Homosexuality (1 Viewer)

[Mancunian]

Forgive me if the subject or this spin on it has been discussed before.

The Theory/Facts of Evolution teaches us that species survive because of their ability to propagate more frequently than less fortunate species

To pre-empt any questions on my own status, I am a non-homophobic heterosexual man who thinks that those who are homosexual should be free to do what they like. However, I’m also curious that being homosexual reduces (quite dramatically!) the chances of having homosexual offspring.

What I would like the Debate Politics community to debate are the subjects of:

1. whether or not homosexuality will become extinct?
2. whether or not extreme Christians should support (at least in this instance) the theory of evolution because of a “common purpose”? i.e.: god hates gays = evolution does not support non-propagating mammals.

I’m open to all thoughts on this topic but for the sake of my ego, if nothing else, please reply! :lol:

 

[talloulou]

Forgive me if the subject or this spin on it has been discussed before.

The Theory/Facts of Evolution teaches us that species survive because of their ability to propagate more frequently than less fortunate species

Well there's way more to it than "reproduction." Animals that reproduce rapidly tend to have much shorter life spans for one. And reproduction uses of a vast amount of energy so I'm not sure that "propagating more frequently" is the biggest and best advantage a species can have while ignoring all other factors.

To pre-empt any questions on my own status, I am a non-homophobic heterosexual man who thinks that those who are homosexual should be free to do what they like. However, I’m also curious that being homosexual reduces (quite dramatically!) the chances of having homosexual offspring.

Only if homosexuality is proven to be "genetic" would this even begin to make sense and even then you are operating on the premise that homosexuals don't ever reproduce when in fact many do.

What I would like the Debate Politics community to debate are the subjects of:

1. whether or not homosexuality will become extinct?

Not.

2. whether or not extreme Christians should support (at least in this instance) the theory of evolution because of a “common purpose”? i.e.: god hates gays = evolution does not support non-propagating mammals.

Any christian who embraces the idea that "God hates Gays" completely missed Christ's message.

 

[Mancunian]

Well there's way more to it than "reproduction." Animals that reproduce rapidly tend to have much shorter life spans for one. And reproduction uses of a vast amount of energy so I'm not sure that "propagating more frequently" is the biggest and best advantage a species can have while ignoring all other factors.

Whilst respecting your point, without reproduction, there wouldn't be anything. Of course, some species reproduce more frequently than others but I can't think of any that have done and aren't still numerous. I suppose we differ on the meaning of success?

Only if homosexuality is proven to be "genetic" would this even begin to make sense and even then you are operating on the premise that homosexuals don't ever reproduce when in fact many do.

Homosexuals cannot possibly reproduce without the assistance of a heterosexual thus further diluting the homosexual gene(s).

Edit: I should qualify that although gay men and gay women can reproduce, it will be more infrequently than heterosexual couples and will therefore still result in a dilution of the "gay" (forgive me) genes.

Not.

Why not?

Any christian who embraces the idea that "God hates Gays" completely missed Christ's message.

Agree. But the problem is very real.

 

[talloulou]

Whilst respecting your point, without reproduction, there wouldn't be anything. Of course, some species reproduce more frequently than others but I can't think of any that have done and aren't still numerous. I suppose we differ on the meaning of success?

I'm saying the ability to reproduce quickly and abundantly isn't the number one key to success. Humans, compared to many other species do not reproduce quickly nor abundantly. If you can't think of any species that reproduce in large numbers in short periods of time that have gone extinct than you probably haven't looked at or researched lists of extincts species. Almost every extinct insect reproduces more abundantly and faster than humans. Same with most of the smaller mammals and yet many of those species have come and gone and we're still here so obviously there's something else besides "reproduction" involved in the success of a species.

Homosexuals cannot possibly reproduce without the assistance of a heterosexual thus further diluting the homosexual gene(s).

What, pray tell, keeps a lesbian woman and gay man from reproducing without the aid of a heterosexual?

Edit: I should qualify that although gay men and gay women can reproduce, it will be more infrequently than heterosexual couples and will therefore still result in a dilution of the "gay" (forgive me) genes.

See even you recognize that you're own argument is faulty.

But playing along there is no reason why a lesbian and gay man couldn't get together and have the same number of children as any other fertile couple.

And furthermore I don't think the "gay gene" theory has been proven.

Throughout the history of mankind homosexuals have existed so there's no reason to believe they will not continue to do so.

 

[Mancunian]

I'm saying the ability to reproduce quickly and abundantly isn't the number one key to success. Humans, compared to many other species do not reproduce quickly nor abundantly. If you can't think of any species that reproduce in large numbers in short periods of time that have gone extinct than you probably haven't looked at or researched lists of extincts species. Almost every extinct insect reproduces more abundantly and faster than humans. Same with most of the smaller mammals and yet many of those species have come and gone and we're still here so obviously there's something else besides "reproduction" involved in the success of a species. .

tallaoulou, I do accept your point here but reproduction is key. Sorry to swerve! Perhaps when referring to successful species as numerical I have mislaid my point. I was merely pointing out that reproduction is obviously essential to the survival of a species.

What, pray tell, keeps a lesbian woman and gay man from reproducing without the aid of a heterosexual?.

Quite simply, want! A lesbian woman will seek another lesbian. A gay man will seek another gay man. Reproduction is obviously less likely.

See even you recognize that you're own argument is faulty.

See above. I recognise it's possible but not probable.

But playing along there is no reason why a lesbian and gay man couldn't get together and have the same number of children as any other fertile couple.

No reason why they shoudn't but do they? And if they do, do they "employ" a heterosexual?

And furthermore I don't think the "gay gene" theory has been proven.

Throughout the history of mankind homosexuals have existed so there's no reason to believe they will not continue to do so.

Well, I suppose this is the crux and these are the opinions I'm looking for. Is homosexuality passed gentically? I believe it is and without going into all those reasons I don't see another logical explanation. Saying that, homosexuality has obviously existed for some time but that only answers why I'm still curious.

 

[1069]

tallaoulou, I do accept your point here but reproduction is key. Sorry to swerve! Perhaps when referring to successful species as numerical I have mislaid my point. I was merely pointing out that reproduction is obviously essential to the survival of a species.

Well, an idea is coming to me here... let me see if I can articulate this.

The most successful societies in the world are the ones with the lowest birthrates; the ones where each individual has only one or possibly two children, and then devotes the largest amount of resources to them.
The most successful societies are the ones that devote the most resources to each child, and where there is an artificially extended or prolonged "childhood" period, lasting approximately a quarter of the average lifespan (18 years or so).

One criterion of good schools is that they have low student to teacher ratios.
Perhaps one reason a successful society is so successful is that it has low child to adult ratios... there are one or more adults providing for each child, rather than many children depending on each adult.
Gays, if they are non-procreative, serve a valid social function in making that adult-to-child ratio even higher. A single child may have four or five adults with a vested interest in protecting him and contributing resources to his upbringing, if one counts gay, childless Uncle Larry and Mom's two childless lesbian best friends.
You see what I'm getting at here?

A gay friend of mine has a theory that non-procreative gays served this function in primitive, tribal societies too; they played a supportive role, helped the procreators with raising their children, and stepped in to care for orphans whose biological parents had died (a far more commonplace occurence in the past than it is today).

In light of the extreme helplessness of newborns and small children and the very protracted childhood humans require (protracted in comparison to all other species), extra adults contributing and not procreating is never a detriment to society; it's a huge bonus... especially from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

[rathi]

... Homosexuality is a societal construct.Animals tend to have sex regardless of gender. Sure they might be more attracted to the other gender, but they still mostly do whatever feels right. Natural selection is the general driving force for evolution, but other forces exist as well. Many structures that exist are multipurpose and can be used for tasks other than the one that increases reproductive success.

The penis is designed for producing offspring, but similar sensations of pleasure exist even when it is stimulated outside the vagina. The anus is designed to expel waste, put any kind of anal stimulation still produces the same feeling of pleasure. Thus anal sex is simply the unintended consequence of both the penis and anus, despite the fact that they serve entirely different primary functions.

Remember folks, evolution is driven by random mutations. In the long run, things like natural selection can be seen, but not in limited scale examples.

 

[Dogger807]

In light of the extreme helplessness of newborns and small children and the very protracted childhood humans require (protracted in comparison to all other species), extra adults contributing and not procreating is never a detriment to society; it's a huge bonus... especially from an evolutionary standpoint.

interesting.. you seem to be equating homosexuality with the worker ants and bees. There for the benifit of the whole without procreating.

On a social level I can see the validity of this argument.

On the biological level I have a few problems. Such as , humans do not have a hive mentality. On the basic instint level, each unit is out for it's own survival and reproduction. Yet human homosexuals swing both ways when it comes to wanting reproduction. From no I don't want one to the other extremes of artificial insemination and suspending sexual tendencies to reproduce. This may of course be instinct being overridden by intellect but I don't think so.

Secondly is the low occurance of homosexuality compared to birth rate. This one is important. If homosexuality were trait to control the adult to child population we'd probably exert phermones to to vary the population of gay society members, much like women do to match reproductive cycles with the women close to them. IE an adult in a low adult to child ratio community moving to a high adult to child ratio community would find themselves changing sexual prefferences to meet the needs of the new community.

Thirdly, sexual desire isn't suspended ... it's redirected.

Those are my major biological quams with your hypothesis. Not the only ones, but I don't want to ramble. However I do see the logic behind the benifits you propose. I just don't think it is gentically intentional to have members of our race not reproduce for the benifit of the whole.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The entire premise that 'being homosexual dramatically reduces the possibility of having homosexual offspring is faulty. There is no evidence that shows that there is a greater incidence of homosexuality born of one who is gay then that of one who is straight. There is no conclusive evidence that shows how sexual orientation develops, at all. Theorists point to heredity/genetics, biology, and evironment as possible links towards someone becoming straight or gay, though most believe that the answer lies somewhere with a combination of those factors and possibly others. Also, the fact that many gay couples want children refutes the 'gays don't propogate' therory. The desire for children is a totally seperate issue from sexual orientation and attraction.

 

[Thinker]

The Theory/Facts of Evolution teaches us that species survive because of their ability to propagate more frequently than less fortunate species

Note you said "species" not "individuals"; something that may seem to make an
individual less likely to reproduce may be more than offset by making a relative
more likely to reproduce.

For example, a genetic factor that increased fertility in a woman by (say) 20%
would probably be selected even if it came at the expense of making (say) 10%
of her children homosexual (even assuming that equated to sterile).

Telegraph | News | Homosexual link to fertility genes

 

[Jerry]

1. whether or not homosexuality will become extinct?

No.

2.whether or not extreme Christians should support...

Hold it right there....their "extreme Christians"...they aren’t going to support a darn thing just because some people in a forum say they should, especially when that thing directly contradicts what it is that makes them "extreme".

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Forgive me if the subject or this spin on it has been discussed before.

The Theory/Facts of Evolution teaches us that species survive because of their ability to propagate more frequently than less fortunate species

To pre-empt any questions on my own status, I am a non-homophobic heterosexual man who thinks that those who are homosexual should be free to do what they like. However, I’m also curious that being homosexual reduces (quite dramatically!) the chances of having homosexual offspring.

What I would like the Debate Politics community to debate are the subjects of:

1. whether or not homosexuality will become extinct?
2. whether or not extreme Christians should support (at least in this instance) the theory of evolution because of a “common purpose”? i.e.: god hates gays = evolution does not support non-propagating mammals.

I’m open to all thoughts on this topic but for the sake of my ego, if nothing else, please reply! :lol:

Is homosexuality genetic? I was always under the belief that it was an ordinary hormone mutation. That is mostly why I believe 1. No and 2. No (Not well-educated fanatics at least, though that may be an oxymoron)

 

[Rev.]

What I would like the Debate Politics community to debate are the subjects of:

1. whether or not homosexuality will become extinct?
2. whether or not extreme Christians should support (at least in this instance) the theory of evolution because of a “common purpose”? i.e.: god hates gays = evolution does not support non-propagating mammals.

1. I do happen to think that there is an element of genetics at play with homosexuality. I've known three brothers who were all gay, two sisters who were lesbians, an uncle and nephew (and two uncles of the uncle...but they may technically be considered pedophiles rather than homosexuals).

But there is an element at play here that you have failed to consider...it has only been within the last thirty years that gays and lesbians have formed monogomous relationships with one another. In times past, they either remained single or married. Even today, many people with "homosexual tendancies" will choose to marry...thus contributing to the gene pool.

Now, I don't believe that a "genetic predisposition" is a fait accompli. Not for gays, not for alcoholics, not for lovers of chocolate.

2. Extreme?

Christianity cannot accept Darwin's Evolution because it has, as its premise, the idea that we all have a common ancestor. I find the idea that through random mutations, mankind descended from birds simply rediculous. There are no transitional fossils of man/birds to back this up, and some of what has been offered as "evidence" turns out to be fraudulent. I do, however, accept that the multitude of varieties of...birds, let's say...descended from a much smaller variety of birds in the beginning. so, God didn't create 123 kinds of warblers. He created the pair and all the variations of warblers since then came from that one pair. And if you weren't aware, Creation Science (boy, I hate that term!) teaches this very thing.

 

[rathi]

I do happen to think that there is an element of genetics at play with homosexuality. I've known three brothers who were all gay, two sisters who were lesbians, an uncle and nephew (and two uncles of the uncle...but they may technically be considered pedophiles rather than homosexuals).

Good to know you accept the genetic element, although the limited scale study is meaningless.

But there is an element at play here that you have failed to consider...it has only been within the last thirty years that gays and lesbians have formed monogomous relationships with one another. In times past, they either remained single or married.

Thats because they would be socially ostracized at best or killed at worst during some of the past. And many homosexuals did maintain lasting relationships during the past. Do you actually know anything about homosexuality in a historical context?

Now, I don't believe that a "genetic predisposition" is a fait accompli. Not for gays, not for alcoholics, not for lovers of chocolate.

Correct. Do you condemn any of the above for following said paths though?

Christianity cannot accept Darwin's Evolution because it has, as its premise, the idea that we all have a common ancestor. I find the idea that through random mutations, mankind descended from birds simply rediculous.

True enough, we do not descent from birds, but evolution did happen.

There are no transitional fossils of man/birds to back this up, and some of what has been offered as "evidence" turns out to be fraudulent.

You are simply incorrect. There are immense amounts of data on the subject, and there are no fossils that disprove evolution. Remember that evolution is history is a single fossil is found out of the correct time period. Their are no pre-cambrian mammals or birds. If evolution is wrong, why are there no such fossils?

I do, however, accept that the multitude of varieties of...birds, let's say...descended from a much smaller variety of birds in the beginning.

Good to know, but you are metaphorically putting the cake in your mouth and not eating it.

so, God didn't create 123 kinds of warblers. He created the pair and all the variations of warblers since then came from that one pair. And if you weren't aware, Creation Science (boy, I hate that term!) teaches this very thing

.

Creation science doesn't exist. THAT is something we have infinite proof of. Science has certain requirements and creationism does not have them.


Not to be Elitist, but I would recommend that people do research of such topics before making claims on the evolutionary roots of homosexuality. It requires a knowledge of evolution and psychology, which few people here seem to fully understand. Its not that your points are not valid, but is you do not understand evolution and its mechanisms beforehand, it make debate much more difficult.

 

[1069]

it has only been within the last thirty years that gays and lesbians have formed monogomous relationships with one another. In times past, they either remained single or married.

That's not true; in my historical research, I've found many, many references (both in fiction from previous centuries and in nonfiction, memoirs, etc) to lesbians living together in lifelong monogamous relationships in centuries past, and being more or less socially accepted as "two spinsters living together" or 'two maiden ladies' or whatever.
It's not like everybody didn't know they were freakin' gay. :roll:
I've found references to gay men living together in lifelong monogamous relationships as well (admittedly, these accounts are fewer than the accounts of monogamous lesbian couples, which were seemingly so common that every town or village had at least one); it is not unheard of, however, to find historical references to two eccentric "bachelors" living together in a lifelong, marriage-type monogamous relationship.
Gays were at least superficially more discreet then (as was everyone, especially during the Victorian era, an era which pretty much epitomizes the term "repression") and also, people's "nosiness" did not extend to the sexual practices of their neighbors. Decorum prevented open speculation of such; it would have been an inexcusable breech of propriety. The person doing the speculating would've come off as the weird one, the deviant, merely for openly discussing such a thing.

 

[Rev.]

Thats because they would be socially ostracized at best or killed at worst during some of the past. And many homosexuals did maintain lasting relationships during the past. Do you actually know anything about homosexuality in a historical context?

Not as much as I would like to. Can you recommend any books or articles?

Do you condemn any of the above for following said paths though?

Yes...all of the above. To allow oneself to be ruled by ones lust is crass.

True enough, we do not descent from birds, but evolution did happen.

Sorry, my bad. When I was looking at the evolution family tree, I thought mammals were coming out of the bird branch. They are next to each other and both come from reptiles. Either way, I do not accept that humans descended from reptiles.

You are simply incorrect. There are immense amounts of data on the subject, and there are no fossils that disprove evolution. Remember that evolution is history is a single fossil is found out of the correct time period. Their are no pre-cambrian mammals or birds. If evolution is wrong, why are there no such fossils?

And if evolution is right, where are the transitional fossils? Darwin himself said that the fossil record would prove him right when such fossils were found. Alas, the transitional fossils I have heard of was a fraud.

Good to know, but you are metaphorically putting the cake in your mouth and not eating it.

How so? By saying that change over time does happen, but that change does not include the creation of entirely new phylums from previously existing species?

Creation science doesn't exist. THAT is something we have infinite proof of. Science has certain requirements and creationism does not have them.

I was hoping you would notice I was using the term a bit tongue-in-cheek...

Not to be Elitist, but I would recommend that people do research of such topics before making claims on the evolutionary roots of homosexuality. It requires a knowledge of evolution and psychology, which few people here seem to fully understand. Its not that your points are not valid, but is you do not understand evolution and its mechanisms beforehand, it make debate much more difficult.

I know a bit more than the average bear about genetics and evolution...I was pre-med in college. And I'm always happy to learn more if you have new information to share

 

[Thinker]

Not as much as I would like to. Can you recommend any books or articles?

Try here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B
The site is full of useful information.

Either way, I do not accept that humans descended from reptiles.

What is your reasoning for this? Is it based on evidence?

And if evolution is right, where are the transitional fossils? Darwin himself said that the fossil record would prove him right when such fossils were found. Alas, the transitional fossils I have heard of was a fraud.

The link I gave above has lots that aren't frauds. I can only think of three
fraudulent claims - there are probably a few more - but there are hundreds
of real transitional fossils.

I know a bit more than the average bear about genetics and evolution...I was pre-med in college. And I'm always happy to learn more if you have new information to share

That is good, because it appears you have a lot to learn.

 

[Rev.]

Try here: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B
The site is full of useful information.

Well...thank you...but the information requested was about homosexuals in history which I wouldn't mind reading more about.

What is your reasoning for this? Is it based on evidence?

So long as humans decending from reptiles is a belief, I am free to reject it for no reason at all. And it is that...a belief. The web site you gave is filled with phrases like "scientist think" "scientist believe" "______ is possibly the ancestor of ______" It's all rather unconvincing since nobody seems to know for sure.

The link I gave above has lots that aren't frauds. I can only think of three
fraudulent claims - there are probably a few more - but there are hundreds
of real transitional fossils.

The site you gave (interesting by the way) gives examples of species to species transitions and one that scientists thought was a genus transition. I have already stipulated to that level of evolution.

The differences between species are in the details...this one has a tail that's three inches longer than that, this one has a wider nose, etc. As you go up the classification line, the differences are about whole organs and systems. How does a whole organ system arise or change over time? How do you get from asexual reproduction to bisexual reproduction, for example? Evolution requires that all bisexually reproducing animals descended from asexual organisms. For a single asexual organism to spontaneously produce to male and female offspring with complete reproductive systems would be a pretty neat trick...especially since evolution requires that changes are made G-R-A-D-U-A-L-L-Y over a long period of time. Perhaps one offspring gradually over time became male, and another over time became female, but that begs the question why? If the changes that occur are in response to specific environmental stresses, how could two different specimins "know" that if one developed into a female and one into a male, they could eventually reproduce? And how would these "evolving" organisms reproduce in the meantime? It would seem that species evolving in the direction of new systems would become extinct LONG before new working systems ever came about.

Over course, there is always the "random mutation" explaination. Somehow, an asexual organism randomly started mutating (successively, gradually over time) into a female organism while another randomly started mutating (successivley, gradually over time) into a male organism and somehow, these two single organisms who independantly evolved over hundreds of years found each other and reproduced.

You think that because I am a Christian I haven't considered all this...but I have. And I find the Creation Story MUCH easier to believe.

 

[Thinker]

So long as humans decending from reptiles is a belief, I am free to reject it for no reason at all. And it is that...a belief. The web site you gave is filled with phrases like "scientist think" "scientist believe" "______ is possibly the ancestor of ______" It's all rather unconvincing since nobody seems to know for sure.

You are free to reject anything, but most rational people base acceptance or
rejection on evidence.

There is so much interlinked evidence that fits the concept of evolution that
it is one of the most strongly-accepted scientific theories there is. (Please do
not take us down the foolish road of equating a scientific theory to a guess)
You are correct in saying that nobody knows "for sure", but very few things
are certain. When faced with the mountain of evidence that fits the theory,
most people consider evolution to be, at worst, a very good approximation to
"the truth".

Those that reject evolution are predominantly religious and prefer to follow
dogma and accept a divine creation, for which there is no evidence
whatsoever. This is underlined by the observation that there is never any
evidence produced for creationism; all the arguments (specious though
they are) are against evolution.

Also, proponents of evolution accept there will be some aspects of the theory
that will be refined as more facts become known. This is in marked contrast
to believers in the Christian creation myth who will accept no possibility of
any kind of error.

How do you get from asexual reproduction to bisexual reproduction, for example?

Try this as a possible explanation:
Parasitic invasion credited with evolution of sex - 08 May 2004 - New Scientist
It may not be the "correct" explanation, but it shows that there is at least
one credible mechanism that does not need a supernatural force.

You think that because I am a Christian I haven't considered all this...but I have. And I find the Creation Story MUCH easier to believe.

Yours is simply an argument from incredulity.

Creationism: Assume a powerful, supernatural entity. This entity made
everything, and carefully arranged things to appear as though they had
evolved. There is no evidence for this entity or the proposed mechanism, and
there are no predictions that can be made from this belief.

Evolution: Assume that at some point in the history of the Earth, a
self-replicating and occasionally-mutating structure appeared. Assume also
that, not unreasonably, the physical laws we can observe now have been at
work since that time. Evolution follows, and predicts many things, all of which
have been observed. For example, there should be a steady time-related
progression from one form of life to another. This is exactly what is found.

Evolution really is much the simpler explanation as everything it requires
can be observed today.

 

[nes]

I hate how liberals always try to make the issue complex so it gets distorted.

Gays and lesbians are much less likely to reproduce with another couple. Gays also don't have more kids reproducing with other people than straight people. The whole anatomy of the male reproductive system seems that its made to interact with the female reproductive system. Obviously, the male reproductive system didn't get the way it is for other male reproductive systems.

 

[1069]

I hate how liberals always try to make the issue complex so it gets distorted.

And I hate how conservatives oversimplify everything and falsely reframe complex social issues in black and white terms.
It makes me think that most of them are not quite bright enough to comprehend the complexity of human social issues, and therefore, that their opinions are not worthwhile and needn't be taken into account.

 

[rathi]

Gays and lesbians are much less likely to reproduce with another couple. Gays also don't have more kids reproducing with other people than straight people. The whole anatomy of the male reproductive system seems that its made to interact with the female reproductive system. Obviously, the male reproductive system didn't get the way it is for other male reproductive systems.

It is true that humans currently describe as gay or lesbian are less likely to reproduce. It is also true that the penis is well designed to interact with the vagina. However, that doesn't prove the original statement that evolution would prevent homosexuality from being a partly genetic trait.

Today, things like childrearing or sexual orientation has massive social components that are significantly more powerful than genetic components. Studies of animals that lack our social structures reveal that concepts like homosexuality or heterosexuality don't really exist without social structures to support them. Evolutionary changes take a very long to happen, and social structures that influence what humans have sex with have not been around long enough to have a big impact on the gene pool.

 

[nes]

Wow, that post helped me remember about how new human social structures really are. How many civilizations from before 4,000 B.C. even had a writing system? I find it unusual that before the ice age that there is really no evidence suggesting government existence.