I didn’t realize this thread was still going. I’ll answer you in the other thread because it is more apropriate. We are probably lucky that Dr. Throckmorton didn’t throw us out because this thread is about the APA. 😎

Religion isn’t the reason I question the “what” and “why” of homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be immoral or something to condemn. If you believe that every cell in your body is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection an exclusive homosexual orientation doesn’t make rational sense.

So now Darwinian evolution is something you feel in your bones? Who has ever said a homosexual orientation has to be exclusive? Whether a moralistic or religious determination, your emotionalism is not making a scientific determination there.

Drowssap (26722):

A lot of hypothesis have been put forward to explain how a gene could survive inspite of this. I have read them all and they are all silly. The latest is the increased fertility hypothesis. Somehow the gene that causes homosexuality in men also increases a woman’s fertility. I won’t waste a page debunking that kind of illogical silliness, unless someone wants to read it.

Please do…. Gavrilets and Rice in “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.” (Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038) say you’re wrong. Rice has said, “I think that it is too early to decide which of our models (or one yet to be formulated) is most feasible. However, based on the abundance of sexually antagonistic variation found in fruit flies, the sexually antagonistic variation seems like a probable candidate process leading to polymorphism for homosexuality.” [see: http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html%5D. Sexually antagonistic traits are those that are advantageous in one sex, but may cause a nonadvantageous trait (such as homosexuality) in the other sex. Thus fertility in females vs homosexuality in males would qualify as those possible sexually antagonistic traits.

Well, I had to throw that in here….

…

And while we are at it, there is no evidence that proves that homosexuality does NOT contribute some sort of survival advantage in some OTHER way… In battle, perhaps some gay soldiers help the other troops survive. Maybe a gay doctor discovers a cure for cancer. Maybe gays bring skills, viewpoints, talents, perspectives — a variety of important cultural and scientific contributions that might actually ADD to the general fund of knowledge of the species? Maybe a wide variety of viewpoints and experiences is ESSENTIAL to the survival of the HUMAN species? Isn’t that possible? I believe so. It is not just the strongest who survive and reproduce, but the smartest and the most adaptible.

I think that humanity is much more than a genetic rat race where only the genetically superior prevail. There is anthropological evidence that many wandering nomadic tribes would actually carry those who were too old or sick to hunt (slowing the tribe down and putting them at risk) — because these weak ones and elders were SPECIAL to the community. They needed their wisdom and their love. Not every culture drowned them in streams or pushed them off on an ice flow — as a strict “survial of the species” narrative would suggest.

“It has been argued that ALL variations in human sexuality may have some “survival value” Seeing people behave sexually (whatever this particular behavior may be) may stimulate sexual interest in general”

Hypothetically speaking if two gay men have sex in public and it arouses the whole tribe it actually contributes to “gay” genes being wiped out. The rest of the tribe becomes aroused, has even more sex and creates even more kids. That dillutes the “gay” gene even faster.

Even if gay men had 80 kids for every 100 that straight men had the gene that caused gayness would get obliterated in just a few generations. Correct me if I’m wrong but in modern times gay men have about 20 kids for every 100 that straight men have? The number of gay people should be dropping like a rock, but in fact the population is steady. Something else in the environment is causing it IMHO.

“Not true. There seem to be MANY genetic characteristics and differences that have have NOTHING to do with reproduction and are not wiped out”. Not every genetic variation has survival advantages.”

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 😎 Even if a common characteristic lacks survival advantages today it had to have a benefit at some point in history. Moroever it can’t be a drag on fitness right now or it will rapidly diminish. Even though I don’t believe SSA is genetic I have no doubt it is biologically based and not the result of bad parenting. 2% of men are exclusively gay because their dads didn’t hug them enough? C’mon, that is ridiculous.

Wow, how did this thread end up so off topic? 😎

I support the idea of therapy for people who want it. (back on track) Drug treatment therapy fails 95% of the time and nobody wants it outlawed. If this therapy helps a few motivated people I am for it. If it doesn’t work for anyone it will eventually go away on its own.

I think your argument falls apart in a few ways:

1. You are applying only micro evolution. You assume that genetics is purely individual and that it survives only in a genetic line and not in a genetic pool or community.

2. You start with the premise that homosexuality is fitness reducing and work backwards. I suggest that there may be attributes of homosexuality that are so beneficial to the survival of that family or clan that they overwhelm the loss of direct lineage.

3. You assume evolution is a completed process and that those genes which would have been culled have been culled.

4. You assume that evolution contains within itself some moral code or clue for appropriateness.

But if “moral” or “acceptable” is defined solely by what will propogate the genes of the individual, then the most moral activity would be the complete destruction of all other genetic lines – genocide as the ultimate in morality.

I find it offensive because I do not think there IS a way to “define gays as a group, voting block, social segment, etc..”. There is no gay community. We are as diverse as straights.

I have to disagree with part of this. A community is defined by its commonality. Just as there is a “community of faith” that includes people that have very little in common and an “African-American community” which widely ranges in political and economic status, there is a community of people who have same-sex attraction in common.

While gay people have vastly varying characteristics and are difficult to define as a social segment or voting block, there is a gay community. There does exist a community of people who have some basic similarities and those include same-sex attraction and (usually) agreement that discrimination ought not be based on same-sex attraction.

And even some cultural similarities are shared by a majority of this community. For example, literature and film that includes same-sex romance or characters that are gay are probably enjoyed by a large majority. So too do gay persons enjoy – at least occasionally – the company of other gay people, so some social assumptions can be made.

But as for other stereotypes, I agree that they are probably representative of the most visible or intentionally flamboyant rather than of a majority of gay persons.