|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 7, 2011 17:25:22 GMT 1
Interesting article, naymissus.
I do wonder, you know, how much being gay is a conscious lifestyle decision rather than something that your genes compel you to do. Young boys who are whisked away to boarding schools and separated from their parents seem to turn to other boys for comfort and this may be the reason there is such a high incidence of homosexuality in boys that have attended public schools. This would have nothing to do with genetics but life experiences. Look at how many well known actors have been gay and been to a public school!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 18:33:19 GMT 1
Genes don't compel. It's not like blue eyes you know!
Conscious lifestyle decision? Absolute nonsense, as you probably well know. I hope that you don't really believe this out of date and discredited nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 7, 2011 23:26:57 GMT 1
This stuff has been going on forever, some folk are gay, get used to it! The authors of the bible knew this several thousand years ago. Why was it proscribed? because they thought (and this was fact up until about 150 years ago) that the mans sperm, his seed, was laid for incubation in the woman. She was nothing but a repository, nothing to do with ova and genetics. We know better now don't we? The folk stuck in Babylon wern't keen on wanking and buggery for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 7, 2011 23:29:11 GMT 1
helen, darling - I'm shocked!
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 7, 2011 23:32:12 GMT 1
Why RSmith? The naughty words? You are so funny some times. Or is there some other issue here?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 7, 2011 23:52:26 GMT 1
This stuff has been going on forever, some folk are gay, get used to it! The authors of the bible knew this several thousand years ago. Why was it proscribed? because they thought (and this was fact up until about 150 years ago) that the mans sperm, his seed, was laid for incubation in the woman. She was nothing but a repository, nothing to do with ova and genetics. We know better now don't we? The folk stuck in Babylon wern't keen on wanking and buggery for the same reasons. If you're suggesting that gay women are choosing a lifestyle that makes them feel they are no longer identified as an exploited gender then I tend to agree. But if that is the case it's a life-choice, not a physiological one. There is still no firm scientific evidence that gay people are any different physically from heterosexual ones. It could all be just psychological.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 7, 2011 23:53:30 GMT 1
Why RSmith? The naughty words? You are so funny some times. Or is there some other issue here? Helen, are you intoxicated when making such posts?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 7, 2011 23:59:46 GMT 1
Jean, it's a common ploy of people with an agenda to push to dismiss their critics as 'out of date' when in reality the scientific evidence is lacking.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 3:32:42 GMT 1
So now we've got the usual suspects coming out with homophobic nonsense, as well as nonsense on science....................
All that put boys in boarding school, they'll mess about with other boys and maybe become fixed like that was discredited years ago!
Claiming that the scientific evidence is lacking is just a lie -- there are numerous genetics studies, studies on brain structure in gay men and heterosexual men, studies on fetal androgen exposure, siblings studies and so on.
This is just the usual tripe you get from those who want to keep claiming that homosexuality can be prevented or cured, or that some secret gay rights agenda means trying to encourage kids to become gay by bombarding them with unwanted facts about gay people at a young age, so they'll experiment, and once we've got our eveil claws into them, they'll be stuck that way! It's the nonsense the religious right comes out with.
Why someone on here would want to come out with it, I don't know -- they either really believe it (some people are really good at believing stupid things!), or think it is a fit subject for a major wind-up. Which given events in Nigeria, isn't so funny -- why not make jokes about jews and gas chambers, if you want a good laugh. Of course, some would even claim that's all made-up nonsense from people with an agenda as well...................................
there are some really sick puppies on here, and I thought the worst we got was just plain stupidity......................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 8, 2011 8:44:06 GMT 1
....they thought (and this was fact up until about 150 years ago) that the mans sperm, his seed, was laid for incubation in the woman. What else is it for?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 11:33:48 GMT 1
Jean, I do not wish to come over as homophobic, which is always a danger when one tries to understand the basis of homosexuality, but there appears to be a lack of compelling scientific evidence to indicate there is any biological basis for homosexuality. The only references I can find refer to purely psychological and sociological factors involved in a person making a 'life-choice' regarding their sexual preferences. But, perhaps, you can provide me with something more substantial. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 11:44:50 GMT 1
We recognise that heterosexual sex is not just about reproducing, it is about strengthening the bond between the pairing.
There are plenty of examples in anthropology of all male groupings (e.g. the 'hunters') and all female groupings (i.e. the 'gatherers') having to be reasonably self sufficient whilst separated from the other sex, sometimes almost permamently. It was no doubt very important that these same sex groups had very strong bonds between them - humans need to be cooperative to be succesful.
I don't think it is a huge extrapolation to see why homosexual sex acts could be part of the strengthening the relationships within the group. One is much more likley to help another if one has strong loving and sexual feelings for them.
i.e. an evolutionary/biological basis for homosexuality. Loving* sex with somebody of your own gender will help to ensure your survival in a cooperative society (e.g. Spartans).
*Loving as in being part of a deep and meaningful relationship not just enjoying the sex
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 12:36:35 GMT 1
You make an interesting point Louise, but I can't help thinking that, to some extent, the decision to adopt a homosexual preference might be driven partly by fashion and experimentation. You have only to examine the power of peer pressure in young people to realize how much it can affect their behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 12:54:54 GMT 1
Check out the Bonobo Chimps at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behaviorYou asked for evidence that might show that homosexuality was biological, I provided some evidence. You seem to want to disregard that evidence based on your own opinions - I thought this was a science board?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 8, 2011 13:13:45 GMT 1
We recognise that heterosexual sex is not just about reproducing, it is about strengthening the bond between the pairing. Do we now? And why is it adavantageous to strengthen the bond between pairs? Surely because that is more likley to ensure the survival of the gene and the gene can only survive through reproduction? In other words bond strengthening is part of the reproductive process There is evidently then no imperative for homosexual bond strengthening. It seems that that is simply an unconscious copying of a pattern of behaviour that heterosexuals must adopt to ensure the survival of the gene. Just as infants unconsciously copy adult 'fight' behaviour in their play - there is no imperative in that either, whereas the same behaviour in adults is often imperative.
|
|