southnick wrote:

I think the selfish gene has become irrelevant nowadays as medical science changes the life chances of people who would otherwise be selected in or out.

What did you have in mind?

Adopting homosexual pattern behaviour ishardly something that makes it more or less likely that you will survive, in any medical sense that I can think of.

Be well

Andy B.

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

I don't remember where I read this, so I can't give you a reference.

There has been some research that showed a statistically significant correlation between a male being homosexual and his mother having a stronger-than-usual sex drive. It appears that homosexuality can be inherited, for evolutionarily positive reasons, despite the fact that it itself is an evolutionary dead end.

There are a host of presuppositions built into that study and its conclusions as you've presented them. Gotta run now, so I can't go into what I think about it at any length (and those who know me know how much I'd love to do just that).

z8000783 wrote:

Perhaps a better word here would be UNusual.

Anything that occurs in the natural world is natural by definition.

Tricky, John, but not true in the way you are using it.

This assumes that "the natural world" produces people who "are" homosexuals. So where's your evidence.

I was talking about behaviour choices by sentient beings. What people choose to do can most certainly be contrary to nature and therefoe UNnatural.

If you can demonstrate that homosexual pattern behaviour is purely a product of nature I will concede the point without further ado.

z8000783 wrote:

Just because Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring you would be in error to concluded therefore that the practice would naturally die out.

But I'd want to know how it is carried from one generation to the next. And so far I don't see anyone even trying to offer such an explanation other than Mike.

z8000783 wrote:

1 What is an evolutionist? Do you mean An Evolutionary Biologist which is what Richard Dawkins is?

No, Richard Dawkins is NOT an "evolutionary biologist" - he's a zoologist.

And what do YOU mean by "evolutionary biologist"? As far as I know evolution is regarded as the only credible basis for all biology. So what else could any credible biologist be but an EVOLUTIONARY biologist?

z8000783 wrote:

2 What does the sentence mean?

What does which sentence mean?

Be well

Andy B.

Sorry I wasn't clear Andy. I was talking about the selfish Gene in general. It is less relevant than it was in caveman days.

Pour eyesight would reduce life chances, now we get a pair of glasses.
Heart problems would reduce life chances, now you have an operation.

An obese child would not out run a tiger. Now they just have to make it round to McDonalds.

z8000783 wrote:

If god doesn't like the way I live let him tell me, not you

When a major flood occurred, Colin (who knew several very important people) phoned the emergency services, dropped a few names, and got a promise that a helicopter would come by to pick him up ASAP!
So Colin put on Wellington boots, a mackintosh and a Sou'Wester, and climbed up on his roof to wait.

Shortly afterwards a man in an inflateably dinghy came by and offered to take Colin with him to safety.

"No thanks," said Cloin. I phoned the emergency services and they promised they'd get a helicopter out to me."

So the guy in the inflateable went on his way. And Colin, noticing that the water level was still rising, put in a prayer that the helicopter wouldn't take too long.

Not long after that, a man in a rowing boat came by and offered to take Colin with him to safety.

"No thanks," said Cloin. I phoned the emergency services and they promised they'd get a helicopter out to me."

So the guy in the rowing boat went on his way. And Colin, noticing that the water level was rising even further, put in a prayer that the helicopter wouldn't take too long.

A short time later, with the water nearly up to Colin's feet, yet another man came by, this time in a motorboat, and offered to take Colin with him to safety.

"No thanks," said Cloin. I phoned the emergency services and they promised they'd get a helicopter out to me."

So the guy in the motorboat went on his way. And Colin, noticing that the water level was still rising, put in a prayer that the helicopter wouldn't take too long.

Then the water rose even higher, and by the time a helicopter passed overhead, Colin had drowned.

When he got to the Pearly Gates Colin was shocked to find that St. Peter wouldn't open them to let him in.

"But I'm a believer," Colin protested.

"You certainly aren't," answered St. Peter.

"But I am," Colin insisted. "I was praying right up to the end. But God didn't listen."

"It was God who sent you the man in the inflateable," said St. Peter. "And he would have carried you to safety.
"It was God who sent you the man in the rowing boat," said St. Peter. "And he would have carried you to safety.
"It was God who sent you the man in the motorboat," said St. Peter. "And he would have carried you to safety.
"But no, you were determined to get a ride in a helicopter.
"Don't blame God because he gives you what you actually need rather than what you think you ought to get."

southnick wrote:

Sorry I wasn't clear Andy. I was talking about the selfish Gene in general. It is less relevant than it was in caveman days.

Pour eyesight would reduce life chances, now we get a pair of glasses.
Heart problems would reduce life chances, now you have an operation.

An obese child would not out run a tiger. Now they just have to make it round to McDonalds.

Nonsense!!!

When was the last time you saw a tiger in MacDonalds?

Seriously, though. I do get your meaning. I just don't understand how you are applying it in this context.

If someone doesn't help to produce at least one child that's the end of the line for their genes. Full stop. They have failed to play the role most evolutionists (people who believe the theory of evolution is essentially correct, even if they don't necessarily all agree on the details) seem to be saying we are here to fulfil.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

2. Acoording to the guy who was primarily responsible for getting homosexuality taken out of the American diagnostic manual claims that there are very few people who are genuinely exclusively homosexual (male or female) in their behaviour. According to him (and his research) there is a sliding scale on which there are a relatively small number of people exhibiting purely homosexual behaviour, then a slowly rising number of people who practice both homosexual AND heterosexual behaviour in varying ratios, and then a very large number of people exhibiting exclusively heterosexual behaviour.

You're talking about behaviour here, and it's interesting. A guy living completely on his own in the middle of the jungle probably isn't going to have sex with anyone, but does that mean he doesn't have a sexuality or sexual orientation? Is "homosexual" or "gay" a label for a genetic propensity, a set of thoughts, a set of behaviours or ... ? I don't know the answer - but I think it's a key question.

If a guy lives in Egypt for example, where having sex with another man is a crime that carries the death penalty, is it surprising that all the surveys over there say there are very few homosexuals? Most people are pragmatists. If it's a choice between having sex with who you want or being stoned to death, most of us are willing to compromise behaviourally, even if that takes its toll emotionally.

If the same guy was in an all-male prison here in the UK, plenty of studies show he'd most likely swing the other way.

The way I see it is pretty simple. Most people cling to their labels as if those labels are who we are, but as most boarding school boys will tell you, it's usually more about what's possible, and what's easiest. We're all capable of lots of things we never actually do and we're all influenced by circumstance far more than we really want to admit. My guess is that our lone guy in the jungle could turn out to be "gay" or "straight" - he could end up liking blondes or brunettes - it just depends which path he happens to wander down and who he bumps into as he wanders there. That's not to say being gay is a choice. It's really just to say that we're all capable of much more than we give ourselves credit for most of the time, and labels are rarely useful, except for jam.

Andy B. wrote:

If someone doesn't help to produce at least one child that's the end of the line for their genes. Full stop. They have failed to play the role most evolutionists (people who believe the theory of evolution is essentially correct, even if they don't necessarily all agree on the details) seem to be saying we are here to fulfil.

Excuse me, dear. You might only be here to pass on your genetic material. Leonardo Di Vinci, Oscar Wilde and I are here with a higher calling.

Most gay people I know would freak if you said it was their choice.

Most 'straight' people I know would freak if you said it was their choice.

Andy B. wrote:

I was talking about behaviour choices by sentient beings. What people choose to do can most certainly be contrary to nature and therefoe UNnatural.

If you can demonstrate that homosexual pattern behaviour is purely a product of nature I will concede the point without further ado.

I'm not prepared (nor equipped by training or education) to prove choice vs behavior one way or another, but as you seem to be coming down on the choice side, when did you choose your sexual orientation?

BMcKenna wrote:

I'm not prepared (nor equipped by training or education) to prove choice vs behavior one way or another, but as you seem to be coming down on the choice side, when did you choose your sexual orientation?

Given all that I've been saying I think that's an entirely reasonable question. I hope you will think this is a reasonable answer.

When I was about 18-19.

I live in a town that has a very high proportion of people who have chosen homosexual pattern behaviour.

For some reason or other I was getting hit on very frequently by such people when I was in my late teens, to the point where I seriously wondered whethewr I was in denial if that many people thought I was on their side of the fence.

Also just before I went to university I took a year out working as a trainee nurse in a residental Group Therapy unit (i.e. no physical treatment involved) where there were, in a rolling population, several people, both male and female, who had chosen homosexual pattern behaviour, as well as a small number who "swung both ways" as the saying went in the '60s..

(BTW, did I mention that my first experience was being mildly abused by a pedophile when I was around 11-12. just the once.)

Obvious answer, give it a try. So I did.

Anyway, I had no problem with lack of interest, and it was very ego-boosting to be able to have people interested in me wherever I went, especially as I wasn't exactly successful when it came to heterosexual relationships. But for pretty much the reasons Sven listed I decided this wasn't for me and switched back to a heterosexual pattern of behaviour after a few months.

And I've stuck with that choice ever since. Including a marriage, a sone, a divorce and a second marriage that has lasted just over 25 years - so far.

This may explain why I still take an interest in what factors may or may not be involved in people choosing homosexual pattern behaviour.

I trust this does answer your question?



Be well

Andy B.

chris_morris wrote:

Excuse me, dear. You might only be here to pass on your genetic material. Leonardo Di Vinci, Oscar Wilde and I are here with a higher calling.

Lishen, sweetheart. I don't write no stinkin' rules - I'm just passin' on what "Educated" Dawkins and his crew has been shayin'. You got a beef wiv' that, an' I wouldn't blame youse if youse has, youse better take it up wiv' them.

Be well

Andy "Bugsy" B.

p.s. Didn't Oscar have two troop carriers, I mean sons, called Cyril and Vyvyan?

Looks like it's just you and Leonardo.
Though you could call in Carravagio, Tchaikovsky, et al.

Removed. Content grafted into next post.

hypnoben wrote:

Most gay people I know would freak if you said it was their choice.

And ...?

chris_morris wrote:

Most 'straight' people I know would freak if you said it was their choice.

And ...?

What would that tell us, even if it were true, other than the fact that many people don't like to take responsibility for their own choices.

By the way, I don't think I actually said that people who show heterosexual pattern behaviour do so by choice, did I?

After all, wouldn't heterosexual pattern behaviour will be genetically promoted as the option that protects the genes' impulse to survive in future generations without the need for cognitive assent?

By the way, if anyone finds this too hard to take, please say so and I'll shut up. And I won't even scream "censorship". Honest

Be well

Andy B.

chris_morris wrote:

You're talking about behaviour here, and it's interesting. A guy living completely on his own in the middle of the jungle probably isn't going to have sex with anyone, but does that mean he doesn't have a sexuality or sexual orientation? Is "homosexual" or "gay" a label for a genetic propensity, a set of thoughts, a set of behaviours or ... ? I don't know the answer - but I think it's a key question.

Did you not watch the programme that looked into Barrowman's sexuality? I (from the write ups) gather (from the write ups) that it was a bit daft, with an emphasis on the idea that "homosexual men" [sic] were some kind of failed women. Which is a new one on me.

I have it on tape, but I've not got round to watching it yet.

Be well

AndyB.

Andy B. wrote:

Given all that I've been saying I think that's an entirely reasonable question. I hope you will think this is a reasonable answer.

When I was about 18-19...

Thanks Andy. That is an answer as far as it goes, but it sounds to me like your brief foray into same-sex relations was an experiment fuelled by curiosity rather than any deep sense of attraction. I'm not you, so I can't know, but that's how it reads to me.

My sexual history is totally hetero, but I never felt like I chose that, or that I chose anyone I ever loved. Had I been consciously choosing I'd have skipped at least one ultimately disastrous liaison . Maybe two . But different strokes (as they say...). There's room in my world for opinions with which I disagree.

BMcKenna wrote:

Thanks Andy. That is an answer as far as it goes, but it sounds to me like your brief foray into same-sex relations was an experiment fuelled by curiosity rather than any deep sense of attraction. I'm not you, so I can't know, but that's how it reads to me.

Well, you may be right.

All I can say is that I responded to a real situation by being as open as I could.

BMcKenna wrote:

My sexual history is totally hetero, but I never felt like I chose that, or that I chose anyone I ever loved.

Ok. but you have to admit we are talking about two very different situations here - however unPC the comparison may be.

On the onme side heterosexual pattern behavior ensures the continuation of the species, the transmission of genes, etc., etc.

And remember, the Pope's recent pronouncement came as near as dammit into harmony with the evolutionist position on this point.

Your viewpoint is little more than a reflection of the current cultural norms. One hundred years ago the chances are that 100 years ago you'd have thought exactly the opposite way.

The question is - Do you have a deeper reason for your opinion NOW, that could resist the tides of popular opinion, or are you just going with what feels right?

I don't know, and I don't believe it is my jonb to go probing your psyche.

But maybe you should?

(I'm speaking to both one person AND a wider audiience, here.)

BMcKenna wrote:

Had I been consciously choosing I'd have skipped at least one ultimately disastrous liaison .

Hmmm. I WAS choosing consciouslyly, and I still didn't skip a disasterous liaison.

On the other hand, but for the lessons learned from the previous disasterous liaison I don't know if I would have been so realistic and flexible in my second marriage so as to help keep it going through thick and thin - which I'm very glad, now, that I did.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Well, you may be right.

All I can say is that I responded to a real situation by being as open as I could.

Certainly more open that many or even most, IMO.

Andy B. wrote:

Your viewpoint is little more than a reflection of the current cultural norms.

I'll buy that.

Andy B. wrote:

One hundred years ago the chances are that 100 years ago you'd have thought exactly the opposite way.

Possibly, but a lot would have depended (as it did in fact) on my upbringing.

Andy B. wrote:

The question is - Do you have a deeper reason for your opinion NOW, that could resist the tides of popular opinion, or are you just going with what feels right?

Since this is the way I felt when it was even more against popular opinon than it is now (in the overall population), AND it feels right, my reasons also feel deep enough to suit me.

Andy B. wrote:

I don't know, and I don't believe it is my jonb to go probing your psyche.

But maybe you should?

Nah, that's okay, thanks. Not sure why a probe would be called for in this case, and I'm okay with the way I feel about the subject.

Andy B. wrote:

Hmmm. I WAS choosing consciouslyly, and I still didn't skip a disasterous liaison.

Yeah, choose or don't choose, sometimes it's not gonna work out either way. No regrets here, though.

Andy B. wrote:

1. It doesn't apply to all people who select homosexual activity.

No, and it needn't. There may be more than one factor in the selection, and genetics may even be the weakest of those.

2. There's no proof that this factor, even where it can be established, does anything more than create a possibility. Or in simple terms, "Yeah, but you can find the same behaviour/inclinations in the mothers of many mothers of children who grow up to select a homosexual pattern."

Agreed.

3. If the theory were correct it would seem to indicate that any child born to a nymphomaniac should grow up to choose homosexual pattern behaviour.

Not so. Just because something is heritable doesn't mean it's inherited. And, if I'm recalling the story correctly, these children tended to be the youngest of several, so it may "take" several "tries" before that particular combination turns up.

Incidentally, no mention was made of female homosexuals in what I read; it was specific to males. I have no idea if females have been studied this way.

Further, the authors were careful to avoid conclusions. It was an interesting correlation that merits deeper study.

4. According to part of Oliver James' analysis (FWIW) an overbearing mother (who is possibly channeling her sexual urges into other forms of release) is often (but certainly not exclusively) a factor in the childhood of many people who grow up adopting homosexual pattern behaviour.

I'm one of those annoying folk who doubt the idea that there is a single root cause for anything.