Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > i personally think you have been very honest

> > > and not condescending at all. In fact one of the few

> > > that hasnt completely freaked out in one way or another.

> > >

> > > I have never since being a member seen such an explosion

> > > on this site.

> > >

> > > I personaly feel no subject should be off limits for discussion

> > > as long as we dont bring religion or politics into it and

> > > research it scientifically.

> > >

> > > Though some of the actions of a few on here have made me

> > > seriously consider leaving the group.

> > >

> > > -Lovely

> > >

> > > > >I specifically objected to your condescending way of

> > > > > talking to those who suggest that there is possibly a

> > > connection. And,

> > > > > after doing some research it appears you missed some, so

> with an

> > > open

> > > > > mind you may want to review the following research.

> > > >

> > > > I missed at least 98% of it because I have barely researched

> this at

> > > > all and never contended that I had done any serious research

> of

> > > it. I

> > > > don't think I've been condescending to anyone. All I've

done

> is

> > > point

> > > > out severe lack of evidence or lack of willingness to gather

> any

> > > when

> > > > people have exhibited it.

> > > >

> >...

>

>

> > > > However, you do cite two studies indicating that exposure to

> hormone

> > > > treatments can increase homosexuality rates. I'm not sure

how

> much

> > > we

> > > > can read into the diabetic study, and I have not read either

> of them

> > > > myself. They may offer some substantiation for the prenatal

> > > estrogen

> > > > theory, as small a start as it is. I'll try to look at them

> at some

> > > > point.

> > > >

> > > > Chris

> > > > --

> > > > The Truth About Cholesterol

> > > > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> > > > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Jane Rowland "

> I don't think homosexuals are comfortable with either answer and I

can see why. But if you insist on God being kicked out of the

picture, you can hardly say that it's in the evolutionary interest

of the species.

Why do you say that, Jane? I don't know when it was mentioned, but

having a gay man or woman (ie who probably wouldn't have children)

has been -- and I feel quite logically -- I don't know why you

haven't thought to consider it yet yourself -- posited as helpful to

the survival of the group (this is species evolution) by the fact

that they can contribute time and energy to childrearing and other

tasks that the parents/grandparents in the group would be taxed to

perform. Evolution's built-in babysitters. Plus, there are obvious

advantages to being links between the two sexes, which could have an

ameliorating effect on tensions between them (sex differences in

humans are relatively significant compared to the next closest

species on our evolutionary family tree). It seems like a no-

brainer to me.

Tim

Which leaves you with choice or conditioned response or both.

>

> Since homosexuals won't accept that model and can't argue the

Evolutionary advantage model, that leaves them with the Creator's

design.

>

> Im open to that one being discussed, but I dont think it will be

or even should be here.

>

> If there is a gay gene, it is either an advantage to the species,

at will point we shall all be gay and the species will end, or

rather all but a few useful men will see their demise. Or the gene

is a disadvantage for the species at which point the gay gene will

end.

>

> I'm going with conditioned response, strongly supported by the

general feminization of the culture by social means and dietary

estrogen.

>

> Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outright?

>

> Jane, a slave to common sense, unphased by the increasingly self-

perpetuating and political nature of Research. Their *accuracy* in

fact has spawned this very site.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Maybe it doesn't always work. I guess the sudden surge (last 40

years) in the gay population is a result of Punctuated Equilibrium,

or maybe its just become chic.

Ahhh if only religion were just as chic, Jane, eh?

>Does fashion effect Evolution the way helpful aunts and uncles do?

Yes, actually. Science is starting to conclude, for example, that

certain traits like red hair, got their start because the few people

born with this " abnormal " mutation were considered sexy, popular --

a dynamic that even creationists would have to agree would end up

creating a population with more red-heads. Fashion and tastes do

affect evolution (it's called sexual selection).

Tim

[Guest guest]

> But Im content to accept that social acceptance has fostered more

> outings. That makes sense, but then again, your social utility

> theory goes down the tube. Unless you say that the new social

> acceptance will create a hospitable environment so as to cause a

> surge in the gay population. But that goes against your...oh never

> mind.

>

> Keep trying though!

Jane, it's heterosexuals who pass the gene for homosexuality, and it

would be passed along whatever the current social acceptance or lack

of it is regarding homosexuals. This doesn't affect one way or the

other the validity of the theory that gays contribute a social boon to

the living groups they inhabit/ed. So, what's your next argument?

Tim

[Guest guest]

> >>That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of

> genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene,

> it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation

> via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small

> percentage of the population. Also, there are all sorts of

> debilitating hereditary diseases, that certainly don't appear to be an

> advantage to our species, that continue to show up, generation after

> generation. >>

>

> Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it

doesn't always work.

Hold on. Read Sharon Moalem's Survival of the Sickest

<http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Sickest-Medical-Maverick-Discovers/dp/00\

60889659/sr=8-1/qid=1172168229/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8531158-8276744?ie=UT\

F8 & s=books> : most, if not all, congenital illness had or continues to

have a beneficial effect and thus has survived evolution. This is how

lighter skin, which a million years ago would have been a " disease "

among dark skinned (African) Homo erectuses, would have been an

advantage and proliferated among humans who migrated north, and who thus

needed more Vitamin D (for lack of sunlight in northern lattitudes).

There appear to be similar reasons for most (and possibly all) ancient

congenital " illnesses " .

Tim

[Guest guest]

> Are you saying that homos are a freak of Nature?? So much for that

social advantage idea. So gayness is a mutation, eh?

Yes, Jane, quite likely a genetic variation whose advantage has been

social. This is sociobiology 101. Read up on it before you get cocky.

> As for eye color, I don't know about you, but Im totally hot for

dudes with brown eyes and am most likely to procreate with them, (but

probably not today). I suppose others are drawn to blue-eyed cuties,

but Im pretty sure if those blue-eyed guys weren't getting any, like

EVER, we'd begin to see a whole lot less of them around.

Again, it's all about sexual selection and sociobiology. Do your

homework.

Tim

[Guest guest]

> Ok, you got me there. I was under the assumption that most gays

wanted to be straight, or have thier sex changed in order to feel more

like the people they thought they should have been. I keep hearing

gays say that this isn't a lifestyle they would choose, which to me is

very confusing.

Lorie, of course we need to be critical of the kind of trash media

that sensationalizes everything from sexual orientation to

childrearing differences... disturbed LGBT folks you see on Morrie no

more represent the average gay or trans person than the

nineteen-daddies ladies represent the average heterosexual woman. You

should be aware that there is also a concerted effort to create media

in which such distortions are the only representations of LGBT life.

If you're watching rightwing media, turn the dial a bit and see what

you find. It's true that many gay and lesbian folks struggle for

self-acceptance and self-love - so would you if your natural desires

were pathologized and subjected you to ostracism, discrimination and

violence.

> And I didn't know there have been countless stating that estrogen is

not higher in homo men then straight. To me an average lay person it

would seem that where estrogen goes, feminine traits follow.

You won't know if you don't seek. Homosexuality is not femininity. I

think has done a stellar job explaining that.

If you want to learn more, the information is out there. PFLAG

(Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) is a good resource for

basic information.

[Guest guest]

wait. seriously? these things would not have been seen thirty years

ago? thirty years ago was 1977, the absolute nadir of stereotypical

masculinity. for crying out loud, the top music act was a quartet of

falsettoes and you couldn't find shoes for men that *weren't* platforms.

whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread

> > winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier

> > 40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would

> > have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social,

> > things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they

> > see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a

> > shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm

> > just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones

> > are doing to both the males and females and if there is any

> > correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will

> > be like 50 years from now.

> > > Lorie

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

> > >>That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of

> > genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene,

> > it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation

> > via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small

> > percentage of the population.

Actually, if homosexuality were heredity, we'd see a stark decline as

bigotry lessens. After all, with the death penalty gone, there are

alternatives to either forced marriage/procreation or chaste (?)

religious service. Fewer lesbians and gays will have biological

children, and those will be by choice and likely fewer in number. All

in all, much preferable for all concerned to painfully closeted or

in-denial gay men of the past who knocked the arranged spouse up

reg'lar to prove their heterosexuality. *sigh* oh wait, we still have

some of those...

[Guest guest]

On 2/22/07, noelimama <senerchia@...> wrote:

> Actually, if homosexuality were heredity, we'd see a stark decline as

> bigotry lessens.

There is no " if. " I don't remember the exact figures but the

concordance rate between identical twins is much higher than the

concordance rate between fraternal twins, and virtually every factor

including the in utero hormonal environment is controlled for in this

comparison. I think it is reasonable to consider this conclusive

evidence that there is a heritable component.

However, the fact that the concordance rate is substantially lower

than 100% between identical twins itself conclusively shows that there

is a non-heritable component as well.

> After all, with the death penalty gone, there are

> alternatives to either forced marriage/procreation or chaste (?)

> religious service. Fewer lesbians and gays will have biological

> children, and those will be by choice and likely fewer in number.

I think this is a bit of stretch. You're assuming that the primary

means of transmitting homosexuality-linked genes is by procreating

homosexuals when it is probably much more likely to be through

heterosexuals. If it weren't, it wouldn't be such a big deal within

families in the first place because all of the children who turn out

to be gay would have parents who were closet homosexuals. If the

alleles (different manifestations of a given gene) are recessive, or

if the phenotype is polygenic (influenced by more than one gene locus

-- which it almost certainly is), then the primary transmission would

be expected to be through heterosexuals.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> If the

> alleles (different manifestations of a given gene) are recessive, or

> if the phenotype is polygenic (influenced by more than one gene locus

> -- which it almost certainly is), then the primary transmission would

> be expected to be through heterosexuals.

Those darn heterosexuals! Why do they hate America?

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

http://www.siprelle.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

this isn't a serious argument, but I appreciate your courtesy

in treating it as though that were my intention.

> I think this is a bit of stretch. You're assuming that the primary

> means of transmitting homosexuality-linked genes is by procreating

> homosexuals when it is probably much more likely to be through

> heterosexuals.

Eh, I wasn't. At all. But if some people with the gene/gene

group/whatever became less likely to reproduce, there would be fewer

people with the gene overall, barring some other change.

It's a continuum anyway. I doubt we'll ever figure out just what

which or who does what to exactly which degree, and couldn't care less.

[Guest guest]

" noelimama " <senerchia@...>, you wrote:

> .... if some people with the gene/gene

> group/whatever became less likely to reproduce, there would be fewer

> people with the gene overall, barring some other change.

But there's no reason to believe that heterosexuals, who have the

gene, are " less likely to reproduce " . And you might think there'd be

fewer people with the gene, but as we talked about previously, there's

a well-educated theory (which I subscribe to) that queers, not having

children themselves, helped take care of others' children in their

family. Versions of these genes would be present in the queer

peoples' families, just not manifestly, and the queers' very role in

caretaking would help ensure these people (and their queer genes)

would survive.

Tim

[Guest guest]

On 2/22/07, noelimama <senerchia@...> wrote:

> this isn't a serious argument, but I appreciate your courtesy

> in treating it as though that were my intention.

Oh. Sorry. I actually didn't sleep last night so maybe it's

affecting my ability to distinguish the seriousness of arguments. :-P

> Eh, I wasn't. At all. But if some people with the gene/gene

> group/whatever became less likely to reproduce, there would be fewer

> people with the gene overall, barring some other change.

True, though there are other changes like, say, sperm banks now, and I

don't know what the rate of procreation was before, and so on, so I'm

just thinking it wouldn't make much of a detectable difference. I

think it depends on how many genes influence the trait. If there are

one or two major genes, then a lower procreation rate of those

expressing the phenotype would have much more impact on the allele

frequency than if there were ten or twenty important genes that

contribute to the phenotype.

> It's a continuum anyway. I doubt we'll ever figure out just what

> which or who does what to exactly which degree, and couldn't care less.

Indeed, the factors that produce a human mind are unimaginably

complex. I almost said " irreducibly " and realized that phrase is

already taken. :-P

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com