 |
| |
|
|
Hoek
|
 |
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
I have been reading alot of stuff about bioethics and biotechnology, and I have found a rather interesting anaylsis about the whole question of the causes of homosexuality.
Now, alot of liberals (I myself am a liberal, but for now lest just call this group the lefties in order to make the distinction) are convinced that homosexuality is genetic. This assertion makes no sense if you consider evolutionary biology. According to evolutionary biology, genetic traits that would inhibit reproduction would rather quickly get eliminated since they serve no evolutionary purpose. If there were at any time a homosexuality gene, it would quickly have disappeared from the gene pool for the simple reason that homosexuals tend not to reproduce.
However, some recent studies indicate that other biological linkages may exist. Prenatal hormone levels seem to have an effect on sexual desire. In other words, the higher the ratio of testosterone, the more attractive females are and the more masculine the child will be (so the stereotype of butch dykes actually has biological grounding). Likewise, the higher the ratio of estrogen, the more attractive men become and the more effeminate the child will be. This throws the questions of gender and sexuality right together.
On the other hand, the right often argues that homosexuality is "learned." Now, it seems to me that neither side has it right here. It seems fairly obvious that homosexuality, like almost every other human behavior is a combination of environment and biology (nature AND nurture, so to speak).
Thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
If the trait were recessive then natural selection would never get rid of it because the carriers are unaffected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
I don't know. I can't help think the mother's stress effects it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:21
|
|
There may well be evolutionary benefits for tribes that have non-child-bearing members who can assist with food production, defense, caring for young, etc. Such individuals, free from jealousies or favoritism for specific young, could have a positive effect on the group's overall ability to survive and thrive. A group of individuals carrying such a gene might have a distinct advantage over groups who did not.
As for the stereotype of butch dykes, it is irrelevant given the larger number of lesbians who are not butch dykes. Likewise, the business about ... quote:
the higher the ratio of estrogen, the more attractive men become and the more effeminate the child will be. |
... also does not fit with the high number of extremely masculine gay men, not to mention the less-than-attractive ones, for which I offer myself as a living example. 
Perhaps there are more than one factor involved, some gays resulting from the effects you described, others arriving at homosexuality by some other means (i.e. environmental, etc).
Last edited by mindseye on 25-07-2002 at 08:48
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
I tend to discount the genetic arguments in general, and especially when they claim that one's sexual orientation is set in stone from conception or birth. For starters, while these theories tend to focus on homosexuals they tend to ignore a larger group, namely bisexuals (in this instance I am defining bisexuals as people who have had sex with people of both genders regardless of how many times or what they are doing now). As is often the case this whole issue is muddied with dualistic arguments, the two most common and IMO useless being Good : Evil, and Heterosexual : Homosexual. IMO because so much attention has been placed on the first duality due to Abrahamic religious doctrine, too much emphasis has been placed upon the second duality.
The fact that so many people have had sexual relations or sexual feelings about people of both genders seems to demand some sort of attention. It seems that for many, things are not set in concrete, which IMO shoots the most rigid genetic arguments down in flames. A more complex scheme involving multiple genes interacting is possible, but one wonders how that can explain the fairly large number of people who switch back and forth one or more times in their lifetime. One also wonders how a genetic trait like this would be more useful than a purely behavioral trait. It seems much more useful to be able to adjust things via behavior all along rather than setting things in stone at conception or during the pregnancy.
I guess my vote goes for a more developmental model. This would act like the complex genetic model to some extent (including the way that it's effects are perceived), except that many of the factors would be capable of changing. It would explain a number of common behaviors fairly well, including those of ambivalent orientation (bisexuals).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2002 07:35
|