This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality - Genetic
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
There seem to be some serious "You fail Biology Forever" and fridge logic things going on in this thread, so I'll make a few points:
Animal models of the large spectrum that is human sexuality are somewhat limited in that we can't understand their sense of self. Homosexuals are specific, they're men or women who are attracted to the same sex, but identify as men and women respectively. This is an important distinction which can't be made in most animal models.
Genetics and evolution are not laser guided, not every allele serves a function and some are even detrimental. However, there is nothing guaranteeing these alleles will be bred out of a species, especially if they are nonfatal. Attached earlobes are a naturally occurring recessive allele that serves no known purpose. The phenomenon of overdominance can lead to seemingly detrimental recessive alleles being carried on for long spans due to the positive effects of heterozygosity. Tay Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia are examples of these.
There's no conclusive body of evidence suggesting that homosexuality has any significant role in preventing overpopulation. As social animals, we've developed several ways of dealing with excessive numbers, such as infanticide.
No credible studies link homosexuality to social factors.
Twin studies and adoption studies
suggest
that there is some form of genetic involvement. The extent of which is extremely uncertain.
Numerous statistical anomalies also
suggest
an environmental influence, possibly occurring in utero.
TL; DR: Genetics is a field in its infancy, we learn so much every year. There is much we don't know, accept it and move on. Quit arguing hypothetical situations which are extremely unlikely to be the case.
But you agree that it's natural, yes? That's our main argument.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I believe it's Satan. Have you seen those parades? Nothing that looks that fun can be wholesome.
cool story bro.
When you feel like taking your head off your ass, come back
I think your sarcasm detector is on "Fail" setting Arathian =P
/facedesk
What part are you facedesking at? There is no evidence that they were handcuffed. And who do you believe? People who said they were "taking a short cut" and then refused to leave? Um, aren't shortcuts supposed to save time? So why did they refuse to leave? That's wasting time. All in all, their story doesn't check out.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And yes, why are human's all of a sudden arbitrarily "unnatural"?
I didn't say that, unless you're not aiming that at me.
But that is a far thing from saying that "it's nature's way of dealing with overpopulation."
Would you appreciate it if I amended that to "it's
a natural way
of dealing with overpopulation."?
It was aimed at everyone else. I was more replying to a general sentiment than to a specific post.
Oh, and "dealing" is the problem word.
I put it in the same category as blue eyes, and attached earlobes. The rest is semantics.
Eye color and ear lobe position are neutral mutations, whereas homosexuality is a deleterious mutation (assuming "chance of reproducing" falls under fitness).
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
I put it in the same category as blue eyes, and attached earlobes. The rest is semantics.
Eye color and ear lobe position are neutral mutations, whereas homosexuality is a deleterious mutation (assuming "chance of reproducing" falls under fitness).
Is it? If it's so deleterious, why is it becoming more and more prominent rather than slowly dying out?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Is it? If it's so deleterious, why is it becoming more and more prominent rather than slowly dying out?
And you have evidence that the gene is more present than 1000 years ago? 2000 years ago? No. Don't make unfounded claims.
I'm not sure how that related to it being natural at all, and again refer to my earlier post on over dominance. Recessive alleles which may have negative effects when homozygous may still be selected for if the benefits of heterozygousity outweigh the detriments of having recessive homozygous children.
Then they're not deleterious. Either it increases fitness overall or it doesn't.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Then they're not deleterious. Either it increases fitness overall or it doesn't.
Then I'm confused why you're labeling homosexuality as something that's deleterious when there is much we don't know about it. For all we know, the genes which could lead to homosexuality may also provide yet unknown benefits.
for all we know we could a be figments of someone's imaginations. Does that effect what we deduce about what we see? No. Ability to reproduce is a mode fitness. Attraction to the same sex is an obstacle to that. Thus it's deleterious.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
Post by
Monday
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
To have your own child, pretty much yes. But if you mean Blood Relative as in a niece or nephew, then no.
Post by
Orranis
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
To have your own child, pretty much yes. But if you mean Blood Relative as in a niece or nephew, then no.
Really? You're going to deny the existence of sperm donors?
Post by
Monday
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
To have your own child, pretty much yes. But if you mean Blood Relative as in a niece or nephew, then no.
Really? You're going to deny the existence of sperm donors?
That's unnatural though =O
tbh I completely forgot about them. But also note the phrase "pretty much".
Post by
Adamsm
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
To have your own child, pretty much yes. But if you mean Blood Relative as in a niece or nephew, then no.
Really? You're going to deny the existence of sperm donors?
You don't have sex with a donor usually; it's all done artificially.
Post by
Orranis
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
To have your own child, pretty much yes. But if you mean Blood Relative as in a niece or nephew, then no.
Really? You're going to deny the existence of sperm donors?
You don't have sex with a donor usually; it's all done artificially.
What? Just in case you (evidently) again completely failed to read my point...
Are you implying it's impossible to have a blood related child without having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex?
Post by
Monday
I noticed you ignored my post...
GO TO AAaS! NOW.
Post by
Orranis
I noticed you ignored my post...
GO TO AAaS! NOW.
It wasn't really an argument I could respond to...
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.