|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2002 : 14:25:20 [Permalink]
|
So you're saying that it's biological, but not part of the evolutionary process?
I guess I fall into the 'atomistic' catagory. I equate the instinctual urge to procreate with biology because it takes obvious form there. We're just built to work that way (male/female)to procreate. The biology of hetero sex is as plain as my dick. The instinct of using it whenever possible and with a mate that could pro-create serves the instinct for survival (continuing a bloodline).
From that standpoint, it would seem awful strange that a body would be wired to act in a way millions of years of evolution has spent specifically designing human sexual process to the point it is today.
But this assume that the body is only wired up in the sole pursuit of procreation and derives nothing from inputs like pleasure, emotion, etc. If sex means more to even our base instincts, then the biology should be there to show it.
I'm not a biologist. As such I need someone to say: "here, this is a gene/enzyme/RNA/whatever that either makes someone override the obvious biology of thier body on a chemical level and be gay.
I don't discount it's there. But I don't know of any evidence that's been generally accepted as scientific proof. It's not a topic I really give a damn about, I just got sucked into the conversation long enough to offend people.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 15:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The instinct of using it whenever possible and with a mate that could pro-create serves the instinct for survival (continuing a bloodline).
From that standpoint, it would seem awful strange that a body would be wired to act in a way millions of years of evolution has spent specifically designing human sexual process to the point it is today.
I'm guessing that prisons are just one example of how the male sex drive doesn't necessarily show that it's geared for an exclusive male/female/procreation outcome. Our biological preference in general may be to have sex with a partner that is capable of producing offspring.
But when such a partner isn't available, it seems as if our sex drive in many cases shows that the desire to just get off is more powerful than our desire to procreate.
quote:
It's not a topic I really give a damn about, I just got sucked into the conversation long enough to offend people.
Are you going to refer to this in every post you make from now on? Bygones anyone?
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2002 : 15:57:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you're saying that it's biological, but not part of the evolutionary process?
No I am saying it may be biological and if it is, it would have been part of the evolutionary process.
What I gave was a possible explanation (scenario) where homosexuality could evolve in a population as a compensation for over population. However I do object to this explanation because it does the homosexual individual little good in terms of survival although it does help the group as a whole.
So the real question is, can natural selection select for a behavior that kicks in when populations start to exceed natural carrying capacity.
Now since other animals do it, we have to ask is it from biological reasons or is it because they choose to do it?
I personally am leaning towards a biological behavioral issue effected by the environment and nurture and by various hereditary issues. This could explain its evolutionary origin since the phenotype would be suppressed when conditions did not promote homosexuality (e.g. in my scenario above when population levels are low) so the genetic traits could be carried on and then the phenotype expressed when the situations are right (high population levels for instance).
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2002 : 20:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
I found that reference to the hypothalamus study.
A neuroscientist named Simon LeVay (any relation to Anton?  )
Definitely not. Anton LaVey of the Church of Satan's birth name was Anthony Levey (or Levy- not 100% sure).
Just a stage name, really. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2002 : 01:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I'm not sure why we care whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not.
I'm with Gorgo. Why does everything need a lable? Can't things, people or whatever just be what they are and accepted (or not) for that? Yeah it's interesting to examine stuff, find out answers but for practical everyday life, let it be. In other words, don't get worked up over things you can't change or that aren't your business. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 09:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by The SollyLama
". . . is about as genuine as the NORML's push for 'medical' marijuana. A convientant excuse.
. . . ."
Sorry to lift this out of context but your comment truly pains me. My Mother had terminal cancer but what actually killed her--well ahead of time--was that she wasted away. She didn't want to eat anything; she couldn't even stand the smell of food. Marijuana is widely reputed to reverse that effect so typical of those being treated for cancer---"the munchies" it is usually called.
My sister died about 30 years ago of what today might be called "anorexia". She, too, wasted to a near skeleton. Despite doing her best to eat and put on weight, she didn't seem to be able to do it---she just couldn't get the food down. Once again: marijuana might---just might---have saved her life.
The effects of marijuana in fighting certain eye-diseases are well documented.
I think that you were rash in your statement and am amazed that no one on this usually quick-to-attack Board didn't call you on it.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 09:43:37 [Permalink]
|
| I think at that point in his stay at SFN, I had ceased to read most of Solly's posts, save for the ones in threads I was involved in. He seemed to be taking the comments made on this board entirely too personally. I'd like to say I would have called him on that had I read it. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2002 : 14:11:34 [Permalink]
|
| Ph, I second that! |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2003 : 07:49:28 [Permalink]
|
Boron10, PhDreamer: At the risk of offending the following maxim from one of humanity's larger cultures: "Only a fool shows his teeth", I respond to your posts with: 
As to PhDreamer's comment, I must admit that I wasn't surprised about poster Solly's HighlyBiased commentaries. To again quote a proverb from the same culture:quote:
The wind blows; the dogs bark.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
