Customer Discussions > Science forum

Evolutionary Biologist says Homosexuality goes against evolution


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 319 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 9:56:18 AM PST
So where do you draw the line for scientific purposes? Love? How do you define love then? Men have sex without love, both hetero and homo. There are men who have sex with many women and get married to a woman they do not love at all, they get married for prestige, or money. Or even convenience.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 10:06:36 AM PST
RR says:
Rick,

And much of the risk can be laid at the door of homophobes like yourself who support ant-gay policies:

Since your Google search referenced CDC, I went there and googled it there. Here's what I found.

"The Effects of Negative Attitudes About Homosexuality
Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:

Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide
5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression
3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
3.4 times more likely to have risky sex"
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm

Yes, so clearly there's a risk to being homosexual, but that in large part is due to haters like you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 10:09:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 10:11:22 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Rick Maxon says: I'm just discussing an article that highlights how homosexuality goes against evolution. This is not my point, rather it is the authors.
>Actually, that is not the authors point. Like many scientists, he is pointing out something that we don't understand and giving possible avenues of research. Possibly, he is giving information that is the start of his own research. You see, scientific progress starts with "I don't know", as opposed to pseudosciences who say "We know and there are no unanswered questions".

I've already given three possible answers, but, as I also said, your guess in as good as mine. I'm not a scientist and I don't have the facilities to test my ideas.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 10:22:51 AM PST
Nat says:
So do women. Not just men. Look to social sciences

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 1:00:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 1:01:48 PM PST
noman says:
RE: RM says: "Professor Barash states that homosexuality is strongly influenced by changes in the genes. However, since homosexuality precludes the passing on of these genes then they can not be inheritable."

**
1) This is *not* what Dr. Barash says according to my reading.
2) This is not how evolution or genetics works.You are being much too simplistic.

The following is from:

"V.S. Ramachandran and E.M. Hubbard
Synaesthesia-AWindow Into
Perception, Thought and Language
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, No. 12, 2001, pp. 3-34
http://ww2.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/~mael/papers/RamachandranHubbard_Synaesthesia.pdf

"...Instead, we postulate that
language evolved through co-opting and finding novel uses for multiple mechanisms
evolved originally for very different functions and by a fortuitous synergistic
bootstrapping between these functions. This sort of co-opting of pre-existingmachinery for novel uses is the rule, rather than the exception, in evolution, but this seems to have escaped the notice of even sophisticated psycholinguists..."

**NOT my area (by a long shot) but I'll try to summarize. However, better to skip my attempt and go directly to the paper. IMO--The relevance to "homosexuality" is(among other things) that complex behaviors result from complex interactions and are(broadly speaking) *emergent* characteristics based on novel -combinations of preexisting functions. In the case of language, the hypothesis is that less efficient neural pruning lead to cross connections between brain areas that controlled verbal and tactile sensations which produced proto-language. Experiments have shown that a large majority of people associate *sharp* sounds with sharp objects and soft sounds w/ soft objects. The paper is fairly involved but makes things much clearer. The association with homosexuality would be:
1) As in synestheisa, homosexuality is an emergent property based on preexisting structures. The *genes* of homosexuality therefore will persist because individually they have other functions that are important.
2) Full blown synesthesia is not detrimental to an individual and may confer an advantage in certain situations. A large percentage of artists,writers and poets are synesthetes, for example. In a similar fashion Homosexuality is not,in and of itself, detrimental and may confer advantages. There is, unfortunately, little research in the area but anecdotally Homosexual men appear to excel in many and diverse areas such as pure mathematics, art, music and battlefield tactics. In any event, there are always a certain number of outliers in any statistical population so any trait which is not immediately detrimental to reproductive success will survive. Synesthesia survives because it confers some benefit, is not lethal and is an emergent property from several other brain areas which *are* essential. As long as those areas exist at least some portion of the population will exhibit synesthesia. A reasonable hypothesis would be that homosexuality persists for similar reasons. It is an emergent property from diverse and essential systems and as long as those areas persist in Homo sap. at least some portion of the population will always be homosexual.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 1:47:50 PM PST
Rick

You are insisting that homosexuality is 'wrong'. It is not a birth defect, it is within the human range of sexuality.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 3:30:51 PM PST
SciGuy says:
Mark,

It appears homosexuality is more a product of the genome than the environment. Nature wins over nurture.

Jerry Falwell might have just as well been against being left handed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 3:35:29 PM PST
JAG

A former evangelist reported Falwell as say about homosexuals 'if I had a dog that acted like that I'd shoot it'. Love the sinner, hate the sin?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 3:42:58 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 4:03:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 4:03:32 PM PST
His proclamation is, indeed, rather sinister. (Although his argument is quite dextrous.)

Posted on Nov 22, 2012 4:21:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 6:15:14 PM PST
Greg Goebel says:
> So, how could one compare left-handedness to homosexuality?

