Why Humanity Needs Homosexuality

Sapien

Or at least: isn't damaged by it, and can never get rid of it.

Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality.

We're a buffer against extinction, apparently - rather than the doom of mankind. Go us!

who is this

Well not really when you think about it.

Cause in theory, shouldn't those genes eventually become more and more common? Therefore, shouldn't a point be reached (in theory) where the earth is full of more fertile than average females, and homosexual males? Might pose an issue.

philologos

Hm, just about the topic. It was interesting. However, although this isn't incredibly likely but what happens if the gay mans sisters are all lesbians? Surely it can't be presumed that all of the relatives of the gay man are going to be straight, if indeed this is a genetic thing? Or is the idea, that the more gay a man is in a family, the more straight the female relatives are likely to be?

Sapien

who is this wrote: »

Well not really when you think about it.

Cause in theory, shouldn't those genes eventually become more and more common? Therefore, shouldn't a point be reached (in theory) where the earth is full of more fertile than average females, and homosexual males? Might pose an issue.

Did you read the full article?

who is this

Sorry misread part of it. There was another article I read a few days ago which didn't go into as much detail, and it did suggest that. I guess it subconsciously threw me.

jaffa20

jakkass wrote: »

hm, Just About The Topic. It Was Interesting. However, Although This Isn't Incredibly Likely But What Happens If The Gay Mans Sisters Are All Lesbians? Surely It Can't Be Presumed That All Of The Relatives Of The Gay Man Are Going To Be Straight, If Indeed This Is A Genetic Thing? Or Is The Idea, That The More Gay A Man Is In A Family, The More Straight The Female Relatives Are Likely To Be?

+ 1

Homosexuality will never be explained though science. There is no gene, and even if there was, it would be impossible to tell. I believe it is nurtured rather than nature and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Thing about why this topic is under society and not biology and medicine.

Bottle_of_Smoke

jaffa20 wrote: »

+ 1

Homosexuality will never be explained though science. There is no gene, and even if there was, it would be impossible to tell.
I believe it is nurtured rather than nature and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Why do you think this? If its nurture then how do you account for homosexuality in other animals?

Thing about why this topic is under society and not biology and medicine.

Eh... no. If the board was called "what causes homosexuality" that might be a valid reason, but I'd imagine its under society because its a place for discussing homosexual issues.

Jakkass wrote:

Hm, just about the topic. It was interesting. However, although this isn't incredibly likely but what happens if the gay mans sisters are all lesbians? Surely it can't be presumed that all of the relatives of the gay man are going to be straight, if indeed this is a genetic thing? Or is the idea, that the more gay a man is in a family, the more straight the female relatives are likely to be?

As you said, its so unlikely it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, and yes I think it does mean the women would be "more" straight.

jaffa20

I'm not arguing that there isn't homosexuality among animals. There is, but that does not prove it is in our DNA. As i grew up, i knew i was more attached to my mother than any other of my siblings and i'm not saying it's her fault that i'm gay or there was a certain point where i decided to be gay but i believe that we cannot use genetics for an explanation for our orientation. The same can be said for gay animals. I believe sexuality and orientation is a social issue and should not be reduced to strings of DNA that make up our hair colour etc.

who is this

I really don't believe in the nurture theory. Several reasons I don't. One is that nurture implies it's something in your surroundings as you grow up. But why then are some areas and cultures of the world not more likely to have higher rates?

I also dislike the nurture one because if it is something in your upbringing, then even to me, it sounds like it can be changed. Also while not intending to, if the nurture one was to become widely accepted (not that either are ATM) then people would probably start trying to point the finger etc.

While the "nature" theory hasn't been proven, there is strong evidence to suggest its veracity. Whereas the same can't be said for the "nurture" one.
Two examples:
Something to do with brain size and shape (see here for more details)
Far more likely to left-handed or ambidextrous - hand preference is observable from birth (I think even before birth, but not sure about that part)

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

+ 1

Homosexuality will never be explained though science. There is no gene, and even if there was, it would be impossible to tell. I believe it is nurtured rather than nature and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Thing about why this topic is under society and not biology and medicine.

So you think that you weren't born gay then and that it was through your upbringing rather than being biologically gay? However how do you bring up someone to be gay, i'm sure it isn't like the first thing that goes through parent minds. It's interesting and if you could answer my questions it would be brilliant.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

So you think that you weren't born gay then and that it was through your upbringing rather than being biologically gay? However how do you bring up someone to be gay, i'm sure it isn't like the first thing that goes through parent minds. It's interesting and if you could answer my questions it would be brilliant.

Prove to me that we are born gay and i will answer your questions! Whatever exactly are your questions. Are we born straight How do you explain bisexuality and transexuality. Does there happen to be a gene for that do.

Anyway, there is no answers to any of these questions but i do believe it is more complex than genetics. When we look at other social issues like serial killers, alot of it is explained through experiences in their youth. And i am not saying it is the upbringing directly but the indirect experienes of media, friends, who you know and what you know, cultural lifestyle and hobbies.

philologos

Thanks for that, I've never heard a gay person bring that argument to the table. Very interesting indeed. Hope you don't mind if I put a few more questions to you. I'm curious about how incidents in your life can make you attracted to a particular gender rather than another, or do you think as events happen through your life they reprogram you in a way?

I would be interested if others could discuss this also. Sorry if I'm prying by the way, as a straight person it might serve as a bit of an insight into the way that gay people would think about this.

Goodshape

jaffa20 wrote: »

Prove to me that we are born gay and i will answer your questions! Whatever exactly are your questions. Are we born straight How do you explain bisexuality and transexuality. Does there happen to be a gene for that do.

Um, well.. actually...

BBC Article wrote:

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.

more : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

jaffa20

Goodshape wrote: »

Um, well.. actually...


more : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

What a pile of ****! Science this, science that. They come out with new discoveries every day and then another group of scientists will contradict it the next day!! Science cannot prove everything. Each theory put forward is always reduced to nothing when another one is put forward. I suppose the same goes for humanities. So, i prefer to leave things alone as they are and live a happy life.

Goodshape

jaffa20 wrote: »

What a pile of ****! Science this, science that. They come out with new discoveries every day and then another group of scientists will contradict it the next day!! Science cannot prove everything. Each theory put forward is always reduced to nothing when another one is put forward. I suppose the same goes for humanities. So, i prefer to leave things alone as they are and live a happy life.

Jesus that's a narrow minded point of view. I guess there's really no point in debating or discussing this with you at all then.

Good luck with that happy life of yours.

jaffa20

Goodshape wrote: »

Jesus that's a narrow minded point of view. I guess there's really no point in debating or discussing this with you at all then.

Good luck with that happy life of yours.

And the same to you it's not narrow minded. It's to the point. I've studied both science and social sciences and they both try the same thing with all these contradictory theories. Humanities allows for more dicussion than science and it's more interesting. I guess that's were my points of views come from. It's sad but true that science can't prove everything even though it'd like to.

Sapien

jaffa20 wrote: »

And the same to you it's not narrow minded. It's to the point. I've studied both science and social sciences and they both try the same thing with all these contradictory theories. Humanities allows for more dicussion than science and it's more interesting. I guess that's were my points of views come from. It's sad but true that science can't prove everything even though it'd like to.

Oh dear. I think I see where you're coming from: "I prefer the humanities, therefore they explain the world better". I'm afraid you're quite wrong about contradictions in the sciences when it comes to explaining sexuality. The scientific community has been massively reticent about making sweeping statements in the area for a long time, understanding the difficulty in objectively measuring sexuality - but the thrust of discoveries in recent years has been quite unambiguous. Brain studies, heredity studies and evolutionary modelling have been so informative and interesting in the past year or three that the world of science is saying with a growing degree of certainty that genetics dominate the determinants of sexuality.

The humanities might provide you with easier dinner party pabulum, but they have provided nothing more revolutionary in this area than to support the findings of the hard sciences.

Science does not seek to prove anything. By definition, it cannot. That is something you might have understood if you had, in fact, ever substantially studied science. Rather, science seeks to arrive at working theories, and to test these theories by empirical observation and experiment. A scientific theory (unlike most, if not all, theories in the humanities) must be predictive and testable. The theory described in the article is both, and its predictions have been borne out.

jaffa20

Sapien wrote: »

Oh dear. I think I see where you're coming from: "I prefer the humanities, therefore they explain the world better". I'm afraid you're quite wrong about contradictions in the sciences when it comes to explaining sexuality. The scientific community has been massively reticent about making sweeping statements in the area for a long time, understanding the difficulty in objectively measuring sexuality - but the thrust of discoveries in recent years has been quite unambiguous. Brain studies, heredity studies and evolutionary modelling have been so informative and interesting in the past year or three that the world of science is saying with a growing degree of certainty that genetics dominate the determinants of sexuality.

The humanities might provide you with easier dinner party pabulum, but they have provided nothing more revolutionary in this area than to support the findings of the hard sciences.

Science does not seek to prove anything. By definition, it cannot. That is something you might have understood if you had, in fact, ever substantially studied science. Rather, science seeks to arrive at working theories, and to test these theories by empirical observation and experiment. A scientific theory (unlike most, if not all, theories in the humanities) must be predictive and testable. The theory described in the article is both, and its predictions have been borne out.

Good response. I wonder how long it will take for the above theory to be disproved by another.:rolleyes: So really, you reiterated my previous point that science cannot prove anything but only disprove previous theories. Whether it is testable or not does not measure the accuracy of a theory. Humanities doesn't disprove previous theories as such but expands on them. At least, it is aware of the difficulty in objectively measuring sexuality. A sociologist or anthropologist for eg, will spend time in a specific enviornment using subjective and objective methods of research to come to results based on participant observation. Although the theories but forward may not be accurate in the field of science as they cannot be tested, they cannot be disproved and are understandable by people who don't speak the technical language of science and treat complicated aspects and people of society as objects which "can" be tested.

Anyway, this could be a long discussion which leads of topic.

philologos

Well I think it's clear that we have a lot of research to do in understanding how homosexuals are the way they are in comparison with hetereosexuality. Interesting OP and interesting thread though.