Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[madhatter85]

Thanks a lot, now I have the song Lesbian Seagull stuck in my head.

I don't remember if sickle cell has been mentioned in this thread yet but I'm reminded of how those who argue that even if homosexuality has a genetic basis it's derogatorily compared to to diseases, genetic disorders or with the classic "if it don't reproduce, it ain't no use" (that's mine but please feel free to use it) as evidence homosexuality couldn't be retained by natural selection.

But they conveniently ignore other things that are far more influential in limiting reproduction rates- things like sickle cell anemia which is fatal for 80% of those who carry it yet is carried by up to 10% of the population. As recently 1983 the average age of death for those with sickle cell anemia (the most severe form of sickle cell) was 5.6- long before reproductive age. So why would natural selection keep it around? Of course we now know sickle cell has a heterozygous advantage in preventing malaria. It's a clear cut example of how something that prevents reproduction is still retained in populations since the alleles provide a benefit that's not necessarily readily evident.

Sickle Cell anemia does not produce the desire to behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way.

 

[Alceste]

Sickle Cell anemia does not produce the desire to behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way.

But homosexuality IS advantageous to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Believe it or not, we are far more complex organisms than simple self-replicating humpizoids. Even a virus is more complex than that.

 

[Jeremiah]

Whine much?

No, I don't drink.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks a lot, now I have the song Lesbian Seagull stuck in my head.

I don't remember if sickle cell has been mentioned in this thread yet but I'm reminded of how those who argue that even if homosexuality has a genetic basis it's derogatorily compared to to diseases, genetic disorders or with the classic "if it don't reproduce, it ain't no use" (that's mine but please feel free to use it) as evidence homosexuality couldn't be retained by natural selection.

But they conveniently ignore other things that are far more influential in limiting reproduction rates- things like sickle cell anemia which is fatal for 80% of those who carry it yet is carried by up to 10% of the population. As recently 1983 the average age of death for those with sickle cell anemia (the most severe form of sickle cell) was 5.6- long before reproductive age. So why would natural selection keep it around? Of course we now know sickle cell has a heterozygous advantage in preventing malaria. It's a clear cut example of how something that prevents reproduction is still retained in populations since the alleles provide a benefit that's not necessarily readily evident.

And here they are, our friends the lesbian albatrosses:

The tyranny of the discontinuous mind rears its ugly head again. People who don't understand ToE very well tend to think that a given trait is either evolutionarily good or bad. In fact the same trait that may be detrimental in one situation may be beneficial in another, so it benefits the species to keep around some individuals with traits that may appear detrimental under the current circumstances, whatever they may be.

As the Eugenicists learned to their peril, it's generally preferable to trust nature (or, if you prefer, God) to handle these matters.

 

[Autodidact]

Sickle Cell anemia does not produce the desire to behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way.

1. It makes no difference whether it's "behavioral" or not.
2. You are required to in Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, Spain, South Africa and so forth. We are not required to require it, but should because it benefits the nation and is the right thing to do. Discrimination hurts everyone, including the people in the group doing the discriminating.
3. Homosexuality is not contrary to our existence and survival, obviously. What on earth are you talking about? Most people are straight. A few are gay. So what?

 

[Jeremiah]

Sickle Cell anemia does not produce the desire to behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way.

Yes, I agree we should not allow those vegetarians to marry.

Also, I don't want to be stickler, but marriage is not a topic of the OP. This would seem like a off-topic post, which is odd because of all the whining you did about off-topic posts, but yet you were one of the very first individuals to post an off-topic post (post 13). And what is further confusing, is you told Atotalstranger, "All of my comments have been to the point and not contradictory of one another" but clearly this is a contradiction here.

And as far as homosexuality being fundamental to our well being, that was something I never said, you gather that from the articles. Articles about the work of actual biology scientist, who have done actual studies on the topic. So were is your proof that they are wrong? Prove to us that homosexuality is not "fundamental" to our well-being. You keep flapping you gums about it but yet you have failed, like you did with the "genetic flaw", to substantiate it as such.

 

[madhatter85]

But homosexuality IS advantageous to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species.

But it is not, According to the study Clown and cheese posted, the homosexual "gene" controls sexuality in general, causing hyper-sexuality and other forms of sexual behavior. Seeing as true hyper-sexuality and homosexuality are rare, it can be deduced that both are a flaw. those with hyper-sexuality (satyriasis and nymphomania) a lot of times require hormone therapy to control. The same can be said for homosexuality. However, since homosexuality causes a desire to behave in a way that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species, we are not required give them benefits.

The benefits given were based on marriage being fundamental our existence and survival (supreme court ruling)

Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. SSM pundits paint a false picture of marriage.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes, I agree we should not allow those vegetarians to marry.

Vegetarianism is a choice one makes. are you saying homosexuality is a choice then?

 

[Autodidact]

But it is not, According to the study Clown and cheese posted, the homosexual "gene" controls sexuality in general, causing hyper-sexuality and other forms of sexual behavior.

No, that's not what the study said. Unless you want to tell us where they word "hypersexuality" appears in that study?

Seeing as true hyper-sexuality and homosexuality are rare, it can be deduced that both are a flaw.

No, it can't. Small percentage does not equal bad.

those with hyper-sexuality (satyriasis and nymphomania) a lot of times require hormone therapy to control.

Fascinating and irrelevant digression. (into madhatter's mind)

The same can be said for homosexuality.

No, it can't. Homosexuality is not a disease, does not need treatment, and is not changeable via hormone therapy. Other than that, you're spot on as usual.

However, since homosexuality causes a desire to behave in a way that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species, we are not required give them benefits.

Wait. Any behavior that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species is bad news. Like posting on internet discussion boards?

Here's the thing: What is really fundamental to our society is equality. That's why it's important to grant everyone equal right, including same-sex couples.

The benefits given were based on marriage being fundamental our existence and survival (supreme court ruling)

No, the right (not benefit) was protected because it is a fundamental human right because, among other things, it's fundamental to our existence and survival. Families matter--including same-sex families. Heck, even including LDS families.

Marriage is not a "right" but a privilege. SSM pundits paint a false picture of marriage.

Wow, you're either dense or a complete liar. I have cited three separate Supreme Court rulings that MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. How you can continue to cite the leading case while ignoring what it actually says is amazing. Please tell us, are you really stupid, completely dishonest, or excellent at ignoring what you don't like? Watch out, you may force me to take the time to actually print out the many court rulings holding that marriage is a fundamental right. You could not be more wrong.

No wonder you have me on ignore--it's embarrassing when someone proves you're wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Vegetarianism is a choice one makes. are you saying homosexuality is a choice then?

No, I'm saying it makes no difference whether it's a choice or not, since it's a fine way to be.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, that's not what the study said. Unless you want to tell us where they word "hypersexuality" appears in that study? No, it can't. Small percentage does not equal bad. Fascinating and irrelevant digression. (into madhatter's mind) No, it can't. Homosexuality is not a disease, does not need treatment, and is not changeable via hormone therapy. Other than that, you're spot on as usual. Wait. Any behavior that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species is bad news. Like posting on internet discussion boards?

Here's the thing: What is really fundamental to our society is equality. That's why it's important to grant everyone equal right, including same-sex couples.

No, the right (not benefit) was protected because it is a fundamental human right because, among other things, it's fundamental to our existence and survival. Families matter--including same-sex families. Heck, even including LDS families.

Wow, you're either dense or a complete liar. I have cited three separate Supreme Court rulings that MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. How you can continue to cite the leading case while ignoring what it actually says is amazing. Please tell us, are you really stupid, completely dishonest, or excellent at ignoring what you don't like? Watch out, you may force me to take the time to actually print out the many court rulings holding that marriage is a fundamental right. You could not be more wrong.

No matter you have me on ignore--it's embarrassing when someone proves you're wrong.

Extremely embarrassing.

 

[Nepenthe]

Sickle Cell anemia does not produce the desire to behave contrary to the fundamental existence and survival of the human species. Therefore, we are not require to provide marital benefits for those who choose to to behave that way.

How does this even address the point that there are some factors in evolution that decrease reproductive rates yet stick around because they have other advantages that are preserved in the population?​

You're conflating the fundamental biological desire to have sex and/or an orgasm with sex resulting in offspring- why would natural selection choose masturbation if the fundamental existence and survival of the human species is incumbent on reproduction? There are peripheral advantages to non-reproductive sexual behavior; anthroplogists and biologists have proposed several examples of complex social cohesion benefits that are genetically preserved despite not necessarily resulting in babies. Homosexuality offers many benefits when it comes to reproductive advantages. There are several examples of such studies throughout this thread and I bet Auto' will have posted 3 or 4 great posts by the time I post this one, thereby making my points irrelevant... :yes:​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How does this even address the point that there are some factors in evolution that decrease reproductive rates yet stick around because they have other advantages that are preserved in the population?​

You're conflating the fundamental biological desire to have sex and/or an orgasm with sex resulting in offspring- why would natural selection choose masturbation if the fundamental existence and survival of the human species is incumbent on reproduction? There are peripheral advantages to non-reproductive sexual behavior; anthroplogists and biologists have proposed several examples of complex social cohesion benefits that are genetically preserved despite not necessarily resulting in babies. Homosexuality offers many benefits when it comes to reproductive advantages. There are several examples of such studies throughout this thread and I bet Auto' will have posted 3 or 4 great posts by the time I post this one, thereby making my points irrelevant... :yes:​

More sarcastic drivel and personal attacks!

 

[Nepenthe]

...it can be deduced that both are a flaw. those with hyper-sexuality (satyriasis and nymphomania) a lot of times require hormone therapy to control. The same can be said for homosexuality. However, since homosexuality causes a desire to behave in a way that is not fundamental to the existence and survival of the species, we are not required give them benefits.

This whole post is a genetic fallacy.

 

[Nepenthe]

More sarcastic drivel and personal attacks!

Your mom!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your mom!

Finally a logical argument I cannot counter. I concede.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Perhaps madhatter85 was referring to my post in the thread along the lines of 'homosexuality contributes to the gene pool' where I used sickle cell anaemia to illustrate what I considered to be an oversight in the OP's concept. One would not say sickle cell anaemia as a disease contributes advantageously to the gene pool, rather that full-blown sickle cell anaemia is a non-useful by-product of the genetic advantage presented in those who are heterogeneous. This is in terms strictly of propagation given that it is the gene pool we were discussing.

The study involved postulated that a hypothetical gene which made heterosexuals seek more sexual partners could contribute to homosexuality. This was used to suggest by the poster that homosexuality in this instance contributed positively to the gene pool. I contend that would be taking the message backwards - homosexuality in this illustration would be a non-useful by product (again, in terms of propagation and the gene pool) and the genetic advantage is the increased sexual activity of heterosexuals.

Of course, taking into account the bigger social picture homosexuality could well present other survival advantages and thus contribute positively to survival of the species. However, I think it would be technically incorrect to suggest that homosexuality contributes positively to the gene pool. I think that was a misinterpretation by the person who started that thread.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

How does this even address the point that there are some factors in evolution that decrease reproductive rates yet stick around because they have other advantages that are preserved in the population?​

I think you've confounded the point. The heterogeneous state prevents people dying from malaria, hence increasing the probability of those individuals reproducing. Thus even though those with sickle cell anaemia typically die before reproducing, the genetic factor at work is not necessarily decreasing reproductive rates across the population.

 

[madhatter85]

Perhaps madhatter85 was referring to my post in the thread along the lines of 'homosexuality contributes to the gene pool' where I used sickle cell anaemia to illustrate what I considered to be an oversight in the OP's concept. One would not say sickle cell anaemia as a disease contributes advantageously to the gene pool, rather that full-blown sickle cell anaemia is a non-useful by-product of the genetic advantage presented in those who are heterogeneous. This is in terms strictly of propagation given that it is the gene pool we were discussing.

The study involved postulated that a hypothetical gene which made heterosexuals seek more sexual partners could contribute to homosexuality. This was used to suggest by the poster that homosexuality in this instance contributed positively to the gene pool. I contend that would be taking the message backwards - homosexuality in this illustration would be a non-useful by product (again, in terms of propagation and the gene pool) and the genetic advantage is the increased sexual activity of heterosexuals.

Of course, taking into account the bigger social picture homosexuality could well present other survival advantages and thus contribute positively to survival of the species. However, I think it would be technically incorrect to suggest that homosexuality contributes positively to the gene pool. I think that was a misinterpretation by the person who started that thread.

Thanks for jumping in there. I guess they want it in technical terms rather than simple lay-terms.

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks for jumping in there. I guess they want it in technical terms rather than simple lay-terms.

You do realize that misanthropic clown disagrees with you, right?