Arkansas high court backs gay foster parents

[Matadore]

I'm not going to argue that most pregnancies aren't accidents.
Then one might assume that currently chance is more of a factor in the determination of traits than individual selection.
...a tiny percentage are "crack babies".
I think that you will find wards devoted to these children in pediatric clinics.
I'm not in favor of crack babies,
So? Who is? I hope that I didn't seem to imply that you were! If so I would correct that misconception.
My point is that no one would choose to have a child that was intentionally handicapped. I could have used alcohol or any of a number of preventable situations in which children are so burdened by parents who chose behavior that was risky for their children. You were saying that most parents want and plan for children that are given as many personal positive traits as their parents...my examples were to illustrate that your premise was not necessarily true.


but I don't think that you'd find much support for a system of homes for pregnant women that provided total care for them for the duration of their pregnancy.
Well of course not and natural selection dictates that such unfortunate children are at a serious disadvantage to be successful in reproduction. Technology does go a long way to maximize recources available to help them succeed, but that hardly replaces educated and caring parents.

Genetic engineering isn't a very good candidate for eliminating crack babies. Again, that wasn't my point.

My point is that introducing hormone X or Y or Z at an appropriate point during the pregnancy doesn't seem to produce a binary result - merely a statistical tendency. This is a common misperception of research results. They are only significant over a broad sample, and not predictive of any single instance.


This statement is irrelevant to the possible level that can be anticipated in the foreseeable future. The human genome has mapped the locations of the individual genes and these will be open to being altered to "correct" or select traits in individuals. This is not statistical studies but genetic splicing at the individual gene...not at a chromosome.

And I'm not familiar with the "Z" chromosome. Could you explain what you ment by that, please? I know that the X and Y are sex chromosomes but humans have 22 other (if my memory serves, although I am admittedly not current with this part of the field of knowledge and I know that there have been a lot of new discoveries in the last few years).

And what about the child's own reaction to their genetic engineering? Might a byproduct of the exercise be an increased appreciation for diversity? As Tom Collins said earlier, there's little support from experience that genetic engineering would produce any guaranteed positive results.
I would have to simply disagree that the data suggests that genetic engineering has not demonstrated remarkable results. This is not to say that moral, legal, and ethical have kept pace with the science...but that is what we are discussing, isn't it?

I have a lot more faith in the Law of Unintended Consequences than I do in genetic engineering.


Again I am unfamiliar with this law and any of its corralaries. I regretfully admit my ignorance here, too.

I certainly don't mean to sound patronizing or antagonistic and would beg your pardon if I have seemed to.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Not true. Moles serve no possitive purpose, and yet, most people have at least one. If a trait isn't detrimental to the spiecies as a whole or to the individual's survival there's no reason it should be weeded out with time. Also, you're talking about geneticly passed traits, and we're speaking in terms of homosexuality being an embyonic developmental alteration. Not something native to the child, but caused by the chemistery of the mother.

3113 said that homosexuality doesn't prevent procreation, but at one time it would have. If a female or male couldn't bear the touch of the opposite gender before the advent of invitro fertalization then they would not have reporoduced. I think it's a natural function of nature attempting to limit reproduction. And it's not just a human phenomenon. I'm given to understand that it's found in nearly, if not all the mamals in the same ratio as it's found within the human population. I can't recall where I read that, I only wish I could.

I'm not arguing with your interpretation, I'm just saying that raising the issue of passing the homosexual trait is a legitimate question in the context of evolutionary understanding. Later in that post, I said that maybe its purpose is to limit population growth, as you said.

I don't know about moles, but the finding that a probability increases with subsequent male births suggests that there is a "deliberate" evolutionary mechanism at work. If it was a meaningless random trait, it wouldn't be correlatd with birth order - it would be random, by definition. Do children born after the first carry a higher probability of having moles? Do people with lots of moles beget ever more molish offspring? Maybe moles are a random byproduct of another desirable trait. I just don't know, but it's not a valid comparison as you've stated it.

 

[Matadore]

Tom Collins

Moles serve no possitive purpose, and yet, most people have at least one. The tendency to have moles may be hereitary, but moles themselves are more a factor of the virilence of the virus that causes them than the genetic makeup of the person or animal that they grow on.

If a trait isn't detrimental to the spiecies as a whole or to the individual's survival there's no reason it should be weeded out with time. I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect on this point. An unneeded trait will disapate in a population and is selected against. It's a sort of "use it or lose it."

Also, you're talking about geneticly passed traits, and we're speaking in terms of homosexuality being an embyonic developmental alteration. Not something native to the child, but caused by the chemistery of the mother. Do you mean to say that the research shows that the more male children that a mother has, that there is a chemical balance that changes? Does the research also show that the more female children a woman has, the more likely it will be that she will have a lesbian offspring? May either of these still be genetically influenced?

3113 said that homosexuality doesn't prevent procreation, but at one time it would have. While homosexuality doesn't prevent reproduction in individuals, taken as a percentage of non-reproducing population, it may be significant. Depends on the context.

If a female or male couldn't bear the touch of the opposite gender before the advent of invitro fertalization then they would not have reporoduced. Humm? You have factored in rape, forced marriage, manipulitive reasons, social status, to mention a few?

I think it's a natural function of nature attempting to limit reproduction. And it's not just a human phenomenon. Why would nature limit reproduction? Not that your thinking is incorrect, I just don't follow the train of thought. For example, when rescources become scarce, more males are born. (More males are born reguardless, but the ratio is larger with shortages. Contrairily, when the population is too small to exploit the over abundance of resources, a greater numbre of females are produced.)

I'm given to understand that it's found in nearly, if not all the mamals in the same ratio as it's found within the human population.
I'm sure that you're correct on this, too.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I'm not in favor of crack babies,
So? Who is? I hope that I didn't seem to imply that you were! If so I would correct that misconception.
My point is that no one would choose to have a child that was intentionally handicapped. I could have used alcohol or any of a number of preventable situations in which children are so burdened by parents who chose behavior that was risky for their children. You were saying that most parents want and plan for children that are given as many personal positive traits as their parents...my examples were to illustrate that your premise was not necessarily true.

I wasn't arguing absolutes. My whole point was that the dystopia described previously has little chance of becoming reality. 'Affirmative Fiat' is a debating convention in competitive debate, but I certainly don't have to abide by it in these circumstances. It may well be that such dystopian options become available, but my argument is that they will be, at best, minority options that go against the prevalent societal attitudes.

but I don't think that you'd find much support for a system of homes for pregnant women that provided total care for them for the duration of their pregnancy.
Well of course not and natural selection dictates that such unfortunate children are at a serious disadvantage to be successful in reproduction. Technology does go a long way to maximize recources available to help them succeed, but that hardly replaces educated and caring parents.

Then what does your 'crack baby' example demonstrate? I thought you were making an argument about societal evolution. Of course, no one gets pregnant and decides, "I'm going to make this child a crack baby!". The point is, that we already know how to prevent crack babies - don't take crack! Yet, we don't take the social precautions necessary to rule out crack babies. What makes you think that we'd take societal measures to rule out homosexual babies?

My point is that introducing hormone X or Y or Z at an appropriate point during the pregnancy doesn't seem to produce a binary result - merely a statistical tendency. This is a common misperception of research results. They are only significant over a broad sample, and not predictive of any single instance.
This statement is irrelevant to the possible level that can be anticipated in the foreseeable future. The human genome has mapped the locations of the individual genes and these will be open to being altered to "correct" or select traits in individuals. This is not statistical studies but genetic splicing at the individual gene...not at a chromosome.

And I'm not familiar with the "Z" chromosome. Could you explain what you ment by that, please? I know that the X and Y are sex chromosomes but humans have 22 other (if my memory serves, although I am admittedly not current with this part of the field of knowledge and I know that there have been a lot of new discoveries in the last few years).

My X, Y, and Z were only random names for hypothetical hormones, not intended to represent specific genes or chromosomes. However, the study cited led to hypotheses about hormonal influences on the expression of genes or chromosomes, not that there was a specific gene that uniquely triggered homosexuality. Although there may well be a genetic tendency, it's yet to be shown that there is some specific combination of genetic factors that rule out homosexuality, independent of other perhaps desirable traits. Maybe shutting off the homo gene for sure also shuts off the "Interior Design and Fashion" gene for sure. The Interior Design and Fashion gene might exist in both homos and heteros, but maybe shutting down the homo gene shuts down the Fashion gene for sure, so genetically engineering homosexuality out of the race condemns us to horrible Star Trek polyester pullovers and ankle boots.

And what about the child's own reaction to their genetic engineering? Might a byproduct of the exercise be an increased appreciation for diversity? As Tom Collins said earlier, there's little support from experience that genetic engineering would produce any guaranteed positive results.
I would have to simply disagree that the data suggests that genetic engineering has not demonstrated remarkable results. This is not to say that moral, legal, and ethical have kept pace with the science...but that is what we are discussing, isn't it?

Enhanced crop yields, while nothing to sneeze at, are a far cry from genetically engineering human behavior. And even those advances have met with substantial backlash. As a thought experiment, this is all very interesting, and maybe the subject of a really good novel or essay. In practice, I think the actual social forces that favor or inhibit such an idea are much more interesting than the idea itself.

I have a lot more faith in the Law of Unintended Consequences than I do in genetic engineering.
Again I am unfamiliar with this law and any of its corralaries. I regretfully admit my ignorance here, too.

I certainly don't mean to sound patronizing or antagonistic and would beg your pardon if I have seemed to.

Here is an explanation. In view of that, perhaps I should have said the Law of Unforeseen Consequences, although it could be argued that Nature actively seeks to exploit opportunities, consciously or not.

My point was merely to say that I don't think the conscious elimination of biological homosexuality is a humanity-wide possibility, and moreover, I don't think that it would necessarily be an overall improvement of the species.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...Also, you're talking about geneticly passed traits, and we're speaking in terms of homosexuality being an embyonic developmental alteration. Not something native to the child, but caused by the chemistery of the mother. Do you mean to say that the research shows that the more male children that a mother has, that there is a chemical balance that changes? Does the research also show that the more female children a woman has, the more likely it will be that she will have a lesbian offspring? May either of these still be genetically influenced?

Good questions. The answer to the first may be yes, according to this study. The second and third just haven't been researched, to my knowledge.

I think it's a natural function of nature attempting to limit reproduction. And it's not just a human phenomenon. Why would nature limit reproduction? Not that your thinking is incorrect, I just don't follow the train of thought. For example, when rescources become scarce, more males are born. (More males are born reguardless, but the ratio is larger with shortages. Contrairily, when the population is too small to exploit the over abundance of resources, a greater numbre of females are produced.)

Nature doesn't have the means to influence reproduction within a specific generation via the means we're discussing. Maybe. But if, as you say, there's a tendency for more males being born when resources are scarce, and as this study says, that subsequent born males are more likely to be homosexual, that points toward a pretty strong natual tendency towards limiting reproduction to adjust to the available resources. If resources are abundant, more offspring result, up to a point. If resources are scarce, more males are born, and they are more likely to be homosexual, reducing the birth rate while not decimating the males by fighting over the females. Also, by reducing the female population which, when pregnant, requires more resources.

I know this raises some uncomfortable notions about male dominance and its necessity vis-a-vis extending the species... But please, let's let those go for this discussion.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Lively debate...

What I said was that our culture started developing at a much greater speed than our bodies.

our culture has developed at a greater speed than our maturity level, actually...

like kids playing with matches and no one around to stop them...

Joe's putting forth the possibility that we could be capable of "selecting" these things isn't new... but it's a good topic for debate (4 pages running now...)

the reality is we, as a culture, don't have the psychological maturity to choose these things wisely.

Line from Jurassic Park: "

"your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

oh, and this one...

"The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me."

 

[rgraham666]

In an SF book I read recently, a planet managed to get rid of insanity through genetic engineering.

They also managed to get rid of genius.

Getting rid of homosexuality assumes two things. First, that there is something wrong with homosexuality. And the other assumes that homosexuality exists entirely on its own, unrelated to any other human trait.

Both of these are rather foolish assumptions, in my opinion.

But many of us believe we are God and will probably try to get rid of it anyway. I doubt we'll be pleased with the results.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In an SF book I read recently, a planet managed to get rid of insanity through genetic engineering.

They also managed to get rid of genius.

Getting rid of homosexuality assumes two things. First, that there is something wrong with homosexuality. And the other assumes that homosexuality exists entirely on its own, unrelated to any other human trait.

Both of these are rather foolish assumptions, in my opinion.

But many of us believe we are God and will probably try to get rid of it anyway. I doubt we'll be pleased with the results.

*nodding*

I thought of that book, actually, Rob, you've mentioned it before, when I read this thread....

and it bears repeating: "The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me."

 

[3113]

I think it's a natural function of nature attempting to limit reproduction. And it's not just a human phenomenon. Why would nature limit reproduction? Not that your thinking is incorrect, I just don't follow the train of thought. For example, when rescources become scarce, more males are born. (More males are born reguardless, but the ratio is larger with shortages. Contrairily, when the population is too small to exploit the over abundance of resources, a greater numbre of females are produced.)

You have to keep in mind how evolution works. It's not intelligent design Evoulution says: "Survive in any enviornment and you win."

So the first thing we have to remember is that we evolved from laying eggs to being mammals who could carry the developing fetus in our womb. Evolutionarily speaking, there might have been a lot of tries on getting this to work. What worked is what keeps those babies alive and gets them out living, breathing and able to grow into adulthood...and reproduce.

That's all that necessary. Now, if statistically speaking, the process also means that a small precentage of that off-spring will be born with autism, genius or homosexuality (because the hormones required by the womb could alter and cause such "mutation") then evolution really doesn't care. NOT unless it really affects the survival of the species.

If the statistics for such "mutations" was larger, vastly larger, then it would make a difference. But the statistics are quite small. That's good enough for evolution. The species ONLY needs to survive in it's enviornment. In fact, evolution likes random mutations, because when the enviornment changes, they sometimes survive better.

So, we have the womb of a mouse. It has five litters of babies, and thanks to a change in hormones, the fifth litter can swim. Mutation. But this does no good as they're all out living in a desert. Until the one day the climage significantly changes and it rains, and only the mice who can swim survive. And reproduce. And create a whole group of swimming mice. With me? The mutation doesn't "breed out" because it's not being used. It's a hormonal anomaly that sticks around because it's part of the chemicals in the womb that allow the mice to carry babies inside rather than lay eggs. And maybe, just maybe, that mutation will be of use to the species if the enviornment changes. Or not. Evolution doesn't care. It likes to create mutations. Some work, some don't. Evolution is willing to give just about anything a try.

The point about the homosexual males and the need for low populations is an excellent one. Resources were scarce. And those who can't limit repoduction starve faster and die out. But the group of humans that produce more males and homosexuals at such a time (like, oh, say, nice long ice age), reproduce less in this time of famine and so survive.

EVOLUTION says you survive in whatever enviornment you happen to be in. If that means limited amount of babies--but all born healthy, then it's limited amount of babies. Human beings, after all, don't produce litters. We don't breed like mice. So, by comparison, nature HAS limited our reproduction. But then, we're a certain size. If we produced like mice, there'd be too many of us and we'd starve.

There are a few things to remember here:
1) Things "not used" can stick with us if they come along with other things. If an ape that walks upright has a long middle toe, then all his kids have long middle toes. It comes with the useful package whether or not it, in itself, is useful.

2) Evolution is NOT intelligent design. A small percentage of error is perfectly acceptable. And that error may not get wiped out unless it can't survive the enviornment. If it can, it'll remain. If it helps in survival, then it certainly will remain. So, that mammalian womb which, percentage-wise, does the job just fine, is good enough. Evolution doesn't care if that means said womb might sometimes produce autism, idiot savants, geniuses or homosexuals. They are an acceptable percentage of difference. They don't affect the survival of the species. In fact, in some cases (aka, ice ages) they may be very useful.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In an SF book I read recently, a planet managed to get rid of insanity through genetic engineering.

They also managed to get rid of genius.

Getting rid of homosexuality assumes two things. First, that there is something wrong with homosexuality. And the other assumes that homosexuality exists entirely on its own, unrelated to any other human trait.

Both of these are rather foolish assumptions, in my opinion.

But many of us believe we are God and will probably try to get rid of it anyway. I doubt we'll be pleased with the results.

Even if Society recognizes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, I believe virtually all expectant parents would, if they could, take steps to assure that their offspring would not be gay. They would feel more at ease with straight children and they would be able to relive their lives, to a degree, thrugh them. And they would be more likely to have grandchildren, and more of them.

I realize that a gay man can become a father but gay men have no desire to fuck women, so the usual method is unlikely. He might be a sperm donor but he would remain anonymous and his progeny would be unknown to their grandparents.

A lesbian can become a mother, but lesbians have no interest in fucking men. She could be artificially inseminated, thereby producing grandchildren for her parents, but I believe most people would rather become grandparents in the more conventional way.

Gay persons can adopt but the adopted children would not be blood relatives of the adoptive grandparents. Most grandparents would accept them, as they accept stepchildren of their own offspring, but it would not be as satisfying.

 

[Matadore]

First, that there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Which leads me to wonder "Why are between 3% to 10% of each mamalian species "gay?"

Whatever the answer(s) might be, whether or not the impact on individuals is advantagious or not, the population of each species MUST benefit from the combination of traits that results in that percentage of the population being attracted to the same sex. In that sense the phenomonon is "natural" or not an aboration. There is a positive survival pressure selection advantage for the species involved.

I simply don't understand what that function maybe. This is not a moral judgement. It is a question of fact. I am courious as to what other people's opinions as to the selection advantages may be.

Part of my couriosity stems from the intense negative reactions that what seems to me to be a sizable proportion of the human population has toward individuals who express their desire for the same sex.

 

[3113]

Which leads me to wonder "Why are between 3% to 10% of each mamalian species "gay?"

Read previous post of mine, dude!

There doesn't have to be any benefit--obvious benefit--for this to happen. Just not an extreme detriment to survival. Evolution is NOT intelligent design. It doesn't say, "Everything must be useful or the species dies!" it says, "If you can survive, you win." And mammals are doing just fine surviving with that 3%-10%.

Part of my couriosity stems from the intense negative reactions that what seems to me to be a sizable proportion of the human population has toward individuals who express their desire for the same sex.

Arguably a "nuture" situation rather than nature. Afterall, there are cultures that have intense negative reactions to women--they'll abort female babies, or kill them or abandon them when born, they'll starve them as children, sell them or just hide them away under burkas.

An intense negative reaction does not imply that something is inherently wrong and should be gotten rid of. Human reactions are not always rational or beneficial for the species in all situations. Again. Evolution doesn't care, so long as those reactions which don't benefit the species don't also wipe it out. If they do, then evolution shrugs its shoulders and says, "They weren't meant to survive."

 

[Matadore]

I read your posts. I chose not to reply because your science is weak and in some cases in error. It's not worth it to either of us to explain how this is so because you will just get pissed off at me and get all abusive on my ass.

For example, you anthropomorphize a scientific concept (evolution) to the extent that you muddy the waters.

Read previous post of mine, dude!

 

[3113]

I read your posts. I chose not to reply because your science is weak and in some cases in error. It's not worth it to either of us to explain how this is so because you will just get pissed off at me and get all abusive on my ass.

For example, you anthropomorphize a scientific concept (evolution) to the extent that you muddy the waters.

I'm sorry you find my science to be weak and I would honestly like to understand why--scientific info changes and new information is always popping up (including this latest study on homosexuality). I certainly don't pretend to be fully informed on any science, and what I learned in my anthropology classes may be outdated or even wrong, given that all teachers aren't always good ones.

Please present whatever facts there are that put me in error. It would be a favor to me, as otherwise, I'll continue to present false facts and embarass myself. I'd especially appreciate any link to your sources as well, so I can bone up on the facts and present them correctly next time.

I anthropomorphize evolution only in fun. And I'll abuse you enough to say, "Lighten up!" on that score. If you want to go coldly factual, I can do that, too. But I was making an obviously errorous attempt to be friendly.

 

[kiwiwolf]

It's always good to see rationality and common sense overcome blind ignorance and prejudice. This is good news.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It's always good to see rationality and common sense overcome blind ignorance and prejudice. This is good news.

[threadjack]

I love that dog!!

[/threadjack]

 

[S-Des]

[threadjack]

I love that dog!!

[/threadjack]

Forget the dog, I love the shirt.

 

[Matadore]

I'm sorry you find my science to be weak ...

No need to feel sorry, the mistake is common enough. I just expected more of you because you have always displayed a good command of logic and scientific understanding in your past posts.

I didn't see anything suggested that your anthropolodical studies were in anyway off base. (That isn't my strongest suite.)

Your stance on the mechanics of evolution would be well served by studying any of several texts on the subject.

I do appriciate very much your demonstrating my error in judgement of your potential verbal negative reaction to my pointing out that you have some shakyness in your understanding of certain basic scientific principals reguarding selection in the evolutionary process.

I did understand your intended humor in your refercences to evolution in an anthropomorphic sense and while I'm not devoid of enjoyment of your tact, I found it confusing when you were also misusing the scientific concept. It just seemed counter productive in that I couldn't descern your meaning.

 

[Matadore]

Forget the dog, I love the shirt.

The shirt does express the attitude in a lovely way!

 

[kiwiwolf]

[threadjack]

I love that dog!!

[/threadjack]

LOL... Who you calling a dog???

As for the shirt, it's my contribution to political correctness.

 

[3113]

Your stance on the mechanics of evolution would be well served by studying any of several texts on the subject.

Sorry, you're not getting off that easy I want to know what elements of evolution I need to bone up on, as it is a large subject. Was I mistaken in my understanding of the mechanisms of genetic drift and that it need not be adaptive? Or genetic mutation for that matter? My primary argument was that the propensity of a human womb to produce a 3%-10% homosexual population could be a neutral mutation. In what way was this speculation based on poor science?

Or was there a problem in my discussion of mitigation?

Were you seeing evolution only in terms of natural selection and this was why my anthopormorpizing of it muddied the waters?

If so, my apology on that score. However, quoting from this bias (and possibly not so scientifically reliable) source regarding the subject of evolution and male homosexuality (http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/library.htm--under science), it seemed to me that you were "acting as if specific biological traits can evolve all by themselves, without regard to structural constraints on design or to the possibility that given structural changes may or may not be possible in phylogenetic history." I may have been in error there, but your questions and comments seemed to imply that (still quoting from that same source) evolution was like an architect "drawing up a blueprint for a house" rather than a tinkerer "taking advantage of materials already available to produce new forms that "work" at the moment."

One interesting theory from this questionable source is that male homosexuality could be a variation on the human male's desire to, well, fuck anything. In other words, to not just have sex with women who look like Marlyn Monroe, but to also be able to have sex with women who look like Twiggy. So whatever creates a homosexual may just be exaggerating the intense human sexual desire to make sure the species continues.

Erase it, and men may only want one sort of female. Perhaps what the progression of brothers from the same womb shows us is that the mother's changing hormones gives each brother a desire for a different type of "female" so that they don't all go after the same one--they go after three different females and so assure more variety and survival of the species.

 

[Tom Collins]

I'm not arguing with your interpretation, I'm just saying that raising the issue of passing the homosexual trait is a legitimate question in the context of evolutionary understanding. Later in that post, I said that maybe its purpose is to limit population growth, as you said.

I don't know about moles, but the finding that a probability increases with subsequent male births suggests that there is a "deliberate" evolutionary mechanism at work. If it was a meaningless random trait, it wouldn't be correlatd with birth order - it would be random, by definition. Do children born after the first carry a higher probability of having moles? Do people with lots of moles beget ever more molish offspring? Maybe moles are a random byproduct of another desirable trait. I just don't know, but it's not a valid comparison as you've stated it.

My comment about moles is not saying that I think that homosexuality isn't a deliberate evolutionary mechanisum, Huck. My point with the mole is that not everything that has no possitive effect is going to be weeded out of the genetics. If it isn't detrimental then it might hang around forever even though it has no purpose. I'm not saying that homosexuality has no purpose, I'm saying that not every human trait has a purpose.

 

[Tom Collins]

Tom Collins
Matadore

Moles serve no possitive purpose, and yet, most people have at least one. The tendency to have moles may be hereitary, but moles themselves are more a factor of the virilence of the virus that causes them than the genetic makeup of the person or animal that they grow on. I'll take your word for it.

If a trait isn't detrimental to the spiecies as a whole or to the individual's survival there's no reason it should be weeded out with time. I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect on this point. An unneeded trait will disapate in a population and is selected against. It's a sort of "use it or lose it." Men don't need nipples, but they have them.

Also, you're talking about geneticly passed traits, and we're speaking in terms of homosexuality being an embyonic developmental alteration. Not something native to the child, but caused by the chemistery of the mother. Do you mean to say that the research shows that the more male children that a mother has, that there is a chemical balance that changes? Does the research also show that the more female children a woman has, the more likely it will be that she will have a lesbian offspring? May either of these still be genetically influenced? I don't believe the study covered women, I think it was focusing on gay men, but I could be wrong.

3113 said that homosexuality doesn't prevent procreation, but at one time it would have. While homosexuality doesn't prevent reproduction in individuals, taken as a percentage of non-reproducing population, it may be significant. Depends on the context.

If a female or male couldn't bear the touch of the opposite gender before the advent of invitro fertalization then they would not have reporoduced. Humm? You have factored in rape, forced marriage, manipulitive reasons, social status, to mention a few? How's a gay caveman going to impregnate a woman if he can't get an errection with one? Besides, it was a generalization. Naturally I didn't mean that every single one wouldn't have reporduced.

I think it's a natural function of nature attempting to limit reproduction. And it's not just a human phenomenon. Why would nature limit reproduction? Not that your thinking is incorrect, I just don't follow the train of thought. For example, when rescources become scarce, more males are born. (More males are born reguardless, but the ratio is larger with shortages. Contrairily, when the population is too small to exploit the over abundance of resources, a greater numbre of females are produced.) Why should there be only one natural population check? Perhaps it's as someone suggested earlier in the thread, that it's nature's way of trying to keep one set of genetics from becoming too prevelant?

I'm given to understand that it's found in nearly, if not all the mamals in the same ratio as it's found within the human population.
I'm sure that you're correct on this, too. Well, that's good. I sometimes feel like I've imagined information like that because I can never remember where I got it and I'm a font of useless information...lol

 

[Tom Collins]

Lively debate...



our culture has developed at a greater speed than our maturity level, actually...

like kids playing with matches and no one around to stop them...

Joe's putting forth the possibility that we could be capable of "selecting" these things isn't new... but it's a good topic for debate (4 pages running now...)

the reality is we, as a culture, don't have the psychological maturity to choose these things wisely.

Line from Jurassic Park: "

"your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

oh, and this one...

"The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me."

Thank you, SK. That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Tom Collins]

Which leads me to wonder "Why are between 3% to 10% of each mamalian species "gay?"

Whatever the answer(s) might be, whether or not the impact on individuals is advantagious or not, the population of each species MUST benefit from the combination of traits that results in that percentage of the population being attracted to the same sex. In that sense the phenomonon is "natural" or not an aboration. There is a positive survival pressure selection advantage for the species involved.

I simply don't understand what that function maybe. This is not a moral judgement. It is a question of fact. I am courious as to what other people's opinions as to the selection advantages may be.

Part of my couriosity stems from the intense negative reactions that what seems to me to be a sizable proportion of the human population has toward individuals who express their desire for the same sex.

People react negatively to homosexuals because they're different and we've been conditioned by evolution that what's different is dangerous...a possible threat to ourselves. That's why straight men gay bash, because gay men threaten their masculinity and they need to prove to others, and especially themselves, that they aren't like that. Afterall, you don't attack and try to kill that which is a part of your tribe/type.