Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom.
    #8306316 -

i just had a blinding flash of the obvious.

Isn't it significant that the gay population is not dwindling through evolution? What does this say about nature vs nurture? Ill admit that i haven't really thought about this subject much, but it seems to me that this clearly indicates that homosexuality is defined by nurture. I'm sure this is nothing new but Id like to hear what you think.

Secondly, if it is defined by nurture, what then does evolution's non-role say about these gay inspiring stimuli, and in a larger sense, human relationships in general?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8306344 -

Yeah, I definitely think homosexuality is largely determined by upbringing. I think Freud had some great insights into the matter.


--------------------
In another Time's Forgotten Space, your Eyes looked through your Mother's Face:
Wildflower Seed on the Sand and Stone, may the Four Winds blow you Safely Home!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: astronaut]
    #8306394 -

I think nature is responsible for homosexuality.

I remember as far back as kindergarten having friends that were a little light in the loafers. They would put pink nail polish on the fire truck wheels, play house, eat peanut butter sandwhiches on whole wheat bread, wear jewelry.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: appleorange]
    #8306467 -

I think that both nature and nurture come into play. But for the record, they've actually found a gene connected to male homosexuality... and have not found one connected to lesbianism. Interesting. But yes, nurture certainly plays a role in sexual identity. Like most aspects of human inclination and behaviour I think it's flawed thinking to try and reduce the cause to one or the other.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #8306588 -

If its nurture, its not manifesting anything other than nature, so I do not think its a big deal, in a social or political sense. On the other hand, I think we can draw succinct lines, as I have tried to, just for interests sake.

Quote:
But for the record, they've actually found a gene connected to male homosexuality



Although you havent said much, based upon principle, this sounds like politically charged pseudoscience to me. I doubt this, because if the gene was indeed connected (such that it contributes to homosexuality), would the trait not be recessive, and long ago weened by evolution? Or is this a statistic that study of say 100 gay guys and 100 straight guys, with the gay guys more often having this gene (meaning correlation)?

What exactly does correlation mean in evolutionary terms? Any biology majors here?

I am doubtful there is really such thing. From my understanding, evolution seems to be a definitively linear and dualistic process, such that favorable characteristics develop and contribute one cell at a time. Ultimately, every single tiniest cell is either positively or negatively effective to creatures survival/ability to procreate, subsequently recessive or dominant. So I would argue there is no such thing as correlation or "mere" connection in evolution.

Anyways, you better have a source on that.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8306804 -

I'm not sure. I don't know alot about genetics and I am repeating that little factoid third hand.

Also, I don't know if gay genes would have been weeded out. Remember, homosexuality hasn't been socially acceptable for very long and many gay people in the past and present have entered into heterosexual marriages and relationships to either hide thier gayness from disapproving communities or because they were in denial themselves. Also, a lot of out homos have kids either with sperm or egg and womb donors. So lots of homos have kids, thus preventing the weeding out of any gay genes (if they exist.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #8307099 -

>> Remember, homosexuality hasn't been socially acceptable for very long and many gay people in the past and present have entered into heterosexual marriages and relationships to either hide their gayness from disapproving communities or because they were in denial themselves. Also, a lot of out homos have kids either with sperm or egg and womb donors.

Humans have only been organized as a "society" for the tiniest fraction of our evolutionary history. This is not enough to extract an accurate genetic picture for any character trait, let alone one as subjective and variant as sexual orientation. Even more recent are the artificial inseminations you're referring to, which would have their influence on the tiniest fraction of a fraction of human evolutionary make-up. It is not possible to make any firm conclusions about the genetic origins of sexual orientation by using the past 10,000 years of civilized humanity as your frame of reference.

That being said, I think it's time somebody mentioned that even suggesting homosexuality as originating from nurture as opposed to nature is absolute heresy, and an insult to the hopeless left-wing mania of this forum. Any true enlightened person would recognize homosexuality as being as natural as the blue sky. Questioning this should be illegal. Doubting it should be punishable. Raising the debate should warrant a ban.

Right?


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: Ped]
    #8307170 -

Eh... is this forum really the cesspit of liberal mania you seem to be reacting to?


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8307184 -

> Isn't it significant that the gay population is not dwindling through evolution?

Do you have proof that the gay population is not dwindling, or is it an assumption upon your part? It is pointless to debate an assumed premise as fact.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: Seuss]
    #8307316 -

No I am not so sure. There is a "large" gay population though...

I should mention that my understanding of evolution is basically my own theory, so subject to the true scientists in the forum. And like I said, I haven't really thought about this issue a whole lot either. If this premise is at all reasonable, Im sure it has been formalized by the proponents of nurture, (and if not, clearly disputed). Mostly, I hope i just raised an idea that people who know what they are talking about can take over from.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. *DELETED* [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #8307365 -

Post deleted by LunarEclipse

Reason for deletion: yes



--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Edited by LunarEclipse (04/20/08 09:26 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #8309604 -

>> Eh... is this forum really the cesspit of liberal mania you seem to be reacting to?

Step even vaguely out of line with it's dictums and find out for yourself.

This one really works: "All my gay friends were sexually abused, and most of them feel that those experiences contributed to their homosexual tendencies. I can only assume that this trend exists elsewhere as well. I don't know what it really means, but it certainly seems like a noteworthy trend to me. We should not ignore it."

This kind of independent thinking ought to solicit a huge and negative reaction. Try it and see!


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: Ped]
    #8309913 -

Ped, I think you are right that the nature vs nurture argument can have controversial consequences, as Lunereclipse demonstated. My original intention was actually more aimed to shed light on evolution, and nature vs nurture in a broader sense, but this is how the thread is evolving I guess.

Despite whatever any one of us thinks about the gay population, I dont think the political ramifications have anything to do with the science of it, which as I have said is what I would rather discuss. It seems to me that the political ramifications of this issue are conceivably influencial on scientific claims, so I had initially hoped that we could keep the politics out of it. But I realize that idealization is not the way the world works, and that this is asking for a lot. If you must be political, just try to make sure it is truth-driven rather than vice versa. While I can only speak for myself, I would certainly be ok with this.

As for suppression, repression, and political outrage, in this particular thread, you Ped, are the only one who seems to be projecting any such politics so far. Other than your post, the debate has seemed pretty lax to me. Since your going to bring negativity to the conversation by alluding to it anyway, why not jsut say whats on your mind and get the negative reaction you speak of?


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8310037 -

daytripper23 said:
Isn't it significant that the gay population is not dwindling through evolution? What does this say about nature vs nurture? Ill admit that i haven't really thought about this subject much, but it seems to me that this clearly indicates that homosexuality is defined by nurture.


i don't understand your conclusion at all. If the gay population is in fact not growing or shrinking, that would suggest to me that homosexuality is determined by nature. If a given percent (say around 10%) of the population is homosexual and there aren't very large variations in its size over several decades, despite massive cultural shifts, the obvious conclusion would be that the reason the percent is so static is because homosexuality is a biological constant.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning on this a little more? :shrug:


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: gluke bastid]
    #8310114 -

I did not exactly understand your post, so I might be the one missing something here.

In my argument, nature pertains to what is biologically inherited through evolution. What I said is based on the idea that a gay person is not going to reproduce, therefore it is unlikely that gay genes are passed down from generation to generation. This seems to clearly support nurture to me.

To expand a bit, as Niahmx said, gay people have been known to reproduce anyway. But I would consider such instances as "flukes", which the vast scale of evolution does not maintain.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8310163 -

daytripper23 said:
i just had a blinding flash of the obvious.

Isn't it significant that the gay population is not dwindling through evolution? What does this say about nature vs nurture? Ill admit that i haven't really thought about this subject much, but it seems to me that this clearly indicates that homosexuality is defined by nurture. I'm sure this is nothing new but Id like to hear what you think.

Secondly, if it is defined by nurture, what then does evolution's non-role say about these gay inspiring stimuli, and in a larger sense, human relationships in general?


I suggest not bringing evolution into the picture unless you have actually studied biological evolution and genetics. I don't mean to sound elitist or anything. (I don't feel I have the knowledge needed to properly address this topic, either.) It is just that most people underestimate the complexity of biological evolution and use pseudoscientific arguments to justify their position. This happens on both sides of the issue. The simple "evolution by natural selection" explanation you learned in High School (and maybe even college) is not comprehensive enough to explain the existence of homosexuality in organisms. Neo-Darwinism has become quite complex.

Whether or not "nature" or "nurture" is primarily responsible for the existence of homosexuality isn't really that important anyway, is it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8310180 -

daytripper23 said:
i just had a blinding flash of the obvious.

Isn't it significant that the gay population is not dwindling through evolution? What does this say about nature vs nurture? Ill admit that i haven't really thought about this subject much, but it seems to me that this clearly indicates that homosexuality is defined by nurture. I'm sure this is nothing new but Id like to hear what you think.

Secondly, if it is defined by nurture, what then does evolution's non-role say about these gay inspiring stimuli, and in a larger sense, human relationships in general?


Love is love, you cannot choose who you feel love for.

I used to think that people were gay because they either hated men or weren't breast fed, silly me.

IMO we are evolving to a sort of heamaphrodite species where the lines between male & female are getting thinner & thinner, so i see no problem with homosexuality & evolution as you can have str8 parents yet you still turn out homosexual.

In my eyes there seems to be more & more homosexuals the more society is open to homosexuality so the more open society is to it, the more homosexuals there will be.

:peace:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8310276 -

MushmanTheManic said:
Whether or not "nature" or "nurture" is primarily responsible for the existence of homosexuality isn't really that important anyway, is it?



Right!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: daytripper23]
    #8310342 -

ah i see. but using your model, wouldn't you find it odd that the same number of gay people keep turning up in the population over and over?

If there were a gene for gayness and everyone who had this gene was gay and everyone who didn't have it was straight than homosexuality would be bred out of the population. But instead of saying that there is an either-or presence of gay gene, you could also say that all human sexuality is fluid. We all have the same genetic trait: human sexuality. Therefore, the fact that the same percentage of the population keeps ending up gay (say 10%) would suggest to me that the way humans are wired there is about a 1 in 10 chance that a human will be homosexual, and nurture is irrelevant. Think about left-handed people. There is no "gene" for left-handedness, so if two left-handed people have a kid it is just as likely that that kid will be left-handed than if two right-handed people had a kid.

I hesitate to make even that analogy, though, because left-handed people are always left handed. Sexuality, on the other hand, is a lot more fluid. Many people switch or readjust their sexual orientation over the course of a lifetime.

Again, it suggest to me that a constant size of a gay population suggests nature. In essence, "in a given group of humans about 10% will be homosexual." If you could show that there are 80% more gay people now than there were 50 years ago, that would suggest nurture. Or prove (instead of speculating idly) that there is a higher instance of gay people who were sexually abused than straight people who were sexuall abused, that would suggest nurture.

But as long as random samples across all demographics yield the same relative percentage of homosexuality, I don't see how you could come to any conclusion besides the biological argument that a certain percentage of humans are homosexual.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A modest evolutionary approach to gaydom. [Re: gluke bastid]
    #8310376 -

I still dont think its right you can get sex change operations at the cost of taxpayers money.

Nothing will ever change my mind on the subject.

(please god dont make me reborn as a woman in a mans body!!!)

:peace:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Genetics and Homosexuality------I don't think so
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 chemkid 10,030 78 07/29/02 03:45 PM
by chemkid
* homosexuality
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 ribbit 9,876 105 01/16/03 02:44 AM
by TeTr0
* . AnonymousRabbit 1,577 13 10/04/08 12:22 PM
by ExplosiveMango
* Evolutionary changes
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 niteowl 11,725 133 12/28/10 03:53 PM
by falcon
* On the inadequacy of evolutionary theory Ped 2,396 15 05/04/07 12:37 PM
by MushroomTrip
* nature vs nurture
( 1 2 all )		 Cracka_X 3,017 21 12/22/09 02:14 AM
by yogabunny
* Nature or nurture?
( 1 2 3 all )		 youbreakyoubuy 2,138 41 11/24/09 11:38 AM
by Poid
* The classic questions: nature or nurture? Genetics or blank slate? laserpig 832 3 04/30/09 07:11 PM
by teeter

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,023 topic views. 1 members, 91 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 18 queries.