[Uncle Skeleton]

Please select your beliefs:

[RAILhead]

Gay people.

Do I win?

[OldManMac]

A mental illness.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oh jesus, it posts the poll before letting me enter the options? Lame

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok, I didn't give options like "homosexuality is good" because I don't know of anyone arguing to make people homos who otherwise wouldn't be, and frankly if there are I don't really care. I'm just curious which of the judgmental opinions correlate with each other.

Edit: oh yeah, in case it's not clear, by "agnostic" I mean that you don't have an opinion on whether it's genetic or acquired and/or you don't think it matters

[cwkmacuser]

YAY! I'm the first voter!

[ort888]

I dunno. It probably is some form of complex mental disorder, reverse wiring or something... but it really doesn't matter.

I think the vast majority of gay people are born that way, but a few aren't... and again, it really doesn't matter.

[Doofy]

What is homosexuality?

Flamboyant. That's what it is. Quite similar to (but not to be confused with) Canuckistaniness.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

... and again, it really doesn't matter.

It does to an awful lot of people, who seem to have the time and energy to "debate" a tiny minority's "problems", even as they ignore their own.

[subego]

If it was 100% genetics, as a decidedly bad reproduction strategy, it should be declining over time. It isn't.

If it was 100% acquired, the cultural variations in percentage of homosexuals should be smack you upside the head obvious. They're not.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it was 100% genetics, as a decidedly bad reproduction strategy, it should be declining over time. It isn't.

If it was 100% acquired, the cultural variations in percentage of homosexuals should be smack you upside the head obvious. They're not.

I see it more as nature's way of saying, "there's enough of you bastards around, time to thin the herd a little". However, there are some people who are gay or Bi as a choice, but they're much less common.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it was 100% genetics, as a decidedly bad reproduction strategy, it should be declining over time. It isn't.

It could have to do with what they call "kin selection," where behaviors that benefit the group (but not the individual) are selected for because the group shares a lot of the same genes. The classic example is in prairie dogs, where one will sound the alarm when it sees a predator, even though it risks itself, its kin benefits and its genes live on through them. Altruism is another example, and to a lesser extent empathy and a sense of fairness (the behavior of punishing the selfish). Kin selection is also one theory of the mystery that is menopause; grandparents obviate further reproduction in favor of caring for existing offspring. It could be as simple as more grandparent-roles were needed in the species, and homosexuals can fill that role (you could argue that they are more nurturing than heteros too... I guess). Or it could be more complex, like rather than simply supplement existing grandparents, they actually fill roles that aren't filled at all otherwise, although nothing comes to mind. It might even be something we'd consider destructive, like providing a scapegoat for the other males to take out their aggressions on.

Another possibility is that actual sexuality is a by-product of a seemingly unrelated mechanism we don't yet realize. We already know of cases where an apparently negative trait is perpetuated in the population because it is (thought to be) really a part of some other positive trait. Example, it's postulated that manic depression is preserved genetically because it is a side-effect of exceptional artistic talent (or vice versa, depending on your perspective). Another example, some evidence shows that Huntington's disease contributes to enhanced sexuality and promiscuity early in life (you can imagine how that might increase allele frequency).

Thirdly, it could be one of those genes where the heterozygote and homozygote have opposite fitness, the classical example being sickle-cell anemia, where heterozygotes have slightly increased fitness due to malaria resistance but homozygotes have severely reduced fitness from anemia.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It could have to do with...

I realize I'm taking a shot at my own argument here (as well i should), but wouldn't the simplest explanation be the right people had the required genetic components somewhere in the Pleistocene?

IIUC, with that, you could have those same genetic components end up with everyone alive today, pretty much regardless of their suitability.

Those components just had to be suitable enough not to wipe out the people in question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I realize I'm taking a shot at my own argument here (as well i should), but wouldn't the simplest explanation be the right people had the required genetic components somewhere in the Pleistocene?

IIUC, with that, you could have those same genetic components end up with everyone alive today, pretty much regardless of their suitability.

Those components just had to be suitable enough not to wipe out the people in question.

If there were no spontaneous mutations, yeah, but there usually are.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If there were no spontaneous mutations, yeah, but there usually are.

Wouldn't the likelihood of those mutations having an effect be in inverse proportion to the number of genes that make up the phenotype?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Not really, the number of mutations will scale up along with the number of genes.

[Kerrigan]

A current theory points to the genes that cause "androphilia", i.e., love for men.

When I have more time I will dig up a link to the scientific discussion.

Basically it boils down to there being a gene that increases women's attraction to men, resulting in them having a higher number of children. This gene can be passed on to men, supposedly.

This would make homosexuality a by-product of androphilia, essentially.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not really, the number of mutations will scale up along with the number of genes.

And the less likely any particular single mutation would be extensive enough to dramatically change the overall phenotype, no?

[Face Ache]

Homosexuality means your shoes matching your belt.
Homosexuality means knowing what chiffon is.
Homosexuality means a large disposable income.
Homosexuality means driving a Miata/MX5.

We've been over this. Who cares? Unless this is part of some gay agenda - to create more homosexuals. Some kind of fabulous army. Like the KISS Army but with better makeup. I'll bet they could march in time too. And... turn! (and two and three and four).

No, I say we keep the recipe* a secret, like that famous old poof Colonel Sanders did. Now that dude could accessorize.


^Not a breast man.


*Tastes like salty chicken? Or... chicken Salty?

Sorry, back to your "serious" discussion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Homosexuality means your shoes matching your belt.
Homosexuality means knowing what chiffon is.
Homosexuality means a large disposable income.
Homosexuality means driving a Miata/MX5.

Oh ****, I'm gay!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

And the less likely any particular single mutation would be extensive enough to dramatically change the overall phenotype, no?

The general rule is that the more DNA codes for a trait, the more likely it is to "break." There are plenty of exceptions, and obviously as a thought exercise you could assume that being straight is the "trait" and being gay is just the absence of that trait (if this was the case, you would still expect to see it decline over evolutionary time, as the effectiveness of the "straight" trait increased). You can't assume a rule or relationship like the one you're implying here, but since this is all a "it could be" scenario anyway, you can hypothesize that there is some sort of gene that is resistant to spontaneous mutation, regardless of how. Even if this was so, we can all agree that on its face this trait is highly detrimental to fecundity, so any spontaneous mutations however rare which did manage to break through the defenses and defeat this trait would confer a significant advantage once it did so. If there is such a trait that has survived this long, I think it's safe to say that it does convey some sort of advantage which balances its obvious reproductive disadvantage.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If there is such a trait that has survived this long, I think it's safe to say that it does convey some sort of advantage which balances its obvious reproductive disadvantage.

Couldn't the advantage simply be that 9 times out of 10 (or so) the system works as intended, or am I looking at this completely wrong?

Edit: the disadvantage it beat out could easily not exist any more in humans, like a lower birth rate.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by cwkmacuser 

YAY! I'm the first voter!

Congrats to your ghey post.

-t

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh ****, I'm gay!

Damnit, so am I. Well, apart from the large disposable income, sadly…

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Couldn't the advantage simply be that 9 times out of 10 (or so) the system works as intended, or am I looking at this completely wrong?

Yeah, I mentioned that, but also if the "straight" trait is as advantageous as it seems, we would expect its penetrance to grow over time as the trait evolved. 90% effectiveness is good but it's not all that good. The reason it's not more than 90% is either because the evolution algorithm can't do any better or because there's an advantage to not doing so. The former is a possibility, sure, it's just not very likely.

Edit: the disadvantage it beat out could easily not exist any more in humans, like a lower birth rate.

Yes, maybe. Although I'd say that lower birth rate is more relevant today than ever. It's survival that has improved most in modern times, especially as infants. The rate of actually giving birth is one of the most limiting factors now for reproductive success.

[shifuimam]

Chicks kissing each other is just so hawt.

Right?

That being said, I think boobs are pretty awesome. I mean, I like mine and all, but it seems like boobs are something that are universally seen in an attractive light, regardless of gender (and possibly sexual orientation, although I've never asked a gay dude what he thinks about boobs).

[besson3c]

I've known gay guys that blow them off as just being bags of fat.

[shifuimam]

Now where's the fun in that? I mean, there's some muscle in there, too...

...and, if you're lucky, some bling.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

... although I've never asked a gay dude what he thinks about boobs).

I had a gay boss that was absolutely enthralled by boobies...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Now where's the fun in that? I mean, there's some muscle in there, too...

...and, if you're lucky, some bling.

They should make pinyatas out of boobs, or vice versa.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Chicks kissing each other is just so hawt.

Right?

That being said, I think boobs are pretty awesome. I mean, I like mine and all, but it seems like boobs are something that are universally seen in an attractive light, regardless of gender (and possibly sexual orientation, although I've never asked a gay dude what he thinks about boobs).

Speaking of which, we are still waiting for pictures of the piercings.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, maybe. Although I'd say that lower birth rate is more relevant today than ever. It's survival that has improved most in modern times, especially as infants. The rate of actually giving birth is one of the most limiting factors now for reproductive success.

This may be where I'm having the issue. You seem to be implying these sorts of things happen really fast.

400 years ago, a high birth rate was still pretty important, and it only becomes more important the further back you go.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've known gay guys that blow them off as just being bags of fat.

My personal experience is gay guys are more interested in boobs than lesbians are interested in penises. OTHO, vaginas seem to really freak the gays.

I'm not necessarily talking sexually in any of these cases.

Straight men tend to be disinterested (or worse) in penises, except for one, which they're obsessed with. That always struck me as odd.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

This may be where I'm having the issue. You seem to be implying these sorts of things happen really fast.

400 years ago, a high birth rate was still pretty important, and it only becomes more important the further back you go.

A few things. First, 400 years is more than 10 generations. That's a long time, when you're talking about a trait that has a large direct effect on reproduction. How many generations of finches do you think Darwin went through? Second, how do you know birth rate only becomes more important the further back you go? Humans have an extraordinarily small number of offspring. This is because there is an inherent biological compromise between the number of offspring and the amount of energy put into raising each one. Humans lean far towards the latter (quality over quantity). That is an indication that raising young is of more critical importance than creating them in the first place. This solution to the compromise dates back to before primates branched from each other (although homosexuality is arguably older by the same logic).

[Big Mac]

Homosexuality = Bababooey Pitch

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

A few things. First, 400 years is more than 10 generations. That's a long time, when you're talking about a trait that has a large direct effect on reproduction.

Which is what lead me to the thinking the number of genes in the phenotype is relevant.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Second, how do you know birth rate only becomes more important the further back you go?

Higher infant mortality.
Higher adult mortality.
Higher mortality from conflict (much higher).

Most importantly, for most of history, children were an economic advantage. Technology and wealth changes them into an economic burden.

As you work backwards into prehistory, you lose the conflict/economy angle to a large extent, but you spike the overall mortality rates.

You still have societies with average fertility rates that are almost 8 children per mother. Maybe that's extraordinarily small for a possum, but isn't that a lot for a high order primate?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Which is what lead me to the thinking the number of genes in the phenotype is relevant.

I don't follow. Aside: are you implying that each of a large number of genes is required, or sufficient (iow, is it 'all' or 'any')?

Higher infant mortality.
Higher adult mortality.
Higher mortality from conflict (much higher).

Most importantly, for most of history, children were an economic advantage. Technology and wealth changes them into an economic burden.

As you work backwards into prehistory, you lose the conflict/economy angle to a large extent, but you spike the overall mortality rates.

Economics is meaningless when you're talking about evolutionary advantage; children have always been and will always be an evolutionary advantage. The octo-mom on welfare is far more evolutionarily fit than the childless billionaire CEO (the Idiocracy principle), even taking into account the CEO's kin selection contribution. Octo-mom is better at gaming the system, as long as you are considering evolutionary advantage instead of economic advantage.

You still have societies with average fertility rates that are almost 8 children per mother. Maybe that's extraordinarily small for a possum, but isn't that a lot for a high order primate?

Is it? I would be very surprised if so, since even the poorest modern human societies are orders of magnitude "safer" than ape societies, and if apes had such low fertility rates they would have been extinct long before now. But I couldn't rustle up any figures off-hand, can you?

[Gavin]

It is not genetic, it's congenital. You are born with it but it's not the plans, it's the execution. The genes supply a potential, the actual development determines the outcome. Schizophrenia is similar, not that I'm equating the two. Many people have the potential but not all of them become Schizophrenic, it requires a trigger. In the case of Schizophrenia it is usually a trauma as a young adult which is why you see a rise during wartime. With homosexuality you see a rise when the pregnant mother is stressed, like during a famine. Of course there can be lots of reasons, humans are complex machines.

There is a famous experiment where they crowd rats into a cage and decrease the food supply, you get more gay rats born on average. This points at why it would be preserved. In lean times you need to drop the population, ideally without a massive die-off, this will happen in a single generation if many of the adults are not inclined to breed. The other advantage is that you still have an otherwise normal adult who will gather food and defend the group.

In adverse times having homosexuals is a long-term survival advantage for the group.

So you can think of it not as something going wrong, but simply an alternative assembly procedure being followed. Like if a car comes off the assembly line and the window cranks go clockwise instead of counter clockwise, the car still works. It may not be the standard, but it's not outside the spec.

This doesn't require the unlikely identical mutation for each occurrence and explains why the tendency would be preserved through the generations.

[Kerrigan]

Good post ^

[Shaddim]

In other words...

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I see it more as nature's way of saying, "there's enough of you bastards around, time to thin the herd a little".

[aristotles]

I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here. It is definitely not genetic. Unfortunately, medical science is not currently allowed to study the cause because it is not politically correct to say anything other than say that it's genetic. Some also fear that if a non-genetic trigger for the propensity is found, that someone might invent a "cure" or even preventative treatment.

People need to stop blaming hormones, genetics or whatever and own up to their own behaviour. We are not machines nor are we animals. I may not have this particular challenge in life but I've had to fight and overcome some of my own neurosis with the will of my own mind. You make the best of what you have in life and try to live a life of meaning.

Modern society is too quick to lay back and either use their difficulties as a crutch or to pop a bunch of pills in an attempt to dull our pain or "fix" our problems.

I'd like to be more compassionate but unfortunately, early in life, I saw the ugly side of gay people in the form of bullies. Society needs to stop making excuses for people and expect everyone to live up their responsibilities. I believe that gay people can be cured and I hope that one day, scientists will be allowed to perform studies without all of this politically correct dung.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

... early in life, I saw the ugly side of gay people in the form of bullies.

That's your justification for your reasoning? Really?

[Kerrigan]

I agree that people must use their willpower to overcome detrimental inclinations.

But the will must always be subservient to reason, or else it has the potential to cause harm.

aristotles, we are all sorry that you were bullied by gays, bullying can be painful. But to suggest that it is an injustice that science is not working towards the elimination of homosexuality is not a reasonable way to react to your experience.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

It is not genetic, it's congenital. You are born with it but it's not the plans, it's the execution. The genes supply a potential, the actual development determines the outcome. Schizophrenia is similar, not that I'm equating the two. Many people have the potential but not all of them become Schizophrenic, it requires a trigger. In the case of Schizophrenia it is usually a trauma as a young adult which is why you see a rise during wartime. With homosexuality you see a rise when the pregnant mother is stressed, like during a famine. Of course there can be lots of reasons, humans are complex machines.

There is a famous experiment where they crowd rats into a cage and decrease the food supply, you get more gay rats born on average. This points at why it would be preserved. In lean times you need to drop the population, ideally without a massive die-off, this will happen in a single generation if many of the adults are not inclined to breed. The other advantage is that you still have an otherwise normal adult who will gather food and defend the group.

In adverse times having homosexuals is a long-term survival advantage for the group.

So you can think of it not as something going wrong, but simply an alternative assembly procedure being followed. Like if a car comes off the assembly line and the window cranks go clockwise instead of counter clockwise, the car still works. It may not be the standard, but it's not outside the spec.

This doesn't require the unlikely identical mutation for each occurrence and explains why the tendency would be preserved through the generations.

So what you are saying is with all the turmoil and stress that is going on now, that in about 10 or 15 years we should see a sharp rise in children who identify themselves as homosexual. Was there a similar spike 10 to 15 years after the Great Depression?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Homosexuality means your shoes matching your belt.
Homosexuality means knowing what chiffon is.
Homosexuality means a large disposable income.
Homosexuality means driving a Miata/MX5.

Oh ****, I'm gay!

Oh ****, I’m straight!

(Well, apart from the [relatively] large disposable income, that is. So basically, the exact opposite of Koralatov. Belt? What belt? I don’t wear no stinkin’ belts. Had to look up chiffon, too. Something with cakes. Mmm, cake. And I don’t have a driving licence, so no MX5 here. Boobs are generally quite pretty, though, as long as they’re on women.)

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Tastes like salty chicken? Or... chicken Salty?

Oh, that’s just nasty.

Edit: Eww, I posted in the PWL! Cooties!

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So what you are saying is with all the turmoil and stress that is going on now, that in about 10 or 15 years we should see a sharp rise in children who identify themselves as homosexual. Was there a similar spike 10 to 15 years after the Great Depression?

Honestly I don't think the current level of turmoil and stress is really that much worse now that at any other time. The "I'm having trouble getting a car loan" type of stress we have can't compare with the "my whole village was massacred and I spent the last three months hiding in a culvert" stress so popular in most of the world.

The Depression ... lots of hunger and instability. I don't think you could measure a correlation; crowded rats and unemployed people are completely different things. And there was such a stigma then, it would be impossible to get statistics that would show anything anyway. And of course something that happens to rats may not apply to humans at all, for example drugs that work on rats fail human trials all the time.

Somebody above brought up the idea of a "cure" so let's discuss it for a minute, though I'm sure many of us find the thought repulsive. I don't think you would be able to rewire someone's fundamental nature, and it's sure as hell unethical. I'm not advocating it at all, but if homosexuality could be prevented by a prenatal supplement, I bet many women would do it. Parents (ideally, theoretically) love their children regardless, but given a choice most people would opt for grandchildren. Short term selfishness in passing on your genes always outweighs everything else including altruism and enlightened openness. Nevertheless, you might even see the other extreme too, ladies taking a pill to have a gay kid because it's so trendy.

The other interesting thing is that the people who would want such a supplement the most are the one's who go out of their way to bash science. Sort of a system of checks and balances for irony, a naturally gay equilibrium.... homostasis?

[OldManMac]

So Gavin, first you're saying it's not genetic, then you're saying that it might be okay to take a "prenatal pill," to stop it from occurring? And you're correlating the current economic stresses with the incidents of homosexuality? You're saying that homosexuals are more apt to be bullies? It's not genetic, but women might want to take a pill to have homosexual children? For what reason? My daughter, who is gay, was a bully, and her mother could have taken a pill to prevent a non-genetic condition? She became gay because of economic uncertainty?


Exactly what are your points?

[Gavin]

I guess I can see how a couple of phrases may look like I'm advocating for something - that wasn't my goal. So by "The idea of a cure is interesting too," I did not mean "what a good idea", but rather "somebody above brought this up so let's discuss it for a minute". I'll reword it.

Maybe you could read my post again with that in mind.

However I do think you are reading in a bunch of stuff that isn't there.

bullies? I didn't say anything about bullies - I actually disputed the guy that brought that up.

I didn't say that it would or would not be OK to produce or take a pill, just that people would do it. There are nuts who send their kids to "deprogramming" camps, that kind of person would take such a pill.

Someone else extrapolated the rat experiment to current economic times, I just pointed out that I don't think you could measure any such correlation. Besides, they are completely different situations so not comparable.

I think the subject is an interesting part of human nature and worthy of discussion. I realize it can be a sensitive topic but please don't mix me up with the bigots.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gavin 

I realize it can be a sensitive topic but please don't mix me up with the bigots.

Which bigots? The anti-gay bigots or the pro-gay bigots?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which bigots? The anti-gay bigots or the pro-gay bigots?

So much truth, so little time.