As for sexual coercion of men by men, I believe that in environments where women are available, it is practically non-existent. I think your post just displays what I think the basis for homophobia is - that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women. ;)
Men
practically never sexually coerce each other when women are available? That's ... news to me. :huh:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=LGZRuseil-gC&dq=sexual+assault+males&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=j-WCSsvQO4reMab04aYL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=sexual%20assault%20males&f=false
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/8/901
Men don't get jealous of or compete with other men? :huh:
QuoteI think your post just displays what I think the basis for homophobia is - that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women.
And I think your post displays what I think is the fact you have a bit of a screw loose on the subject.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 10:57:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 10:52:56 AM
Sexuality and desire is also clearly influenced by the culture to which we are exposed to a significant degree.
Meh. I am definitely more in the nature over nurture camp. I guess I could be brainwashed to be sexually attracted to badgers...but I have a hard time seeing it.
I know this is the stereotype everyone refers to, but I have absolutely no interest in having a relationship with an adolescent boy. I think most in our society feel the same way. However, there are societies where that has not been the case in the past, and presumably we share the same genetic makeup. Similarly, ideas about beauty have also changed quite a bit over the years.
I'm not sure this is true--so I'm tossing it out there to see if anyone else can verify/disprove--but I've got the idea in my head that there is/was a primitive tribe that had a virtual cultural ban on heterosexual activity (only allowed a few days during the year), to the extent they had to kidnap neighboring children to maintain their numbers.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 11:03:38 AM
I know this is the stereotype everyone refers to, but I have absolutely no interest in having a relationship with an adolescent boy. I think most in our society feel the same way. However, there are societies where that has not been the case in the past, and presumably we share the same genetic makeup. Similarly, ideas about beauty have also changed quite a bit over the years.
Blah blah blah. They have not changed that much. Greek statues seem pretty sexy to me. Likewise if I was in a society where pederasty was something you did I would do it, though it would probably not be my first choice of a sexual partner. Anyway Greek society usually kinda had you go that way because the genders were so rigidly segregated by culture and custom. Gay men also used to take wives and make babies, it was not what they really wanted to do but they did it anyway, it does not mean they suddenly became heteros.
I still do not really see that what society expects you to do is necessarily what you prefer.
QuoteI'm not sure this is true--so I'm tossing it out there to see if anyone else can verify/disprove--but I've got the idea in my head that there is/was a primitive tribe that had a virtual cultural ban on heterosexual activity (only allowed a few days during the year), to the extent they had to kidnap neighboring children to maintain their numbers.
Wouldn't surprise me. Societies have been putting bans on sex forever. Heck our society made bans on all sexual activity for certain people. That does not mean suddenly these people stopped wanting sex just because of society pressure.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 11:03:38 AM
I know this is the stereotype everyone refers to, but I have absolutely no interest in having a relationship with an adolescent boy. I think most in our society feel the same way. However, there are societies where that has not been the case in the past, and presumably we share the same genetic makeup. Similarly, ideas about beauty have also changed quite a bit over the years.
Blah blah blah. They have not changed that much. Greek statues seem pretty sexy to me. Likewise if I was in a society where pederasty was something you did I would do it, though it would probably not be my first choice of a sexual partner. Anyway Greek society usually kinda had you go that way because the genders were so rigidly segregated by culture and custom. Gay men also used to take wives and make babies, it was not what they really wanted to do but they did it anyway, it does not mean they suddenly became heteros.
I still do not really see that what society expects you to do is necessarily what you prefer.
It seems easier to get people to do what they're not naturally inclined to do rather then stopping people from doing what they really want to do.
Quote from: IdeWhat do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I wonder what the mechanism for expressing that tendency via evolution would be?
Evolution is based on natural selection based on survival of the more fit - how would nature go about selecting in such a manner?
If natural selection was going to select against "male-vs-male sexual conflict", that would mean...that it was no longer selecting at all, which is in fact the very basis of natural selection! Males competing amongst themselves for mates is what largely drives animal selection - how would it be evolutionarily beneficial to suppress that?
