Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise - Page 8 - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: Is Hinduism more or less rational than the major religions?
It's more rational. 1 3.70%
It's less rational. 3 11.11%
It is no more and no less rational than any other religion ou there. 12 44.44%
I don't know enough about it to give an educated opinion. 11 40.74%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #106 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
Evolution does not take into account outside sources, technological advancements etc. Evolution, for better or worse, drives us to procreate.

You have to look at evolution at its most basic: survival of the species. Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue. It simply drives us to procreate.
Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue but these are still very important evolutionary factors. In nature, a "successful" species will continue to procreate until it reaches a natural barrier to population growth - usually availability of habitable land or resources like food, water etc. At that point competition takes over for these limited resources and according to Darwin, the members of the species with "better" characteristics will outlast the weaker ones and survive the competition and go on to procreate, thus ensuring the beneficial characteristics are passed on genetically and thus promoting evolution, achieving a balance with the environment in which they live.

Man is a slightly different matter because increasingly, man's own activities have interfered with this "weak will perish, strong will survive" model. Because of thing like government, organization, social conscience, man is in many cases not reduced to the simple competition for survival in their immediate environment. This allows the continuation of characteristics that might not be considered the "strongest" in pure evolutionary terms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi View Post
I doubt any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

It's just a matter of taste.

In Ancient Greece and Rome, it was the only kind of intercourse intended for pleasure.

Were all Romans and Greeks genetically homosexual?

Bullshit.
Well the jury's still out on whether homosexuality is a genetic factor, as a result of environmental factors, or some combination of the two. I find it largely irrelevant, anyway. I do know I did not make any conscious choice to be homosexual, it's just something that I am, and I felt attraction towards other men (not sexually, but simply finding them attractive) when I was still a young child and didn't have the first idea what it meant or whether it was a good idea. Even now, where in large parts of the world it's "easier" to be homosexual that it has been for a good many hundreds of years, I'm not sure many would consciously choose to be so. If it is a matter of taste, in my case and many cases, it's a taste that I got whether I liked it or not, like my love of chocolate and my loathing of celery.

I think what ancient Roman and Greek times etc shows is that homosexuality - at least in the sense of performing homosexual acts - can be an acquired taste. Such is also shown in places like prisons, where the absence of opportunities with the opposite sex lead people to "make do" with what they can get. It might not be their preferred option but they can still do it and get pleasure out of it. Once the initial mental block is overcome about doing it homosexually, they discover that the anatomical arrangements are slightly different and maybe not their first choice, but there's still a lot of fun to be had in spite of that.
scoobs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #107 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
I have a very healthy understanding of evolution. Your inability to comprehend my meaning is the issue. Homosexuals are not infertile. They are not the same as worker bees. This is like banging my head off of a brick wall.

Worker bees have an evolutionary purpose. They were selected. Homosexuality is not a heritable trait and was not selected. There is a very clear difference. Worker bees cannot reproduce, whereas homosexuals can. These are differences that you seem to be missing.

I'm being as clear as I can. The only point I made is that homosexuals are less likely to pass on their genes because of their sexual preference. It's that simple.
I don't see where this certainty arises that "homosexuality" is not a heritable trait.

Yes, homosexuality is not a directly dominant/recessive characteristic so it's not directly passed on in the same way as blue eyes, haemophilia and so on.

However they may be a genetic component to it which, in combination with other factors, perhaps to do with chemical balances in the womb at certain key development points in the foetus, may lead to a greater likelihood that the child will ultimately display homosexual tendencies. The point is, the jury is still out on how much it can be put down to genetics, so it seems silly to baldy assert that it has nothing at all to do with evolution.
scoobs is offline  
post #108 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:16 PM Thread Starter
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 13,308
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post
Evolution does not know how big our planet is or whether overpopulation would be an issue but these are still very important evolutionary factors. In nature, a "successful" species will continue to procreate until it reaches a natural barrier to population growth - usually availability of habitable land or resources like food, water etc. At that point competition takes over for these limited resources and according to Darwin, the members of the species with "better" characteristics will outlast the weaker ones and survive the competition and go on to procreate, thus ensuring the beneficial characteristics are passed on genetically and thus promoting evolution, achieving a balance with the environment in which they live.

Man is a slightly different matter because increasingly, man's own activities have interfered with this "weak will perish, strong will survive" model. Because of thing like government, organization, social conscience, man is in many cases not reduced to the simple competition for survival in their immediate environment. This allows the continuation of characteristics that might not be considered the "strongest" in pure evolutionary terms.
I totally agree. At no point have I contradicted anything that you said. To put it simply, self-awareness is what separates us from other species'. We do not follow Darwinian principles. We care for our sick, we help those who are less fortunate than us.

The only point I was trying to make is that homosexuals are much less likely to pass on their genes. It isn't hard to grasp, but people continually came along and completely misunderstood what I was saying.

'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline  
post #109 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:23 PM Thread Starter
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 13,308
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post
I don't see where this certainty arises that "homosexuality" is not a heritable trait.

Yes, homosexuality is not a directly dominant/recessive characteristic so it's not directly passed on in the same way as blue eyes, haemophilia and so on.

However they may be a genetic component to it which, in combination with other factors, perhaps to do with chemical balances in the womb at certain key development points in the foetus, may lead to a greater likelihood that the child will ultimately display homosexual tendencies. The point is, the jury is still out on how much it can be put down to genetics, so it seems silly to baldy assert that it has nothing at all to do with evolution.
I am approaching the discussion as though homosexuality is not a heritable trait. As yet there is no real evidence for it. If you read the first page, you will notice that I said that homosexuality might be genetic, but that I'm not going to take into consideration everything that might be true. It's best to deal with known facts, not conjecture.

'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline  
post #110 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:30 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
I am approaching the discussion as though homosexuality is not a heritable trait. As yet there is no real evidence for it. If you read the first page, you will notice that I said that homosexuality might be genetic, but that I'm not going to take into consideration everything that might be true. It's best to deal with known facts, not conjecture.
So are you going to start a discussion starting with the base assumption that homosexuality is a genetic trait, in the interests of covering all sides of this?

I can see the point of making one basic assumption and then following that line to its logical conclusion but in the interests of balance the other possibility should be considered and followed logically too, no?
scoobs is offline  
post #111 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:40 PM Thread Starter
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 13,308
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post
So are you going to start a discussion starting with the base assumption that homosexuality is a genetic trait, in the interests of covering all sides of this?

I can see the point of making one basic assumption and then following that line to its logical conclusion but in the interests of balance the other possibility should be considered and followed logically too, no?
I follow the evidence, not assumptions. While homosexuality may very well be genetic, evidence does not yet support the claim. I'm not going to factor unsupported claims into every argument. I conceded that it's possible, but there is no point taking into account everything that might be possible.

'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline  
post #112 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:42 PM
Registered User
 
MisterQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 17,115
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post


Well the jury's still out on whether homosexuality is a genetic factor, as a result of environmental factors, or some combination of the two. I find it largely irrelevant, anyway. I do know I did not make any conscious choice to be homosexual, it's just something that I am, and I felt attraction towards other men (not sexually, but simply finding them attractive) when I was still a young child and didn't have the first idea what it meant or whether it was a good idea. Even now, where in large parts of the world it's "easier" to be homosexual that it has been for a good many hundreds of years, I'm not sure many would consciously choose to be so. If it is a matter of taste, in my case and many cases, it's a taste that I got whether I liked it or not, like my love of chocolate and my loathing of celery.
Are those who loathe celery evolutionarily inferior?

Both sides have a strong case. In today's hypercaloric environment, a loathing of celery could surely divert one to white breads and candies. Not good for the species! But in days gone by, a celery aversion could lead one to stop get off his/her primitive behind and go slay a yak or something, with much greater caloric yield for the long winters.

Last of the moon-and-volley specialists.

I believe in luck. How else can you explain the success of those you don't like? ---Jean Cocteau
MisterQ is offline  
post #113 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 01:51 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
I follow the evidence, not assumptions. While homosexuality may very well be genetic, evidence does not yet support the claim. I'm not going to factor unsupported claims into every argument. I conceded that it's possible, but there is no point taking into account everything that might be possible.
Whoa, hold on there.

Evidence does not support the claims that it is NOT genetic at the moment either.

It's simply unknown either way.

You are making the assumption that it isn't and basing your argument on it. The evidence does not contradict your assumption but let's be clear, the evidence does not support it either - you are proceeding as though it does.
scoobs is offline  
post #114 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:01 PM Thread Starter
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 13,308
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post
Whoa, hold on there.

Evidence does not support the claims that it is NOT genetic at the moment either.

It's simply unknown either way.

You are making the assumption that it isn't and basing your argument on it. The evidence does not contradict your assumption but let's be clear, the evidence does not support it either - you are proceeding as though it does.
You can prove that homosexuality is genetic. You cannot prove that it isn't. We may never be able to. Certain claims simply cannot be debunked.

There is no proof that unicorns don't exist. Should I hedge my bets?

'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline  
post #115 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:05 PM
Banned!
 
its.like.that's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: sans domicile fixe
Posts: 34,169
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoo Foo View Post
In my country, we have such things as egg donors, and the men can choose where to put their sperm just as easily as women can choose whose sperm they get.
your country sounds kinda gay dude.
its.like.that is offline  
post #116 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:10 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clydey View Post
You can prove that homosexuality is genetic. You cannot prove that it isn't. We may never be able to. Certain claims simply cannot be debunked.

There is no proof that unicorns don't exist. Should I hedge my bets?
You cannot, with the technology we have, prove that it is. There is no overwhelming proof in either direction.

This isn't about trying to prove a negative. Either they will be able to prove homosexuality is wholly or partly genetically based in the future, or they will not. They have mapped the human genome but they are a long long way from understanding what every single gene may or may not have an impact on and knowledge in this area is in constant development. One would assume, given the dogged determination of scientists, that at some point they will be able to give a strong inclination towards an assertion on this matter and that will have to settle the question. They will either assert with confidence that there are genetic factors, or with sufficient understanding of the genome assert that no evidence has been found to suggest a genetic link, thereby by default proving that it is down to environment or other factors.

At the moment nothing has been proved either way and indeed, there is no reason at all other than personal opinion for people to assume one probable cause is the more likely than the other.

So you are making an assumption for the purposes of this argument while declaring making the other assumption is invalid and pointless. Interesting.
scoobs is offline  
post #117 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:10 PM
Registered User
 
cmurray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14,734
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
cmurray is offline  
post #118 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:14 PM
Anastasia Komananov, KGB
 
scoobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 37
Posts: 53,509
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmurray View Post
I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
In the context of the population explosion on this planet and the likely competition for resources that will ensue if that growth is not checked, I for one think homosexuality, and the decreased likelihood of procreation that ensues, is a good thing for the planet and mankind. One of the best ways I can conserve the planet at this critical time is to not inflict another branch to the human family tree upon it
scoobs is offline  
post #119 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:19 PM Thread Starter
Cutedey
 
Clydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 33
Posts: 13,308
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmurray View Post
I shouldn't even respond to this thread. Really, I ought to know better - but what the hell.

I fail to see why evolution has anything to do with this topic whatsoever. As you've stated Clydey, humans generally do not adhere to a strict interpretation of survival of the fittest anyway. We're still looking for a cure for cancer, AIDS and heart disease. Pure Darwinism would dictate that it would be a GOOD thing to eliminate these weaker members from the gene pool. Obviously, we don't think that way.

Your argument that homosexuals are inferior based on their odds of procreating is bad logic. The fact of the matter is that if they are CAPABLE of procreating, then they are not inferior. If you had said that a sterile man or woman is evolutionarily inferior, I might agree on some level. But your argument that they are "less likely" to have offspring doesn't matter. There was a time that it was highly unlikely for an unmarried person to have children. According to your theory, single people would then have been inferior. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
They are capable of it, but they choose partners that they cannot reproduce with. I made a simple statement that people failed to grasp. When I say "from an evolutionary perspective", I'm not talking about selection. I am simply talking about the likelihood of reproducing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Heterosexual people are more likely to reproduce. That is what it boils down to. Everything else is, quite frankly, irrelevant. This whole discussion evolved from certain posters' inability to understand a simple statement. I made no claim beyond stating that homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. You don't agree with my definition of evolutionary inferiority. That's fine. We're merely arguing semantics.

'Nous nous tournons vers l’Écosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation' - Voltaire
Clydey is offline  
post #120 of 699 (permalink) Old 11-30-2008, 02:19 PM
Registered User
 
cmurray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 14,734
                     
Re: Homosexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs View Post
In the context of the population explosion on this planet and the likely competition for resources that will ensue if that growth is not checked, I for one think homosexuality, and the decreased likelihood of procreation that ensues, is a good thing for the planet and mankind. One of the best ways I can conserve the planet at this critical time is to not inflict another branch to the human family tree upon it
That too. Maybe it's just a built-in fail-safe. Who knows.
cmurray is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome