An insulting question for the religious set...

[jimmygun]

If homosexuality were proven to be genetic would the anti-abortion crowd deem it okay to abort a known homosexual fetus to prevent what they consider an abomination?

This is a sincere, albeit insulting, question of the doctrines of faith when they collide.

[TragicMonkey]

I think they'd just fall back to the position that the sin of homosexuality is in choosing to act on it, not in the inclination itself. Isn't that the official position of the Catholics, anyway?

Although if it were more common for homosexuals to be able to pray away their sinful urges and remain celibate, there would be quite a few more dioceses with money to burn, lately.

[plindboe]

I doubt they would, since they consider abortion to be homicide, and I believe very few of them want the death penalty for homosexuality.

[jimmygun]

Reverand Phelps would disagree about the death penalty for homosexuals.

[Ossai]

TragicMonkey
I think they'd just fall back to the position that the sin of homosexuality is in choosing to act on it, not in the inclination itself. Isn't that the official position of the Catholics, anyway?

Although if it were more common for homosexuals to be able to pray away their sinful urges and remain celibate, there would be quite a few more dioceses with money to burn, lately. Nope. Considering that the majority of cases against the Catholic are from women. The media and the church focus more on the homosexual ones. The church, I believe, in a vain attempt to draw away some criticism from itself.

Ossai

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ossai
Nope. Considering that the majority of cases against the Catholic are from women. The media and the church focus more on the homosexual ones. The church, I believe, in a vain attempt to draw away some criticism from itself.


Hmmm. Perhaps attempted celibacy itself is the problem, regardless of orientation.

[c4ts]

I doubt homosexuality would be a genetic trait.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by c4ts
I doubt homosexuality would be a genetic trait.

Why not? It could be recessive.

Which is infinitely preferable than wondering about my parents, thanks.

[c4ts]

I haven't seen any studies that would indicate it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by c4ts
I haven't seen any studies that would indicate it.

What are the other possible causes?

Genetics is a very trend cause of things, these days.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ossai
Nope. Considering that the majority of cases against the Catholic are from women. The media and the church focus more on the homosexual ones. The church, I believe, in a vain attempt to draw away some criticism from itself.

Ossai What kind of cases are you talking about? The majority of allegations of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church involve male victims (78% of U.S. allegations made in 2004) and male offenders. I'm fully prepared to believe that priestly sexual misconduct with women (often fully consensual, I'd guess) is far more common than sexual abuse of minors of either sex, but I don't have any data to that effect - do you? Somehow, I suspect that Rev. So-and-so's fooling around with Mrs. Wossname the church organist leads to fewer lawsuits though.

[jmercer]

This is one of many area's I disgree with the Catholic church on. (And yes, I'm an active Catholic despite that - although these days I'm hanging in there by a thread.)

I am pro-choice. I am also in favor of gay civil marriages. (Yeah, and I voted for Kerry, too, sinner that I am! ;))

As far as the question of abortion due to a hypothetical homosexual 'gene' being detected... while there are no absolutes, I'd be utterly stunned if the RCC came out in favor of it. Maybe a few of their more radical conservatives might be silent on the topic - but I doubt you'd find the Holy See endorsing it for any reason whatsoever.

[geni]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What are the other possible causes?

Genetics is a very trend cause of things, these days.

Hormonal. Genticaly homsexuality would be wipped out pretty fast.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by geni
Genticaly homsexuality would be wipped out pretty fast.

Unproven and probably false.

Humans have a rather strong set of kinship support instincts, which help to propagate the genes of those closely related to them (which of course includes a lot of one's own genes). My sister's daughter, for example, shares a quarter of my genes -- my sister has half of mine, while her daughter has half of hers.

A person heterozygous for homosexuality might expected to have a number of childless near relatives who would help raise, support, and protect that person (or that person's children). The extremes in this regard can be seen biologically among the bees and ants and such like, where almost all of the colony are non-reproductive, acting to raise, support, and protect the children of the queen (who are biologically their sisters and brothers).

[geni]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Unproven and probably false.

Humans have a rather strong set of kinship support instincts, which help to propagate the genes of those closely related to them (which of course includes a lot of one's own genes). My sister's daughter, for example, shares a quarter of my genes -- my sister has half of mine, while her daughter has half of hers.

A person heterozygous for homosexuality might expected to have a number of childless near relatives who would help raise, support, and protect that person (or that person's children). The extremes in this regard can be seen biologically among the bees and ants and such like, where almost all of the colony are non-reproductive, acting to raise, support, and protect the children of the queen (who are biologically their sisters and brothers).

Big deal ever double still gets wipped out and being gay does not give you any advantages over your non gay oponets when it comes to helping people who share you genes.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by geni
Genticaly homsexuality would be wipped out pretty fast. I have to agree with drkitten. From my own circle of acquaintances and friends, I know a couple of gay men and many gay women who have biological children. It is not beyond the realm of plausibility that homosexuality could pass from one generation to the next (albeit recessively, no doubt).

[drkitten]

Originally posted by geni
Big deal ever double still gets wipped out and being gay does not give you any advantages over your non gay oponets when it comes to helping people who share you genes.

Sure it does. More people helping fewer children often means that there's a better per-child chance of survival, especially in a situation where resources are limited (as they usually are in a hunter-gatherer society).

There's basically two successful reproductive strategies that are well-documented. One method, typified by the codfish, is to produce many, many offspring and hope that some of them survive to adulthood -- the shotgun approach, basically. The other approach, of which humans are a good example, is to have a relatively small number of children but to take care of them and to nurture them so that they are individually likely to achieve adulthood (and reproductive success on their own). "Put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket very carefully."

A child who is being cared for by only his/her own parents is at a disadvantage compared to a child being cared for by his/her own parents plus a number of childless aunts, uncles, cousins, and other close relatives.

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by jimmygun
If homosexuality were proven to be genetic would the anti-abortion crowd deem it okay to abort a known homosexual fetus to prevent what they consider an abomination?

This is a sincere, albeit insulting, question of the doctrines of faith when they collide.

Anyone who is very opposed to abortion is not going to be in favor of amniocentesis to determine grounds for abortion.

Why do you think someone who is opposed to abortion would necessarily be anti-gay?

Why do you think the question is insulting? The only interesting ethical questions are the hard ones. It would be more interesting if we had a Jesuit or two around here.

[jimmygun]

I asked the question to bring to the fore a dilema of faith. On one hand abortion is wrong, on the other hand to allow someone to be born knowing they would be an abomination to the lord seems a clash of doctrines.

If the anti abortion issue is mandated from the same bible as the anti-gay issue then I would assume they would go hand in hand. If not then it shows a hypocrasy which is rampant in any religion.

I posed another question in an earlier thread and was accused of being insulting so I decided to rate my newest thread to placate the delicate sensibilities of those that would take offense.

By the way the original question should have read 'if they proved that homosexuality was genetic and found the gene responsible.'

Further, I would ask, if that genetic code were discovered by a couple would they (you) want to abort? Me? Absolutely not but there are people out there that would have designer kids and I wonder if they would consider a homosexually oriented baby as viable. Would knowing your child was genetically predisposed to homosexuality make you a different parent than say the one who discovers later in the child's life that they are gay?

[IIRichard]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I asked the question to bring to the fore a dilema of faith. On one hand abortion is wrong, on the other hand to allow someone to be born knowing they would be an abomination to the lord seems a clash of doctrines.

Only if one holds both positions very strongly. These are probably a tiny minority of Christians

If the anti abortion issue is mandated from the same bible as the anti-gay issue then I would assume they would go hand in hand. If not then it shows a hypocrasy which is rampant in any religion.

I am anti- abortion on demand up to the tenth month and no parental notification and screw you based on the belief that human life is important and frequently dismissed as unimportant. If I am anti-gay, it's because the act repulses me and as a public health issue, it's of concern.

I posed another question in an earlier thread and was accused of being insulting so I decided to rate my newest thread to placate the delicate sensibilities of those that would take offense.

None taken, offense that is.

By the way the original question should have read 'if they proved that homosexuality was genetic and found the gene responsible.'

Further, I would ask, if that genetic code were discovered by a couple would they (you) want to abort? Me? Absolutely not but there are people out there that would have designer kids and I wonder if they would consider a homosexually oriented baby as viable. Would knowing your child was genetically predisposed to homosexuality make you a different parent than say the one who discovers later in the child's life that they are gay? Only if

Can't really be answered. You can postualte a failed Austrian Corporal as becomming Chancellor of Germany and plunging the entire world into war while simultaneously trying to wipe out an entire ethnic group, but until that happens, who knows?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jimmygun
If homosexuality were proven to be genetic would the anti-abortion crowd deem it okay to abort a known homosexual fetus to prevent what they consider an abomination?

The homosexual act is the "abomination", and not the person.

We are all sinners, we all have original sin. If your "reasoning" was valid, the anti-abortion crowd would deem it okay to abort anyone, since everyone will sin. But they don't of course.

But yours is a valid concern. I think it quite possible that, if, homosexuality was ever determined to be genetic, some mother could quite possibly have their unborn child aborted, for that reason, completely independent of whether or not they were pro-life. And of course they would have the right to do that.



This is a sincere, albeit insulting, question of the doctrines of faith when they collide.

I fail to see how the question is insulting? I think if you extend your thesis, it turns out to be an absurd question, but it is hardly insulting.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think they'd just fall back to the position that the sin of homosexuality is in choosing to act on it, not in the inclination itself. Isn't that the official position of the Catholics, anyway?

Yes. And you can extend that to any sexual activity that is outside marriage.

Although if it were more common for homosexuals to be able to pray away their sinful urges and remain celibate, there would be quite a few more dioceses with money to burn, lately.

Assuming that they were/are even interested in praying them away...I reckon they weren't/aren't.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Hmmm. Perhaps attempted celibacy itself is the problem, regardless of orientation.

You're assuming that such persons ever legitimately desired to attempt celibacy. In addition, I think it unfortunate to think that a so-called attempt at celibacy would lead someone to molest children. It's an assumption which I'm not going to make; if someone would care to build the case (beyond just saying it as fact) we could maybe see where that goes.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Why not? It could be recessive.

Which is infinitely preferable than wondering about my parents, thanks.

Has anyone ever attempted to use Hardy-Weinberg on this?

Several years ago there was an Atlantic Monthly article where the author theorized that homosexuality was more likely a bacterial deal, and not genetic, because of the whole issue of gays being unlikely to reproduce. I can't remember the guy's name, whether or not he had scientific credentials, or whether or not he had any support in the community.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
What are the other possible causes?

Genetics is a very trend cause of things, these days.

Definitely genetics is a prime suspect, and I tend to think there's something there which will eventually be "discovered".

Other possibilities...environment, response to severe stress, bacteria/virus (sounds weird, doesn't it?), plain old personal choice...

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
A person heterozygous for homosexuality might expected to have a number of childless near relatives who would help raise, support, and protect that person (or that person's children). The extremes in this regard can be seen biologically among the bees and ants and such like, where almost all of the colony are non-reproductive, acting to raise, support, and protect the children of the queen (who are biologically their sisters and brothers).

Of course this is built on a reasonable, but unprovable, assumption, where something NEEDS to be explained, so it is.

But if this is a valid way of thinking, shouldn't family trees be probed? Surely data could support the theory, if the theory was valid. I'm not aware of anybody actively going through lineages to track homosexuality...

It may not be a politically correct thing to do, but surely it could shed some more light on such theories.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I have to agree with drkitten. From my own circle of acquaintances and friends, I know a couple of gay men and many gay women who have biological children. It is not beyond the realm of plausibility that homosexuality could pass from one generation to the next (albeit recessively, no doubt).

I've always wondered about such classifications. Do gay people have heterosexual sex? And if so, are they still gay? How do we define people as gay (as opposed to bisexual?) Is it self-definition?

I think that it would be wrong to completely eliminate the idea of homosexuality being passed on, genetically, based on the rather obvious fact that gay people (I think) would reproduce less than heterosexuals...yet it is undeniable that gay people DO, in fact, reproduce less than heterosexuals. And not just a little bit less.

Personally, I think *labels* for people to be problematic. It is easy to define the particular act. Labeling people based on sexual desire...I do it because everybody does it. Recently I've met several gay men who label themselves as gay, so I guess I think of them that way. I dunno, people are people. I've been asked...at least a couple dozen of times...if I was gay, in my lifetime. Recently, I *suspect* that I was targetted as being gay, which was why I was sort of heavily approached by a self-described group of gays. I'm not saying this for any reason other than it's kind of an interesting thing that has happened to me, socially, in the past month, and whaddya know this is a thread about homosexuality.

I get the feeling that gays reinforce each others chosen, or self-declared, sexuality. It's been theorized that all humans are bisexual. I'm not sure if I buy that...but, gays certainly build a support system for each other. That is a natural thing to do. Of course it has nothing to do with evolutionary fitness. In fact, it would go AGAINST evolutionary fitness, as a bisexual who may reproduce would actually become, errr, totally gay.

I'm just throwing this stuff out there. What do I know. I've never had anything against gays, and like I've said, at some level I'm a magnet for at least some gay men. Thanks for listening.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Sure it does. More people helping fewer children often means that there's a better per-child chance of survival, especially in a situation where resources are limited (as they usually are in a hunter-gatherer society).

You're assuming that gay people actively (by nature?) help their siblings raise children? Is that true?

A child who is being cared for by only his/her own parents is at a disadvantage compared to a child being cared for by his/her own parents plus a number of childless aunts, uncles, cousins, and other close relatives.

Disadvantage? Is this true? Remember, we're not talking about anything besides evolutionary fitness...

Is it true that people who are cared for by an extended family or more evolutionarily fit (i.e. reproduce more) than people who aren't cared for by an extended family?

It's an interesting theory, but I have no idea if it is demonstrably true.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I asked the question to bring to the fore a dilema of faith. On one hand abortion is wrong, on the other hand to allow someone to be born knowing they would be an abomination to the lord seems a clash of doctrines.

Jimmy, what you just said totally smacks of wishful thinking. You think that you have discovered a dilemna of faith so you advertise it as such, but that doesn't mean you have actually done what you think you have done.

Face it Jimmy, in spite of what you think, most Christians do not think that certain *types* of people are abominations to the Lord. Ad naseum it is proclaimed that we will differentiate the sin from the sinner. You've heard this before, yet you won't factor that into your thought process. And this is why we'll reject your so-called dilemna.

If you will give examples of certain religious people who do, in fact, say that gays are abominations to the Lord simply because of who they are, I'm not going to defend them, and you can blast away at such people as much as you like.


If the anti abortion issue is mandated from the same bible as the anti-gay issue then I would assume they would go hand in hand. If not then it shows a hypocrasy which is rampant in any religion.

I can hardly respond to you on this one. You've decided that hypocrisy is rampany in any religion. That is a statement of faith that you will have, most likely, until you die. I will say that you can SURELY come up with better examples to buffet your faith than this particular offering. I'll also challenge you to be more objective about your faith; to examine in from the outside. I think that yours is a case of thinking that particular statement is patently obvious because it confirms your faith. That says more about your need to confirm your faith, I think, than anything else.



I posed another question in an earlier thread and was accused of being insulting so I decided to rate my newest thread to placate the delicate sensibilities of those that would take offense.

Frankly it ain't my religious sensibility that is being insulted on this one.

Further, I would ask, if that genetic code were discovered by a couple would they (you) want to abort? Me? Absolutely not but there are people out there that would have designer kids and I wonder if they would consider a homosexually oriented baby as viable. Would knowing your child was genetically predisposed to homosexuality make you a different parent than say the one who discovers later in the child's life that they are gay?

This is a valid concern that is COMPELTELY INDEPENDENT upon the pro-life/pro-choice thing. Personally, I would *view* my child differently if it was told to me that he was genetically predisposed to homosexuality. I have absolutely no idea how that would manifest itself in how I would raise that child. I would love the child regardless of sexual desire/proclivity, but I also know that all human beings deserve to be treated as individuals, based on the kind of person they are. I'd treat a musically-talented kid differently from an athletically-talented kid. The differences may be completely innocuous and incidental, but could also be easily identifiable.

-Elliot

[username]

If we advance enough in genetics to identify the gene or gene combo that results in homosexuality I think it wouldn't be long after that a method of altering that gene would be developed.

If homosexuality is genetic I don't think it will last too long as some others have stated.

I would have no problem if my kids turned out to be gay, but if I knew they would be gay *and* I could alter that with no detriment to them before they were even born there is no doubt in my mind I would do it (unless there was a high risk of death).

Bottom line is that life is not as favorable for gays as it is straight folk. Predjudice exists and I think homosexuality will always be a minority orientation and being a minority always has disadvantages.

If it is genetic, there will be a 'cure'.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by username
If we advance enough in genetics to identify the gene or gene combo that results in homosexuality I think it wouldn't be long after that a method of altering that gene would be developed.

If homosexuality is genetic I don't think it will last too long as some others have stated.

I would have no problem if my kids turned out to be gay, but if I knew they would be gay *and* I could alter that with no detriment to them before they were even born there is no doubt in my mind I would do it (unless there was a high risk of death).

Bottom line is that life is not as favorable for gays as it is straight folk. Predjudice exists and I think homosexuality will always be a minority orientation and being a minority always has disadvantages.

If it is genetic, there will be a 'cure'.

In that case, since racism exists, and there are disadvantages in being a minority in certain places, would you alter the race of your unborn child to benefit it?

For overpopulated nations, homosexuality is actually a boon. By the time such hypothetical gene fixes were possible, they might well be used to make the alteration the other way around!

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by username
If homosexuality is genetic I don't think it will last too long as some others have stated.
[/B]

Why does it have to be an either/or question? I think the nature/nurture debate is too caught up in dichotomies.
For instance, here's a possible genetic/environmental explanation of homosexuality:

Men in a hunter gatherer society need to (or are selected for when they) form strong male - male bonds. The same applies to women, but right now I'll make the argument for men.
These bonds tend to be in the form of friendship. However, it seems to me that these bonds would be stronger if some sort of hijacking of sexual intimacy were brought into the situation. Usually this will not tend toward actual homosexual relationships, but, especially when women are rare or absent, the slight sexual urges will at times magnify themselves. Some individuals will have a greater genetic tendancy to this than others.
Some men might even feel sexual desire for others of their own sex more strongly than for women, especially if culturally it's seen as an either/or choice.

Is this what homosexuality is? Probably not. But I'm suggesting that while the genes may create a tendancy to homosexuality, the life that a person lives that will also have some affect on the manifestation of those genes. Thus, those genes could be passed on for other reasons (for example, strengthening male-male bonds) while only at times - due to environmental differences - causing homosexuality.
It's also possible, as others have stated, that homosexuality would have fitness on it's own account.
Kin selection and all that jazz.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Usually this will not tend toward actual homosexual relationships, but, especially when women are rare or absent, the slight sexual urges will at times magnify themselves.

Which would explain barracks, the Old West, prisons, and boy's boarding schools.

[jimmygun]

Elliotfc...When I deal with religious people they inevitably fall back on the bible to illustrate their beliefs. I am simply pointing out by way of provocative questions that relying on the bible for authority has many many pitfalls, least of which is pick and choose. When I see a particular belief put forward and it flies in the face of a different belief propounded by the same group I question it.

Hypocracy is rampant in any religion at any degree. It is mandated that reason be left behind when belief takes over. The religious of every flavour pick and choose what they will or will not believe.

You keep talking about my faith. I have no faith. I do not take things at face value nor do I 'believe' simply because someone else says to believe. I question. I do examine my 'ways' if you will every day, in every way, continually searching for verification or rebuttal.

My question about aborting a known homosexual fetus is directly pertanent to the pro-life/pro-abortion issue. Would the existance of proof of homosexuality in an unborn fetus be enough to go through an abortion? People have aborted for far less reasons than what I ask. For example...gender, genetic abnormalities, financial, etc.

[maddog]

Well, I call myself a "Tribal Catholic" (born and raised Catholic -- still an active member, but mostly because that community [my parish] is *my tribe*, my people). My beliefs don't match those of the church very much, especially since I don't particularly believe in God/god; but I do find value in many of the rituals that bring the community together.

Anyway, I am *strongly* pro-life / anti-abortion. And I don't really care one way or the other about homosexuality. But I think that those who want to be "in your face" about it -- on both sides of that issue -- ought to just shut up.

So, my answer would be that your conjecture would have no impact on my opinion. I believe that abortion is morally wrong, with the only exception being in the case where the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.


Edited because I left out a few key words that were needed for the sentences to make sense.

[jimmygun]

There are some, Maddog, that would question your committal to anti-abortion issues if you allow that abortion is okee-dokee sometimes.

[username]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Why does it have to be an either/or question?

It doesn't and very well may not. *IF* homosexual orientation is purely genetic though, then I think it will be 'fixed'. By fixed I mean that homosexuals do not reproduce. They may be artificially inseminated in the case of females and adoption rules might be relaxed, but the reproductive rate of homosexuals is always going to be less than that of heteros. It is just biology.

Further, anyone who views homosexuality negatively is going to want to change this trait in their offspring and even those who do not view it negatively (like me) would change the trait to make the kid's life easier.

If it can be weeded out genetically I think it will be.

TragicMonkey

In that case, since racism exists, and there are disadvantages in being a minority in certain places, would you alter the race of your unborn child to benefit it?

No. I don't view race as a defect, I do view homosexuality as a defect. I do not look down on homosexuals, but I do view it as a defect. I am not talking about heterosexuals with some gay fantasies or even bisexuals, but homosexuals who cannot get aroused by a member of the opposite gender. This goes against the natural order. Organisms live to reproduce and strictly homosexual organisms can't do this so from a biological perspective homosexuality is a defect. I would correct the defect and at the same time spare the kid the issues that go along with being gay. This doesn't apply to race.

For overpopulated nations, homosexuality is actually a boon. By the time such hypothetical gene fixes were possible, they might well be used to make the alteration the other way around!

Possible, but doubtful. Education and economic strength seem to handle population issues well enough. Only folks in poor nations breed like rabbits. Folks in affluent nations where education is a virtue barely manage to sustain their population without immigration from poorer nations.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by username
No. I don't view race as a defect, I do view homosexuality as a defect. I do not look down on homosexuals, but I do view it as a defect. I am not talking about heterosexuals with some gay fantasies or even bisexuals, but homosexuals who cannot get aroused by a member of the opposite gender. This goes against the natural order. Organisms live to reproduce and strictly homosexual organisms can't do this so from a biological perspective homosexuality is a defect.

If that were true, then there would be fewer and fewer homosexuals as time progressed. Does this seem to be the case?

As has been pointed out already, many species do not have all individuals reproduce. The species continues as long as enough of the individuals reproduce. If they all did so, they would suffer from overcrowding, and the species would actually be harmed.

There was that experiment with rats, living in an enclosed environment and allowed to breed at will. Once the place got too full, the newer generations exhibited higher and higher percentages of homosexual behavior.

Finally, "natural order" has nothing to do with what you, or anyone else, thinks "should" happen. There is no "Plan of Nature" written down somewhere. Evolution is not a designed, thought-out set of steps. It is a series of fortuitous accidents, trials-and-error. Organisms do NOT "live to reproduce": they live, and sometimes they reproduce. Your statement assumes that there is a purpose behind it, a planned directive, and that that purpose is reproduction, therefore nonreproductive behavior is aberrant. That's incorporating two very sweeping assumptions right there: that there is a purpose to life, and that you have correctly diagnosed it.

Those are questions for philosophy and religion, not biology.

Biology, like all science, is not about what we think things ought to be doing. It's about studying what they actually do, and trying to deduce the principles behind it.

Anyway, if homosexuality were inherently unnatural, then it wouldn't exist, not in animals, not in Man.

[Roboramma]

[Originally posted by username
*IF* homosexual orientation is purely genetic though, then I think it will be 'fixed'. By fixed I mean that homosexuals do not reproduce.

...but the reproductive rate of homosexuals is always going to be less than that of heteros. It is just biology.


You seem to be saying that natural selection will remove any gene for homosexuality from the gene pool. Ie. it will tend to be selected against.
The assumption of that is that there is a gene, or genes, 'for' homosexuality. If this is so, how did it come to be so? If homosexuality will always be selected against, then why are there any homosexuals? It could be that this effect is only one effect of a gene whose other effects are beneficial. Maybe. In that case, the gene will tend to remain in the population, similar to the oft cited example of sicle cell anemia.
It could also be that there is some fitness to homosexuality itself, and that it the gene for it has reached a stable equilbrium in the population with that for hetrosexuality.
Either way natural selection will not 'fix' it.
If it is a product of both genes and environment, if you think about it, the argument still works. Any genes that tend to increase the chances of someone turning out homosexual relative to their alleles would be selected against, unless there is some benefit of those genes. Again they will tend to reach a stable equilibrium in the population.
That homosexuals exist suggests that homosexuality is either an entirely cultural phenomenon (something I doubt considering how often it occurs in other species) or that it has, at least in the past, been selected for.

Of course there is one way that it might be "fixed", and that is if environmental conditions change. People aborting homosexual children would do that, but I doubt it'll happen.


...I do view homosexuality as a defect. I do not look down on homosexuals, but I do view it as a defect.

...This goes against the natural order. Organisms live to reproduce and strictly homosexual organisms can't do this so from a biological perspective homosexuality is a defect.


There is no "natural order" for it to go against.
If we determine morality as something based upon what is rather than what should be, or what we want to be, then we'll have to have a very differant morality from one that would be acceptable to most reasonable people.
Certainly natural selection can favour altruism and loyalty, but it equally favours deception and deceit, theft, cheating, betrayal, rape, and greed.
There are plenty of good things that would go against your supposed 'natural order' and plenty of evil ones that would be supported by it. At least as most of us define good and evil.

[username]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
If that were true, then there would be fewer and fewer homosexuals as time progressed. Does this seem to be the case?

No and no. First, I don't know that homosexuality is genetic. The OP is asking "what if it is?". I am taking it from there. It is an assumption. However, even if it is genetic, it does not follow that it would decrease over time until the point where we can alter genes in the unborn and we discover the gay gene(s).

Finally, "natural order" has nothing to do with what you, or anyone else, thinks "should" happen. There is no "Plan of Nature" written down somewhere. Evolution is not a designed, thought-out set of steps. It is a series of fortuitous accidents, trials-and-error. Organisms do NOT "live to reproduce": they live, and sometimes they reproduce. Your statement assumes that there is a purpose behind it, a planned directive, and that that purpose is reproduction, therefore nonreproductive behavior is aberrant. That's incorporating two very sweeping assumptions right there: that there is a purpose to life, and that you have correctly diagnosed it.

Not really. Name a single living organism whose species cannot or does not reproduce. Reproduction is a biological drive. Don't believe me? Buy opposite gender animals of any species and see what happens. Do they reproduce or not? Unless they are spay/neutered they will reproduce or attempt to. There can be exceptions in some species where they seem to select mates rather than just breed with whatever is nearest, but provided proper conditions and a suitable mate all living things will attempt to reproduce except for some humans.

Those are questions for philosophy and religion, not biology.

disagree.

Biology, like all science, is not about what we think things ought to be doing. It's about studying what they actually do, and trying to deduce the principles behind it.

I am not trying to assign 'shoulds'. I am commenting on what actually occurs.

Anyway, if homosexuality were inherently unnatural, then it wouldn't exist, not in animals, not in Man.

I didn't say it was unnatural. I am saying that if strict homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality) is genetic then it is a defect. A natural defect. It goes against the natural order which is to reproduce.

There is no moral judgement in any of my posts on this topic. I am not discussing 'shoulds'. I am discussing things from the 'normal' perspective. Normal meaning humans and all other sexually reproducing life forms.

[username]

Originally posted by Roboramma

You seem to be saying that natural selection will remove any gene for homosexuality from the gene pool. Ie. it will tend to be selected against.

Not natural selection, human selection.

The assumption of that is that there is a gene, or genes, 'for' homosexuality. If this is so, how did it come to be so? If homosexuality will always be selected against, then why are there any homosexuals?

I haven't made this argument.

That homosexuals exist suggests that homosexuality is either an entirely cultural phenomenon (something I doubt considering how often it occurs in other species) or that it has, at least in the past, been selected for.

Has diabetes been selected 'for'? Just because something exists doesn't mean evolution favors it. A defect (abnormality if you prefer) isn't necessarily life/reproduction threatening.

It could be that sexual orientation on a 100% gay to 100% hetero scale is as variable as eye color or height. Who knows. Are green eyed people more likely to survive than brown eyed? Why would this matter in terms of evolution? If homosexuality is a recessive gene it would have no bearing on the percentage of homosexual children born, the percentage would remain relatively constant absent a means of reducing or multiplying it.

There is no "natural order" for it to go against.
If we determine morality as something based upon what is rather than what should be, or what we want to be, then we'll have to have a very differant morality from one that would be acceptable to most reasonable people.

I am not dealing with morality in anything I have written. The 'natural order' isn't a moral or religious term as I am using it. It is a term to reflect what actually happens in the real world among the species. No moral or religious judgements are being made. As far as religion goes I am atheist. As far as morality goes I am relativistic.

If you see religion or morality in anything I have written, you have misread.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by username
Not really. Name a single living organism whose species cannot or does not reproduce. Reproduction is a biological drive. Don't believe me? Buy opposite gender animals of any species and see what happens. Do they reproduce or not? Unless they are spay/neutered they will reproduce or attempt to. There can be exceptions in some species where they seem to select mates rather than just breed with whatever is nearest, but provided proper conditions and a suitable mate all living things will attempt to reproduce except for some humans.

I thought I was being clear: species reproduce, but all the individuals within that species do not. Some are physically incapable of such. The majority of bees and ants are utterly infertile. They cannot, and do not, have sex. Only queens and short-lived breeder males reproduce. The species reproduces, but most of the individuals do not. This has not prevented bees and ants from being among the most successful species ever.



I am not trying to assign 'shoulds'. I am commenting on what actually occurs.



I didn't say it was unnatural. I am saying that if strict homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality) is genetic then it is a defect. A natural defect. It goes against the natural order which is to reproduce.


There is no moral judgement in any of my posts on this topic. I am not discussing 'shoulds'. I am discussing things from the 'normal' perspective. Normal meaning humans and all other sexually reproducing life forms.

But you are assigning shoulds. You have determined the existence of "natural order", you have defined it as "to reproduce", and you have decided that it applies on the individual and not species level. The underlying assumptions of purpose to life, planning, design, and the goal you have identified as the point of them, is all just guesswork or wishful thinking. Your words themselves betray serious assumptions, leaps in reasoning, things that require evidence: to use "defect" means that there is a plan, that you understand that plan, and that you have evaluated phenomena in the light of what you think that phenomenon's effectiveness will be in furthering the plan you think you know. There are a great number of gaps in any theory or argument based on "natural order".

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Roboramma
[

You seem to be saying that natural selection will remove any gene for homosexuality from the gene pool. Ie. it will tend to be selected against.
The assumption of that is that there is a gene, or genes, 'for' homosexuality. If this is so, how did it come to be so? If homosexuality will always be selected against, then why are there any homosexuals? It could be that this effect is only one effect of a gene whose other effects are beneficial. Maybe. In that case, the gene will tend to remain in the population, similar to the oft cited example of sicle cell anemia.
It could also be that there is some fitness to homosexuality itself, and that it the gene for it has reached a stable equilbrium in the population with that for hetrosexuality.
Either way natural selection will not 'fix' it.
If it is a product of both genes and environment, if you think about it, the argument still works. Any genes that tend to increase the chances of someone turning out homosexual relative to their alleles would be selected against, unless there is some benefit of those genes. Again they will tend to reach a stable equilibrium in the population.
That homosexuals exist suggests that homosexuality is either an entirely cultural phenomenon (something I doubt considering how often it occurs in other species) or that it has, at least in the past, been selected for.

Of course there is one way that it might be "fixed", and that is if environmental conditions change. People aborting homosexual children would do that, but I doubt it'll happen.



There is no "natural order" for it to go against.
If we determine morality as something based upon what is rather than what should be, or what we want to be, then we'll have to have a very differant morality from one that would be acceptable to most reasonable people.
Certainly natural selection can favour altruism and loyalty, but it equally favours deception and deceit, theft, cheating, betrayal, rape, and greed.
There are plenty of good things that would go against your supposed 'natural order' and plenty of evil ones that would be supported by it. At least as most of us define good and evil.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by username
Provided proper conditions and a suitable mate all living things will attempt to reproduce except for some humans.

This is simply untrue. Soldier ants, for example, will not attempt to reproduce. Instead, they assist their close siblings in reproducing.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc
You're assuming that gay people actively (by nature?) help their siblings raise children? Is that true?


More or less. All primates tend to be social animals and help raise the herd's children. But ask yourself -- did you ever have an aunt babysit you when you were a child?




Disadvantage? Is this true? Remember, we're not talking about anything besides evolutionary fitness...

Is it true that people who are cared for by an extended family or more evolutionarily fit (i.e. reproduce more) than people who aren't cared for by an extended family?


Yes. They're more likely to survive accident or illness that carries off a biological parent. They compete against a smaller population for food share, which makes them more likely to survive drought/famine conditions. Juvenile humans take an enormous amount of child-raising, and if for whatever reason the resources aren't there, the children have a tendency not to live to reproductive age.

There's a great quote on the web from Sarah Hrdy, a biologist and specialist on primate sexual behavior and evolution.