Err ... there was a gay couple in the Catholic boy's high school I went to back in the 1960s. One of the kids was named Pat, and his estrogen content was evidently high. He was, to put it bluntly, "a cute little pansy", the most elfin creature I ever met in my life. If the powers-that-be had made him that way, and then told him: "Well, you shouldn't be gay!" -- that would have been an act of contemptible cruelty.

His partner Jack could pass for straight easily enough. I would eventually recollect him as something like a teenage version of William F. Buckley.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 5:13:41 PM PST
J. Russell says:
Rick Maxon says
Why then have we turned our backs on the needs of another segment? Until 40 years ago there was treatment available. (referring to homosexuality)

My Response
1) They stopped the old treatment because finally they learned that not only was it ineffective, but in fact it did more harm than anything else.
2) There is still "treatment" now days we help self-loathing closeted GLBT's to come to terms with whom and what they are.
They have found through experience that this is a better "treatment".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 5:17:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 5:34:34 PM PST
J. Russell says:
Philip Duerdoth says:
And similarly, Rick, I've heard of church bishops who are openly gay. Should we therefore say that that is why churches cannot be relied upon for unbiased information.

My Response
Not only that but many Ministers are openly religious, does that mean we can't trust them for unbiased information about religion?

Oh wait we can't
Never mind.

Edit Maybe that is where the RR gets the attitude that homosexual can not be unbiased about homosexuality, they know that THEY can not look unbiased at religion, so they project that on the gays.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 5:24:10 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 5:26:02 PM PST
Bubba says:
There is some relationship to gay men and left handedness, gay men are 82% more likely to be left-handed than str8 men. Gay men are also far more likely to have a counterclockwise hair whorl than str8 men. The causes of these three characteristics may be related or similar.

Posted on Nov 22, 2012 5:28:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2012 5:36:54 PM PST
J. Russell says:
If as Rick says homosexuals do not breed so it can not be genetic then we must consider another source.
Hum Homosexuality has been for all recorded history.
The homosexual sex act does not result in offspring.
ALL homosexuals are a result of the HETEROSEXUAL sex act.
The vast majority of homosexuals were raised by HETEROSEXUAL parents and had HETEROSEXUAL siblings, Grew up watching HETEROSEXUALITY displayed in movies and advertizing.
HUM
The answer is clear, homosexuality is caused by heterosexuality.
If we wish to do away with homosexuality, we must outlaw and stop ALL heterosexual sex.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2012 11:57:21 PM PST
Rick Maxon: So now you want to argue that homosexuals can not choose but heterosexuals can choose. So you are confirming that homosexuals have a defect in the brain that makes them less able to control their lives.

So you think heterosexuals can choose, just not you. So you are suggesting you suffer from the same defect.

This is what happens when you take a general discussion and try to turn it personal. You make no sense. You lose track of arguments. Then you start contradicting yourself. Maybe you should just stick to general discussion.

* I believe you have misunderstood my argument. I don't think that heterosexuals choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, nor do I believe homosexuals choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. I believe that wiring is set pretty well at birth, with some room for flexibility based on upbringing, but not much. It is entirely possible for someone to desire people of the same sex, and be brought up to believe that this is such a terrible sin that they repress that part of themselves. There are plenty of examples of married people, with children, finally giving up that unending fight and declaring that they are, in fact, gay. It is entirely possible to play the part and fake attraction. I'm just curious if you believe that attraction itself is manufactured as a choice, i.e., I chose to be attracted to women over men, consciously.

I'd also be curious if you believe other attractions are similarly manufactured, like attraction to blondes/redheads/brunettes, girls/guys with glasses, athletic/overweight men/women, or any of a thousand fetishes one can find on the internet.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 12:01:02 AM PST
RR: No...you got us all wrong. We love the homophobe, but hate the homophobia. We love the ignoramus, but hate the willful ignorance.

This is so concise, and so brilliant. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 8:46:32 AM PST
CMJ: His proclamation is, indeed, rather sinister. (Although his argument is quite dextrous.)

You're quite right of course, and that's what we're left with.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 9:13:15 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 9:24:00 AM PST
Either the left bank or the right bank....

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 10:38:04 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2012 10:40:54 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 10:47:37 AM PST
J Russell

'Everybody knows' that white males are the only humans capable of being objective. And only if they are christian conservatives.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 11:43:36 AM PST
"Is there a defined range of human sexuality that entails mixing up reproduction with elimination?"

Not in human females, but there is in all human males (where the urinary and genital tracts do not have separate openings).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 12:03:12 PM PST
Eugene R. Walker says: Either the left bank or the right bank....

...ending at Camberwell?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2012 12:05:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2012 12:07:06 PM PST
Mohamed: But, homosexuals constitute greater public health concern of spreading viral infection through physical contacts and blood donation and professional practices such as dentistry, nursing, food industry, etc.

...as do the even greater numbers of HIV infected heterosexuals, of course. Where does your argument go now, Mohamed?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  39
Total posts:  319
Initial post:  Nov 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions