Customer Discussions > Science forum

Evolutionary Biologist says Homosexuality goes against evolution

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 319 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 2:16:37 PM PST
Reading bumper stickers shows that I'm alert and aware of my surroundings, taking in information from the environment, and taking enjoyment in what I see. Hardly, then, a candidate for therapy of any kind.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 2:37:12 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 26, 2012 6:00:56 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 2:47:33 PM PST
Not possible to be a living zombie --- although I do my best if I have to lecture at 9 am.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 3:16:18 PM PST
Bubba says:
So THAT's what those toys are for, and that's why the ones I have seen in the stores are always so small.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 3:17:24 PM PST
Bubba says:
Mr-S-Leather Complete "Shower Shot" Kit with Deluxe Aluminum Nozzle

Posted on Nov 24, 2012 4:09:46 PM PST
Maybe a less controversal question could be... did the diversity of sexual roles evolve in proto-humans leading to more a complex society, which led to our modern civilization? Bonobos have a diverse society with much expression of sexuality. Wolves/canines have a packs in which different dogs fill different roles. Did humans evolve into this complex society by way of sexual roles, so everything was not just alpha/omega? Sexuality evolved to be part of social complexity?

Or did homosexually evolve to a larger role as human society allowed the opportunity for diversity, and behavior that did not directly lead to procreation was able to continue because human society has been so successful (in terms of growing population)? Is modern human civilization evolving the expression of homosexuality?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:13:37 PM PST
Nat says:
This explains it.
Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:14:52 PM PST

A broader point to question your use of evolutionary end points. You posted about there being evolutionary end points. I posted that there are none.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:16:49 PM PST
Nat says:
What is with you guys wanting to gross me out this week? Perhaps I should send you a link to buy a reusable douche with a detachable bag? Would that something you'd want to in-vision in your mind?

Boys will be boys I guess

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:23:34 PM PST
Bubba says:
Sorry ....

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:29:38 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 4:30:35 PM PST
Bubba says:
I think that his gay uncle theory is a good explanation, although I am not sure that I buy his "sneaky f'er theory". It may have happened, but I am not sure that it is an explanation for the propagation of the "gay gene". I think that it will be found that homosexual males are distinct from bi-sexual males.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:29:54 PM PST
Nat says:
I forgive you.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:37:30 PM PST
Nat says:
I've seen it in action though. In humans and in a few pack species. They aren't a threat to the alpha's. The alpha's can go off to hunt for the pack and leave the females and offspring protected. Sometimes they do reproduce. It's more like a task. That relates to homo sapiens and other primates in a broader social construct. More so in matriarchal species. The bonobo's are big time lesbians

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:41:32 PM PST
Nat says:
If you remember that all ovum(eggs) are XX and must go through a tremendous amount of change in a large number of stages over an elongated period of time it explains why there are degrees to sexual orientations. For both genders. Especially during the gestational period.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:46:52 PM PST
Bubba says:
Like the interviewer, I know a lot of gay guys, and I have met just a few bisexual males. It might be a sociological thing where they aren't in my "circle", but I just don't see them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 4:52:25 PM PST
Nat says:
They do tend to gravitate to each other

Posted on Nov 24, 2012 5:41:52 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 5:50:38 PM PST
The one thing I know for sure is that most guys LIE about sex to some degree. Big lies. Small lies. Bragging lies. Evasive lies. Lying to themselves. Lying to create a facade. Who knows what people really do and think, or try to convince themselves to think. Lots of facades. Lots of games. Some lies are just normal hiding that everyone does, some lies are huge lies.

Some guys go on that they are 100% absolutely positively not gay, but then some actually have lots of gay sex behind the scenes. Some guys claim they are 100% sure they would never cheat on their wife, even saying that while they are totally cheating on their wife every week with another woman or prostitutes. Some guys claim they would never watch porn since it is bad and gross, but then have huge porn collections.

Maybe humans have evolved to lie, and that is what makes us human.

People want a simple answer. People want a simple gay gene that makes us either 100% hetero or homo.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 7:22:30 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 24, 2012 7:32:22 PM PST]

Posted on Nov 24, 2012 8:56:45 PM PST
Ehkzu says:
As someone who has concluded that overpopulation is the human race's (and Earth's) most pressing problem, I think we should promote homosexuality wherever possible, since open male homosexuals tend not to reproduce (once they're freed of feeling obligated to marry a woman and have a family, deceiving both the woman and himself).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 10:28:22 PM PST
R.M. says:
[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 24, 2012 10:35:47 PM PST
Nat says:
Nonsense. Studies show the direct opposite. Year after year. Atheists know more about know more about all religions collectively especially those that maintain claim to a religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 11:43:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2012 11:54:33 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
1) Be careful where you throw that label and accusation. Many science supporters here are actually not atheists. (I am, but I know many here are not)
2) I was raised by a graduate from a seminary who decided that he did not actually wish to become a priest. Given that, I have actually read the entire book as well as had discussions about the meaning of the stories. I would bet that that is far beyond your experience. Most fundamentalists I know simply repeat what they have been told about the bible. For example, they have been told that the bible says homosexuality is condemned, but this is in fact stretching the truth to the breaking point.
The first story often cited, Sodom and Gomorrah, says nothing about consensual homosexuality. A close reading actually shows that the sin was a violation of the law of hospitality and not sexual in nature. History would also reveal that homosexual rape was a commonly used against defeated solders at the time to emasculate them. Leviticus places homosexuality on the same level as wearing cloth woven from two threads (you are right now), eating shellfish, getting tattoos, and planting two different crops together. Peter's rant is rather short and most probably is directed at the Roman practice of keeping young boys as toys. The central figure of the story, Jesus, never says anything about homosexuality at all. He just says to love your neighbor, etc.
3) I attended a private school and received an education about many major religious teachings, including Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, several Native American religions, as well as historically important ones such as Greek, Roman, Norse, and Egyptian mythology.
4) I would hazard a guess that my education in this regard is not unique or that unusual in the realm of atheists. In general we know quite a bit about religions since they have been historically important but we choose not to participate. Atheism seems to correlate with the level of education. By this I mean that most atheists I know have a high level of education while those who hold religious beliefs are not strictly confined to any demographic.

An interesting detour, but back to science...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 12:22:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2012 12:26:40 AM PST
Ehkzu says:
re: DW's exegesis on atheism

I'd agree and add that since atheism is considered a complete disqualification for any elective office by most Americans--possibly more than even homosexuality--and since most Americans are raised to be religious to some degree--Atheists tend to do a lot of soul-searching before they take the step into atheism. And that soul-searching tends to take the form of studying the world's organized religions and "faith practices."

Consequently atheists tend to be quite knowledgeable about religion, and a Pew survey of religious knowledge backed that up: the most knowledgeable about religion in general and Christianity in particular are atheists, Jews and Mormons, interestingly.

Now a devout Christian might say "I'm not talking about book learning. I'm talking about hearing the still, small voice of the Holy Ghost, of being Born Again in Christ."

They'd have a point in many cases, not in others. Many atheists, being raised to be religious, were religious until they weren't. Barring amnesia, those of us who were like that certainly remember what it felt like. But even those raised atheist still experience all the feelings Christians think belong exclusively to Christians, or if they're more ecumenical, perhaps to all People of the Book.

This is where what I'm saying belongs in the Science forum: all religious feeling is universal human feeling--in essence it's the reified tribality built into our DNA as intelligent social animals with the most dependent children of any mammalian species.

That's why a devout atheist (so to speak) can sing "How great thou art" and weep on the third verse. Not because of any incipient religiosity, but because religion express but then tries to exclusively appropriate universal human emotions. This is one of the greatest delusions shared by many if not most religious people, and a key reason why they dislike atheists so much. They see atheists as amoral entities who cannot be trusted.

But we see religious people as having delusional beliefs that don't map to reality and which often make them dangerous, as with, for example, the Catholic Church's opposition to the use of condoms, birth control drugs and devices and abortion, when the human population crisis is causing slo-mo ecocide around the world.

Or the fact that polio was almost exterminated in Africa when Islamist black religious leaders in Nigeria decided that the polio vaccine was a Western plot to sterilize black Africans and now polio is on the march there again.

Plus there's the theological angle that many religious people talk about their behavior being for the purpose of them getting to Heaven--which makes any good deeds they do...purely selfish. Whereas atheists do the same things without hope of being rewarded in the afterlife, making them much more altruistic than Christians.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2012 4:47:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2012 4:54:24 AM PST
RR says:
"You are an atheist, you have no idea what the teachings of Christ involve."

ROFLMAO. Except for those of us who were Christians and left. Or anyone who is well-educated. As well as ignoring the fact that there are huge disputes among Christians about what the "teachings of Christ" are (sometimes you kill each other over them) and each one of you claim to be the sole interpreter of those "teachings of Christ".

Do you think through anything you post? In fact, given the insufferable proselytizing many of you do, it is almost impossible not to be aware of the major teachings as promoted by the major faiths. Christ had some great ideas, but guys like you have pretty well made a hash of the whole thing.

Posted on Nov 25, 2012 5:23:42 AM PST
Lao Tzu says:
Here is my hypothesis regarding homosexuality. The sex drive is by necessity, one of the most prominent features of a successful species. We add that humans have 2 sexes, unlike some other species. Is it not highly plausible that sexual development in the womb can take alternate pathways? I mean, we have hermaphrodites, and all sorts of sexual "irregularities" if you want to call them that.

Attaching a value judgement to sexual preferences, is entirely a human enterprise. Nature produces what it does. It does not pronouce any value judgements. We could learn to accept people the way they turn out.

I do think that homosexuality is a combination of genetic and environmental factors, but I rightfully defer any speculation as to which of this predominates, because I don't know.
[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

Recent discussions in the Science forum


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