Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
But who the fuck cares!! For gods sake, if you're gay you're gay!
I've many gay friends who are completely happy being who they are and have always said they were gay from the first day they could remember. If it's genes or upbringing, who really cares!! In fact, although homosexuality is against reproduction, I believe it clearly (in a utopian society) promotes acceptance. Just leave them the fuck alone!!!!
Again, sorry if I offended anyone with either language or ideas but this topic drives me nuts as it seems like such old news.
Cheers,
Steve
I think some of it may have to do with the religious right and their persecution of homosexuals. If science can prove that homosexuality isn't a "choice" and certainly not an "evil choice" then progress can be made toward true equality. At least that's the way I see it.
When will they start doing studies to see what makes me straight? Of course they never will because hetero is perceived as "normal" by these people.
Ridiculous studies and a huge waste of resources, time and money.
I think it's fair to call heterosexuality "normal" based on the numbers and based on the logic of needed to reproduce to keep the species alive. But I don't think there's anything wrong at all with being something other than "normal." I'm just saying it kinda makes sense to study the minority to see why they're different.
I have no problems with people studying homosexuality. In fact I encourage it and am fasinated by it. By finding it's root we could perhaps finds roots to all sorts of important things.
I just find it intolerable when people view homosexuality as abnormal or unatural. I hope people see that I'm not as crazy as I perhaps first sounded, just passionate about this topic.
It's also worth keeping in mind that from a darwinian sense, homosexuality should have died out millenia (sp?) ago. This is surely evidence of environmental factoring rather than genetic.
Cheers,
Steve
First, many homosexual males cover up their true sexual preferences and have families and children in fear of persecution.
Second, genetics is more complex than "Parent" passes on to "Child". Consider homosexuality as a recessive trait in humans where one requires the two recessive alleles to be a homosexual. If you have the dominant allele and a recessive you are only a heterosexual carrier. Make sense?
First, many homosexual males cover up their true sexual preferences and have families and children in fear of persecution.
Second, genetics is more complex than "Parent" passes on to "Child". Consider homosexuality as a recessive trait in humans where one requires the two recessive alleles to be a homosexual. If you have the dominant allele and a recessive you are only a heterosexual carrier. Make sense?
Yeah, but this would surely die out very quickly, no? I see what you mean, but I can't see the reasons you've given being responsible soley for the existance of homsexuality throughout the existance of humans. In fact, I highly doubt there could be a genetic cause.
Personally, I feel that homosexuality it strongly environmental. If you believe in evolution, surely it must be.
ps. It's true I have limited understanding of genetics, but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way
I wonder if somehow this will all lead to discovering a penis that can fly.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yeah, but this would surely die out very quickly, no? I see what you mean, but I can't see the reasons you've given being responsible soley for the existance of homsexuality throughout the existance of humans. In fact, I highly doubt there could be a genetic cause.
Personally, I feel that homosexuality it strongly environmental. If you believe in evolution, surely it must be.
ps. It's true I have limited understanding of genetics, but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way
pps. and I am related to Dawin himself!!!
No it wouldn't die out at all. There are many recessive traits still circulating between us till this day.
You are entitled to your own view and its true social environment can play a big role in the outcome but there is no doubt genetics are involved.
It all leads back to the nature vs nurture argument. To rule out nature completely is as bad as ruling out nurture completely.
It all leads back to the nature vs nurture argument. To rule out nature completely is as bad as ruling out nurture completely.
Absolutely agree.
I hate it when I agree like this as it really snuffs out an argument
Perhaps it's an environmental factor that triggers a recessive gene. Or perhaps the "hetrosexual gene" is so dominant that there are few cases where it is overrided.
I still believe that environment plays a massive part in ones sexual orientation and that more importantly, it doens't make a f*cking difference as to whether you are a good person or not. (I know you weren't arguing for or against that!)
Still the research et al is fascinating to me and something definately worth mankinds' while
It's also worth keeping in mind that from a darwinian sense, homosexuality should have died out millenia (sp?) ago. This is surely evidence of environmental factoring rather than genetic.
Cheers,
Steve
There are darwinian explanations for homosexuality too. Altrusim genes and sibling raising etc.
Everything is genetic. You are less in control of your behaviour than you might like to think.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
It is very hard to talk about darwin and humans when talking about traits that should be long gone. Darwin does not apply to modern day humans over the last several thousand years because we keep the inept alive long enough to breed. We mess with our own evolution by caring for each other. There should be no retarded people but others carry the slack so they survive. So you cant take rules we use in nature and make them work for us. The more technology we get the more we don't weed out bad genes. If you have diabetees here is some insulin. I mean our gene pool has gotten pretty weak. There are kids who are alergic to everything including grass and yet there is little worry they wont survive. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humans. If you are the fittest you may be more sucessful but we have surpassed the survival part. If your loved one can't survive on their own you will do what it takes to keep them alive.
It is very hard to talk about darwin and humans when talking about traits that should be long gone. Darwin does not apply to modern day humans over the last several thousand years because we keep the inept alive long enough to breed. We mess with our own evolution by caring for each other. There should be no retarded people but others carry the slack so they survive. So you cant take rules we use in nature and make them work for us. The more technology we get the more we don't weed out bad genes. If you have diabetees here is some insulin. I mean our gene pool has gotten pretty weak. There are kids who are alergic to everything including grass and yet there is little worry they wont survive. Survival of the fittest does not apply to humans. If you are the fittest you may be more sucessful but we have surpassed the survival part. If your loved one can't survive on their own you will do what it takes to keep them alive.
All that is true (and I'm glad, because I have a genetic disease that would suck major arse without the modern technology to treat it), but the fact that humans take care of each other does not negate the effect of natural selection. As a species we have changed very little in the 10,000 years or so that it has taken us to develop all our technologies. It still makes sense to look for Darwinian explanations for the prevalance of things like homosexuality. It has almost certainly been around in human society for much longer than all our technology. It still warrants the question, because even now, it is very rare for strictly homosexual people to have children, so if there is a genetic basis for their sexuality its not being directly inherited. There are plenty of interesting theories on this one. Google it and I bet you'll find lots of interesting material.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
If they really have found the gay genes should governments outlaw gay gene testing? Allowing the testing would probably lead to abortions by many mothers. But then again we are comfortable as a society doing this type of testing for Downs Syndrome and many other gentically identifiable issues.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Comments
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I have no problems with people studying homosexuality. In fact I encourage it and am fasinated by it. By finding it's root we could perhaps finds roots to all sorts of important things.
I just find it intolerable when people view homosexuality as abnormal or unatural. I hope people see that I'm not as crazy as I perhaps first sounded, just passionate about this topic.
Cheers,
Steve
(renewing my subscription to this thread)
thanks.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
First, many homosexual males cover up their true sexual preferences and have families and children in fear of persecution.
Second, genetics is more complex than "Parent" passes on to "Child". Consider homosexuality as a recessive trait in humans where one requires the two recessive alleles to be a homosexual. If you have the dominant allele and a recessive you are only a heterosexual carrier. Make sense?
Yeah, but this would surely die out very quickly, no? I see what you mean, but I can't see the reasons you've given being responsible soley for the existance of homsexuality throughout the existance of humans. In fact, I highly doubt there could be a genetic cause.
Personally, I feel that homosexuality it strongly environmental. If you believe in evolution, surely it must be.
ps. It's true I have limited understanding of genetics, but it just doesn't make sense to me any other way
pps. and I am related to Dawin himself!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No it wouldn't die out at all. There are many recessive traits still circulating between us till this day.
You are entitled to your own view and its true social environment can play a big role in the outcome but there is no doubt genetics are involved.
It all leads back to the nature vs nurture argument. To rule out nature completely is as bad as ruling out nurture completely.
Absolutely agree.
I hate it when I agree like this as it really snuffs out an argument
Perhaps it's an environmental factor that triggers a recessive gene. Or perhaps the "hetrosexual gene" is so dominant that there are few cases where it is overrided.
I still believe that environment plays a massive part in ones sexual orientation and that more importantly, it doens't make a f*cking difference as to whether you are a good person or not. (I know you weren't arguing for or against that!)
Still the research et al is fascinating to me and something definately worth mankinds' while
There are darwinian explanations for homosexuality too. Altrusim genes and sibling raising etc.
Everything is genetic. You are less in control of your behaviour than you might like to think.
-C Addison
All that is true (and I'm glad, because I have a genetic disease that would suck major arse without the modern technology to treat it), but the fact that humans take care of each other does not negate the effect of natural selection. As a species we have changed very little in the 10,000 years or so that it has taken us to develop all our technologies. It still makes sense to look for Darwinian explanations for the prevalance of things like homosexuality. It has almost certainly been around in human society for much longer than all our technology. It still warrants the question, because even now, it is very rare for strictly homosexual people to have children, so if there is a genetic basis for their sexuality its not being directly inherited. There are plenty of interesting theories on this one. Google it and I bet you'll find lots of interesting material.
-C Addison
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley