26-07-2002 20:48									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You are correct that evolutionary biology does not account for all human behavior (note that I asserted that it is a combination of biology and environment that makes up behavior). However, since alot of liberals do in fact assert that homosexuality is genetic like someone's race, it makes sense to analyze the argument. And in terms of the genetic argument, it doesn't hold up in the face of evidence.

Now don't get me wrong on this==I'm not some gay-basher...I do have some gay friends in fact. To me, regardless of its' origins, I think that a person's sexuality is his or her own business.

Now, in terms of "learned" homosexuality, I think it's fair to say that there are indeed some clear cases of situational homosexuality. Take the ancient greeks for instance. There is strong evidence that homosexual behavior was practiced fairly widely, but that it had a sort of "companionship" connotation with it. And look at prisons. Homosexual behavior in prison is a method of establishing a hierarchy that is independent of a person's sexual desires.

In addition to that, there are a number of other problems with the biology argument. Presumably, if there is a definite and sole biological cause for homosexuality, biological science will some day find a "cure" for it. With genetic and prenatal screening technology already up and running, an ethical dilemna faces those liberals who assert a "biology only" argument. Supposing parents were told that they had the option of having either a homosexual or a heterosexual child. Would those liberals stop those parents from making the inevitable choice?

Another problem is that for some strange reason, homosexuality seems to be the only human characterisic liberals assert has any biological tie. Time after time, when research is done into biological ties to intelligence and criminality, liberals decrie it as "pseudo-science." Why then should they assert with all fervor that in this case, homosexuality IS in fact biological?

My thought on this all is that there are indeed biological ties to all behavior, but that environment can do alot to overwhelm the biological input. People with learning disorders can still learn, people with hereditary achoholism don't necessarily need to become alcoholics. Regarding homosexuality, however, we as a society need to start thinking along the lines of post-evolution. We as humans are the only species that has been able to buck evolution, and we need to recognize that. Those who say homosexuality is bad because it's "unnatural" never bother to tell the rest of us what in this world they do consider "natural". And liberals need to start realizing what their arguments about homosexuality innevitably lead to.

	26-07-2002 21:50									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This so perfectly answers the question that I think it needs to be re-quoted.

quote: Also consider that people's sexuality is highly influenced by societal views. (...) The prohibition against sexual interest in one's own sex doubtlessly prevents many heterosexuals from even considering bisexuality, where a in a more neutral society that might not be the case. All we know for certain is the sexuality develops in a highly chaotic interplay of genes, hormones, and social mores. Exactly how much one contributes and influences the other is unlikely to be determined. All one can say with any certainty is that it is not a choice.

	26-07-2002 23:35									#33
	Got spare money?

Isn't the bottom line, though, that nobody currently knows for certain? Which makes me question anybody who asserts otherwise. The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded, just as the assertion that it is a definitely a choice is unfounded. Those who assert that homosexuality is genetic are not basing their opinion on science, but rather on dubious logic that says "who would ever want to choose to be homosexual?" And those who assert that homosexuality is purely a choice are not basing their opinion on science either, but more commonly a misinterpretation of the Soddom and Gommora story (which is critical of inhospitabality and rape, not of homosexuality). The way I feel is that if you are going to make a claim one way or the other, you had better have some hard evidence.

	27-07-2002 08:12									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded

Now, that's just plain dumb.

Unlike genetic, hormonal, environmental, or other factors, you can simply ask someone if choice was involved. I've known thousands of gay men and women during my life (I lived in San Francisco for 18 years), and trust me when I say this is a discussion topic of great interest for gays and their friends. Gay people usually give a great deal of thought and introspection to the great question of just how they came to be who they are. I have yet to meet even one who felt there was any degree of choice in the matter.

I don't understand how you think you can state that arguments about choice are "wholly unfounded" in the face of unanimous declarations to the contrary by the very folks in question.

By the way, did you choose to be heterosexual?

	27-07-2002 10:52									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by mindseye quote: The idea that somebody can assert de facto that homosexuality is not a choice is wholly unfounded Now, that's just plain dumb. Unlike genetic, hormonal, environmental, or other factors, you can simply ask someone if choice was involved. I've known thousands of gay men and women during my life (I lived in San Francisco for 18 years), and trust me when I say this is a discussion topic of great interest for gays and their friends. Gay people usually give a great deal of thought and introspection to the great question of just how they came to be who they are. I have yet to meet even one who felt there was any degree of choice in the matter. I don't understand how you think you can state that arguments about choice are "wholly unfounded" in the face of unanimous declarations to the contrary by the very folks in question. By the way, did you choose to be heterosexual?

Oh, didn't you know?? There are some heterosexuals that are ignorant, and think that heterosexuals know more about homosexuality than homosexuals do.

	27-07-2002 14:48									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Mr. Fun,

Oh, didn't you know?? There are some heterosexuals that are ignorant, and think that heterosexuals know more about homosexuality than homosexuals do.

They don't, generally speaking, but in a discussion on the issue, the arguments and statements of the homosexual don't carry more weight than those of the rest of us. Although lacking the first-hand experience in the field, the heterosexual can occasionally benefit from the natural distance to the subject. To make a comparisation, there are indeed some men who know more about women than the women themselves - again, generally speaking.

	27-07-2002 21:26									#37
	Tired of ads?

That might be true to an extent Monk, but for SOME heterosexuals like Boddington's, it is easier to bash a group of people they do not understand.

	27-07-2002 21:26									#38
	Remove this text

quote: the arguments and statements of the homosexual don't carry more weight than those of the rest of us.

First-hand knowledge doesn 't carry any weight? That's a curious proposition.

	27-07-2002 21:48									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

MrFun - Bods is a troll

My personal feeling is that environment influences our sexuality as much as genes/testosterone levels/estrogen levels/etc. As stated earlier, some people would be more inclined to be bisexual or even gay if they lived in a society that felt it normal, but in another society wouldn't even give it a shot.

I for one have searched, and know that i'm 100% straight. I just don't and probably can't feel attracted to a guy. Whether that's more genetics or environment at work, i'm not sure, but probably a good mix of both.

	27-07-2002 23:23									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think Hoek raises some valid points. One thing I should mention about the ancient Greeks, though, is that they had a prohibition against homosexuality also. While it was true that men seduced teen boys, there were rules. First, the teen was not supposed to want to be seduced. Second, sexual intercorse didn't involved actual penetration, but was done by thrusting the penis through the thighs. Anal sex was prohibited, as was having sex with men your own age. Men who allowed themselves to be penetrated were treated as women; men were penetrators, women are penetratees.

Homosexual activity in prison is far more about power than it is about homosexuality. There's certainly no attraction involved. Actual gay people are in danger of being gang raped and murdered in prison. A man is expected to fight to prevent it, because no real man would allow himself to be penetrated.

Homosexual activity on ships and among cowboys is much closer to sexuality of choice. All male situations where there is little hope of female sexual release for long periods of time. Today that isn't so much the case, but in previous times it was.

As for the genetic cause of homosexuality, I think this idea springs from multiple sources. On the one hand, there is definately a "look" to homsexual men. I can't describe it, but there a certain facial structure that is "gay." It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

There is also the higher incidence of identical twins raised seperately to both by gay. Finally there are some brain structures that appear in some gay men.

On the other hand, it provided an easy out for liberals in defending gays. It's genetic, they can't help it, so it shouldn't be punished. This is a lame defense, but it's likely helped to decrease pressure on gays, so while I find it intellectually dishonest, I can't bring myself to condemn it.

Frankly, it doesn't matter why people are gay. Even if it were a choice, there's nothing wrong with it. We should be defending people's right to be gay and to live free from persecution, not because "they can't help it" which implies that there's something wrong with it, but because there's nothing wrong with it what so ever.

	28-07-2002 00:41									#41
	Get a bigger avatar today!

If you say so, Orange.

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As for the genetic cause of homosexuality, I think this idea springs from multiple sources. On the one hand, there is definately a "look" to homsexual men. I can't describe it, but there a certain facial structure that is "gay." It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

Chegitz, usually you provide intelligent insight on a variety of topics and issues.

But for once, this statement of yours is simply wrong.

And as I have stated before, I am finding the pure genetic theory to be weaker than I originally thought.

	28-07-2002 00:42									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I personally believe that it's likely everyone is genetically bisexual, at least to some degree, and that there is usually some minor margin in which a person's sexual preferences may vary. However, most people are at the relative extremes of the scale.

quote: 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.

Consider if a person gets a certain mutated gene that is supposed to produce hemoglobin from both parents, that person will get sickle-cell amenia, while if a person gets a single such gene, that person will get resistance to malaria. So, this mutation survives to this day, despite being very harmful.

Also consider that populations with homosexuals will tend to face fewer over-population problems.

	28-07-2002 03:57									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Look, so far I have not seen one sound argument on behalf of homosexuality being GENETIC, and not some other biological root. Che's argument was just a joke from what I could tell. Ramo's argument that homosexuality acts as a hedge on overpopulation is silly because true lack of resources has not become a serious problem until recently and misses the fact that evolution does not pass on dead ends. Sickle Cell Anemia, which occurs (as far as I know) only in people of African descent, does in fact serve an evolutionary purpose because it fights malaria. The reason it has survived is because evolution determined that for the African continent, resistence to malaria was important enough to keep it in the gene pool. Homosexuality serves no species-wide purpose from an evolutionary stand point, so it therefore makes no sense to say that it is built into the genes.

Che: good points about the analogies. I had an interesting talk with a good friend of the family the other day. His son is gay, and he lives in Fairfax county. The county was putting up a referendum to change the school charter saying "will not discriminate based on race....or sexual orientation." A group of right wingers in the church snuck into the chapel and put an insert into the bulletin saying "homosexuals are after your children." So he is going to give a "rebuttal" tommorow. One thing that he noted about ancient jewish tradition in the case of homosexuality is that not all homosexuality was looked down on. If you were the penatrator, your role as a man remained intact, but if you were penetrated, it was a sin because you were taking the place of the woman. And since women were ignored in the bible, lesbianism wasn't discussed. Also, after moses received the ten commandments, jewish law over time developed an extra 900 commandments. Then Jesus came along and said there is but one commandment: love your god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Alot of these homophobes are just old testament christians who don't like dealing with the new testament for some reason.

PS: next post, I'll show you guys a picture of a Jesus action figure I just got...it's hilarious.

	28-07-2002 04:30									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Ramo's argument that homosexuality acts as a hedge on overpopulation is silly because true lack of resources has not become a serious problem until recently

Completely false. Hunter-gatherer life doesn't exactly mean abundance. If anything, overpopulation is only recently (i.e. within the last several thousand years) becoming a more benign threat.

quote: Homosexuality serves no species-wide purpose from an evolutionary stand point,

The point is that sickle-cell amenia is a recessive characteristic, and that a regular and a mutated allele serves a purpose. There could very well be an analogy with sexual preference. You and I really don't know...

	28-07-2002 04:33									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: misses the fact that evolution does not pass on dead ends.

Which could be explained if it's similar to a recessive characteristic. Populations with these alternate sexual preference genes would tend to survive during periods of hardships.

	28-07-2002 04:39									#46
	Tired of ads?

Che this is insulting to some people.... especially this quote... you cannot generalize people into a group by the way they look, that my friend is the biggest mistake you can make.

quote: It isn't that all gay men look this way, but all men who look this way are gay. I know it when I see it, MrFun has this look.

Does my picture (http://glomar.net/photos/fotog.jpg) have this face structure?

I think being gay or bisexual all has to do with the environment the person is subjected to. That genetic argument is baseless.

	28-07-2002 04:47									#47
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Back on topic:

I took Biology in high school - 2 years of it. And (to this point, anyway), I'm not homosexual. It would appear there is no link.


The problem with this debate - genetic vs environmental - is that if we can conclusively show it's one or the other, the consequences could be unpleasant.

Examples...

Genetic: How many narrow minded people would be terminating pregnancies if they knew the child-to-be would be gay (the way pregnancies are terminated in certain countries if the child-to-be is female)?

Environmental: The same hypothetical narrow minded people, if they found out sexual preference was due to environment, would then try to 'reprogram' the homosexual child by changing their environment.

Moral of the story: Some things we are better off not knowing.

	28-07-2002 04:51									#48
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Moral of the story: Some things we are better off not knowing.

And you got a point there....

But I will continue pushing my question to Che and ask do I have that face structure?

	28-07-2002 06:10									#49
	Remove this text

That's only a problem if people are homophobic. If we can actually get everyone to agree that everyone is equal, this wouldn't be a problem, genetic or environmental. But that's for another thread. Sure are a lot of these recently... though I did start two. Anyways, I've got nothing else to say... think I'll press the submit button... this wasn't a very useful post...

	28-07-2002 07:56									#50
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Frogger It would get rid of it, albeit rather slowly. Unless there is a positive benefit from getting gene from one parent but not both (e.g. sickle-cell gene) there is notheing to counteract downward trend.

No it would not. Only one fourth of the progeny would be homozygous and be unable to reproduce. The three quarters who were heterozygous and the one quarter who lacked the gene entirely would be unaffected. The heterozygous would pass the gene on ad infinitum.

	28-07-2002 08:30									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Who you callin' a homozygous?!

	28-07-2002 08:54									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove No it would not. Only one fourth of the progeny would be homozygous and be unable to reproduce. The three quarters who were heterozygous and the one quarter who lacked the gene entirely would be unaffected. The heterozygous would pass the gene on ad infinitum.

Only if you assume average population growth rate of greater than or equal to 33% per generation.

	28-07-2002 08:59									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The point is that two "gay-gene" parents only have 3 children, whereas two "normal" parents have 4. This means that a union of two "gay-genes" produces less viable offspring, cutting down their share of the next generation, and if the general population doesn't grow fast enough then you end up with a decline in the absolute number as well.

As percentage of gay-gene carriers drops, however, the efect is lessened, since a union of two of them becomes less likely with lower occurence. Without countervailing positive effect of heterozygousness, however, there is no stable point above zero.

	28-07-2002 09:13									#54
	Inflate your Upload Space

But this neglects the fact that many, many homosexuals have sired children.

	28-07-2002 09:15									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If we want to deal in concrete numbers, assume that we have prevalence of gene among non-gay population of p (non-gays are either heterozygotes or non-carriers).

The prevalence of unions among 2 non-carriers would be (1-p)^2. The prevalence of unions among 2 carriers would be p^2. The prevalence of unions among one carrier and one non-carrier would be 2p(1-p).

In the next generation, the prevalence of gene among viable population (non-gay), assuming independence of all other traits from gay gene will be: p(1-p) (half of children of carrier-noncarrier union will carry gene, all will be viable) + 1/2p^2 (only half of offspring from double carrier union will both be viable and carry gene) = p-p^2+1/2p^2 = p-1/2p^2.

EDIT: this is slightly off. Should be p(1-1/2p)/(1-1/4p^2) = p/(1+1/2p) since we're asking about prevalence among viable population...

Note that this is < p...

Last edited by KrazyHorse on 28-07-2002 at 11:15

	28-07-2002 09:17									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov But this neglects the fact that many, many homosexuals have sired children.

Of course. That needs to be added in as extra propability, but this is secondary effect. Unless gays have more children than heterosexuals, the prevalence of a gay rexessive gene will always decrease, unless there is some sort of benefit to being a gay-gene heterozygote (again, see the example of sickle-cell anemia among blacks in Africa). If there is such a benefit, the prevalence of gay gene will find natural equilibrium point.

	28-07-2002 19:43									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Chegitz, usually you provide intelligent insight on a variety of topics and issues. But for once, this statement of yours is simply wrong.

That's not much of an argument, MrFun. I'm sorry this contradicts liberal teaching that you can't tell a gay person by looking at them, but in some cases you can. Leaving aside the whole concept of gaydar (which straights can have also, especially after seventeen years of having gay friends and occasionally living in almost totally gay environments), there is a facial structure that some gay men have that I've never seen on a straight person. It's not body language. Part of it is higher and more prominent cheek bones. There are other aspects of it also. Had we never discussed you sexuality, the moment I saw your picture, I would have known.

Does that mean all gay people have that look? No, not at all. Fez (whatever he is) doesn't have it, but most gay men don't. My uncle doesn't. My best friend doesn't. Two of Bunnygrrl's close gay friends do (out of a pack of about six or seven).

Does this mean that all gay people look alike. No. Does this mean tht you can tell a gay person just by looking at him, only sometimes. I knew one guy that I never would have guessed he was gay. He was a "regular guy," neighborhood bar type. I was shocked he slipped past my gaydar.

	29-07-2002 00:38									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Chegitz, that is misleading at best. Face structure does nothing to determine sexuality.

BTW, my nickname here is Fez (my real name is Giancarlo), sorry if that caused any confusion, Che.

	29-07-2002 23:04									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That's not much of an argument, MrFun. I'm sorry this contradicts liberal teaching that you can't tell a gay person by looking at them, but in some cases you can. Leaving aside the whole concept of gaydar (which straights can have also, especially after seventeen years of having gay friends and occasionally living in almost totally gay environments), there is a facial structure that some gay men have that I've never seen on a straight person. It's not body language. Part of it is higher and more prominent cheek bones. There are other aspects of it also. Had we never discussed you sexuality, the moment I saw your picture, I would have known. Does that mean all gay people have that look? No, not at all. Fez (whatever he is) doesn't have it, but most gay men don't. My uncle doesn't. My best friend doesn't. Two of Bunnygrrl's close gay friends do (out of a pack of about six or seven). Does this mean that all gay people look alike. No. Does this mean tht you can tell a gay person just by looking at him, only sometimes. I knew one guy that I never would have guessed he was gay. He was a "regular guy," neighborhood bar type. I was shocked he slipped past my gaydar.

This is not about "liberal agenda" or "liberal teaching" or extreme PC -- it's about the fact that there are some parts of a person's identity that you cannot determine merely through physical appearance.

Even though you qualified your opinion with exceptions, it still sounds like you believe that you can rely on physical appearance too much, to determine a person's sexual orientation.

	30-07-2002 10:26									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

If sexual preference is caused by hormone levels in the body, then it is completely plausible that you could recognize some people as gay by their facial structure. Facial structure is largely determined by hormones; a man with low levels of testosterone will have a smaller chin and higher cheekbones than a man with higher testosterone levels. If a low testosterone level is one of the causes of homosexuality (which no one knows for sure), then Che's belief that you can tell some men are gay just by the way they look is certainly possible. I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea.