This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

New theory on evolution of homosexuality in men

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Norsemaiden, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. Norsemaiden

    Norsemaiden barbarian

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Britain
    Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality
    http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282

    This idea seems sound to me, if they are right in the observation that lineages with male homosexuals have women who are more fertile (something that is hardly relevant in the west given few people even want more than a couple of kids) - what do you all think?
     
  2. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    myself I cant say I care, I only recognize it as a genetical fault and in some instances a psychological fault and feel it should not be blanketed and portrayed as anything but.
     
  3. Vossyrus

    Vossyrus Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Canada
    What you recognize as well as your one-dimensional view on practically everything is what is in fact faulty. You say you don't care and still you actively debate on subjects that you are obviously clueless about. I have honestly never seen you make a single worthwhile or even remotely intelligent post on UM.
     
  4. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    :cry: your posts are so enlightening and visionary, take this one for example. Please explain what Im clueless about when it comes to this subject ? Give me something other than "homosexuals have feelings too". They are faulted, they are attracted to the wrong sex... whats left to know ?
     
  5. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    agreed. (though it seems quite a liberty to call 'debate' his showing up and relieving himself in these threads)
     
  6. Fenrisúlfr

    Fenrisúlfr ὁ δύσκος λύκος

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    США
    Vossyrus nailed it on the head: the views are one-dimensional, neatly categorized into the qualitative dichotomies of 'I want to see this' / 'I do not want to see this' or 'I feel X should happen' / 'I do not feel X should happen'. However, when one inquires as to the why or wherefore, you hiss, moan, dodge the question, or pull some other notorious and often-poorly-executed logical fallacy. Your petulance precedes you; heck, given my age, I could be your offspring and I could already out-wit you with a 30-point IQ handicap. Any doubts can be dispelled with a poll should you desire; I'd take you up at the drop of a krugerrand.

    Vos did not say you were clueless, he only said your views were one-dimensional. Additionally, not once did he mention his feelings (only an observation of his); you were the one to have 'felt' something in an earlier post.

    Furthermore, if in fact homosexuality is genetically-induced or at least partially governed as such, one would be advised to re-examine which sex is 'wrong' for them as stipulated by their nature. This is where the multiple-dimensions of a view come in.

    Homework: http://www.slate.com/id/2193841/
     
  7. forbidden fruit

    forbidden fruit ...is always best

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I would say they're perfectly happy being attracted to the "wrong" sex.
    So where is the fault?
    Reproductive capability?
    Should ANYONES worth be measured by this?

    Incidentally, gay & lesbian people can still have as good a chance at reproduction as heterosexual folk through the wonders of IVF... even through other turkey baster-related means.
     
  8. derek

    derek Grey Eminence

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18,777
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Edinburgh, U.K.
  9. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I have no problem from a distance so I dont feel or imply it as a measure of worth. Im only tired of all the hop scotching around as a way to dignify it. Now that is not saying there is not valid reasons for it happening, it is real, nor that homosexuals can not be dignified people. However with everyone up in the face about it all the time these days, I personally feel, OK fine, if you want to be open and garner attention surrounding your cause, I shall make cause for being attracted to the opposite sex and will be open about the fact that its a genetical fault. Straight people have rights too... :cry:... :lol:

    I am closed to reproduction and adoption however. But that is my personal view that I'm quite comfortable with. This view in fact reaches far beyond the gay issue.

    Others - I stated my piece, short and sweet, wallow in it if you like, it was a simple truthful statement.
     
  10. 10293847

    10293847 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I understand why you complain about this person giving an opinion on an issue and at the same time stating that he/she doesn't care about the issue. That clearly makes no sense.

    On the other hand, what I don't understand is your objection to his/her one-sided opinion. Is it not possible for one to look at a topic from all sides, and still conclude with an opinion on the far-left or right of an issue? Or, are you saying that this person does not look at a topic from all sides in the first place, and that is why he/she concludes with a one-sided opinion?

    I don't mean to call you out or put you in the spotlight. It's just hard to ignore the arguing that goes on within these threads that I find hinders conversation here.
     
  11. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thank you, I've wondered about all the objection to an opposed determination myself. Which amusingly turn into personal attacks and extreme fixation.

    To clarify, I do care about the issue, just not new theories on validation and I question such theories agenda.
     
  12. Vossyrus

    Vossyrus Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Canada
    You're probably not familiar with any other threads that he has posted on but he is notorious for this - so my post wasn't an objection to a single narrowminded post by him, but the collective bunch of them that consistently flood these boards, time and time again. To answer your question, the latter of the two of which you mentioned is accurate.

    I didn't mean to de-rail this discussion but it would have happened anyways - refer to the transgender-themed thread if you're wanting a prime example of many things I'm drawing reference to.
     
  13. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Cipher identified the problem, earlier.

    If you look at the guy's other posts, you see that he wants to speak, but he doesn't want to think. he wants to share his sentiments, but he doesn't want to apply reason. He doesn't want to consider alternatives, or even set aside the self-righteousness of his own judgments.

    "It's wrong, it's so clearly wrong. a study with new data? forget the facts, it's still wrong, anyone can see that - it's an abomination/not natural/normal/common, not just the way it is today" ...this is not the sort of conduct which has people care to listen to another's opinion--it lacks even a hint of there being some reasoning which supports the opinion, or the desire to actually persuade others of it (rather than "what? it's just my opinion, I just have an overwhelming need for people to appreciate that my bigotries exist, I don't care if they want to hear them or if anything productive might come of it, I just need to talk, it doesn't matter that I have nothing good to say")

    and when someone tries to reason with him, you see how quickly he replies with scarcely anything other than appeals and ad hominems.
     
  14. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    "so long as it doesn't involve evidence contradictory to my made-up mind, I'm open to it"
     
  15. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Still running the distraction I see. This is your intimidated response to my conclusions. When we were going at it in the tread that had you pissed off and insulting me, you continously ignored everything I said when I did fully explain myself, REPEATEDLY and here you are now, over a month later, still out on cloud nine, making accusations because I would not agree with your stance. You use the word bigotry continously as a weapon of shame, yet it does not penetrate, all the while during which you showed your own bigotry. Apparently you only feel someone has "something good to say" if its in agreement with you.
    ---------------------

    Vossyrus - I applied myself well in that thread and it did not get out of control until you and ??? forget his name started the personal attacks, which was immeadiate, once again because I didnt and do not see things to fit your opinion. Finally in the end a real life participant showed up and through his own testimony verified many of the points that I was under fire for "only assuming".

    I understand gays are up against the wall and need some verification to garner acceptance, within themselves and the community. Im alright with the acceptance but nothing will change the fact that a man should be able to look at an attractive woman... the opposite sex and to keep it simple "want her", not the total reverse. It is a flaw in genetics, and yes there are many but they are still flaws. As soon as gays are willing to get out of mine and everyone elses face with their personal issues, I will be willing to keep the flaw out of their face. In the mean time Im sure much effort will go into trying to debunk the flaw "myth".

    Well, now for the third or fourth time I have stated how I feel about said topic, by way of warding off the agressive assult of others, I was done with my first and short post. Now how about others focus on the topic and express their feelings regarding Norsemaidens post and not worry about my being to the point.

    Or shall we just continue down the road of distraction, where no one offers anything but "whats wrong with me" ? :erk:
     
  16. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    just you, actually. everyone else I've conversed with here has known how to conduct themselves in such a way as what they said would be relevant, as opposed to mere parrot noises like yours.
     
  17. Fenrisúlfr

    Fenrisúlfr ὁ δύσκος λύκος

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    США
    Last I checked, it was a philosophy forum, not a 'feelings' forum. It is safe to categorize your posts as feelings and expounding upon them without offering the why nor the wherefore besides platitudes. You have stated many times it is a flaw without offering reason why. What use is it to speak such for purpose of debate if one cannot stipulate the reasons?

    Additionally, the subject matter is the overall fertility of lineages containing greater incidence of homosexuality. I do not have a background in genetics, so I cannot comment.

    As for the gays being "in everyone else's faces", they have not been in mine nor have I heard much of them interfering in anyone's business.
     
  18. derek

    derek Grey Eminence

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18,777
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Edinburgh, U.K.
    Conservative literature would have you think differently!

    They're subjugating our schools into gay production lines!

    I find the subject matter of this thread somewhat confusing. I'm always tentative about these sort of studies. Nevertheless, I just read the published study. It's quite interesting. It certainly seems to overcome the Darwinian paradox, as they label it, regarding homosexuality as having a genetic root, yet not being passed on owing to the nature of homosexual relations.
     
  19. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    ooooh man, I HAVE TO hunt for this thing someone posted once which you just reminded me of, like years ago on a forum, fuck it was just hilariously retarded.

    I've always found it weird to consider it a paradox when the bell curve principle can account for it... some men are rather feminine, some women are rather manly (androgenous features, or strong masculine/feminine features), and men and women are attracted to a wide variety of such traits... it is unimpressive that some men like particularly butch women, or women particularly feminine men, or that this would curve out to extremes where the dominant traits one is attracted to are found dominantly in the one sex rather than the other, and one thus has homosexual desires more frequently than heterosexual desires (just as I have caucasian desires more frequently than asian desires - given the traits I like, there are more white women who arouse me).

    as for the sex itself, how much of this is socialized, I'm inclined to ask. Did Greek youth abhor being the passive sexual partner of older men in ancient Greece, or did they enjoy anal stimulation? (having no concept of homosexuality, and no need to resist it on principle). Do women have a particular inborn preference for a large penis in their mouth, rather than a vagina? in other words, is there any good reason to suppose one cannot easily enough find sexual satisfaction in accord with the body parts which happen to coincide with the traits they're drawn to?

    do homosexuals, when interviewed about their development, say 'first I knew I loved penises in my mouth and butt, then I realized only males had penises, so though I found women sexy as hell, I just decided I would have to be gay'? or is it more like we know from our own hetero experience, you just find yourself attracted to girls, before you even know what a vagina or sex is, and such details are much later concerns when it comes to actually succeeding in sexual gratification with that object one desires?

    depends really where you define the important facet of homosexuality, how you're ultimately going to regard it. If a woman doesn't enjoy or climax during penetration, but loves oral sex from a man, is she gay? if a man likes a finger in the ass during oral sex from a woman, is he gay? if a woman likes feminine looking men, is she gay? what about men liking butch women? what if a man is attracted to very feminine men, and again, the same with women? ...coming down heavily on one particular combination of such behaviors and desires seems profoundly unwarranted, and merely a cultural curiosity of ours, a distinction of convenience for social reasons, but psychologically or physiologically indistinct, and thus far from any measure of pathology.

    It's about as "wrong" in Darwinian terms as two people with recessive short genes (to speak extremely unscientifically), producing a rather undersized young son... his competative survival and reproduction chances are far lesser than those of people whose parents had such genes as to produce a normal sized or tall and strong young man, it's merely his parents' genes evolutionary misfortune that this combination is what was brought about... the parents, the child himself, the species, none of them might care at all about that fact, and the same is the case with our artificial little distinction of 'gays' from the 'normals' (as if y'all don't mock your friends who're attracted to weird lookin or fat girls!), it's a mere misfortune for that which itself doesn't matter (unless someone here does think it is important that each and every person's genes be reproduced, and thus it should matter to us that a small percentage of the population misdirect their affections from that goal, aiming for anal sex, or patriotism, or life in the clergy, or other anti-reproductive desires...).
     
  20. Seditious

    Seditious GodSlayer

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    New Zealand
    found it

    (you may think this is a parody, but you can go to http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/ and run a handle/username search on that username's recent posts if you don't believe me.)

    excerpt from an old thread on CL:

     

Share This Page