Waka Gashira (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:29 am My own theory is that homosexuality cannot be defined as genetic or environmental, and that it's a bit of both.

The world is overpopulated, and generation after generation we see more consiquences of our effect on the planet. Even today, one is only considered normal if one marries and has at least 1 child.

When a successful organism is allowed to reproduce out of control without threat of predation in a closed system, their numbers will increase exponentially until their effect on their enviroment is so great that their is not enough food or other essential materials to sustain the population. (eg. fish). At this point, there is a population cra

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:51 am sh and the vast majority of the population die out.

My theory is that homo

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:55 am sexuality has evolved as a partial remedy for over

population. I think it's probably a genetic

trait that is activated by environmental factors.

This theory exlplains why homosexuality might appear to be on the rise, if it is triggered by the brain percieving overpopulation, although this can also be explained by noting that society is gradually becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals and so fewer hide in the closet.

Whilst I'm an atheist...if someone asked me "why did god create homosexuals?" I would probably suggest that it's an attempt to prevent the world being destroyed by man's over-reproduction, and that god made homosexuals because he felt it was unfair to deny the people who where part of this scheme sexual desire, pleasure and contact with other individuals.

Homosexuality could save the human race!

I dislike this research as it implies homosexuality is some kind of disiese or disorder. I for one hope they never find a root cause, because that'll lead to a "cure" which I don't approve of. (Remeniscent of Xmen3)

An interesting theory. I have never heard this one before, although I am sure it is out there.

My question is this: Why did it have to be homosexuality? Why couldn't it have been asexuality, or just plain old infertility (with the latter, sexual desire and pleasure would still be possible)?

If homosexuality was a solution cooked up by the human brain, it hasn't worked very well. Back in the day gay men got married and had kids the same as any other man. So reproduction still took place. Many gay men still do get married and have kids, especially in parts of the world where homosexuality is less tolerated.

Perhaps the brain wasn't smart enough to recognize that homosexuality would not be socially acceptable, and that gays would be practically forced to get married and have kids. Or perhaps deep within the primitive parts of the brain, hate and prejudice are not the norm, so this reaction was not expected. I have said that I believe humans are basically good, and that hate and prejudice are learned.

There is also the issue of today's technology making it possible for gays to have biological children without having heterosexual intercourse. Presumably the brain could not have been expected to see that coming, but if this is the reason for homosexuality, then we should expect it to die out as the brain develops a different, more workable solution.

plix (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:41 am An interesting theory. I have never heard this one before, although I am sure it is out there.

My question is this: Why did it have to be homosexuality? Why couldn't it have been asexuality, or just plain old infertility (with the latter, sexual desire and pleasure would still be possible)?

If homosexuality was a solution cooked up by the human brain, it hasn't worked very well. Back in the day gay men got married and had kids the same as any other man. So reproduction still took place. Many gay men still do get married and have kids, especially in parts of the world where homosexuality is less tolerated.

Perhaps the brain wasn't smart enough to recognize that homosexuality would not be socially acceptable, and that gays would be practically forced to get married and have kids. Or perhaps deep within the primitive parts of the brain, hate and prejudice are not the norm, so this reaction was not expected. I have said that I believe humans are basically good, and that hate and prejudice are learned.

There is also the issue of today's technology making it possible for gays to have biological children without having heterosexual intercourse. Presumably the brain could not have been expected to see that coming, but if this is the reason for homosexuality, then we should expect it to die out as the brain develops a different, more workable solution.

I don't have an answer to most of these questions, and I would agree that my hypothesis is full of holes.

From an evolutionary point of view, asexuality and sterility (which, let's not forget, do happen) might be a little too permenant. If a population crash where to occur (I know I'm treading on dangerous territory here) homosexuals would still have the (un-enviable) ability to propegate the species.

From a theists point of view, both asexuality and sterility would rid subjects of their ability to reproduce, which god might view as infringing on free will.

As medical science is a relatively new concept in the history of life on earth, and in the history of the human race, it's safe to say that it's ability to negate the benefits of characteristics in human genetics that evolved to help the survival of the species was never a problem before. In a sense (excuse the personification) evolution could not have anticipated IVF, surrogate births etc.

Evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years, and the "gay solution to overpopulation" is probably a very old one- afterall, we see homosexual behaviour in a huge number of animal species. It probably worked reasonably well before "society" as we know it developed, along with prejeduce and opression of anyone different.

The genes for homosexuality that might become active due to overpopulation might be rarer in some races than others.

I also won't deny that homosexuality has existed throughout recorded history. To defend the theory of overpopulation being the trigger, the Greeks, If I'm not mistaken, had a tendancy to live in large dense cities.

In areas such as Ariabia where homosexuality was also recorded, it should be noted that there exists very little life-sustaining resources in desert areas, and overpopulation is defined as there being a greater population than an areas resources can sustain.

In many cases where numerous plausible theories exist, it's often a good idea to go for one that makes you feel confortable, and I certainly like the idea that we homosexuals not are completely useless when it comes to the survival of humanity.

For those who believe in a god, the idea that homosexuality is part of it's plan might also be comforting.

Waka Gashira (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:07 pm (I know I'm treading on dangerous territory here) homosexuals would still have the (un-enviable) ability to propegate the species.

From a theists point of view, both asexuality and sterility would rid subjects of their ability to reproduce, which god might view as infringing on free will.

Yeah, i'll agree that you're

Waka Gashira (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:07 pm treading on dangerous territory

with that statement. That's largely been the heterosexual and religious communities' argument against homosexuality. They believe that homosexuals choose to be the way they are, and it's perverted, an abomination, and that with treatment we can be changed into normal human beings. This is so wrong. i've always been gay, never interested in women as anything but friends, and there is NO choice.

Given the unlikely event that i'm the only male left on the planet, surrounded by hundreds of gorgeous women, i'd still prefer to live out my days in the company of my hand for sexual comfort than spend a single day in carnal relations with a woman... no offence to women, but my brain just isn't wired that way. i've actually found it easier to write with my weaker arm since having tendon reparation surgery on my dominant arm, than i could make myself lay with a woman and have sex... guess it also helps that i've always been mildly ambidextrous too. For me, sex with women isn't a matter of being ambidextrous or learning to be so.

- snoopy

Yeah, i'll agree that you're [quote="Waka Gashira (imported)

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:06 am " time=1214017620]
treading on dangerous territory

with that statement. That's largely been the heterosexual and religious communities' argument against homosexuality. They believe that homosexuals choose to be the way they are, and it's perverted, an abomination, and that with treatment we can be changed into normal human beings. This is so wrong. i've always been gay, never interested in women as anything but friends, and there is NO choice.

Given the unlikely event that i'm the only male left on the planet, surrounded by hundreds of gorgeous women, i'd still prefer to live out my days in the company of my hand for sexual comfort than spend a single day in carnal relations with a woman... no offence to women, but my brain just isn't wired that way. i've actually found it easier to write with my weaker arm since having tendon reparation surgery on my dominant arm, than i could make myself lay with a woman and have sex... guess it also helps that i've always been mildly ambidextrous too. For me, sex with women isn't a
[/quote]
matter of being ambidextrous or learning to be so.

- snoopy

Regarding that 'weaker' arm...

...at the least the tendons weren't damaged by an attempt to 'chew' off the arm so that you would not have to wake up that 'ugly' lover in your escape...

...was it? :-\

Since my post of yesterday (#29 on this thread), I have come across one more article that clearly discusses the genetic component of male homosexuality. It ought to be published some time this summer and is not yet on line.

Iemmola and Ciani discuss their research on 250 Italian men (152 of them homosexual) and their extended families. The evidence is very strong for a genetic component, one gene of which is on the X chromosome. In females, the genes produce women who have significantly larger numbers of children than those women who do not carry the genes.

In the Discussion section of the article, they also note that gay males in their study had a statistically significantly larger number of older brothers than did straight males. There was no significant difference in the numbers of other sibling types – older sisters, younger brothers, younger sisters. This would fit with the additional environmental factor of having been born from a womb that had already nurtured males and that there is some sort of hormonal factor involved.

+++++++

Francesca Iemmola and Andrea Camperio Ciani (2008) New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line. Archives of Sexual Behavior, IN PRESS - DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6

ABSTRACT: “There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males.”

From the DISCUSSION: “Blanchard’s predictions were also confirmed in our study: we found that the homosexuals had an excess of older brothers compared with their own number of older sisters and compared with the heterosexuals’ number of older brothers. The homosexual and heterosexual groups did not differ with regard to the other three classes of siblings.”

+++++++

Homosexuality clearly is caused by multiple factors, both genetic and environmental. It’s persistence in the species argues strongly that it provides some sort of reproductive advantage to those sharing the genes of the gay male involved. Remember that you are as closely related, genetically, to your nieces and nephews as you are to your grandchildren – sharing ¼ of your genes with both. Having more successful nieces and nephews is, reproductively, the same as having more successful grandchildren.

Being gay may be a sign that your family line carries one significant genetic advantage over lines that do not have gay males.

Yeah, i'll agree that you're [quote="Waka Gashira (imported)

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:31 am

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:06 am " time=1214017620]
treading on dangerous territory

with that statement. That's largely been the heterosexual and religious communities' argument against homosexuality. They believe that homosexuals choose to be the way they are, and it's perverted, an abomination, and that with treatment we can be changed into normal human beings. This is so wrong. i've always been gay, never interested in women as anything but friends, and there is NO choice.

Given the unlikely event that i'm the only male left on the planet, surrounded by hundreds of gorgeous women, i'd still prefer to live out my days in the company of my hand for sexual comfort than spend a single day in carnal relations with a woman... no offence to women, but my brain just isn't wired that way. i've actually found it easier to write with my weaker arm since having tendon reparation surgery on my dominant arm, than i could make myself lay with a woman and have sex... guess it also helps that i've always been mildly ambide

xtrous too. For me, sex with women isn't a
[/quote]
matter of being ambidextrous or learning to be so.

- snoopy

I certainly would never imply that homosexuality is a choice, being gay myself. Also, as stated in my previous post, I find the very idea of any kind of "treatment" for homosexuality abhorent. Please don't confuse me for some gay-hating bigot.

However, I'm not going to deny the fact that if human population crashed, I'd have the ability to reproduce. I think I'd jerk off into a syringe and let her inseminate herself.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:31 am Regarding that 'weaker' arm...

...at the least the tendons weren't damaged by an attempt to 'chew' off the arm so that you would not have to wake up that 'ugly' lover in your escape...

...was it? :-\

HeHeHe... my BF/Lover/Partner of the last 5.5 monogamous years was sitting beside me when i saw your post and read it to him. His response was to give you the finger! As for how i tore my tendon... nothing that glamorous. Just a workplace injury. i've already had two surgeries to repair the damage, and now looking at a long recover time.

- snoopy

"

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:51 am

YankeeClipper (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:17 pm We SHOULD be working t

twaddler (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:12 pm o stop this "research," not aiding and abetting it.

"

I don't see anyone being able to stop this research. If you can find out why someone is hetero, homo, or whatever-sexual then that would be scientifically fascinating and important. Of co

urse jackasses could use it to talk shit an

d fuck up some shit, but this kind of research is inevitable.

I totally agree with tanglog's point that we cannot stop research into the causes of homosexuality. Scientists are by their nature curious and they want to understand why the world exists as it is. At their best, scientists seek to objectively observe the world around them to explain why things are the way they are. To the extent possible for any human being, the best scientists make non-biased observations. They even seek to eliminate their own biases by the way they design studies. There are committees to review research proposals for their validity.

Furthermore, I don't think research in any area, including the origins of homosexuality, should be stopped even if that were possible. Exceptions would clearly be studies that involve unethical methods or treatment of human subjects. With the problems facing humanity today, we need well-designed solid scientific research to provide some possible solutions. Certainly, changes to human behavior are needed too.

I have no problem with scientists performing well-designed studies looking into the origins of homosexuality, gender identity or any other aspect of human behavior, sexuality or expression. There is no question in my mind that study results can be deliberately twisted and misinterpreted to support undesirable goals. Like identifying for abortion presumptive gay fetuses.

This is why it is critical that the US school systems (I cannot speak for the situation in the rest of the world) do a much better job of producing a scientifically informed citizenry. Citizens who have an understanding of what science can and cannot do are in a position of power to not only speak their minds publicly, but do so in a way that clearly lets politicians see they know of what they speak. Citizens who understand science are also much less likely to be fooled by faulty interpretations of scientific research. They are then in a better position to demand that research results be used ethically.

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm Scientists are by their nature curious and they want to understand why the world exists as it is.

Which is why locked away in a vault deep underground there exists deadly viruses just waiting for the chance to escape and kill off all life on this planet... most of them were man-made because some scientist was bored and curious.

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm With the problems facing humanity today, we need well-designed solid scientific research to provide some possible solutions.

Sorry, but i don't think finding whether homosexuality is genetic or a person's choice is going to solve world hunger.

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm Exceptions would clearly be studies that involve unethical methods or treatment of human subjects.

Good point, but exactly who decided what is ethical? Doctors who create deadly viruses cause they're bored, the State who adopts partisan legislation based on who voted them into office, or the Church who thinks homosexuals are an abomination and should be locked away in mental institutions until they can be cured?

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm There is no question in my mind that study results can be deliberately twisted and misinterpreted to support undesirable goals. Like identifying for abortion presumptive gay f

oetuses.

Exactly the point! So why not put a stop to this kind of research now and prevent it from being available for that purpose in the future. We all know that despite potential future legislation banning the practise, there are people out there willing to do anything for money and this kind of test will be offered on a cross border basis if necessary.

- snoopy

Snoopy (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:22 pm Sorry, but i don't think finding whether homosexuality is genetic or a person's choice is going to solve world hunger.

- snoopy

I can see I was unclear when I wrote (emphasis added here):

"

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm Furthermore, I don't think research in any area, including the origins of homosexuality, should be stopped even if that were possible. Exceptions would clearly be studies that involve unethical methods or treatment of human subjects. With the problems facing humanity today, we need well-designed solid scientific research to provide some possible solutions. Certainly, changes to human behavior are needed too.

"

I certainly did not intend to say the research into the origins of homsexuality would solve world problems. You are right, that is not a sensible conclusion at all .

I was following up on the first paragraph where I stated

Danya (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:26 pm we cannot stop research into the causes of hom

sexuality or any other topic. In my self-quote above, I am merely listing the origin of homsexuality as one of many areas that are going to be studied. Some other areas may have applications in solving world problems like hunger, disease, etc.

I stand by what I consider the essential point for this thread. There is no way we can put a stop to studies on the origins of homosexuality.

Given that, what can be done? Be absolutely certain that everyone is well-educated in the sciences and ethics, too, for that matter. Then the people can become, based on their knowledge and wisdom, the source for ethical decisions on the proper applications of scientific knowledge.