Homosexuality

[Cyn]

Could you possibly give me evidence of mammals?

 

[blazedaces]

Could you possibly give me evidence of mammals?

Why are you confining the argument to mammals? The natural world contains more than just mammals. Mammals, by definition, mate.

-blazed

 

[Cyn]

Why are you confining the argument to mammals? The natural world contains more than just mammals. Mammals, by definition, mate.

-blazed

Exactly. We are mammals not insects. How could anyone compare the human social structure to the ant or bee structure where only certain classes mate? It's a terrible comparison to use. That is why I wanted a mammalian example.

 

[Deleted member]

Aren't worker bees/ants all male and only the queen is a female (that mates with only one/a couple "worker" bees/ants)

 

[Cyn]

Aren't worker bees/ants all male and only the queen is a female (that mates with only one/a couple "worker" bees/ants)

If an ant egg is fertilized it becomes female, if not then it will be male.

 

[blazedaces]

Exactly. We are mammals not insects. How could anyone compare the human social structure to the ant or bee structure where only certain classes mate? It's a terrible comparison to use. That is why I wanted a mammalian example.

I thought we were discussing homosexuality's lack of prevalence in the "natural" non-human world (there is no such thing, but whatever)... since when were we comparing anything to the human social structure?

-blazed

 

[GoldShadow]

Exactly. We are mammals not insects. How could anyone compare the human social structure to the ant or bee structure where only certain classes mate? It's a terrible comparison to use. That is why I wanted a mammalian example.

Don't be ridiculous.

I provided an example of where natural selection and evolution may actually perpetuate the existence of members of a population that don't reproduce.

The same principles of natural selection and evolution apply, regardless of whether we're talking about single-celled amoeba or "complex" human behavior. Seemingly paradoxical behavior exists in many parts of nature. Since this is the PG, I can't do all your homework for you, you've got to do some research too!

 

[Aesir]

Could you possibly give me evidence of mammals?

Bonobo's (a link to what a bonobo is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) are sexaholics, it's been heavily documented that they'll engage in homosexuality.

Probably not a good example because they use sex as a stress reliever and a way to passive themselves but you get the idea. Homosexuality has been observed in every animal that has sex.

edit: why has no one actually brought up the health benefits of sex? Those alone are enough to have sex on a regular occasion.

 

[Cyn]

The same principles of natural selection and evolution apply, regardless of whether we're talking about single-celled amoeba or "complex" human behavior. Seemingly paradoxical behavior exists in many parts of nature. Since this is the PG, I can't do all your homework for you, you've got to do some research too!

I wasn't asking anyone to do the homework, just to back up the claims. I shouldn't have to do that; I just thought that ants and bees were a poor analogy. If you guys look back I was actually for homosexuals so I don't know why there is even an argument. Also, our "complex" behavior is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

They don't apply the same for each, everything evolves differently.

 

[GoldShadow]

They don't apply the same for each, everything evolves differently.

Same principles of natural selection apply regardless of the organism.

 

[Aesir]

Please define complex behavior, I'm going to start cracking down on this because a lot of people use vague words to make their point. I think this causes a lot of confusion in debates, people need to explain their terminology.

That's all.

 

[SuperBowser]

edit: why has no one actually brought up the health benefits of sex? Those alone are enough to have sex on a regular occasion.

Don't worry. The Catholics will fix you so you'll never encounter such a problem!

 

[Cyn]

Same principles of natural selection apply regardless of the organism.

The same principles apply sure, but what does natural selection have to do with homosexuality? Not every living thing reacts the same way to evolution. Animals don't change to become gay.

 

[blazedaces]

The same principles apply sure, but what does natural selection have to do with homosexuality? Not every living thing reacts the same way to evolution. Animals don't change to become gay.

Evolution is simply the result of statistical tendencies. Everything tends towards equilibrium, even large groups of animals (note that in the world, what is considered equilibrium changes, because the environment changes).

Animals change to do anything and everything, but only certain ones tend to survive. That's all...

Vox, if you're pro-homosexuality why are we still having this discussion/debate? We're talking about natural selection because a member earlier claimed his reason against homosexuality had to do with what he deemed was "natural".

The problem is the word "natural" is just as vague as the word "complex behavior". It is never strictly defined, so as soon as someone points out an issue with the theory, the definition of the word changes to fit the theory. It's what I hate about the "natural" argument. It's not an argument, it's a logical fallacy and it always bugs me. You can not actually prove that anything humans do is not "natural". I am willing to destroy any definition someone tries to use for the word, but the problem is people never define it, and when asked they avoid it at all costs because they know it will make their theory fail...

-blazed

 

[GoldShadow]

The same principles apply sure, but what does natural selection have to do with homosexuality? Not every living thing reacts the same way to evolution. Animals don't change to become gay.

Homosexuality could be an evolved response to selective pressures.

 

[Mewter]

Let's start fresh.

If animals can be homosexual and it was based off of a (excuse the term) "gay gene," why would their genes be passed on?

Wouldn't natural selection rule it out as harmful to the individual and the species and eliminate it?

 

[blazedaces]

Let's start fresh.

If animals can be homosexual and it was based off of a (excuse the term) "gay gene," why would their genes be passed on?

Wouldn't natural selection rule it out as harmful to the individual and the species and eliminate it?

I don't understand. Do you think "natural selection" is the hand of god picking and choosing good things versus bad things? Why does down syndrome still persist? What about 6 fingers/toes? How about blond hair? Or stupidity? Or the millions of other genetically associated peculiarities that exist without rhyme or reason?

-blazed

 

[Mewter]

Well, those are all fine and dandy, but I'm talking about something that limits reproduction itself, among humans, at least.

Why would something like that exist in the population if it were hereditary? Wouldn't it be counterproductive*?

*Excuse the pun.

 

[blazedaces]

Well, those are all fine and dandy, but I'm talking about something that limits reproduction itself, among humans, at least.

Why would something like that exist in the population if it were hereditary? Wouldn't it be counterproductive*?

*Excuse the pun.

First of all, as mentioned previously, the genetic association with homosexuality is only partially effective. A higher percent of the population with the so-called "gay gene" will become homosexual, but not 100% of them. It only creates a stronger predisposition towards that sexual preference. Homosexuality is a combinatorial response of social, psychological, and biological factors, as are MANY OTHER things, such as the previously mentioned disorder known as schizophrenia.

So, the "gay gene" could be contained with other genes that are actually more than likely to produce offspring. And on top of that, just because one's sexual preference is for a sex that can not produce children does not necessarily mean a homosexual male/female can not still have a child through other means.

-blazed

 

[SuperBowser]

Random childhood disorders: Why do genes predispose us to rheumatoid arthritis? Anklosing spondylitis? Asthma? Eczema? Retinoblastoma? Congenital heart defects? Autoimmune hepatitis?

I don't think the existence of such genes needs to be justified. It's enough to know they do exist. But I suggested one mechanism earlier; the genes associated with a propensity to develop homosexuality confer other advantageous traits as well.

edit: beaten lol

 

[Mewter]

So, if homosexuality isn't just a byproduct of human societal influences, why don't we find other animals with homosexual tendencies?

Do you have any sources that will prove the existence of a "gay gene" existing in some form?

 

[SuperBowser]

So, if homosexuality isn't just a byproduct of human societal influences, why don't we find other animals with homosexual tendencies?

We do. Even dre. reconsidered his position after a video.

There are actually hundreds of observations throughout nature confirming homosexuality in the animal kingdom. In the past, biologists often overlooked this phenomena; when homosexuality was still considered unnatural or bad or an active choice. Scientists just assumed it was an odd exception and swept their observations under the rug. It's only been in more recent years that scientists have come and out and stated what they have been observing for so many years.

Do you have any sources that will prove the existence of a "gay gene" existing in some form?

As a matter of fact, I have one on the previous page

Then educate yourself. Here is a balanced unbiased source; it does not overstate the findings of a single study cited, unlike any media or religious or political scientist may be accused of: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

A very small excerpt:
''A gay male from the population that Hamer studied would notice that more of his mother's brothers will be gay than his father's brothers; so too with the various classes of maternal cousins when compared to his paternal cousins. Thus, much male homosexuality is caused by a gene on the X chromosome. Hamer went on to find the approximate location on the chromosome where the gay-causing gene was located. He found that many of his subjects had an identical sequence on the Xq28 region of their X chromosome. This shows the approximate location of the "gay gene." Researchers speculated that a group of interacting genes (including one in this region) might be found to determine sexual orientation in males. This prediction came to pass. The statistical "p" value is a measure of the significance of a test: the probability that it could have happened by chance. P values less than 0.01 (1%) are considered very significant. The Hamer study had a P factor of 0.00001, and so is considered extremely reliable. ''

Interestingly, this source used schizophrenia as an example like I did It was once believed schizophrenia was a result of poor parenting!

If nobody can tell yet... I like psychiatry lol.

 

[Dre89]

We do. Even dre. reconsidered his position after a video.

I did initially, but I've given it some thought and I'm inconclusive as to whether what I saw is really homosexuality or not. I can't explain it now because I have to go but I can do it later.

 

[Cyn]

Vox, if you're pro-homosexuality why are we still having this discussion/debate? We're talking about natural selection because a member earlier claimed his reason against homosexuality had to do with what he deemed was "natural".

That's what I was starting to wonder lol. I think it started with the whole gay gene thing. But if we are both accepting of it then I suppose we have no debate between us.

 

[blazedaces]

That's what I was starting to wonder lol. I think it started with the whole gay gene thing. But if we are both accepting of it then I suppose we have no debate between us.

Lol... it's cool. I find this hilarious. It's like you stepped into a bar and started a big fight, then afterward when people asked you why you say "I don't know... seemed like a good idea at the time"...

-blazed

 

[Mewter]

Out in Nature: Homosexual Behavior in the Animal Kingdom.

How are you sure that that is homosexual behavior?
It seems likely that it could just be one animal establishing dominance over another, right?

 

[rvkevin]

How are you sure that that is homosexual behavior?
It seems likely that it could just be one animal establishing dominance over another, right?

They are compatible with each other. If one female "establishes dominance" over another female, doesn't mate with a male, and the males have to fight the dominant female before procreating with the other female, I would consider that female to be homosexual. Are you saying that the dominant female is not homosexual? If so, how would you establish that an animal is homosexual?

 

[Mewter]

That's not my point.

Why haven't we heard of these reports of animal homosexuality earlier? Surely this is just a fad emerging from people trying to promote homosexuality, and their observations are being thrown off because of their predisposition?

 

[rvkevin]

Why haven't we heard of these reports of animal homosexuality earlier? Surely this is just a fad emerging from people trying to promote homosexuality, and their observations are being thrown off because of their predisposition?

So, people working in the field of animal behavior are predisposed to want to promote the natural occurrences of homosexuality? I need something more than this is a general trend in the civilian population and scientists might be thrown off by this. Find an example where their findings were not accurate.

 

[Dre89]

To be honest, the video you linked me too wasn't as conclusive as I first considered it to be.

Saying that there's lots of peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean much if all they're just going to consider homsoexuality what was seen in your video.

The video pretty much admits that what scientists are accepting as homosexuality doesn't even have to be same-sex sexual intercourse due to sexual attraction, just any genital contact or bonding rituals. I don't think that's anywhere conclusive enough to be called homsoexuality.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That's not my point.

Why haven't we heard of these reports of animal homosexuality earlier? Surely this is just a fad emerging from people trying to promote homosexuality, and their observations are being thrown off because of their predisposition?

Ah, you see the society at the time viewed homosexuality as thoroughly evil. So, scientists would probably turn a blind eye to it, to not challenge the societal norms.

 

[Cyn]

Ah, you see the society at the time viewed homosexuality as thoroughly evil.

What thread am I in again ?

 

[Mewter]

Ah, you see the society at the time viewed homosexuality as thoroughly evil. So, scientists would probably turn a blind eye to it, to not challenge the societal norms.

Really?

Do you have any evidence to back up that bold claim?
For this case specifically and for other cases?

 

[rvkevin]

Really?

Do you have any evidence to back up that bold claim?
For this case specifically and for other cases?

I think he was mocking Dre's response of saying that scientists are trying support the homosexual agenda. I wouldn't take Bob's response too seriously, although, it does have a grain of truth to it. What makes it on TV and other media is decided on the audiences interest, which is mostly non-scientists. If the general public thinks homosexuality is evil and doesn't want that sort of program in sight, no channel is going to broadcast it. If there is a large demographic that is interested in the topic, as is the case with the gay movement, then it becomes more appealing to channels. Simple supply and demand.

 

[KrazyGlue]

To be honest, the video you linked me too wasn't as conclusive as I first considered it to be.

Saying that there's lots of peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean much if all they're just going to consider homsoexuality what was seen in your video.

The video pretty much admits that what scientists are accepting as homosexuality doesn't even have to be same-sex sexual intercourse due to sexual attraction, just any genital contact or bonding rituals. I don't think that's anywhere conclusive enough to be called homsoexuality.

What more evidence do you want, then?

 

[Aesir]

Judging from what I gathered reading Dre seems to think homosexuality is just sexual intercourse. I'm probably wrong though.

 

[.Marik]

Never mind, I don't feel like getting involved. [Redundancy]

 

[Dre89]

What more evidence do you want, then?

The problem I have is that it isn't conclusive whether sexual pleasure is being derived from the aforementioned acts aside from prolonged intercourse.

So far, the only footage I've seen of prolonged homosexual intercourse was between lions. The first video posted here said that male lions travel in pairs (which is true) and participate in homosexuality, yet showed no intercourse, just them licking each other.

The video which showed male lions actually having prolonged intercourse had three males involved. The two problems I have here is that other video said males do it in pairs, and secondly (and similarly) fully grown males are never seen in trios. Males are either kicked out of the pride once they come of age, or intruding males from other territories are killed/ostracised.

So the fact that there were three males leads me to believe it was probably in an enclosure, not the wild, and homosexuality that isn't from the wild is moot.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The problem I have is that it isn't conclusive whether sexual pleasure is being derived from the aforementioned acts aside from prolonged intercourse.

So far, the only footage I've seen of prolonged homosexual intercourse was between lions. The first video posted here said that male lions travel in pairs (which is true) and participate in homosexuality, yet showed no intercourse, just them licking each other.

The video which showed male lions actually having prolonged intercourse had three males involved. The two problems I have here is that other video said males do it in pairs, and secondly (and similarly) fully grown males are never seen in trios. Males are either kicked out of the pride once they come of age, or intruding males from other territories are killed/ostracised.

So the fact that there were three males leads me to believe it was probably in an enclosure, not the wild, and homosexuality that isn't from the wild is moot.

Are you sure they aren't just odd-balls? I mean we see some weird humans around, so why isn't that the same with lions.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The video which showed male lions actually having prolonged intercourse had three males involved. The two problems I have here is that other video said males do it in pairs, and secondly (and similarly) fully grown males are never seen in trios. Males are either kicked out of the pride once they come of age, or intruding males from other territories are killed/ostracised.

So the fact that there were three males leads me to believe it was probably in an enclosure, not the wild, and homosexuality that isn't from the wild is moot.

See the following quote from Wikipedia:

Lions are predatory carnivores who manifest two types of social organization. Some are residents, living in groups, called prides. The pride usually consists of approximately five or six related females, their cubs of both sexes, and one or two males (known as a coalition if more than one) who mate with the adult females (although extremely large prides, consisting of up to 30 individuals, have been observed). The number of adult males in a coalition is usually two, but may increase to four and decrease again over time. Male cubs are excluded from their maternal pride when they reach maturity.

It's possible for there to be more than two male lions in a pride.