|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the causes of sexual orientation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nosey & Taz, given what you say, then:
1. Explain to me precisely what causes homosexual orientation. That would settle the argument once and for all. 2. When choice of sexual orientation becomes a therapeutic option, do you suppose the flux of conversion will flow from hetero to homo or the other way around? 3. Is choosing to be Catholic the same thing as choosing to be gay? (Because that is what you're implying when you invoke the religion/Constitution principle to support your same-sex/Constitution argument.) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Explain to me precisely what causes homosexual orientation. That would settle the argument once and for all. We don't know precisely what causes any sexual orientation. We do have pretty reasonable evidence that it is genetic and developmentally influenced. The influences seem to be the same for the entire range of orientations. You have ignored this over and over and have offered no reason to not accept this. Your idea that being raised by a gay couple may influence the orientation of a child is something that I have never seen any support for whatsoever. And I'm sure you don't have an once of support for it. In fact, I think (but don't know) that twin studies suggest that this is clearly wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nausicaa13 Inactive Junior Member |
Hoot Mon,
there are many instances of homosexuality in animals that are quite natural. The highest occurrence of this is in the Canada Goose population. I believe it is twenty-something percent of the population that that is homosexual; and there is a reason. As you might know, Canada Geese mate for life, so if one partner dies, the other will leave its young and stay with the dead mate. The homosexual couple will then come in and care for the young and/or the "widowed" mate. This is only one example of how homosexuality is helpful to the animal community, not "detrimental." -Nausicaa13
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4455 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate)
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 8:04 AM ET The theory explains that male homosexuality could persist due to the increase in inclusive fitness to those with genes for it.
quote: quote: The theory has some implications about how we would think about homosexuality including the ideas that it would be sustained by NS, that homosexuality would not be a choice as the genes code for attraction to men, and that it would be beneficial to society as a whole.
quote: quote: quote: quote: The actual research paper is available for free here: oi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282]-->Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality (PLoS One)Published: June 18, 2008 The above Slate article states that the theory does not account for female homosexuality which has been attributed to nongenetic factors in a recent study, however, if we look at the article regarding that, we still see that biological and environmental factors are said to be involved, resulting once again in the conclusion that homosexuality isn't a choice. This article is actually just another about the same study as the one I posted in Message 21.
Sexual Reorientation: The gay culture war is about to turn chemical (Slate)Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 8:29 AM ET quote: quote: quote: Remember that as stated in the article in New Scientist about the study, that parameters were chosen that were likely to be set at birth, and not likely to be changed during the lifetime. Sexual Reorientation: The gay culture war is about to turn chemical goes on to state:
quote: The research paper that this is based on is available here: PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (PNAS) but to see more than the abstract you must pay for the paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nausicaa13 Inactive Junior Member |
There's also a book called "Biological Exuberance" that has a lot of that information in case any of you are interested...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Deftil, your post is right on topic and offers the best explanation yet for the origin of homosexual orientation: Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate). Apparently, womb chemistry can adversely affect brain development and show up in PET & MRI exams.
Now I am more convinced than ever that homosexuality is an aberration caused by developmental difficulties that might be treatable and even reversible with proper chemotherapy. I think these findings offer the first glimmers of real hope for homosexuals who seek normality and the social benefits thereof. (Why marry your best man when the bride has all the right equipment to make you happy ever after?) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nausicaa13 writes:
This makes me ask if the "homosexuality" of geese is the same kind of homosexuality as that of humans. Are you perhaps dabbling in anthropomorphism here? Because if Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate) has any credibility then geese would need to be born out of a womb rather than hatched out of an egg. Hoot Mon,there are many instances of homosexuality in animals that are quite natural. The highest occurrence of this is in the Canada Goose population. I believe it is twenty-something percent of the population that that is homosexual; and there is a reason. As you might know, Canada Geese mate for life, so if one partner dies, the other will leave its young and stay with the dead mate. The homosexual couple will then come in and care for the young and/or the "widowed" mate. This is only one example of how homosexuality is helpful to the animal community, not "detrimental." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Hi Hoot,
Do you ever actually read the research you are purporting to discuss? Are you actually talking about the research paper, 'Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality', or about the one throw away sentence in the slate article which is specifically making the point that the idea that womb environment changes with successive male children could lead to homosexuality is not accounted for by the Antagonistic theory. I don't see any reason why homosexuality couldn't persist in geese consistent with the antagonistic theory. You seem to be arguing, from what you have presented, that not only does the basis of homosexuality differ between humans and geese but also between different instances of homosexuality in humans. So maybe it is like many of us have always said, sexuality is a highly diverse state and is affected by both genetic and environmental factors producing a spectrum of sexualities. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Well, that pins it right down. So maybe it is like many of us have always said, sexuality is a highly diverse state and is affected by both genetic and environmental factors producing a spectrum of sexualities. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Could you explain why? I may have missed something, but the complexity of the antagonistic theory seems to require both womb gestation and a familial history of mother-son births. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I don't see any reason why homosexuality couldn't persist in geese consistent with the antagonistic theory. I'll go back and read the article again. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4455 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Now I am more convinced than ever that homosexuality is an aberration caused by developmental difficulties that might be treatable and even reversible with proper chemotherapy. I think these findings offer the first glimmers of real hope for homosexuals who seek normality and the social benefits thereof. Given what I know, characterizing it as an aberration caused by developmental difficulties, is quite subjective, and quite possibly even factually incorrect. It's been a few weeks since I've looked at them, but do any of the articles I cited say anything that supports the idea that male homosexuality is an "aberration caused by developmental difficulties"? If the existence of homosexuality has actually been beneficial to humanity, as the theory claims, then would it be accurate to describe it as an "abberation"?Would chemotherapy even change male homosexuality if it has a large genetic component? Do you subscribe to eugenics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well, that pins it right down. What did you expect? Biology is a messy science. Reality didn't feel obligated to conform to your desires, how unusual.
but the complexity of the antagonistic theory seems to require both womb gestation and a familial history of mother-son births. No it doesn't, not only do you not seem to be bothering to read the primary research but you can't even understand the predigested pop-science version either. What the article does is discuss the antagonistic theory, that a genetic factor which increases fecundity in women predisposes men to homosexuality, and draw a distinction between that and another theory, that successive male births leads to increased chances of homosexuality due to changes in the womb environment such as an immunogenic response to male specific antigens. This 'Fraternal Birth Order' (FBO) effect has been estimated to only account for ~1 in 7 instances of male homosexuality (Blanchard & Bogaert, 2004).
Please tell me if I'm wrong. I thought that was what my previous post just did, but I'll do it again if you insist. You are wrong!
I'll go back and read the article again. Very good idea, I recommend reading the actual research article as well (see link in Message 83). TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Now I am more convinced than ever that homosexuality is an aberration caused by developmental difficulties that might be treatable and even reversible with proper chemotherapy.think these findings offer the first glimmers of real hope for homosexuals who seek normality and the social benefits thereof. These 2 things clearly don't go together. Any chemical therapy to prevent the 'abnormal' development of the brain will need to be applied prenatally, or at least very early in life, when the brain is actually developing. This obviously isn't something a homosexual can choose, it will be the choice of the parents. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hootmon writes: I have a friend...he's gay...he's been gay for as long as he can remember (which is to say, as soon as he started having "those feelings", they have always been in response to, and/or directed towards, other males). Oddly, he was once married to a female and they had a daughter (a very attractive young lady, I might add). Nah! I'm sticking with it. If a man's penis is not heterosexually oriented toward a woman vagina (not I'm getting hot, even at my age) he will not get where he needs to go to make a baby. I don't believe homosexuals care to be oriented in the said same way. Orientation has everything to do with it. Your pathetic premise has been falsified. Edited by FliesOnly, : oops...forgot the relevant quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
WK writes:
Wounded, you are right about my confusion. I have wrongly conflated conclusions from several different articles: not only do you not seem to be bothering to read the primary research but you can't even understand the predigested pop-science version either. What the article does is discuss the antagonistic theory, that a genetic factor which increases fecundity in women predisposes men to homosexuality, and draw a distinction between that and another theory, that successive male births leads to increased chances of homosexuality due to changes in the womb environment such as an immunogenic response to male specific antigens. This 'Fraternal Birth Order' (FBO) effect has been estimated to only account for ~1 in 7 instances of male homosexuality (Blanchard & Bogaert, 2004). 1. From The Slate article that discusses Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate) quote: 2. The original PlusOne article: 'Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality' quote:3. The NAS article:PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (PNAS) quote:4. The NIH article by Blanchard & Bogaert: quote:I will continue to try to sort it all out. And with your kind patience I'm sure I'll get it right sooner or later. (Did you know I suffer from paleocerebralism?) ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024