[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer

while I have ABSOLUTLY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being srtictly homosexual IS a disadventageous trait.  so as ugly and vugar and policically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.

Is it?

Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease  FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?

George

[Ottehg Star]

I think this question has no place in science forum. The descision to be gay isnt in your genes and is highly dependent on environmental factors. Is another one of those things that is created by a series of electrical impulses in that mushy thing called our brains. Choice is something you cant explain or recreate, computors can make informed decisions, humans can make a choice and if we could ever explain how people make choices then we would be one step closer to creating authentic artificial inteligence. Which then poses the question, Could computors evolve to be gay???  Answer that one. go on just try it, I dares ya........

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Ottehg Star

I think this question has no place in science forum.

Why not – are not studies such as that undertaken by Kinsey in the 1940's science?

quote:
 The descision to be gay isnt in your genes and is highly dependent on environmental factors.

Again, this must depend upon what you mean by 'gay'?

Clearly, the decision to undertake a specific sexual act with a specific person who happens to be of the same biological sex as yourself is of itself a concious and deliberate action, and one that cannot be determined by genetic investigation.

On the other hand, the innate tendency to be attracted to someone of the same biological sex as yourself almost certainly has some genetic component.

quote:
 Is another one of those things that is created by a series of electrical impulses in that mushy thing called our brains. Choice is something you cant explain or recreate,

Human choice, in a specific instance, cannot be predicted.  On the other hand, a predisposition towards a given choice, something that will manifest itself when large population sizes are investigated, is something that can be predetermined.

quote:
Which then poses the question, Could computors evolve to be gay???  Answer that one. go on just try it, I dares ya........

Can computer have sex?  Can you sex a computer – are there male and female computers?

George

[ukmicky]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmer

while I have ABSOLUTELY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being strictly homosexual IS a disadvantageous trait.  so as ugly and vulgar and politically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.

Is it?

Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease  FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?

Ggeorge

No they are just sexually immature females.

Michael

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky

quote:Originally posted by another_someone
Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease  FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?

No they are just sexually immature females.

Not immature – infertile – not the same thing (a sterile woman is not a child).

George

[ukmicky]

infertile due to them being sexually immature []
 

a sexually immature girl of say 2 years isn't fertile and she  wont become fertile until she reaches the point or is near the point of sexual maturity


Michael

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by ukmicky

infertile due to them being sexually immature []
 

a sexually immature girl of say 2 years isn't fertile and she  wont become fertile until she reaches the point or is near the point of sexual maturity


Michael

Buy worker bees can never become queen bees, although they can become laying worker bees, but only in the absence of a queen.  A worker may, or may not, become a laying worker at some future time (laying only drones), but this is not a sign of chronological age.

But the point is, for all practical purposes, a pure homosexual (i.e someone who only practices sexual activity with their own biological sex) can also be thought of, for practical purposes, as being infertile.  It was this aspect of homosexuality that I understood Justin (MayoFlyFarmer) to refer to as being technically a disease (i.e. that they are unable to reproduce).  In that respect, they are no different to worker bees who, within the social context in which they exist, are unable to reproduce.

George

[parsley]

One thing that I noticed reading this topic, especially some of the earlier posts, is the negative attitude towards gays. Talking of it as a disease, in a negative way does give the impression that it is thought of to be 'wrong'. I have several gay friends, a couple of whom were as straight as it gets, until they fell in love with people the same sex as themselves. I object to this negativity towards gayness.
Also, how can it be genetic, if for genes to be passed on, you have to reproduce, and the majority of gay people do not do this (for obvious reasons)? Is it 'genetic' in the same way one inherits an ability for music, or maths, or being good with words? Almost like a gene that is there if you encourage it to be there?

"I just set fire to the table!"
Bring on the chemicals!

[Bishadi]

Sorry but I disagree Parsley.

There are always examples of genetic flaws like 2 head on a snake but are sexual desires between gays genetic?  No!  Because facts would show that those tree lines would not exist since they cannot reproduce among their group.

Homosexuality is described in many forms with examples ranging from monkeys to dolphins but there are straight answers for the stresses that cause the events.

In our species there are a few examples of individuals that have chromosome issues but the ratio does not warrant normal.  It represents unique and special attention.

The perversions of our species and the unabated desires of the group called homosexual is not of quality progression of the species.  Allowing the open acceptance of this individual desires will set the tone for further attrition.   As children develop with knowledge of the possibility, exploration becomes the cause of the developing snowball and not of genetics or physiological need but of individual desires.  In fact to look at ratios a huge percentage of homosexual persons have had a bad sexual experience at a young age.  This ratio will far exceed the ration of heterosexuals to homosexuals by a huge margin which reflects a need to suppress the acceptance as normal.

Nothing will ever support that 2 same sex human partners are sharing their bodies for anything other then personal desires.    Love does not have to include sex and no where is sex among same sex partner a physical need without the specific personal desire.

It is basically a selfish pursuit and once one has been able to overcome the inhibitions there is nothing more but to pursue the fairness since to them it makes perfect sense as it is the pinnacle of their expression.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by parsley

One thing that I noticed reading this topic, especially some of the earlier posts, is the negative attitude towards gays. Talking of it as a disease, in a negative way does give the impression that it is thought of to be 'wrong'.

Until the last post by Bishadi, I don't think I have seen a single post that could be considered negative.

Justin suggested that from, a very narrow technical perspective, it might be regarded as a disease; but that was not in any socially judgemental sense.

quote:
I object to this negativity towards gayness.

As I said, up until the post by Bishadi, the discussion was strictly technical, and there was no judgemental aspect to it.

quote:
Also, how can it be genetic, if for genes to be passed on, you have to reproduce, and the majority of gay people do not do this (for obvious reasons)? Is it 'genetic' in the same way one inherits an ability for music, or maths, or being good with words? Almost like a gene that is there if you encourage it to be there?

Even genes that have fatal outcomes, like haemophilia, are capable of surviving within the species.

The easiest way for such a gene to survive is either if it is recessive, and so remains dormant except when an individual happens to have two of the same gene (or, if the gene is on the X chromosome, as with  haemophilia, it will only effect males, but can be inherited down the female line).

The other way it can survive is if it is not a single gene, but an interaction between several genes (such as with eye colour), and so the inheritance of any single gene will not cause homosexuality, but when someone inherits several genes that can interact in a certain way, they may develop homosexual tendencies.

There are also more complex genetic relationships, such as with thalassemia, where inheriting a single gene does not have a serious negative effect, but can have a beneficial effect; whereas inheriting two similar genes can have a deleterious effect.

From what I understand, there does appear to be some evidence that, not only is the tendency to homosexuality inheritable, but can actually be accompanied by certain advantages.  There seem to be certain skill sets that appear to be more prevalent amongst homosexuals (as well as a reduced tendency to aggression); and there is some evidence that women born into families with a high proportion of homosexuals tend to have more children, and thus offsetting any disadvantage that the lack of children on the part of the menfolk within the family might have.

As you say, the gene can only provide a tendency; and like the tendency to be good at maths or music, it will only manifest its potential in certain social environments.

George

[gecko]

i just kind of skimmed this cause im in a hurry, so sorry if someone already said this..

has anyone heard of the tendency to be homsexual attributed to an instinct for controlling the population? more homosexuals= less breeding; and a thinning or stabilization of the herd. im not sure where i picked this up and wether it has any creedence, but it would make alot of sense.

some of you are playing ethics with science. you equate "whats best for the continuation of the species" with correct. it is true that homosexuality is argueably not best for propogating future generations, however, many of our common practices arent, as well; many illegal practices are!

coming from that darwinian standpoint, killing other able-bodies males and their children, to protect the success and propogation of MY genetic material, is ok. but this is not ok, just as homosexuality is not wrong or some sort of regressive genetic mutation just because it may not be in line with the drive to pass on genes.

the wants and desires of a single person dont HAVe to be in line with evolutionary wants and desires, and neither one is unnatural; they both exist and always have.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by gecko
has anyone heard of the tendency to be homsexual attributed to an instinct for controlling the population? more homosexuals= less breeding; and a thinning or stabilization of the herd. im not sure where i picked this up and wether it has any creedence, but it would make alot of sense.

Not sure if I have seen that officially, but it is something that I have wondered about – although I suspect it is a little more complex than simply a matter of thinning the population – there is no obvious direct benefit of thinning the population as such.

The two main pre-modern civilisations where homosexuality was common are ancient Greece, and Japan; and both of these territories had sever population pressures (which, in the case of Greece, lead to the creation of its overseas colonies as a way of dumping its excess population).

As I said, I cannot see that in a situation where overpopulation occurs, that deliberate reduction of population is a logical benefit to the individual families, since even if there is mass starvation, it is logical that the greater the number of children you have, then the greater the likelihood that some of them will survive.

On the other hand, a more complex and subtle picture is that while it may not be of benefit to an individual, and their direct offspring, if the fail to reproduce; it may be of general benefit to a family if, when that family is under stress, rather than every member of that family having children, that a few members of the family have children, and all of the spare adults (those who have not reared their own children, but nonetheless are related to the children that have been born) the pool their efforts to maximise the likelihood of survival for those children who were born into the extended family.

George

[fm47]

I havn't read all the posts, but I definitly think that being gay is NOT a genetic error, but a psycological behavior that is developed over time.

The Spartans, fearsome warriors of the ancient civilizations, recordingly encouraged their soldiers to have homosexual intercourse to increase the bonding between soldiers.

This raises questions as to what is considered "gay"?
Is the ability to identify attractive attributes of the same sex considered gay?

I've always been able to tell when another guy is good looking.  In fact, makes me damn jeaous sometimes.  Though I am able to see that he's good looking (most guys are just homophobic about it or are just jealous and wont get over it), but I am not sexually attracted to him.

"We're all gay, it's just to what extent" - Ron White, Comedian.

Is being fashionable gay?  Is the ability to match colors brilliantly and speak sweet and softly gay?

You can look at it in a way of Nature, of religion, and in humanity itself.
Nature intends reproduction to ensure the survival of a species.
Religions believe that marriage and sex should be between Man and Woman.
Humanity believes it's disgusting, abnormal, strange, and a threat to children's minds.
Humanity also believes that no one should be able to tell you who you can love and who you can't.

I suddenly realized I'm too tired for this and much to distracted AND have a paper due tomorrow, so I'll leave this as is.

[neilep]

In my humble opinion (grovel grovel whine whine ! []) I think gays are just as normal as heterosexuals are.

I'm not gay but do know quite a few gay people , in fact , probably more than I do straight !!...probably because gay people are really nice ! []

It is my considered opinion that it's not a genetic flaw but a natural predisposition, as natural as anybody else feels towards any other person sexually. It is a perfectly normal and natural feeling,neither learned or forced. Though I do believe heterosexuals can be ' turned ' under the right circumstances...prison for instance....and probably the same applies to gays too under certain cirumstances.

 In fact, I think life would be a lot better if it was  a gay old world !! []....instead of going to war...we could all go shopping instead !! []..(sorry for the silly stereotyping..which of course is not accurate)

..I'd even go so far to say that we're all gay !!..except that some of us have proclivities towards the opposite sex...however, it is commonly known that at some point everybody (99%) has encountered a situation where they have been curious about same sex relationships/encounters etc.

Ask a gay person and , rightly so, they will say that they have always been gay, despite some torment as they discover the real selves...it's not a matter of choice...it's a natural instinct and I think gays would be offended at the hint that they have something wrong with them...in fact I'm offended and I'm straight.....

There are cases where gays feel completely torn though, they have been brought up in a strict religious household and despite their natural inclinations have been brainwashed that they are sinning. Such turmoil I would hate to experience, damned if you do...damned if you dont.....

...and that's what I have to say about that.

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

The notion of normality is a distraction.

Having measles is normal; committing murder is normal.

This is not to say that being gay is equivalent to having measles, or committing murder; only that claiming that it is normal tells us very little about what it is, except that it wasn't invented by scientists or engineers.

There is a slightly related question, is autism 'normal', and is 'autism' a disease.

There are some autistics (particularly those with the milder form of Asperger's) who argue that they are normal, merely different, and misunderstood by everyone else in society.  There are also people with inherited disabilities (such as inherited deafness), who would argue that they are 'normal', and it is just that the rest of the world makes assumptions of them that are inappropriate to their capabilities and preferences.

At what point do you treat an abnormality as a disease, and at what point do you simply allow people to be different?

Clearly, where a person is incapable of functioning within society, then maybe society needs to address that – but even then, there are times when one has to ask whether society needs to change the person to fit society, or change society to fit the person.

There are also those who regard having misaligned teeth, or the wrong sized breasts or wrong nose, as serious medical conditions.  Who knows, given that a pretty girl is supposed to be able to earn more than an ugly one, and the difficulty for graduates in finding appropriate jobs, maybe money invested in cosmetic surgery is a better investment that money spent in university education?

Clearly, society cannot simultaneously adjust to fit every possible variation of human being, but exactly which variant it is able to allow, and which variant it must medicate in order to fit closer to the arbitrary norm, is itself a substantially arbitrary (if necessary) judgement.

George

[neilep]

Within the context of this topic, I think it's agreeable to say that the feelings of sexual attraction towards the same sex for a gay, is the same experience for a heterosexual attracted to the opposite sex, the only difference being the gender. In this case I would say that a gays sexual attraction feels normal to them akin to non gays......

......Of course Sexual orientation goes beyond sex. It is about relating to another person on many levels, there are gay people who don't have sex at all...just like any other sexual persuasion.

However, I am finding it difficult to comply with your opinion that murder is normal. I believe I may understand why I think you may state that and so that is why I am asking if you could elaborate please ? ...Stating Murder Is Normal is quite a citation....(hmm..perhaps another thread beckons)...I just need to understand the context.

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

This is a delicate subject, and given the state of normalcy that I am presently feeling, I should be careful lest I express myself in a way that might be misread - but here goes, and i hope it doesn't end up too stupid.

quote:Originally posted by neilep
Within the context of this topic, I think it's agreeable to say that the feelings of sexual attraction towards the same sex for a gay, is the same experience for a heterosexual attracted to the opposite sex, the only difference being the gender. In this case I would say that a gays sexual attraction feels normal to them akin to non gays......

But, is 'feels normal' the same as 'is normal'?

One of the problems with many addicts (e.g. alcoholics) is that they feel 'normal'.

This is not to say whether they are or are not 'normal', only to ask whether self evaluation is the best way of determining normalcy?

quote:
However, I am finding it difficult to comply with your opinion that murder is normal. I believe I may understand why I think you may state that and so that is why I am asking if you could elaborate please ? ...Stating Murder Is Normal is quite a citation....(hmm..perhaps another thread beckons)...I just need to understand the context.

It is 'normal' in two ways.

Firstly, all that a human being does is normal, because it is normal for a human being to do that.  It may be argued that it is not how an average human being might react; but by that token, since homosexuality supposedly effects only about 10% of the population, thus they themselves are deviant from the average (mean, modal, or median).

Secondly, that a human being should kill another human being (or that any animal should kill another animal) is normal (however unpleasant or unfortunate, wars are normal).  It is the laws that prohibit certain types of killing that are by their nature artificial.

Ofcourse, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that not all that is normal is acceptable within our society, but that is not to contradict the normality of it.

George

[neilep]

George, I hope you are OK....



I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.

I do understand your reasoning. When you look at the statistics and percentages  (using your figure of 10%) regarding sexuality then it is clear that homosexuality is in a minority.  But a minority does not preclude normalcy...and I can see how this can apply to the act of murder....though calling it ' normal' just does not sit well....with me anyway IMO.

I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.




Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by neilep
I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.

It rather depends upon what one regards as 'normal'.

Normal is a relative notion.  What may be normal for a particular person, may not necessarily be regarded as normal for the species as a whole, or you could argue that anything that is normal for any member of the species must be regarded as normal for all of the species.

quote:
I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.

What do you mean by a 'gay embrace'?

Women, in western cultures, do embrace more than men – but in other cultures, that may vary.  In Arab cultures, men will kiss and embrace, just as women might in the West, but there is nothing sexual in it (any more than one should interpret a parent kissing and embracing their child as being a sexual act).

This is ofcourse one of the problems with providing an objective definition of what homosexuality is.  Do you define homosexuality by a specific set of acts (and if one includes same gender kissing amongst those acts, you will offend a great number of Arabs)?

Up until the Victorian era, there was no such notion as homosexuality.  There was the crime of sodomy (which most modern cultures on any of the continents would consider a sexual act) , but this was as much a crime when applied to male/female relationships.  Even the Victorians had a problem with defining female homosexuality (this was made the more complex by the fact that female masturbation was seen as a medical procedure that was undertaken by a physician to relieve 'hysteria', and the dildo was a medical tool; and was not seen as seen as a sexual act).

It is clear that looking through much renaissance art that there was a clear sensual pleasure taken in the young male body, although it is not at all clear whether they would have regarded this as a sexual desire or not.  Were they homosexual paedophiles, or just people who appreciated the sensual beauty of the young male form?

This goes back to the question of who judges whether human behaviour falls into one category or another:  the individual who commits the act? The society in which that individual belongs? Or does each society simply apply its own labels to the act even if they disagree with the labels either that person or their peers might apply to the act?

George

[neilep]

Good Afternoon George

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by neilep
I don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.

It rather depends upon what one regards as 'normal'.

Normal is a relative notion.  What may be normal for a particular person, may not necessarily be regarded as normal for the species as a whole, or you could argue that anything that is normal for any member of the species must be regarded as normal for all of the species.

quote:
I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.

What do you mean by a 'gay embrace'?

Normal is difficult to define as I believe the answer is as unique to an individual as their fingerprints are. This is why I specifically cited that for self evaluation, to have to hand historical data that then portrays what is ‘ usual ‘ for the individual would be helpful.

The data  could well  be varied in the extreme compared to others but would be most probably considered ‘ normal ‘ for that person, if that person has been seen to behave and act accordingly 'normal'

quote:

Women, in western cultures, do embrace more than men – but in other cultures, that may vary.  In Arab cultures, men will kiss and embrace, just as women might in the West, but there is nothing sexual in it (any more than one should interpret a parent kissing and embracing their child as being a sexual act).

This is ofcourse one of the problems with providing an objective definition of what homosexuality is.  Do you define homosexuality by a specific set of acts (and if one includes same gender kissing amongst those acts, you will offend a great number of Arabs)?

Up until the Victorian era, there was no such notion as homosexuality.  There was the crime of sodomy (which most modern cultures on any of the continents would consider a sexual act) , but this was as much a crime when applied to male/female relationships.  Even the Victorians had a problem with defining female homosexuality (this was made the more complex by the fact that female masturbation was seen as a medical procedure that was undertaken by a physician to relieve 'hysteria', and the dildo was a medical tool; and was not seen as seen as a sexual act).

It is clear that looking through much renaissance art that there was a clear sensual pleasure taken in the young male body, although it is not at all clear whether they would have regarded this as a sexual desire or not.  Were they homosexual paedophiles, or just people who appreciated the sensual beauty of the young male form?

This goes back to the question of who judges whether human behaviour falls into one category or another:  the individual who commits the act? The society in which that individual belongs? Or does each society simply apply its own labels to the act even if they disagree with the labels either that person or their peers might apply to the act?

George

LOL …yes, I expected you would pick me up on that as my use of  ‘gay embrace ‘ was way too subtle…it was a very mild subtle innuendo to maintain  an air of etiquette which in this case plainly misfired ! []

I meant for the term to be seen in  the excess of it’s it’s definition and has been taken too lightly.

When I say ‘ gay embrace’ I mean sex, I meant the act of having sex, I meant, not a kiss on the lips or the cheek (well..not the face cheek...[])…but if I may be blunt, two people of the same sex going at it ‘ hammer & tongs ‘   In this regard I understand it is easier and far more acceptable for women to display  and experiment with this ‘ gay embrace’ as it is for men. I am sure this is true. It is borne out by my experiences with my gay girly friends and just by observation  (not that I am a voyeur…..well …oh gawwwd !!)

I certainly do not define homosexuality by a specific set of acts. As I mentioned in my earlier post sex does not define the sexuality, and that one can be gay on a whole number of different levels without even ever having sex !

I am sure you are right about the notion of homosexuality in Victorian times but it of course was just as prevalent then as it is now. Except today it has very much come out of the closet.

It is difficult subject as there is no clear foundation to base the premises on, however, I would still maintain that for a gay whose life you would not know was any different to yours or mine,  would state that their proclivity to feel  ‘at one’  (subtle innuendo) across all levels and sexually towards the same sex does  ‘ feel ‘ and is completely normal......for them.


Men are the same as women, just inside out !