And even if it was beneficial, it seems like having the rare, ostracized, non-procreating (or less procreating), gay man show up now and again would be an astoundingly vague and ineffective way to express such a benefit, as opposed to simply selecting for males who are not as inclined to engage in "male-vs-male sexual conflict".
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:05:36 AM
In struggling, undeveloped, high child mortality societies you could apply various pressures to make them reproduce.
Which has actually historically happened.
You think that societies that are not permissive of homosexuality do so because they are worried about dying out?
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:05:36 AM
In struggling, undeveloped, high child mortality societies you could apply various pressures to make them reproduce.
Which has actually historically happened.
You think that societies that are not permissive of homosexuality do so because they are worried about dying out?
If we stopped persecuting the gays, *everyone* would want to do go gay.
Or at least, i get that impression from the religiously anti-gay folks. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:31:31 AM
If we stopped persecuting the gays, *everyone* would want to do go gay.
Or at least, i get that impression from the religiously anti-gay folks. :D
Yeah they act like it is some strong temptation to go gay and only persecution keeps us in line...it kinda makes me think they are either gay themselves or not straight.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:31:31 AM
If we stopped persecuting the gays, *everyone* would want to do go gay.
Or at least, i get that impression from the religiously anti-gay folks. :D
Yeah they act like it is some strong temptation to go gay and only persecution keeps us in line...it kinda makes me think they are either gay themselves or not straight.
A mere glance at a scantily-clothed woman* quickly disabuses me of the notion that such strictures are necessary. :lol:
*Footnote: "attractive". :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 01:55:32 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 11, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
Plenty of gays end up reproducing.
And yet their offspring is no more likely to be gay than offspring of straight people, which is the point I am trying to make.
So your point is that being gay is a choice, and that we can treat it like we treat other disorders?
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 11:45:21 AM
So your point is that being gay is a choice, and that we can treat it like we treat other disorders?
I suppose I could choose to have sex with women, but it probably wouldn't be much fun for any involved, what with me not being attracted to them and all.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:05:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
It seems like it would make more sense for a gene to exist to make sure some individuals are sterile. As after all, homosexuals aren't incapable of creating offspring, their just not inclined towards it.*
Well, I may be grasping for straws here, but if someone was looking for a more "intelligent design" as it were, making them disintrested (but ultimately capable of) creating offspring would work better in a situation when suddenly, due to a demographic upheaval, you don't have enough children and fecund men to keep the population going.
Something like President Roslin declaring a moratorium on abortions, and whatnot. ;)
Essentially, in prosperous, populous societies with high access to resources and low child mortality rate you could "let them be" disinterested thus controlling the population and providing for additional work force that is more "selfless".
In struggling, undeveloped, high child mortality societies you could apply various pressures to make them reproduce.
Which has actually historically happened.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1243581.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1243581.stm)
It would be interesting if there was anything equivalent to the serotonin trigger for swarming Locusts, which would alter behaviour under specific social or physical conditions. conditions
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Blah blah blah. They have not changed that much. Greek statues seem pretty sexy to me. Likewise if I was in a society where pederasty was something you did I would do it, though it would probably not be my first choice of a sexual partner. Anyway Greek society usually kinda had you go that way because the genders were so rigidly segregated by culture and custom. Gay men also used to take wives and make babies, it was not what they really wanted to do but they did it anyway, it does not mean they suddenly became heteros.
I still do not really see that what society expects you to do is necessarily what you prefer.
??? So older married greek men took male lovers because women were not available, and you would take part if you were transported to that society? I wouldn't take part--and I doubt most modern men would either. I'd rather find a wife. I certainly was never tempted to indulge in adolescents during any drought I had in my single days.
If this is a case of genetics, then why don't identical twins always share the same sexual orientation?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 11:59:56 AM
??? So older married greek men took male lovers because women were not available, and you would take part if you were transported to that society?
Um...I suppose I would if that was the expectation. That is a social thing and I presume there were social rewards and warm fuzzies (helping out a young kid and enjoying the mentoring relationship and so forth) that would make up for the fact it was not something I would want to engage in if left to my own devices.
QuoteIf this is a case of genetics, then why don't identical twins always share the same sexual orientation?
If this is a case for society molding people then why don't children raised in the same societies not always share the exact same sexual tastes? Why do children in the same household develop different sexual orientations?
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 11:47:17 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 11:45:21 AM
So your point is that being gay is a choice, and that we can treat it like we treat other disorders?
I suppose I could choose to have sex with women, but it probably wouldn't be much fun for any involved, what with me not being attracted to them and all.
I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:08:33 PM
I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.
Nah, it isn't causing any hindrance to having a happy, fulfilled life, so I doubt psychiatrists would make much of it.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:07:25 PM
If this is a case for society molding people then why don't children raised in the same societies not always share the exact same sexual tastes? Why do children in the same household develop different sexual orientations?
People are exposed to an almost infinite number of factors during their lives, and considering how complex sexual regulation is in human development, why the surprise we can't identify one or two factors as a smoking gun? I think it is clear there is a genetic influence, but equally clear that isn't the whole story.
OMG, is it both nature and nurture not nature vs. nurture?! :o
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: Strix on August 11, 2009, 10:43:33 AM
I would imagine that reverse would be true if what you were saying is possible.
It is only recently in human history that over-population has become an issue. So, if what you are saying is true than it would be more likely that the "homosexual" gene would be turned-off so that off-spring would multiple better to insure survival of the species.
I am not saying it is there to deal with overpopulation but to provide a different hands-to-work-to-mouths-to-feed ration than in a group where everybody has several offspring. There is a reason why many societies had a celibate caste of priests that goes beyond simple overpopulation concerns, for example.
Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2009, 12:15:47 PM
why the surprise we can't identify one or two factors as a smoking gun? I think it is clear there is a genetic influence, but equally clear that isn't the whole story.
I think something being part of your nature does not equal it is 100% genetic. All sorts of things can change your nature, that are not social at all, that are not genetic such as what happens to you in utero or drugs that change brain chemistry. Nothing is quite so dramatic than an elderly person whose brain chemistry is stopping to function, it fundamentally changes who they are.
Now there may is socialization and so forth but I just happen to think who you are is mostly determined by your nature.
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2009, 12:24:45 PM
Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.
Priestly castes have usually had bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on them, sometimes they were sexual but not always. I think there was always a principal that to be a priest you had to show you were somehow set apart from ordinary people.
Quote from: Tamas on August 12, 2009, 02:45:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 11, 2009, 01:02:57 PMthere any similar tradition for childless men helping their nieces and nephews? Not that I know of.
Viking, meet CdM, CdM, Viking.
One of my ambitions in life is to avoid that specific occurrence.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 02:10:54 AM
Most definitely. It has even been observed in many primitive societies that still exist. And remember - this does not have to be something prevalent today, since we have moved beyond the environment for which our genes evolved.
Any documentation?
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:21:00 PM
OMG, is it both nature and nurture not nature vs. nurture?! :o
I think most people generally agree that both have an impact. The arguement is only based on what has the bigger impact.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:08:33 PM
I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.
Nah, it isn't causing any hindrance to having a happy, fulfilled life, so I doubt psychiatrists would make much of it.
It is damaging to society at large. Like a cancer.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:32:25 PM
I think most people generally agree that both have an impact. The arguement is only based on what has the bigger impact.
Sounds like a fool's errand.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:32:30 PM
It is damaging to society at large. Like a cancer.
How so?
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:28:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2009, 12:24:45 PM
Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.
Priestly castes have usually had bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on them, sometimes they were sexual but not always. I think there was always a principal that to be a priest you had to show you were somehow set apart from ordinary people.
True, but the idea that this was often, let alone usually, lifelong chastity is absurd. For Middle Eastern and Carthaginian priestesses it was often the opposite- prostitution was a sacred practice reserved for priestesses.
Quote from: Martinus on August 11, 2009, 10:39:43 AM
Does the theory of evolution allow for the possibility of certain genes being selected for not because they are necessarily beneficial to the individual, but because they are beneficial to the survival/well-being of the society/group in which such genes are prevalent?
The question is (as usual for me) motivated by the existence of homosexuality. Obviously, it is not a trait that would be genetically beneficial for an individual, and as such it should "die out" in the populace. However, it seems that the number of gay people is fairly constant.
Not really but sort of, is my understanding.
From what I've read and heard the theory of a 'gay gene' is basically like the 'grandmother' theory. There is no reason why a woman should stop having children at forty. Except that for her children and her genes to survive then at some point it's actually better for her to have less children that survive (and have to compete less) than a huge number competing for a limited supply of food. It is more useful for her to help her limited number of children rear grandchildren than to keep on popping them out.
Similarly with the 'big gay uncle theory'. Basically for a woman's children and genes to survive it is useful to produce a non-reproductive child that will then support her other children and grandchildren. I think that what's believed to be the gay gene is only present in men but looks to be carried by women. So the fact that gays don't reproduce doesn't mean that the gene will die out because it's not really to do with them it's an advantage for their mother and their sisters. Arguably that genetic stuff is part of the reason why, on average, the femal relatives of a gay man are considerably more fecund than the social norm.
So in a way the 'gay gene' helps the group, but it helps the group so an individual's genes and so on continue, rather than the group continuing.
Most of this came from a few articles I've read but I attended a lecture at Uni with a biologist friend on the subject. Apparently Bristol's research focus in biology is largely to do with behaviour. The guy did two one on this (which was serious) and the other on odd sexual/social things that he suggests have a biological-evolutionary reason - I can't remember most of them but I'll see if I can get a list because they were fascinating.
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 01:54:53 AM
Which would example prove my point, wouldn't it, that there isn't a "gay gene", right?
Yes I do not think it is genetic. I think it just happens at random and I am not clear on the exact mechaism...I think your "proc" analogy is a good observation of how it appears.
But I could be wrong there could be a higher disposition of some families to having gay individuals, I just don't think this is the case.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:33:11 PM
Sounds like a fool's errand.
Not necessarily. It has great impact on how you try to mold people in society. If people believe people can be socialized to be a certain way versus people thinking it is largely futile then that could dramatically effect government policy and cultural values.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:32:30 PM
It is damaging to society at large. Like a cancer.
How so?
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
I hate individualism :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:36:03 PM
Not necessarily. It has great impact on how you try to mold people in society. If people believe people can be socialized to be a certain way versus people thinking it is largely futile then that could dramatically effect government policy and cultural values.
So now you aren't talking just about sexuality, but about human behavior in general? Do you really want to paint with a broad brush and say that human behavior is largely driven by genetic factors?
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.
That's because you live in a city that completely belongs to your faction.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 12:42:00 PM
That's because you live in a city that completely belongs to your faction.
I haven't always lived here. :mellow:
And it isn't like I dislike people who aren't gay.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.
Of course you do. You self-identify as gay.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 12:34:39 PM
True, but the idea that this was often, let alone usually, lifelong chastity is absurd. For Middle Eastern and Carthaginian priestesses it was often the opposite- prostitution was a sacred practice reserved for priestesses.
I agree. The Romans had Vestal Virgins but they also had other priesthoods that were expected to marry and have children but they had tons of other bizarre restrictions.
The Priests of Jupiter could not:
Spend a single night outside of Rome
sleep out of his own bed for more than three nights in a row
mount a horse
Look at a horse (how that worked I have no idea)
Look at the army when it is outside Rome
He had to wed a virgin
He could only marry once
He could not divorce
He had to retire if his wife died
He was forbidden to take his clothes off outside
He was forbidden to wear jewelry unless it was plain and without stones
He could not take an oath (thus could not be a witness in court for example)
And so forth. Bizarre stuff.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2009, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
I hate individualism :(
It is quite annoying. It's the cacophony of a thousand shouting idiots.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 12:40:59 PM
So now you aren't talking just about sexuality, but about human behavior in general?
Yep, my sister has pretty much had the exact same personality since birth.
QuoteDo you really want to paint with a broad brush and say that human behavior is largely driven by genetic factors?
It is not just genetic factors but yeah something like that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2009, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
I hate individualism :(
Understandable. Individualism has gone so far that it has become unpleasant. The question is how do we roll back individualism without rolling back the aspects of liberalism that have strengthened us.
Quote from: garbon on August 11, 2009, 05:22:56 PM
Does homosexuality work like that?
Its how it worked for my cousin.
Except he used protection of course.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:47:12 PM
Yep, my sister has pretty much had the exact same personality since birth.
Yay, one data point? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:47:12 PMIt is not just genetic factors but yeah something like that.
We can all believe different things. :)
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 01:54:20 PM
Yay, one data point? :unsure:
I was using an example not doing a statistical analysis. ;)
QuoteWe can all believe different things.
Indeed...but I am right.
Quote
I know this is the stereotype everyone refers to, but I have absolutely no interest in having a relationship with an adolescent boy. I think most in our society feel the same way. However, there are societies where that has not been the case in the past, and presumably we share the same genetic makeup. Similarly, ideas about beauty have also changed quite a bit over the years.
I think this is the main reason the Dumb Right rails against homosexuality so much while ignoring fornication and adultery, stuff that from a biblical perspective is almost as bad or worse in the case of adultery.
Cillian Murphy having an extremely hot three hour long sexual marathon with Gong Li while her husband is away doing business in Oman? Hot.
Cilian Murphy having an extremely hot three hour long sexual marathon with Gong Li's husband? Not so hot. The action the vast majority of the populace has little or no predilection for under normal circumstances (that being gay sex) and view as repulsive is far easier to demonize and far more productive politically.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:55:28 PM
I was using an example not doing a statistical analysis. ;)
My sister has a very different personality from when she was a child. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:55:28 PM
Indeed...but I am right.
You should submit an academic paper about your sister.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 01:57:37 PM
I think this is the main reason the Dumb Right rails against homosexuality so much while ignoring fornication and adultery, stuff that from a biblical perspective is almost as bad or worse in the case of adultery.
You think they ignore adultery? It's killed a fair number of GOP careers over the past few years.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:44:43 PM
Of course you do. You self-identify as gay.
I don't like I'm in a faction because I self-identify as gay? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
You should submit an academic paper about your sister.
Nah I hate academia.
QuoteMy sister has a very different personality from when she was a child.
I cannot confirm or deny this anomaly -_-
I also think perhaps I expressed this a bit too dogmatically obviously there are differences between who she is as an adult than who she was as an infant but she is still the same person fundamentally. I find it pretty remarkable actually.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2009, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
I hate individualism :(
Why is it that gay intellectuals like Foucault or yourself (or, for that matter, pseudointellectuals like Grallon) enjoy railing against the thing that has brought them unprecedented acceptance and affluence?
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 02:04:46 PM
Why is it that gay intellectuals like Foucault or yourself (or, for that matter, pseudointellectuals like Grallon) enjoy railing against the thing that has brought them unprecedented acceptance and affluence?
Self loathing.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 02:04:46 PM
Why is it that gay intellectuals like Foucault or yourself (or, for that matter, pseudointellectuals like Grallon) enjoy railing against the thing that has brought them unprecedented acceptance and affluence?
We were all exposed to Catholicism at an early age? :mellow:
QuoteUnderstandable. Individualism has gone so far that it has become unpleasant. The question is how do we roll back individualism without rolling back the aspects of liberalism that have strengthened us.
I agree...
This is odd.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 11:47:17 AM
I suppose I could choose to have sex with women, but it probably wouldn't be much fun for any involved, what with me not being attracted to them and all.
O RLY?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seriesadictos.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F05%2Fshirley_m_black_dress.jpg&hash=b6eab0f95e1d0d6e9faf56831e5d0b83eeaa4850)
Generalities always beg for exceptions. ^_^
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:01:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 10:42:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 03:29:01 AM
What do you think of the notion that homosexuality recurs as a method of preventing potentially destabilizing male-vs-male sexual conflict?
I think homosexuality could enhance male-vs-male sexual conflict; now in addition to competing with other males for women, males have to worry about competing with other males for each other, not to mention the possibility of being sexually coerced by other men.
That doesn't make much sense, really.
Sexual competition for men is not exclusive - unlike women, we do not get pregnant so there is no biological limit on the number of sexual partners we can have.
As for sexual coercion of men by men, I believe that in environments where women are available, it is practically non-existent. I think your post just displays what I think the basis for homophobia is - that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women. ;)
Men practically never sexually coerce each other when women are available? That's ... news to me. :huh:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=LGZRuseil-gC&dq=sexual+assault+males&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=j-WCSsvQO4reMab04aYL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=onepage&q=sexual%20assault%20males&f=false
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/8/901
Men don't get jealous of or compete with other men? :huh:
QuoteI think your post just displays what I think the basis for homophobia is - that heterosexual men fear homosexual men would behave the same way towards them as they do towards women.
And I think your post displays what I think is the fact you have a bit of a screw loose on the subject.
Mal, I do think Marty is right about the fact that promiscuity among males wouldn't matter as much, since they're not the reproductively limited sex, and it's a mistake to think that gay men would treat each other as "women who happen to have dicks." The dynamics appear to be different.
The gay gene, if such exists, might not happen to pop up, but be in fact universal, waiting for the right environmental conditions--a possible mechanism is the correct sequence or buildup of hormones during fetal development, perhaps, that build up as a result of multiple pregnancies or multiple
male pregnancies--that permits this gene to express itself in a way that influences cognitive development.
The other stuff, I think is Marty unconsciously doing his gay power schtick. ;)
You know, it's funny, one might think that homosexuality is selected against strongly via oppression since the early common era, but oppressing a homosexual into acting straight would actually
help perpetuate the homosexual gene, even if it's occurrence is limited as a recessive trait.
But this raises the question: why lesbianism? If genders were interchangeable, we could posit the same mechanism behind a lesbian gene... but although female-versus-female competition occurs, it is not ordinarily expressed as the society-threatening violence that male-versus-male competition often occasions.
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Real world lesbians (as opposed to porn lesbians) have no interest in impressing men.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:09:59 PM
Real world lesbians (as opposed to porn lesbians) have no interest in impressing men.
If anything, they try to repel everyone with their hideousness. :(
Oh, also, I don't know if anyone ever mentioned this, but Alfred is right about sister-relatedness in haplodiploid hymenopterans, but termites are diploid, like humans, yet have reproductive castes.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:09:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Real world lesbians (as opposed to porn lesbians) have no interest in impressing men.
Well, yeah--but I mean bisexuals, you know, the type that show off at parties and such.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:09:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Real world lesbians (as opposed to porn lesbians) have no interest in impressing men.
Well, yeah--but I mean bisexuals, you know, the type that show off at parties and such.
Those are just straight girls who crave daddies attention... but any guy will do in a pinch.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:31:31 AM
If we stopped persecuting the gays, *everyone* would want to do go gay.
Or at least, i get that impression from the religiously anti-gay folks. :D
Yeah they act like it is some strong temptation to go gay and only persecution keeps us in line...it kinda makes me think they are either gay themselves or not straight.
Uhm I never said that.
I am saying that there seems to be a bigger pressure put on gay men to procreate in societies that are poor/underdeveloped. Homosexuality has flourished in relatively rich/developed societies (ancient Greece, Rome) and has been persecuted more harshly in poorer societies.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:28:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 12, 2009, 12:24:45 PM
Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.
Priestly castes have usually had bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on them, sometimes they were sexual but not always. I think there was always a principal that to be a priest you had to show you were somehow set apart from ordinary people.
In fact, in some native societies, priests/shamans/medicinemen were kinda expected to have something "queer" about them.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:35:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 12, 2009, 01:54:53 AM
Which would example prove my point, wouldn't it, that there isn't a "gay gene", right?
Yes I do not think it is genetic. I think it just happens at random and I am not clear on the exact mechaism...I think your "proc" analogy is a good observation of how it appears.
But I could be wrong there could be a higher disposition of some families to having gay individuals, I just don't think this is the case.
No, my point was that this gene which "procs" gays is pretty much widespread now in the human species.
Anyway, Sheilbh's post pretty much validates my position - while it is not exactly 100% the same as my pet theory, it is close enough.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2009, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 12:37:01 PM
It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.
I hate individualism :(
Why is it that gay intellectuals like Foucault or yourself (or, for that matter, pseudointellectuals like Grallon) enjoy railing against the thing that has brought them unprecedented acceptance and affluence?
Because it's fashionable and debonair.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:04:51 AM
I am saying that there seems to be a bigger pressure put on gay men to procreate in societies that are poor/underdeveloped. Homosexuality has flourished in relatively rich/developed societies (ancient Greece, Rome) and has been persecuted more harshly in poorer societies.
Where do you get the idea that intolerance stems from a desire for said men to have children? It could simply be that underdeveloped/struggling societies are in less of a position to tolerate deviance and individuality.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Could it be but it is only half of the equation imo.
To me, this has a lot to do with the fact (see another recent thread) that women apparently engage in much more complex thought processes that go beyond sexual arousal when dealing with sexual situations, than men do.
So, a straight man sees two women making out and thinks "Hubbah hubbah hubbah." A straight woman sees two women making out and thinks "Oh good, less competition for me."
A straight man sees two guys making out and thinks "Ewwwwww." A straight woman sees two men making out and thinks "Not good, more competition/less men for me."
Quote from: garbon on August 13, 2009, 02:16:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:04:51 AM
I am saying that there seems to be a bigger pressure put on gay men to procreate in societies that are poor/underdeveloped. Homosexuality has flourished in relatively rich/developed societies (ancient Greece, Rome) and has been persecuted more harshly in poorer societies.
Where do you get the idea that intolerance stems from a desire for said men to have children? It could simply be that underdeveloped/struggling societies are in less of a position to tolerate deviance and individuality.
Well, there are two groups of evidence that suggest that: anecdotal and comparative.
Anecdotal, or "from the horse's mouth": most "rational" justifications of homophobia (that is not based in irrational/religious reasons) is a variation in "if people are allowed to be gay, humanity will die out."
Comparative: if you look at historical levels of tolerance to deviance and individuality, then you will see that sexuality is pretty much singled out much more than any other form of deviance. For example, in our society, a tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality comes decades if not centuries after people learned to tolerate such deviations as different religions, different political views or different ethnicities and races. So there must be something in sexual deviance that makes it so "hard to swallow" for the majority - I don't think it is that much of a stretch to suggest that the reason why sexual deviance is so badly tolerate is because it has to do with sex, and thus procreation.
Quote from: HVC on August 12, 2009, 11:36:07 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 11:09:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Something occurred to me on the drive home--could the fashionable bisexuality in females serve primarily as a type of sexual ornamentation to impress males? You know, like a peacock, but with more fisting.
Real world lesbians (as opposed to porn lesbians) have no interest in impressing men.
Well, yeah--but I mean bisexuals, you know, the type that show off at parties and such.
Those are just straight girls who crave daddies attention... but any guy will do in a pinch.
Crave daddy's gametes, more like it.
Quote from: MartinusCould it be but it is only half of the equation imo.
To me, this has a lot to do with the fact (see another recent thread) that women apparently engage in much more complex thought processes that go beyond sexual arousal when dealing with sexual situations, than men do.
So, a straight man sees two women making out and thinks "Hubbah hubbah hubbah." A straight woman sees two women making out and thinks "Oh good, less competition for me."
A straight man sees two guys making out and thinks "Ewwwwww." A straight woman sees two men making out and thinks "Not good, more competition/less men for me."
Much like Jimmy Bond, I'm devising a plague that will turn all men gay--but me.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 03:48:05 AM
Much like Jimmy Bond, I'm devising a plague that will turn all men gay--but me.
Have fun getting murdered. You'll find that homosexuals will be rather intollerant of your lifestyle choice.
Planet of the Martinuses is as close to hell as makes no odds.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:04:51 AM
Uhm I never said that.
I am saying that there seems to be a bigger pressure put on gay men to procreate in societies that are poor/underdeveloped. Homosexuality has flourished in relatively rich/developed societies (ancient Greece, Rome) and has been persecuted more harshly in poorer societies.
I was reacting to what Malthus said not anything you said.
Anyway homosexuality in Rome is a complicated topic because while there was alot of naughtiness of every variety going on, we get virtually all of our western sexual mores from the Romans. Theoretically they were quite puritanical...but then theoretically so are Americans while in actuality not so much. And anyway that is a silly theory that the richer and better you are the more tolerant of gayness you are. I am sure I could find piles of counter examples of really poor societies that had lots of gayness and rich ones that didn't.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:07:12 AM
In fact, in some native societies, priests/shamans/medicinemen were kinda expected to have something "queer" about them.
After all male temple prostitution is what that infamous passage in Leviticus was supposed to be addressing.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:10:25 AM
No, my point was that this gene which "procs" gays is pretty much widespread now in the human species.
Yes I only said it matches up with how it appears not that I agreed with everything you had to say.
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2009, 07:27:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 03:48:05 AM
Much like Jimmy Bond, I'm devising a plague that will turn all men gay--but me.
Have fun getting murdered. You'll find that homosexuals will be rather intollerant of your lifestyle choice.
Planet of the Martinuses is as close to hell as makes no odds.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 02:04:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:31:31 AM
If we stopped persecuting the gays, *everyone* would want to do go gay.
Or at least, i get that impression from the religiously anti-gay folks. :D
Yeah they act like it is some strong temptation to go gay and only persecution keeps us in line...it kinda makes me think they are either gay themselves or not straight.
Uhm I never said that.
I am saying that there seems to be a bigger pressure put on gay men to procreate in societies that are poor/underdeveloped. Homosexuality has flourished in relatively rich/developed societies (ancient Greece, Rome) and has been persecuted more harshly in poorer societies.
I dunno if that is at all true, historically. For example, homosexuality seems to have gone unremarked through much of east Asia, when it was considered criminal in Europe - rumour and anecdote has it that many a European took up the far east trade for this very reason.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Mal, I do think Marty is right about the fact that promiscuity among males wouldn't matter as much, since they're not the reproductively limited sex, and it's a mistake to think that gay men would treat each other as "women who happen to have dicks." The dynamics appear to be different.
The issue isn't whether men would treat each other like women, but rather whether men would display sexual jealousy with each other. The fact that gay men in
our society tend to be somewhat promiscuous isn't proof that this is of necessity a universal truth - it may simply be an artifact of the fact that homosexual relationships have, until recently, been underground affairs, not socially recognized as such. Where gays are marrying each other, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would get jealous of each other's affairs.
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2009, 07:27:57 AM
Have fun getting murdered. You'll find that homosexuals will be rather intollerant of your lifestyle choice.
Planet of the Martinuses is as close to hell as makes no odds.
If there aren't any breeders left, how will they get the fresh young studs they crave?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2009, 07:27:57 AM
Have fun getting murdered. You'll find that homosexuals will be rather intollerant of your lifestyle choice.
Planet of the Martinuses is as close to hell as makes no odds.
If there aren't any breeders left, how will they get the fresh young studs they crave?
Artificial insemination. Sort of like the Clans.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 11:05:53 AM
I dunno if that is at all true, historically. For example, homosexuality seems to have gone unremarked through much of east Asia, when it was considered criminal in Europe - rumour and anecdote has it that many a European took up the far east trade for this very reason.
Also homosexuality, or at least sodomy, seems to have been far more accepted in the Medieval period - though there's an argument about how common it was - than it was in the Renaissance. That's when the intolerance and persecution really kicks in.