|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 9, 2011 22:02:37 GMT 1
Abacus, your own quote from Wikipedia indicates a complex interrelationship of causes for homosexuality. The balance of these causes may vary from individual to individual. For this reason, I don't think any 'jury', except possibly one pursuing a particular agenda, is still searching for a set of causes that will account for homosexuality in any case you want to examine. So I don't quite know what it is you are looking for. Please refer to my comments above in reply to STA.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 9, 2011 23:39:38 GMT 1
Please refer to my comments above in reply to STA. I'd rather refer to STA's comments in reply to you, as early as #8 on this thread: Fixed at birth is actually taking a very naive view of biology. So, we have what genes we get, we have which are expressed, we have the effects of upbringing and environment, all of which have some part to play in how we turn out.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 10, 2011 0:16:41 GMT 1
Please refer to my comments above in reply to STA. I'd rather refer to STA's comments in reply to you, as early as #8 on this thread: Fixed at birth is actually taking a very naive view of biology. So, we have what genes we get, we have which are expressed, we have the effects of upbringing and environment, all of which have some part to play in how we turn out. you seem to be mixed up. it is not abacus that thinks sexual orientation is fixed at birth, it's helen (see#4). and STA's #8 which you've quoted is not contrary to abacus's views. he is saying much the same thing as STA ie: environment affects peoples psychology.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 10, 2011 0:48:00 GMT 1
except of course that STA is also saying that pre-birth environment can aslo play a part. this site is interesting (avert - advertising HIV and aidd). from what i gather it's affilliations appear to be neutral, non discriminatory. further links contained in the articles are also interesting. also theories and some research into whether people are born gay/lesbian. www.avert.org/being-gay.htm
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 10, 2011 0:49:15 GMT 1
I stand by my belief that ones place on the spectrum of sexual orientation is born with you. That's the thing though isn't it, it's a belief and as a scientist I have problem with this. My brother is gay, I'm not. Our mum and dad and as far as I can tell none of our extended family are gay. The thing is, my bro didn't choose to fall in love with men, he just did and that suits him well. Homosexuality has been extant for ever. What's the problem? Bible is it? I've explained the science and why they wrote that stuff on another thread. Science? We will have to wait but it's looking like a bit of lottery for being born gay or not. Bit like being black or fat isn't, sorry that is genetic. Do we really think, in the 21st century, that being gay is a choice, like your personality or the sound of your voice?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 10, 2011 0:51:54 GMT 1
you seem to be mixed up... No, mercury, I am not mixed up.Abacus is looking for hard evidence that homosexuality is exclusively genetically determined. And then, because it clearly isn't, he wants to discount the genetic element entirely: I do wonder, you know, how much being gay is a conscious lifestyle decision RATHER THAN something that your genes compel you to do. There is still no firm scientific evidence that gay people are any different physically from heterosexual ones. It could ALL be just psychological. ...there appears to be a lack of compelling scientific evidence to indicate there is ANY biological basis for homosexuality. [my emphasis] But STA says There are...a range of studies...that indicate that there is SOME genetic component to sexual orientation, along with pre-natal environment and early environment. What it certainly isn't is some sort of conscious choice you make when you're 16 (or 14, or 9, or 5). Which really is not the same thing at all.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 10, 2011 0:59:19 GMT 1
I stand by my belief that ones place on the spectrum of sexual orientation is born with you. I agree with you there - but I believe that the spectrum is far broader than many people acknowledge. it's probable that far more people are bisexual to some extent than would want to admit to it. Therefore for some people, non-genetic factors may play a greater part than genetic ones in their sexual choices than for others. That's why there is not much point in trying to establish a fixed ratio of factor to factor which will hold good for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 10, 2011 1:14:25 GMT 1
The thing I find interesting about it is that if there is a genetic component then you would expect it to be strongly selected against by natural selection, but that has not happened. Homosexuality does not seem to make Darwinian sense!
Perhaps it is a bit like Sickle Cell Anaemia, where the gene is very harmful in a double dose, but beneficial in a single dose because it gives immunity to malaria. However, I don't see how this could work with homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 10, 2011 1:58:42 GMT 1
i have no doubt homosexuality has been around forever and it is clearly not exclusive to humans.
hopefully abacus will clarify his views. i was under the impression he was saying that environmental influences play a part in our psychology which in turn determines our sexuality. these preferences/choices are not necessarily conscious ones.
why was there such a harsh reaction to the notion that boarding school could play a part in influencing sexuality? i would think this is quite probable seeing that such an exclusive environment is bound to have incredibly strong influences.
also not mentioned is the cliched mother/son relationship that gay men tend to have.
what determines our sexuality cant possibly be cut and dried as there are too many varying factors that influence us as individuals. and then there are long term died in the wool gay and lesbians end up in straight relationships and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 10, 2011 3:14:25 GMT 1
Why? Only if you assume that the aim of evolution is an optimal being. My bad back tells me otherwise, I always said leaving walking on all fours was a bad mistake..................... There doesn't seem to be a simple gay gene, hence if there are mnay different combinations of genes that have other effects as well as increasing your chances of ending up gay, then it won't be weeded out. Ditto if the genes that in a son make it more likely he is gay serve some other purpose in his mother. There are lots of ways you can have homosexuality with some genetic component and still have it persist. I think what you have to remember as well, when it comes to the ole exclusively gay individuals wouldn't reproduce argument, is the many purposes that sex serves amongst humans and other primates in addition to reproduction. Bonobos have a hell of a sexual repetoire, and it seems to help sooth group tensions. Individuals can aid the propogation of some of their shared genes if they help close relatives. Hence the 'gay uncle' scenario, who by helping and supporting his siblings, promotes the survival of the genes that he shares with his siblings and hence with their children. Evolution is a bit more complicated than some people think. And heck, like the ability of some people to do complex maths, it could just be a lucky accident! An unexpected side-effect. I'm just lucky, I guess, and I got the maths gene as well as the gay one! Because that isn't what the data I've seen supports. Plus as far as I can see, it's way too late, sexual orientation seems to be determined way younger than that, although a persons ability to express it is another matter, and can be adversely effected by later circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 10, 2011 9:44:30 GMT 1
also not mentioned is the cliched mother/son relationship that gay men tend to have. Of course they do, mercury! How could we have forgotten that! Here's some scientific evidence:
|
|
|
Post by mercury on Feb 10, 2011 11:15:11 GMT 1
also not mentioned is the cliched mother/son relationship that gay men tend to have. Of course they do, mercury! How could we have forgotten that! Here's some scientific evidence: ahh yes, that old chestnut - riducule, eh simplex - hahaha! many a true word spoken in jest though. i thought you were agreeing that environment and upbringing can influence someones sexuality so why shouldn't family dynamics be a factor? a number studies show how stronger bonds can form between mother and son where there is an emotionally absent or hostile father. or any number of family dynamics that might influence childen and how their sexuality is determined. the mother figure is classically stereotypical in male homosexuals so there is some liklihood of this being borne out. boys/men whether homo or heterosexual are deeply influenced by the mother figure and heterosexual men often choose in their partners the same qualities as their mother. i think heterosexual men very often choose a partner as a replacement for their mother. billy conolly's mummy-wife being a classic example.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 10, 2011 13:59:27 GMT 1
I see the nature of the ridicule has entirely passed you by, mercury.
No matter. Let's look at your claim that
Even if we identify this stereotypical relationship in a significant number of cases, we have done nothing to establish causality. It is at least as likely that a boy who, being homosexual, perceives himself as different will as a result of that form a closer relationship with his mother than with his peers as that his relationship with his mother is a contributory cause of his homosexuality.
Besides, if (as you claim) a closer than usual relationship with the mother causes some men to reject women altogether, we have to account for the fact that (as you also claim) it causes others to attempt to replicate it.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 10, 2011 14:13:51 GMT 1
I am interested in the exptent to which stereotypes reflect general differences in thse sub-populations. Are they an indicator of assymetry in the homosexual population?
Are male homosexual stereotypes 'gayer'( in the original sense of the word) than female ones?
Aren't screaming queens more fun than diesel dykes?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 10, 2011 14:31:46 GMT 1
That's very much the level of discourse I've come to expect from you, carnyx.
You don't disappoint.
|
|