In the classic cooperative breeder model, other group members help to rear the offspring. Classically, cooperative breeding was thought to be linked to suppressed ovulation as in social insects (where only the queen lays eggs) or as in wolves or marmosets, where only the dominant female ovulates. Today we are developing a broader definition of cooperative breeding that focuses on the outcome: anytime other group members help rear infants with the result that mothers can breed faster, produce bigger young, or young that survive better. The emphasis needs to be on availability of “allomothers,� individuals other than the mother who, for whatever reason, can be recruited to help a mother rear her young.

One way to ensure nonbreeding help is available is through suppressed ovulation. For a long time this was viewed as the defining feature of cooperative breeding. In those cases, the subordinate female doesn’t ovulate, for if she does and conceives, there is the risk that the dominant female will kill her infants, as Leslie Digby and others have reported for wild marmosets.

Suppressed ovulation is not the only thing going on that makes nonreproductive helpers available. Any species with delayed maturation, for example, is going to have babysitters on hand. So another route is through long postmenopausal life spans. This is one of many respects in which members of the genus Homo are especially well equipped to reap the benefits of cooperative breeding. Add to that a kind of general primate propensity to find infants fascinating, to look out for them, and nurture them.

Even males—highly macho gorillas, or male langurs—have a nurturing component to them that gets activated under the right conditions. It’s just that the threshold for nurturing is set very high in these guys. And then you have the species like titi monkeys where the opposite is true: the threshold for nurturing is set low, even lower perhaps than in females. Something has changed. Perhaps there are more receptors for oxytocin in the brain that have been selected. If a mother titi monkey is in a cage with her mate and infant, she is more upset if you take her male out than if you take the infant out, whereas the male is more upset if you take the infant out than if you take the female out....

Imagine this apelike female, perhaps the ancestor of Homo ergaster, who’s giving birth to one baby at a time. She’s nursing it for a long time like a chimp does, four or five years. How could there ever have been selection on this female to produce a baby so far beyond her own means to rear? Why set herself up for failure by producing a human baby when she could continue to produce a chimplike baby that would be independent at weaning and would survive. The only way there could have been selection on any mother to produce a baby so far beyond her means to rear would be if she could count on others to help her.

What I think I know about human men is that they do help and that they are terribly important for infant survival. The well-being of children goes way down if they don’t have fathers. But men are not always reliable. Fathers defect, they die. They take up with a new mate. And there must have been high mortality, not just for infants but for adult men, who were hunting and perhaps getting into fights with one another, especially if men were looking for additional opportunities to mate. Whether I am scanning the ethnographic record for hunter-gatherers or for modern post-industrialites, there is nothing about the human case that makes me think that hominid males evolved to behave like titi monkeys, putting babies first.

So back to the question: How could there ever have been selection pressure on this chimplike female to produce such a costly offspring? The only way I can think of is that she had backup, that she was eliciting help from the father if she could get it, but otherwise, help from her brother, from other men she might have had sex with, from her own kin, from grandmothers, cousins, aunts and uncles. I just don’t see any alternative solutions to the human mother’s dilemma.

As behavioral ecologist Hillard Kaplan calculates, a kid growing up among foragers needs on the order of 13 million calories before they’re independent at around age 18. And think about a young girl reaching menarche. Hunter-gatherer girls are not fertile until age 15 or 16. In many tribal societies, girls are not giving birth to their first baby until they are 18 or 19. Today, menarche is age 12 1/2, very low. So we have this capacity for earlier menarche and earlier birth, but a girl would never have enough fat on board to have that surge in hormones triggering ovulation unless she had other group members helping to provision her.

In our evolutionary past, children without a number of people looking out for them— mother and allomothers—were very unlikely to survive. For the most part, having a supportive kin group was synonymous with surviving, so that most individuals had to develop within a fairly cohesive and supportive network of cooperative relationships. But today, for the first time in human history, there is the prospect of a large proportion of the population surviving to reproductive age in spite of not having been reared by caring kin. We’re changing the relative frequencies of people whose cooperative tendencies are expressed.

We are changing the rules of social evolution for the human species. I actually don’t know if anyone else is worrying about this. When I hear people speculating about environmental disasters that will destroy the human species, I find myself wondering: How do you know we will still be human? Tens of thousands of years down the line we’ll be smart and technologically sophisticated bipeds, of course, but will we still be human as we currently define that term?


All emphases are mine.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
For overpopulated nations, homosexuality is actually a boon. By the time such hypothetical gene fixes were possible, they might well be used to make the alteration the other way around!

Well...maybe...

Let's take China. I was taught in two different classes that overpopulation stress has led to an increase in homosexual activity. Meaning, it wasn't that there were more gay people, but, there were more straight people engaging in homosexual sex. What wasn't mentioned is the unavoidable fact that many Chinese women abort female babies because they want their one child to be male. So, indirectly, overpopulation *concerns* have led to the reality of fewer females than males.

I guess if you can name a particular nation TragicMonkey we can figure this one out better. Of course, we can look at prisons, or army barracks, and say that homosexuality is more likely because of overpopulation of men, as opposed to women, but I don't think that's the kind of overpopulation you are talking about. And my point here is that *perceived* overpopulation (it may or may not be there, I guess it depends on your standard) will be the primary cause of an increase in homosexual activity. Perceived being more important than an objective measure of overpopulation, if it can even be objectively measured.

This is more than just semantics I think; if it isn't, then overpopulation may itself be all about semantics. And maybe it is. At least the perception is the kicker.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Roboramma
Men in a hunter gatherer society need to (or are selected for when they) form strong male - male bonds. The same applies to women, but right now I'll make the argument for men.
These bonds tend to be in the form of friendship. However, it seems to me that these bonds would be stronger if some sort of hijacking of sexual intimacy were brought into the situation. Usually this will not tend toward actual homosexual relationships, but, especially when women are rare or absent, the slight sexual urges will at times magnify themselves. Some individuals will have a greater genetic tendancy to this than others.
Some men might even feel sexual desire for others of their own sex more strongly than for women, especially if culturally it's seen as an either/or choice.

But why would such a situation be a boon? Add sexual desire to the mix and you've got things like jealousy and resentment and conflict within these male relationships (I'm assuming that it has to be greater than two men, but, rather a collection of men).

In my opinion, homosexuality has probably always been part of the human experience, whenever we think that it started. I think this is related to our overall complexity at *least* as much as our genetics. And you are right. Cultural situations may bring men together in ways that could lead to homosexual relations. I don't think that has anything to do with reproductive success though.

Thus, those genes could be passed on for other reasons (for example, strengthening male-male bonds) while only at times - due to environmental differences - causing homosexuality.

Does getting intimate with other men make a man a better hunter-gatherer? Going that *further* step may be more deleterious. Theoretically. Kind of like how sex *often* messes people up performance-wise in basically all occupations we can identify.



It's also possible, as others have stated, that homosexuality would have fitness on it's own account.
Kin selection and all that jazz.

I've heard this over and over again, but it's never been articulated adn explained to my satisfaction.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Which would explain barracks, the Old West, prisons, and boy's boarding schools.

I think those can be explained in thousands of different ways. And they certainly have. I am perfectly willing to consider queer theory, and it has been crammed down my throat (heh heh heh sorry) many times. Yes, it can explain lots of things. I can't deny that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Hypocracy is rampant in any religion at any degree. It is mandated that reason be left behind when belief takes over. The religious of every flavour pick and choose what they will or will not believe.

No. You are the one doing the mandating. I reject your belief that I leave reason behind.

Yes I pick and choose what I will and will not believe. We all do this! Are you intimating that you DON'T do this?

Jimmy I see that you have the need to decide that all religious people are unreasonable. This is ubermenschian thinking and I'm sorry that's your thing.

Yes I am talking about your faith. You seem to think you've got the religious pegged. You've got to have faith in yourself to do that. Right? You don't have faith in what you say? Or, do you say things and have no faith in what you say? Which is it?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jimmygun
There are some, Maddog, that would question your committal to anti-abortion issues if you allow that abortion is okee-dokee sometimes.

Like my mother!

Regarding the Catholic church, I am not aware of any Church mandates or doctrines or decrees that say that mother's whose lives are at risk must not procure an abortion. It is a universal exception actually that was acceptable in this country pre Roe v. Wade.

If it is ever an either/or (the mother will die, or the fetus will die), the physician must choose one, and he will choose the mother because it is often simpler and safer that way. I used to work in a perinatology clinic and from what I've been told it is *never* that black or white. In fact, often it would be simpler to induce pregnancy if the mother's life is at risk...but then you're left with the unfortunate circumstance of having an extremely non-viable newborn that will die in short order outside of the womb, and frankly that is more untenable to some people than killing it within the womb.

