Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[misanthropic_clown]

so you are basically arguing a technicality that does not apply to the real world?

Yep. I think it is useful not to confound the reasoning by failing to address the technical point that has been brought up. By insisting against that rather than saying "yes, but..." is to damage your own argument.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

madhatter is strictly correct in that, homsexual men are not likely to use natural conception methods...putting a penis in a vagina (the entire message of his puerile argument)

guess what, we have other methods now....:sarcastic

I know. But it would be interesting to know what proportion of homosexual men have (biological) children.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I know. But it would be interesting to know what proportion of homosexual men have (biological) children.

Yes, again if life was all about the GDP of USA

and sex was just about producing babies....

Yes it would

but you know what, it only is in the minds of bigots....or so it would seem

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Yes, again if life was all about the GDP of USA

and sex was just about producing babies....

Yes it would

but you know what, it only is in the minds of bigots....or so it would seem

You do know I am for same-sex marriage, right? I was just intellectually curious. I know a few men who had children, then came out as gay. I imagine it is more common than most would think.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You do know I am for same-sex marriage, right? I was just intellectually curious. I know a few men who had children, then came out as gay. I imagine it is more common than most would think.

you do know one of the reasons why SSM are being opposed is because "sex is just for babies"

is all I meant...

 

[Alceste]

*as also posted here
The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

Wow - a book from 1891. How very authoritative.

Got anything from this century?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Wow - a book from 1891. How very authoritative.

Got anything from this century?

ha ha, apparently this book discusses "the lower races" too....

you know,

sack, egg and spoon

those ones... maybe

 

[Alceste]

ha ha, apparently this book discusses "the lower races" too....

you know,

sack, egg and spoon

those ones... maybe

lol - yeah. Madhatter may not be aware of this, but quite a lot has happened in the field of anthropology in the last 120 years. Gone are the days when deep insights about the evolutionary progress of various indigenous cultures were thought to be gleaned from detailed measurements and descriptions of their penises and breasts.

 

[Alceste]

Statistically you only have a 3% chance of having homosexual urges.

That is a HUGE percentage. No disadvantageous heritable trait comes anywhere near this proportion. Plus it's wrong.

• The Kinsey Institute: Prevalence of Homosexuality
• In a national survey, 90% of men aged 18-44 considered themselves to be heterosexual, 2.3% as homosexual, 1.8% as bisexual, and 3.9% as 'something else' (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005).
• Among women aged 18-44 in the same survey, 90% said they were heterosexual, 1.3% homosexual, 2.8% bisexual, and 3.8% as 'something else' (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005).
• The incidence rate of homosexual desire for men is 7.7% and 7.5% for women (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).
• 6.2% of men and 4.4% of women are attracted to people of the same sex (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).
• 4% of men and 2% of women consider themselves homosexual while 5% of men and 3% of women consider themselves bisexual (Janus & Janus, 1993).

source

 

[Autodidact]

You know, strictly speaking madhatter is correct. That is, an exclusively homosexual person is not going to propagate any genes, and thus their share of genes are lost. Homosexuality does not propagate itself. Rather the genetic causes of homosexuality must be advantageous to heterosexual propogation, and there is the source of propagation of the genes. In that sense, homosexuality would continue not because homosexuality is propagating itself, but because it is a side product of an advantageous gene set.

But again, that does not argue that homosexuals provide no value to society to the extent they should be denied marriage.

Not quite. Many gay people (like yours truly) do reproduce, but not through sex with their same-sex mate.

 

[Autodidact]

*as also posted here
The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young.

This much is true.

some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father.

This is false. Many fathers (and in some species mothers) do not care for young.

Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring.

This is incorrect. There are several species (such as the Laysan's Albatross that I mentioned) that do form exclusive pair-bonds for raising young.

The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

No, this is not correct. Maybe your info is out of date.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

Can you provide a single instance of a SSM advocating that we mimic the animal kingdom?

In any case, your conclusion does not follow.

 

[Autodidact]

Which were created via sexual reproduction, something that requires both boy parts and girl parts to do, artificial or otherwise

Yes, although the boy part may have come in a vial.

 

[Autodidact]

but why are these kids available for gays to adopt? oh yeah straight families didnt want them. so which is better living in care or living in a home with two loving parents regardless of whether they are straight or GBLT?

This post is QFT.

 

[Autodidact]

Living with heterosexual parents who are infertile would be best :yes:

Can you provide a shred of evidence in support of this lie?

 

[Autodidact]

I know. But it would be interesting to know what proportion of homosexual men have (biological) children.

Around 1/6 have fathered or adopted. from here.

 

[Jeremiah]

you did associate it because you brought it up as an argument for ssm.

 

[Alceste]

Yep. I think it is useful not to confound the reasoning by failing to address the technical point that has been brought up. By insisting against that rather than saying "yes, but..." is to damage your own argument.

The individualistic attitude that pervades his argument that heritable homosexuality can not be passed from one generation to the next is entirely at odds with even the most basic understanding of evolutionary biology. That is why we argue against it. It's infantile, simplistic, narcissistic and ignorant.

Species evolve as one coherent unit, not as a ragtag assortment of lonesome cowboys struggling selfishly to pass on their own genetic material.

It has been already been pointed out how genetic traits that sometimes result in homosexuality are advantageous to the social cohesion, reproduction and survival of the whole group. There's a whole thread on it. Continuing the charade that homosexuality is not genetically perpetuated is simply wilful, obstinate ignorance at this point.

 

[Kerr]

*as also posted here
The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

That book is very old. Old sources are not that reliable when it comes to subjects such as these.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

There is a difference between stating that since it exist in nature it is natural and that we should mimic animals.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Can you provide a shred of evidence in support of this lie?

To which the bigot replies: "Evidence? Speaks thou to me of evidence! I need no evidence. I have my faith. More is neither needed nor desirable."

Or words to that effect.

 

[Nepenthe]

*as also posted here
The history of human marriage - Google Books
In this book the author, an anthropologist, shows that throughout the animal kingdom (including primitive humans), those that are monogamous in relationships, do so for the care of the young. some animals have different ways of caring for the young, however they always include a mother and father. Homosexual activity in animals is never monogamous as the breeding and care of offspring still depend on both sexes playing a role in the care of offspring. The only animals that exhibit monogamy are exclusively male-female for the production and care of offspring.

Westermarck was openly gay- a pretty gutsy admission amongst late 19th century academics. He used an extensive range of data to show that homosexuality was prominent, normal and not deviant (as the then popular Freudian school would argue)- in fact Westermarck found that homosexuality was present in all cultures throughout history. He argued that homosexuality was an inherited trait and was "only a feature in the ordinary sexual constitution of man." Though gay, he did think that we're born with a predilection towards a specific sexuality, he also believed environment was an influence. Whatever your opinion, citing one of Westermarck's early books from the late 19th century isn't particularly convincing- as Alceste pointed out, anthropology has made some strides since then. Auto' provided several examples of same sex exclusive pair bonding; your info' is just plain wrong, Westermarck was simpy incorrect and much of The History of human Marriage is obsolete.

Since SSM pundits are so adamant that we should mimic the animal kingdom [since they always bring up, "But animals do it!"]. Marriages should only be sanctioned between male and female partners for the prospective production and care for offspring.

I do find it funny that those who are so shocked by gay marriage, or interpret homosexuality as abhorrent behavior, etc. and misquote or use dubious scientific sources to justify their position, rarely cite the relevant scientific literature in primatology and anthropological studies on sexuality that point to how homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom rarely engage in incest while heterosexual animals often do. It's just interesting how moral outrage is rarely backed by facts.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies