Comments

1. David Blakeslee says:

   June 18, 2009 at 2:17 am

   @ Timothy,

   Sounds like we are getting closer to agreement all the time.

   Gilgamesh and a quadratic equation…what a thread.
2. David Blakeslee says:

   June 18, 2009 at 2:26 am

   @ Timothy,

   “Marriages as defined in America 40 years ago are not found in scripture. They are not found really anywhere outside of America 40 years ago.”

   South Africa may have had similar laws…you seem to be saying that America uniquely corrupted marriage in the way Jayhuck and I describe…

   I am all for American exceptionalism…but tribalism has long been at the root of such laws. That doesn’t seem unique to America.
3. concerned says:

   June 18, 2009 at 7:46 am

   Carole,
   I worked in the teaching profession when the information on the gay gene came out and I saw education policy put into place to reflect this position. I also saw teachers who knew very little about these issues and in many cases knew very little of how science actually worked embrace these new views without question. Most of the reports on the research that was being presented came from popular magazines and was obviously agenda driven, ie. the alternative position was rarely presented in a fair way. I later went back to some of the actual research from the scientific journals and found that the authors of these studies were also showing a bias or in some cases actually contradicted to some degree what what the magazines were presenting.
   The reason for me bringing this up is that it was important at the time interms of how teachers may have approached the issue of SSA with their students. I know it definitely affected the way I looked at my own struggle with SSA.
4. David Blakeslee says:

   June 18, 2009 at 11:34 am

   @ Timothy and others:

   Just watched Lonesome Dove last night.

   compare with Gilgamesh…LD is about two men who love each other deeply and loyally, over a lifetime. Both are heros….

   Any reason to compare the efficacy of the Illiad, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Torah for their effect on Western Civilization?

   I would argue that it is no contest. Torah…hands down.
5. Timothy Kincaid says:

   June 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm

   Debbie

   Thus, while scientists, researchers, experts in their field, are skeptical, you find it “suspicious” that I am too? They are confounded, but you are not?

   Yesterday after hearing you claim about just how evolutionary biologists think that sexual orientation is not part of the evolutionary process, I ran across this new article in the latest issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Their synopsis:

   Same-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals. Here we review the contexts in which it has been studied, focusing on case studies that have tested both adaptive and non-adaptive explanations for the persistence of same-sex sexual behavior. Researchers have begun to make headway unraveling possible evolutionary origins of these behaviors and reasons for their maintenance in populations, and we advocate expanding these approaches to examine their role as agents of evolutionary change. Future research employing theoretical, comparative and experimental approaches could provide a greater understanding not only of how selection might have driven the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviors but also ways in which such behaviors act as selective forces that shape social, morphological and behavioral evolution.

   The authors are Two evolutionary biologists from University of California, Riverside.
6. carole says:

   June 19, 2009 at 2:21 am

   @Timothy,

   Shame on you–after all our “trysts,” you call me by another woman’s name?!?! Ahh, the pain of it —to be so treated . Only a callous player or a gay man would do that to a woman. LOL.

   I did read the very article to which you refer. It was linked by another blog I sometimes read. However, I have not read their actual paper. I’d like to and will look for it. If the writer is correct the Zuk/Bailey piece is a survey of other’s research. Still, it should be interesting reading.

   The piece began with prose typical of those who write as if they are about to tell someone something new, when they aren’t (but it makes for a good opening, nonetheless) –Darwin would not be shocked as the writer claims.

   The article tells us some things we already knew–that all kinds of animals engage in same-sex behaviors. We know that animals engage in all kinds of sexual behaviors and that often their behaviors in the wild differ from their behaviors in captivity and that their behavior in the wild is influenced by environmental pressures.

   Most of us who have had animals like dogs or have spent any time on a farm have seen such behavior. As a child I had a small mixed-breed dog that kept trying to hump our cat. One day, the cat, normally a non-chalant, mellow guy got ticked off and scratched him so badly he never tried that again. However, when the female lab down the street came into heat, my little guy dug out under the fence and tried his best to get to her, competing against dogs five times his size-we had him fixed. In most cases, these animals that engage in homosexual behaviors are also interested in opposite sex mating.

   Still, the point is that, yes, these behaviors and pair bonding do exist in animals of the same sex. Zuk/Bailey evidently cover the variety of circumstances which they think lead to this.

   From the article:

   Dr Bailey argues that homosexual activity could act as a selective pressure. “Same-sex behaviour can have evolutionary consequences that are beginning to be considered. For example, male-male copulations in locusts can be costly for the mounted male, and this cost may increase selection pressure for males’ tendency to release a chemical which dissuades other males from mounting them,” he said.

   Dr. Bailey, like a good scientist, says, “could.” Certainly this example above however, if the insect behavior is being interpreted correctly, is one which suggests the same-sex behavior is being selected against. Why? No offspring production, perhaps, if the little buggers are so busy mounting one another they don’t reproduce? I don’t know. It suggests the same sex behavior is deleterious to the male which is mounted (is it offended? physically harmed?) and that natural selection is arming such males with a chemical weapon to stave off the aggressive male mounter.

   Perhaps they offer examples of selection for same-sex behaviors too? I will be interested to read if they deal with selection against OSA, another matter from same-sex behavior.

   I am on record as saying that same-sex behaviors are not hard to explain–living things get horny. Looking at human behavior as well as animal behavior tells us that. Our eyes don’t deceive us on this point. Evo biologists point out that the failure to mate and reproduce is not hard to explain. Lots of animals, including people, have little or no success in competing for a mate. What is hard to explain is the lack of trying or the lack of wanting to try.

   Pair-bonding is an interesting subject. The behavior is often related to the environment, a Darwinian priniciple for sure.

   This is from the intro to the article.

   the authors caution that it is tricky to apply human categories of sexual orientation to animals. “It is impossible to know what animals ‘desire’; we can only observe what they do,” they write.

   Do animals have attractions? Or, is it all about sex, mating, bonding? Animals do imprint. I have read people on blogs, non-scientists, say that people do too, but I have not found a biologist that thinks people “imprint” the way a duck or other animals do.

   I googled the biologist. Marlene Zuk, Professor of Biology
   Ph.D., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1986

   On her website, she says:

   I am interested in behavioral ecology, the study of the evolution of behavior. My research centers on sexual selection and the effects of parasites on mate choice and the evolution of secondary sex characters. I am also interested more generally in the influence of parasites on host ecology and behavior. Currently, I have two major projects underway. First, I am examining the effects of conflicting selection pressures on song structure in a Pacific field cricket subject to an acoustically-orienting parasitoid fly. Second, I am beginning work on the evolution of disease resistance in the context of sexual selection using a variety of cricket species which differ in male mating effort.

   Seems that even in her own words she speaks of the environment’s effects on animals when she speaks of the parasite’s effect on mate choice and ecology.

   This stuff is great!
7. Timothy Kincaid says:

   June 19, 2009 at 6:22 pm

   Shame on you–after all our “trysts,” you call me by another woman’s name?!?! Ahh, the pain of it —to be so treated . Only a callous player or a gay man would do that to a woman. LOL.

   Gosh, you found me out. I’ve been cheating on you.

   The words we take away from the synopis, the most relevant to our discussion, are:

   Researchers have begun to make headway unraveling possible evolutionary origins of these behaviors and reasons for their maintenance in populations, and we advocate expanding these approaches to examine their role as agents of evolutionary change.

   Ah, unraveling possible evolutionary origins… as you said, this stuff is great!!

   (But what do i know… I always go back to divine intent)
8. carole says:

   June 22, 2009 at 10:17 pm

   Timothy,

   This is Time Mag’s take on the UCRiverside (Zuk) study, the one we were discussing:

   http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1905237,00.html

   In the article is a link to Evolution and Human Behavior in which are the results of a study that tested E. Miller’s hypothesis of balanced polymorphisms. http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(08)00085-8/abstract

   Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 58-65 (January 2009)

   ABSTRACT:
   The genetic background of male homosexuality presents an evolutionary paradox, since homosexuality could be considered a reproductive disadvantage. We tested E.M. Miller’s (2000) balanced polymorphism explanation, which states that alleles partially preventing androgenization in male fetuses during pregnancy would be associated with a homosexual orientation. Having all the alleles produces homosexuality, while heterosexual carriers with only a few of these alleles instead have a reproductive advantage; that is, they have more traits, which, by controlling for excessive aggressiveness and psychopathy, make them more attractive mates. Pairs of brothers were used to test these assumptions. If homosexuality is due to having all the androgenization-preventing alleles, then heterosexual men with homosexual brothers are more likely to also have some of the these alleles compared to heterosexual men with heterosexual brothers. These two categories were compared on variables related both directly and indirectly to reproductive success, with heterosexual men with a homosexual brother hypothesized to have an advantage on the variables. However, no statistically significant findings in support of the theory were detected. The results were discussed together with alternative explanations.
9. Eddy says:

   June 23, 2009 at 12:30 am

   Katie–
   Let’s not overlook the obvious. Please consult the banner at the top of the page. First you will see the name of our host: Warren Throckmorton. Next you will see a byline describing the topics our host is most interested in. I’m not saying that Warren is not interested in or concerned about genocide…but it’s a HUGE world wide web. This is HIS website. He’s a Christian Psychologist and has even launched a program of Sexual Identity Therapy. While genocide is a worthy topic and surely has consequences and ramifications (at least while on earth) that far exceed homosexuality, do his ‘issues of concern’ really have to be put on hold until genocide is resolved? Or can we trust that genocide will be discussed and perhaps addressed on one or more of the gazillion other websites? (You’ve been around awhile. I meant no disrespect although I know my comment may have come across direct and curt. However, sometimes, the more direct route communicates most effectively. I wasn’t putting you down or putting you off…simply explaining why we do what we do here.)
10. Eddy says:

    June 23, 2009 at 12:40 am

    Yikes– II’d forgotten that I’d been commenting on several different threads. I read all my notice emails in a row and then commented but this one really belongs on the couple with the 8 kids. ROFL, though. Who would have known since we NEVER stay on topic for longer than a heartbeat?

    My only real problem now is to repost this comment where it belongs without the dreaded ‘You’ve already said that’ prompt. Well, here’s tryin’.
11. Eddy says:

    June 23, 2009 at 12:48 am

    Katie–
    I WILL find that thread…turns out I was subscribed to three not two. And just tonight I was musing about the prospect of not subscribing at all. I do believe that the search process would take much less time than the delete process in my inbox. Especially when you get the “oh and just one more thing’ rejoinder comments where one bloggers lands in your inbox 3 or 4 times in less than a half hour.
12. Timothy Kincaid says:

    June 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    carole,

    Yes. Linked to an article about two evolutionary biologists who disagree with you is a reference to an earlier biologist who neither agrees nor disagrees with you but cannot at present verify one hypothesis.

    If that leads you to think that evolutionary biologists find the existence of same-sex attraction to be contrary to natural selection, you go for it. I’ve wearied of arguing this with you.
13. carole says:

    June 23, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Timothy????????

    If that leads you to think that evolutionary biologists find the existence of same-sex attraction to be contrary to natural selection, you go for it. I’ve wearied of arguing this with you.

    ?????????? I simply supplied links because we WERE talking about the subject recently. It was a gesture of, gulp, friendship–you know, like people sharing something because they had been talking about it? Like all the studies before it, no one claims to KNOW the answer. I don’t have a reason to want you to change your opinion; however, way back, you challenged how I could entertain an explanation that wasn’t w/in the framework of your view, so I have explained how/why —because scientists of all stripes are confused and are willing to look at where they have been again but also willing to look elsewher . Thus, their studies have influenced my view.

    When I saw this, I thought it was something that a person like you, who obviously reads about the subject, would want to read, period. I didn’t expect a response, just offered the links with no “argument” sought. I can see that this subject will always lead to what is in your mind an argument rather than an exchange of ideas culled from readings so….an end of discussion is appropriate, it seems.

Speak Your Mind Click here to cancel reply.