But I've never met a pro-life doctor (and I've met a bunch) who has said that he/she would never perform an abortion on a woman whose health was at risk. How doctors define health (mental, emotional, physical, serious physical, dietary) is the tricky part, and believe me it can be as loosely defined as possible.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Anyway, if homosexuality were inherently unnatural, then it wouldn't exist, not in animals, not in Man.

Excellent post.

I think that when "unnatural" is used in a dispassionate sense, it is meant that it doesn't correspond to the way we *ought* to be. I know that smacks of design, but surely we can agree that a species *ought* to have many many many more heterosexuals than homosexuals, if only because that is objective reality.

In this sense homosexuality is analagous to blindness or heart murmurs.

What makes this so sensitive is the *desire* aspect. In my opinion. There are feelings and emotions that are part of being homosexual that go above and beyond pure physical states. Unnatural desire is anathema to many.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But you are assigning shoulds. You have determined the existence of "natural order", you have defined it as "to reproduce", and you have decided that it applies on the individual and not species level.

There are *unique* species, unquestionably unique species, where the vast majority of individuals in the species do not reproduce. They are the exception and not the rule.

Within our species, it is natural (or, typical if that word is more palateable) for individual humans to reproduce. It is the exception (although that exception is expanding over time) for the human individual to not reproduce. That exception is becoming more and more common as our belief systems evolve.

I think the bee/ant analogies are interesting and curious, but we are not those species. What is natural for them is not natural for us. Apply how their species operates to us, and you'll see how it is unnatural to make such comparisons.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
This is simply untrue. Soldier ants, for example, will not attempt to reproduce. Instead, they assist their close siblings in reproducing.

This is the intriguing exception to the rule. To expand this exception, to extrapolate it to other species, may be completely useless and out of order. Or not. I just don't think it can be used in the way you are using it to make any sort of meaningful point. We are not ants, and username was speaking about the 99.99% of other animal species. (I may have that percentage wrong).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
More or less. All primates tend to be social animals and help raise the herd's children. But ask yourself -- did you ever have an aunt babysit you when you were a child?

Yes, but none of them (*as far as I know*) were homosexual. Thinking back...3 aunts (maybe just 2 actually?) all of who were married with kids.

You've gone beyond homosexuals here. Also, I was babysat about 15 to 1 by non-relatives than relatives. At least 15 to 1.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your theory. I'm just saying that you are not irrefutably correct, and that I am skeptical that it explains what you have it explain.

Do homosexuals help raise their nephews and nieces...what...measurably more than would a heterosexual? What are we talking about again? Are we saying that homosexuals have staying power in the population because they are more...likely to help babysit? Is that the idea?

-Elliot

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by elliotfc
No. You are the one doing the mandating. I reject your belief that I leave reason behind.

Yes I pick and choose what I will and will not believe. We all do this! Are you intimating that you DON'T do this?

Jimmy I see that you have the need to decide that all religious people are unreasonable. This is ubermenschian thinking and I'm sorry that's your thing.

Yes I am talking about your faith. You seem to think you've got the religious pegged. You've got to have faith in yourself to do that. Right? You don't have faith in what you say? Or, do you say things and have no faith in what you say? Which is it?

-Elliot

You are talking about two different meanings of the word faith. I have faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I am 'confindent' that it will do this. I do not base this 'faith' on the mystical incantations of some religious order but on the known fact that the laws of motion dictate that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

I do not pick and choose what I wish to believe, especially if it involves setting aside reason and proof. As an matter of fact I do not wish to believe anything. I let the facts fall where they may. Do I have faith in myself? If by faith you mean confidence then, yes, I have confidence in myself.

I do not have a 'need' to decide that religious people are unreasonable. They just are by definition. It is unreasonable to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god and then pick and choose what he means and doesn't mean. If one part of god's law is that you should not suffer a witch to live then who are you to say no way? If you believe that god wants you to sacrifice lambs to him how can you also not believe that parts of the bible (the very word of god), demand the death of certain members of society?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by elliotfc
You've gone beyond homosexuals here. Also, I was babysat about 15 to 1 by non-relatives than relatives. At least 15 to 1.

If anybody cares, I mean 15 to 1 as in occasions, and not as in individuals.

-Elliot

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Do homosexuals help raise their nephews and nieces...what...measurably more than would a heterosexual?


"Practicing" homosexuals are less likely to have children of their own than practicing heterosexuals, and thus are more likely to be available as "allomothers" (as previously defined), being less distracted by their own children.

There's lots of evidence -- anthropological, sociological, and psychological -- about the tendency of parents to give preference to their own children over the children of others. I've seen this called the "Cinderella effect" or the "evil stepmother effect." Of course, this doesn't apply to non-parents, because they have no children to prefer.

Re-quoting from my earlier post:

A girl would never have enough fat on board to have that surge in hormones triggering ovulation unless she had other group members helping to provision her.

I think it's obvious that the more group members that you have trying to provision you, the more calories/fat you are going to get from that group. Equally obviously, parents who are trying to provision their own children will not be trying to provision their nieces, cousins, and so forth -- and even if they were, the calories would be split many more ways.

Assume, for the moment, that it takes two adults (per child) to support a child until adulthood. [Yes, I plucked that number out of thin air, but it's illustrative.] In theory, this could be met by a single couple having a single child. It could also be met by a single couple having two children, with the help of another (childless) couple, or a single couple having six children, while being helped by ten other non-reproductive adults. (This is typical of many primate groups in the wild -- the "lead" female has all the children while the other females help "babysit.")

If you've got twelve primates in the tribe, they can support six children. If there are more than six children in the tribe, the chances are very good that they will all die -- not just the excess over six. Irrespective of the exact number of adults that it takes to support a child, non-reproductive couples are very good for the survival of the other children in the group, who are typically closely related (almost all primate groups are kinship groups as well).

Really, it's the soldier ants all over again.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc
If anybody cares, I mean 15 to 1 as in occasions, and not as in individuals.


Not really relevant. Humans didn't evolve for the 20th century lifestyle of large cities of unrelated strangers. The first cities are less than 6000 years old -- an eyeblink in evolutionary time.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by new drkitten
"Practicing" homosexuals are less likely to have children of their own than practicing heterosexuals, and thus are more likely to be available as "allomothers" (as previously defined), being less distracted by their own children.

OK. I guess I'm not making myself clear here. I'm not going to say that your theories are completely out of order. I'm trying to get past your theories here. Sure, I can theoretically conceive what you say to be true. So what? I can also theoretically conceive that HETEROSEXUALS are more likely to assist in the mothering of other children! Most "professional" babysitters I know, and I know several, babysit concurrently with their own children. That's what my mother did for years. You are assuming in your particular theory that mothers with children is to some extent incompatible with babysitting other children when you don't consider the reality that it often FACILITATES the process!

We can trade anecdotes all day. I'd like to see some studies that show how the typical homosexual is more likely to be an active babysitter than the typical heterosexual. I will not argue with the fact that you are able to conceive this to be true. Is it true? That's my question.

To take a huge step back, are you saying, in fact, that the typical homosexual is more likely to babysit than the typical heterosexual?


I think it's obvious that the more group members that you have trying to provision you, the more calories/fat you are going to get from that group.

Are you saying that "fat" people have more reproductive success than "skinny" people?

I'd dig your point if children were DYING (not reaching reproducitve age) because of group members not feeding them. Is that happening in this country to any significant extent?


Equally obviously, parents who are trying to provision their own children will not be trying to provision their nieces, cousins, and so forth -- and even if they were, the calories would be split many more ways.

I posit that our society does not possess the stresses that would make your points relevant. Kids are NOT AT RISK of dying before reproductive age because they don't have uncles and aunts stuffing them with Twinkies.




Frankly I'm shocked that you think this is "like the soldier ants all over again". Not even there dude.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Jimmy thanks for your clarifications.

-Elliot

[drkitten]

Originally posted by elliotfc
OK. I guess I'm not making myself clear here.


No. You're simply not looking on an evolutionary time-scale.

For example, you wrote :


Are you saying that "fat" people have more reproductive success than "skinny" people?

I'd dig your point if children were DYING (not reaching reproducitve age) because of group members not feeding them. Is that happening in this country to any significant extent?

Kids are NOT AT RISK of dying before reproductive age because they don't have uncles and aunts stuffing them with Twinkies.


To your first point, yes, fat people (women, specifically) have more reproductive success than skinny women. There's a well-known medical condition (http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/Concern/Amenorrhea.htm) called "amenorrhea" that, translated out of medic-speak, means that women who don't get enough nutrition don't mentruate. In the civilized world of today, this condition is rare -- but it's still relatively common in developing countries.

But how long has "the civilized world of today" been around? The industrial revolution happened less than six generations ago. You're projecting the environment of today (and of a rather fortunate few today) upon the evolutionary environment, and making a total dog's breakfast of it. Aunts and uncles stuffing their nieces with Twinkies has only been an issue since Twinkies were invented. And "this country" -- I don't know what country you mean, but I will assume the United States -- has been in existence for less than thrree hundred years.

Over most of human history -- and over most of the world today -- children do indeed die because they're not being fed enough.





Most "professional" babysitters I know, and I know several, babysit concurrently with their own children.


"Professional" babysitters have been around for less than a thousand years.

That's what my mother did for years.
Your mother has been around for less than a hundred years.



I posit that our society does not possess the stresses that would make your points relevant.


Our society is not the one for which the human genome evolved.

There's lots of examples of evolved stuff that doesn't fit into "our society." Wisdom teeth, for example. They don't fit into the modern lifestyle (cooked food requires less chewing, and thus does less damage to the teeth), and they don't fit into the modern jaw (which is substantially smaller than it was tens of thousands of years ago). I have also seen it proposed that they provided replacements for molar teeth lost (for whatever reason) between the onset of adult teeth and age 21 or so.

But tens of thousands of years ago, we didn't cook food. We also lost a lot more teeth tens of thousands of years ago, in an age before dentists and toothbrushes. Wisdom teeth have evolved to be useful in an environment in which we no longer find ourselves.

[elliotfc]

DRkitten you've deflected all of my points in a Sagan-esque fashion. There is no way I can respond. Your theories are irrefutable because you speak dogmatically about huge expanses of time that are both unobservable and irrepeatble in the laboratory.

But you do admit that today is different. Fine. What are your expectations for the future, based on the *differences* that you admit that occur today?

In other words, even if I'll go along with your theories that are big picture over thousands of years, I'll go back to my question. Today. TODAY. Are gays more likely to babysit than straights?

-Elliot

[maddog]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Like my mother!

Regarding the Catholic church, I am not aware of any Church mandates or doctrines or decrees that say that mother's whose lives are at risk must not procure an abortion. It is a universal exception actually that was acceptable in this country pre Roe v. Wade.

If it is ever an either/or (the mother will die, or the fetus will die), the physician must choose one, and he will choose the mother because it is often simpler and safer that way. I used to work in a perinatology clinic and from what I've been told it is *never* that black or white. In fact, often it would be simpler to induce pregnancy if the mother's life is at risk...but then you're left with the unfortunate circumstance of having an extremely non-viable newborn that will die in short order outside of the womb, and frankly that is more untenable to some people than killing it within the womb.

But I've never met a pro-life doctor (and I've met a bunch) who has said that he/she would never perform an abortion on a woman whose health was at risk. How doctors define health (mental, emotional, physical, serious physical, dietary) is the tricky part, and believe me it can be as loosely defined as possible.

-Elliot

And Jimmygun says some would question my commitment to pro-life/anti-abortion...

I think the proper position for the doctor / medical profession in general would be to preserve as many lives as possible. If inducing labor would ease the stress that is threatening the life of the mother, that would certainly be preferable to the act of abortion. My "allowable exception" was meant to indicate an either/or situation. I'm not a doctor, nor do I even play one on TV, and I have no idea how often or in what ways those situations occur, so I'm purely dealing in hypotheticals here.

In any case, I would NOT make the exception in the case of the mother's *health* being at risk, only for the mother's *life*, largely because the *health* definition would be so vague (intentionally and otherwise).

[Scot C. Trypal]

Elliot, it shouldn’t be looked at as a babysitting issue; it’s also a defender and resource issue. Its well-documented gays, even in a society that places a stigma upon them, have more disposable income. This is simple to understand; they haven’t traditionally had children of their own. It’s the recourses they give to their heterosexual relatives that furthers the chances of their genes. I mean, even in our modern non-hunting-and-gathering society, I’m hard pressed to think of a gay couple that doesn’t or hasn’t helped a nephew or niece with college, from boarding to tuition.

This, of course, is far from a well-established theory but there is some good supporting evidence, and not just from other species. For example:

Number of older brothers and social orientation: New tests and the attraction/behavior distinction in two national probability samples. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol 84(3), Mar 2003. pp. 644-652.

In both studies, fraternal birth order predicted same-sex attraction in men, with each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexual attraction by an average of 38%. Results also indicated that the fraternal birth order/same-sex attraction relationship in men was independent of sexual behavior, including early same-sex behavior.

Simply, humans having older brothers will more likely be gay and this is exactly what one would expect if nature uses homosexuals as extra parents, defenders, and resource gatherers. You’d rather not your 1st child be gay, but once the next generation is there and in need of care to out compete the rest, an extra adult helper, who’s not diluting your grandchildren’s resources with more grandchildren, may be a good idea.

If there were only good times, this would be unreasonable, but there will be cycles. In good times, when you can produce a lot of children, the gays insulate your grandchildren from the bad times to come.

And then there’s this:

The interaction of birth order and parental age on sexual orientation: An examination in two samples. Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol 36(1), Jan 2004. pp. 19-37.

an interaction between birth order and parental age was observed in men, such that there was positive association between number of older siblings and the likelihood of homosexuality, but this association weakened with increasing parental age.

So, you have a lot of children fast, when you are young, you are more likely to produce a gay child. This, again, is what you’d expect.

Also of interest is:

The interaction of fraternal birth order and body size in male sexual orientation. Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol 117(2), Apr 2003. pp. 381-384.

A late fraternal birth order has been demonstrated numerous times in homosexual men… An interaction between fraternal birth order and height was observed, with a homosexual orientation most likely to occur in men with a high number of older brothers and shorter stature. No significant interactive effects were observed for weight. The results suggest that the mechanism underlying the fraternal birth order phenomenon has an effect on physical development that lasts and is detectable into adulthood (i.e., adult stature).

Shorter men with older siblings are more likely to be gay. This almost, just hypothesizing, hints at both nature’s want for there to be gay folks to take care of nieces and nephews, but preferring to make less physically fit children gay. Thus they don’t pass on those particular genes, that make them less physically imposing, but they do help in defending the other genes which are in their sibling’s children.

[Ipecac]

When I was younger, less enlightened, more conservative, and a Christian, if you had asked me the hypothetical about altering a known homosexuality gene in one of my children pre-birth, I absolutely would have said yes.

Now I see that there is no more basis for saying yes to that question than if the question were about selection of eye color. Homosexuality is a human characteristic that has existed as long as we have. It is not a defect. If anything could be considered "unnatural", changing a child's sexuality because of the prejudices of others would certainly qualify.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Regarding the Catholic church, I am not aware of any Church mandates or doctrines or decrees that say that mother's whose lives are at risk must not procure an abortion.
-Elliot

You are incorrect, Elliot. The Catholic church's position on abortion provides no exception for this or for any other reason. They consider abortion for any reason as the taking of a human life.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
You are incorrect, Elliot. The Catholic church's position on abortion provides no exception for this or for any other reason. They consider abortion for any reason as the taking of a human life.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm) :


It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. [...]

[username]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I thought I was being clear: species reproduce, but all the individuals within that species do not. Some are physically incapable of such.

Yes, due to defects such as various causes of infertility. Homosexuality is a defect along those same lines if it is in fact a genetic trait. It is a physical abnormality. Heterosexuality-bisexuality is the norm, not homosexuality. Hetero and bisexuals can reproduce, homosexuals cannot. Females can seek artifical insemination, but males can't even do that.

The majority of bees and ants are utterly infertile. They cannot, and do not, have sex. Only queens and short-lived breeder males reproduce. The species reproduces, but most of the individuals do not. This has not prevented bees and ants from being among the most successful species ever.

True, but they are exceptional as a species.

Besides, my stated belief was that if homosexuality can be traced to a gene or combination of genes I believe many parents will have this genetic defect corrected in their offspring. I used the term 'natural order' which you and some others appear to have gotten hung up on. It is the natural|common|usual order|way|thing to do. Put the sentence together with whichever word combination you like best.

But you are assigning shoulds. You have determined the existence of "natural order", you have defined it as "to reproduce", and you have decided that it applies on the individual and not species level.

See above.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Also of interest is:

The interaction of fraternal birth order and body size in male sexual orientation. Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol 117(2), Apr 2003. pp. 381-384.

Shorter men with older siblings are more likely to be gay. This almost, just hypothesizing, hints at both nature’s want for there to be gay folks to take care of nieces and nephews, but preferring to make less physically fit children gay. Thus they don’t pass on those particular genes, that make them less physically imposing, but they do help in defending the other genes which are in their sibling’s children.

I find this to be intriguing. I'm gay (or at least on a scale of 1 (homosexual) to 10 (heterosexual), about 7). I'm shorter than both my siblings, being 5'3". But I'm the eldest. Still, I fit into the 'less physically fit', at least until I was in my mid-20's. I was also born premature by a month and underweight.

This puts me into the hypothesis that sexual orientation is not 'genetic' at all (that goes all around), but something that is set by hormones, environment, prenatal and natal conditions. I didn't say 'sex', that's a topic for an entire other thread. This doesn't justify the 'choice' people and it makes both ends harder to defend. You can't snip out the gene, nor can you avoid the complex consequences in which varying sexual orientations arise (without Uber-Draconian measures and Big Brother monitoring). Hah! I like it when causes are subtle enough to be unavoidable and unconscious.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Elliot, it shouldn’t be looked at as a babysitting issue; it’s also a defender and resource issue. Its well-documented gays, even in a society that places a stigma upon them, have more disposable income. This is simple to understand; they haven’t traditionally had children of their own. It’s the recourses they give to their heterosexual relatives that furthers the chances of their genes. I mean, even in our modern non-hunting-and-gathering society, I’m hard pressed to think of a gay couple that doesn’t or hasn’t helped a nephew or niece with college, from boarding to tuition.

How about gay individuals, and not gay couples?

Also, even if this is correct (gays help raise straights) does this lead to evolutionary/reproductive fitness? There is no correlation between wealth and having more children (I suspect the opposite is true) and there is no correlation between educational level and having more children (I'm quite certain the opposite is true).

If homosexuality is genetic, I'd accept that, regardless of kin theory.

Where kin theory (in my opinion) breaks down is that it isn't *necessary* in our species, at least not in the case of homosexuals. You can bring up soldier ants and you can see the necessity of reproduction dependant upon the majority of non-reproducers helping out. That can't be said for our species. And I'd like it to be spelled out please. How does a gay person helping to babysit a nephew or niece ASSIST that kid's eventual reproductive success? It's a nice touch, I'm not going to argue that.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by jmercer
You are incorrect, Elliot. The Catholic church's position on abortion provides no exception for this or for any other reason. They consider abortion for any reason as the taking of a human life.

Newadvent.org basically says the same thing.

Newadvent.org calls it "acceleration of birth". Sticking with that language, an ectopic pregnancy/abortion is not an acceleration of birth, which is why most modern Catholic religious reject the turn-of-the-century statements as being medically ill-informed, and thus disposable (though relevant for historical reasons). The point isn't to induce birth, or to have a "birthing" process. It is a medical procedure on a certain part of a woman's body. Birth is a uterine phenomena, be it vaginal or caseserean.

Two things factor here (according to current Catholic theologians). The first is intent. The second is the law of double effect. If something medically needs to be done to save the life of a mother it *can* be done. For instance, the removal of a tube to save a mother's life can be done, with Church sanction. Because it is in *actuality* done with Church sanction, and has even been done in Catholic hospitals with no condemnatino by the Church. If the fetus dies because of the removal of a tube, that is in fact morally permissible. The intent was not to commit abortion. The secondary effect of the procedure was abortion.

I respect anyone's opinion that newadvent.org has this correct. Most pro-life Catholics disagree, and if the magesterium chooses to correct them, I'd be more sympathetic to your position j.

-Elliot

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Which would explain barracks, the Old West, prisons, and boy's boarding schools. The Old West?

There's such a lot they don't show you in cowboy movies.

Typical Hollywood.

So... "Butch" Cassidy and the Sundance Kid... ?

Wow, there's a film just crying out for a pornographic remake.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by elliotfc
There is no way I can respond. Your theories are irrefutable because you speak dogmatically about huge expanses of time that are both unobservable and irrepeatble in the laboratory. I think you must have been sitting next to a fundie recently, and caught something nasty.

"You can't prove that Queen Anne is dead because you can't see her dying of reliably repeat her death in a laboratory. The idea that she's dead is just an unscientific assumption for which there can be no evidence."

Tossers.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think you must have been sitting next to a fundie recently, and caught something nasty.

"You can't prove that Queen Anne is dead because you can't see her dying of reliably repeat her death in a laboratory. The idea that she's dead is just an unscientific assumption for which there can be no evidence."

Tossers.

Hey, you can have faith in whatever theory you want. Doesn't make it untouchable. Right?

Second, people knew Queen Anne. It's historical.

-Elliot

[Scot C. Trypal]

How about gay individuals, and not gay couples?

Oddly I don’t have that kind of personal info on my single gay friends; I don’t know them that well. All the close gay friends I have are couples. I’ll try to search for some research next time I’m at a university, but I’d bet it doesn’t exist.

If homosexuality is genetic, I'd accept that, regardless of kin theory.

Sure, the kin theory stuff is really beside the point. The fact is homosexuality exists in our species and in many others from primates to birds. As it gets in the way of making babies and for it to exist in the numbers it does, another pressure seemingly must be at work and people naturally wonder what that may be.

I’m not saying what that is has been near nailed down but this theory is a promising one (particularly in light of the well documented birth order effect on homosexuality). Another good one is that you may want your average human to have the best of both XX and XY traits and want, for example, males that form strong personal unions with other males, for cooperation and so on. This average human would be heterosexual and these unions would be merely friendships, but a normal distribution will push a minority over the edge. Anyway, It’s far from settled.

Where kin theory (in my opinion) breaks down is that it isn't *necessary* in our species, at least not in the case of homosexuals. You can bring up soldier ants and you can see the necessity of reproduction dependant upon the majority of non-reproducers helping out. That can't be said for our species. And I'd like it to be spelled out please. How does a gay person helping to babysit a nephew or niece ASSIST that kid's eventual reproductive success? It's a nice touch, I'm not going to argue that.

It’s certainly not necessary, but many many traits aren’t; they may be there just in case. I mean, sickle cell anemia seems very unnecessary until you realize the pressure of malaria. Nature likes to hedge its bets.

Again, I don’t think babysitting is really that important, not as important as defense and resource sharing. Let me try to be clearer. Say we have two tribes, A and B. It’s a good decade; lots of food; everyone does well. By the end of it Woman A in tribe A has 5 sons, and, following the birth-order research, #5 is gay. Woman B in tribe B has 5 sons too, but all as straight as Charlton Hesston.

Now say the next decade a drought occurs, on one of nature’s cycles, and things get bad; things get competitive. In this harsher environment, less children will be produced and thus less chance of gay children caused by birth order too. As time goes by 1A through 4A have 12 children total, while 5A finds an interest in decorating huts or cutting hair, whatever. Children 1B through 5B have 15 children total.

A’s provider to child ratio = 0.42
B’s provider to child ratio = 0.33

When they go out to find food, Family A has 5 adults feeding 12 children and Family B has 5 adults feeding 15 children. If times are really bad tribe B will begin to die off first as they have more consumption than production. Now, if A and B get into competition, A will have an advantage over the mal-nourished B in any fight. The competition that occurs during tough times is, after all, between two groups of 5 adults, not between one group of 12 and another of 15 infants and children. Is this necessary? No. It’s not even useful in the majority of cases. It’s simply a variation that pays off every now and then, and that is the pressure that theoretically keeps it in a minority.

kuroyume0161:
This puts me into the hypothesis that sexual orientation is not 'genetic' at all (that goes all around), but something that is set by hormones, environment, prenatal and natal conditions. I didn't say 'sex', that's a topic for an entire other thread. This doesn't justify the 'choice' people and it makes both ends harder to defend. You can't snip out the gene, nor can you avoid the complex consequences in which varying sexual orientations arise (without Uber-Draconian measures and Big Brother monitoring). Hah! I like it when causes are subtle enough to be unavoidable and unconscious.

It is a complicated mess. But I’d still say it must be partly genetic. For it to be something that is set by hormones, environment, prenatal and natal conditions, there still has to be a genetically designed switch there to set in the first place.

Say birth order is a factor. That genetic switch may be in every child but it only gets turned on (or maybe just further to on) by, say, a womb experience inside a woman who’s experienced the unique immune/hormonal consequences of having numerous male children.

Come to think of it, there'd be no homosexuality without human sexuality, and that's a thing that I think must be genetic. If it weren’t for those undeniably gene-created hormones of puberty, there’d be no gay men or women; at least I know I never thought of sex or intimacy before they did their work on my mind.

Anyway, I think it kind of sucks that it’s so complicated; it makes for difficult sound bites by radical political groups. :)