Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[Nepenthe]

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

you know,

sack, egg and spoon

those ones... maybe

Nope, he didn't write about "lower races" (well, no more than any other 19th century Finnish male did); he was all about human sexuality. Westermarck was an influential and important figure in the anthropology of sexuality. He was a pioneer in what would later become evolutionary psychology, and though much of his research is outdated, there's no denying he was a respected scientist who applied evolutionary studies to human behavior.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

This is a misconception of the nature of homosexuality; a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same-sex. So if someone was "exclusively" homosexual, then they would be a person who is only attracted only to the same-sex. The act of sex, exclusively to procreate has no bearing on one's sexuality. Although, with artificial insemination, available nowadays, it is no longer necessary to have sex in order to have a child.

 

[ragordon168]

This post is QFT.

QFT? whats that?

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Group selection is entirely problematic.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

This is a misconception of the nature of homosexuality; a homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same-sex. So if someone was "exclusively" homosexual, then they would be a person who is only attracted only to the same-sex. The act of sex, exclusively to procreate has no bearing on one's sexuality. Although, with artificial insemination, available nowadays, it is no longer necessary to have sex in order to have a child.

I was speaking more to exclude those who start off in a heterosexual relationship, have children in that relationship and then become or discover that they are homosexual. I.e. to apply to one that only ever engages in homosexual relationships. Exclusively so, in fact.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

QTF here.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

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

Really? I thought evolution (perhaps more in the animal kingdom than the more complex human society) was about a genetic difference benefiting the individual over his competitors in the group, allowing him to proliferate at a faster rate until his genetic difference becomes more and more prevalent within that group.

 

[Autodidact]

QFT? whats that?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Autodidact]

Really? I thought evolution (perhaps more in the animal kingdom than the more complex human society) was about a genetic difference benefiting the individual over his competitors in the group, allowing him to proliferate at a faster rate until his genetic difference becomes more and more prevalent within that group.

It's about that and more.

 

[Jeremiah]

I was speaking more to exclude those who start off in a heterosexual relationship, have children in that relationship and then become or discover that they are homosexual. I.e. to apply to one that only ever engages in homosexual relationships. Exclusively so, in fact.

I am just pointing you that you are not talking about homosexuals; that you are inappropriately using the word.

"I was speaking more to exclude those who start off in a heterosexual relationship, have children in that relationship and then become or discover that they are homosexual."

That is not how it typically works. Generally they already understand they are homosexual, they are just trying conform due social pressure. So it is not that they suddenly become/discover they are gay. It is more like a gradual realization that pretending is not going to work.

" to apply to one that only ever engages in homosexual relationships. Exclusively so, in fact"

Even so, there is a number of people, in this group, that still have children; without sex.

 

[madhatter85]

Nope, he didn't write about "lower races" (well, no more than any other 19th century Finnish male did); he was all about human sexuality. Westermarck was an influential and important figure in the anthropology of sexuality. He was a pioneer in what would later become evolutionary psychology, and though much of his research is outdated, there's no denying he was a respected scientist who applied evolutionary studies to human behavior.

It's funny they criticized it because of the date. Yet, they believe Darwin's theory? when was "The Origin of Species" Written? 1859. Frubals for the recognition of Westermarck's research.

 

[Kerr]

It's funny they criticized it because of the date. Yet, they believe Darwin's theory? when was "The Origin of Species" Written? 1859. Frubals for the recognition of Wetermmark's research.

He wrote the foundation, not the theory itself... and it has been verified though testing. However, when it comes to homosexuality we have gained a lot more knowledge then we had back then. A lot. Which is why the age matters.

 

[Jeremiah]

It's funny they criticized it because of the date. Yet, they believe Darwin's theory? when was "The Origin of Species" Written? 1859.

And yet, some parts of The Origin of Species is criticized today, justly.

 

[madhatter85]

He was also the one who first noted the Westermarck effect and also studied Exogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Westermarck effect is exactly what i talked about previously either in this thread or another one about the difference between lust and love.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I am just pointing you that you are not talking about homosexuals; that you are inappropriately using the word.

Sorry, I didn't realise you considered sexuality so binary.

 

[Alceste]

Really? I thought evolution (perhaps more in the animal kingdom than the more complex human society) was about a genetic difference benefiting the individual over his competitors in the group, allowing him to proliferate at a faster rate until his genetic difference becomes more and more prevalent within that group.

No. Not exactly. There's no reason an emergent characteristic wouldn't or couldn't crop up in multiple populations, or multiple individuals within populations. For example, the mutation that resulted in a population of spontaneous nylon-eating bacteria was reproduced in a laboratory from a separate population of non-nylon-eating bacteria. Human civilisation cropped up spontaneously, and in similar forms (agrarian permanent settlements, work specialisation, the emergence of artisans and central government), in at least three geographically isolated populations - Europe, the Americas and Polynesia. There are lots of examples of this sort of thing.

In light of the evidence, I'm inclined to agree with the Buddhists - our sense of individual significance is an illusion which inhibits our comprehension of reality.

 

[Autodidact]

It's funny they criticized it because of the date. Yet, they believe Darwin's theory? when was "The Origin of Species" Written? 1859. Frubals for the recognition of Westermarck's research.

Well, there's been a little work in support of Mr. Darwin's theory since then...

 

[Kerr]

He was also the one who first noted the Westermarck effect and also studied Exogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Westermarck effect is exactly what i talked about previously either in this thread or another one about the difference between lust and love.

No one is saying he did not contribute with anything, just saying we learn more and more. Especially on a topic such as this. It can be compared to the concept of different human races, which if you look back to the same period was very, very different then now. Now we have learned more and understand better. Same with homosexuality.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Hatter: You dodging #255?

 

[Alceste]

It's funny they criticized it because of the date. Yet, they believe Darwin's theory? when was "The Origin of Species" Written? 1859. Frubals for the recognition of Westermarck's research.

And yet when we are debating the evidence for evolution with creationists, do we cite Darwin? (Hint: no.)

The date is significant because most of us, when looking for scientific evidence that supports our opinion, do not have to cite work that is over a century out of date.