BMcKenna wrote:

There are a host of presuppositions built into that study and its conclusions as you've presented them.

I presented no conclusions. It's an interesting and strong correlation, and it's worth exploring.

Andy B. wrote:

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.

Hold up. I never said homosexuality was passed from one generation to the next. The very nature of homosexuality is that it can't be passed down. The study I mentioned seems to indicate that it might be a by-product of a trait that is evolutionarily advantageous.

chris_morris wrote:

You're talking about behaviour here, and it's interesting.

I've noticed that myself. I think most of us are talking about with whom we wanna, and Andy has been careful to refer to whom we actually do. If we aren't careful, we could get into an argument.

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.

Wow! Self-disclosure from Andy Bradbury!

Good on ya, brother.

Andy B. wrote:

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.

Ridiculous on its face. We all start out as female, and at some point in gestation a megadose of male hormones push half of us into malehood. If any failure takes place, we have hermaphrodism, and I'm unaware of sexual preference tendencies in that very small population.

I can think of two ways that "gay genes" could stick around.

1. If the gay person doesn't have kids but their siblings do and the gay person improves the life chances of the nieces and nephews then that would keep half their genetic material in the system.

2. Many gay people in the past would still have had children.

After a good night's sleep I think maybe it's time for me to bow out of this discussion. So I'll make two points, which I maybe didn't make clearly enough before, and then take a couple of steps back.

1. I do know that all I've been saying is my theory. And I may be absolutely wrong in every respect.

2. When I've talked about choice I'm not necessarily talking about big, bold, in yer face moment of choice making. I don't suppose that many people either make a single conscious decision, or are even consciously aware of having made a decision.

So I agree with Ben and Chris that most people would be quite amazed at my suggestion. And I agree with what I think Mike was implying - that the choice, if it is a choice, is made over time and influenced by an accumulation of influences.

If I've offended anyone by the things I've said in this discussion, please accept my apologies. FWIW, that wasn't my intention.

Be well

Andy B.

Andrew
I have enjoyed reading your points on this thread and I'm not sure without your input in this particular thread that it would have been quite so interesting, providing many insights from others to take place.

Peter

Andy B. wrote:

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.

All over the place. There's even one that runs this forum.

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 therefore UNnatural.

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

How can behaviour be natural or unnatural. Obviously there is behaviour that encourages reproduction (one of my personal favourites BTW), but what about neutral behaviour. Dolphins have been observed playing water polo with seals as the ball. Is that unnatural?

It doesn’t matter whether it’s nature or nurture the fact is homosexuals exist and there is nothing unnatural in that.

Mules and Hinnies occur in nature and are sterile and therefore going nowhere in evolutionary terms (except of course if one of them become fertile as a result of a mutation). However there is nothing unnatural about their existence. They are rare, that is true but that is no criteria to use for unnatural.

For me meeting someone who is homosexual is absolutely no different to meeting someone who is introverted or arrogant. It’s just the way they are right here and right now. Nothing natural or unnatural about it.

Andy B. wrote:

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.

Whilst there is no evidence that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait it wouldn’t be difficult to postulate a hypothesis for why they continue to exist. It might be for instance that the genes are rare but neutral. Not beneficial such that they covey a specific advantage but also not deleterious such that carriers of the gene i.e. females will die out.

Andy B. wrote:

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

Richard Dawkins studied zoology under Niko Tinbergen at Oxford that is true however he now describes himself as an Evolutionary Biologist. He appeared on the Big Questions recently and presumably provided the details of his introduction (1:25 - don't bother watching the rest of the programme, it's a load of crap).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuKG1VHEugw&feature=PlayList&p=7B5B009BA35 FFF2F&index=0"]YouTube - Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008 (1/6)[/ame]

Andy B. wrote:

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?

One many study a variety of aspects of biology such as cell morphology (cell biololgist), form and function, microbiology and so on. If one considers how organisms change over time with respect to modifications and inheritance I presume this is called evolutionary biology.

Andy B. wrote:

What does which sentence mean?

This one

Andy B. wrote:

Thus evolutionist who hold to the "troop carrier" thesis are in fact closet homophobes!

I am still not clear what an Evolutionist is.

John

If Michelangelo had been straight the Sistine Chapel would have been painted magnolia

I for one would like to thank Andy for his candour. It makes sense how someone could have had those experiences and then come to those conclusions. I'm grateful for having heard the backstory. I guess it's a bit like at school - in maths - they always told us don't just write your answer but also show your working.

My own perspective is that there's a lot more to evolution than a never-ending conveyor belt of reproduction. I think human beings evolve not only over generations but within our own lifetimes too. What you do while you're alive will change how kids turn out, and that will change how other kids turn out, and so on down the line. And they don't even need to be your kids. I think the great poets and musicians and thinkers who inspire so many are as much a part of the evolution process as those guys who drunkenly pass on their seed in the back seat of someone else's car. Evolution is complex. If an infertility specialist helps 100 couples per year to have healthy babies but he doesn't have a baby himself, has he contributed nothing to evolution? Most of the popes have had no children themselves, yet collectively they've passed on a legacy that has shaped mankind - for better or worse. When Alan Turing helped to crack the Enigma code, he contributed more to defeating the Nazis and protecting our freedom than most people ever will, and as the founder of the field of computer science, he paved the way for all kinds of advances that have since helped to shape the lives of billions of people around the world. Like Oscar Wilde, whose writing continues to inspire millions too, Turing was prosecuted and persecuted for his homosexuality, and remember it was not his but in fact future generations who recognised the great impact of what he did for the world and posthumously celebrated his outstanding achievements and contributions to science. That's evolution.

My thoughts about these things are ever-changing but mostly they're different to Andy's because my experiences are different to his, and I guess that's going to be true for all of us in our own different ways. We build our beliefs/values not only based on cultural norms as Andy suggested to Bridget, but also based on what we experience for ourselves. If Andy's experience of same sex action is largely or originally based around abuse and people trying to get him to do things he didn't want to do... and you can add to that mucky pot that Andy grew up at a time when homosexuality had only recently been decriminalised in the UK and prejudice was still rife and good role models were very rare... well, you know, it makes sense to move away from all that, as lots of people did. In a different time and place, who knows? Young people these days whose first experience of "gay life" is Christmas with their happy gay uncle and his husband... well those kids tend to grow up seeing things quite differently to Andy. That's why I said in my earlier post, I think we're all much more affected by circumstance than many people want to admit. (Which Malcolm Gladwell also talks about - though in a different context - in his new book, Outliers.)

My point to Ben was only to say that it's not only "gay" people who seek and take comfort from the (somewhat crazy) idea that we are who we are and that's just the way it is. Making a choice means taking some responsibility for it, and many people would rather believe it's pre-destined. They "can't fight nature". Some people believe they are working class and that's that. Some people believe they are fat and that's that. There's no point choosing to eat differently, they say - they are who they are. They're Fat Bob. Never gonna change.

Of course Fat Bob could become Skinny Bob - but he'd have to change not only his diet and exercise regime, but also his identity too.

Beware the gay hypnotist who thinks anyone can choose to be gay.

I thought you liked speed seduction.

I'm scared!

z8000783 wrote:

I am still not clear what an Evolutionist is.

Sorry. I don't buy your responses to my previous posts. And I've given you the definition I go by.

Now I've said I was going to step back. And that's exactly what I intend doing.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Sorry. I don't buy your responses to my previous posts. And I've given you the definition I go by.

You don’t buy that there could be many mechanisms for passing on genes that don’t necessary confer an advantage or disadvantage to the individual and don’t affect the overall make up of the gene pool?

You don’t buy that whatever happens in nature must therefore be natural by definition?

You don’t buy the TV introduction of Richard Dawkins as an Evolutionary Biologist?

You don’t buy the definition of an Evolutionary Biologist as some one who studies the changes in organisms over time?

You don’t buy my question as to why an Evolutionist is a homophobe?

This shop is not doing very well is it, I think have to work on may sales skills some more.

John

I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

Hold up. I never said homosexuality was passed from one generation to the next. The very nature of homosexuality is that it can't be passed down. The study I mentioned seems to indicate that it might be a by-product of a trait that is evolutionarily advantageous.

I would like to answer this one post, (a) because I did take something for granted about what Mike was saying, (b) I'm also assuming that Mike and I were talking about the same study, which may not be the case, and (c) because I think the study I have in mind threw an interesting sidelight on genetics.

As I understood it, the researcher(s?) were suggesting that there was something unusual in the mother's genotype which, when passed on to her son (so it was genetic transmission) produced a tendency to homosexual pattern behaviour.

I *think* they actually compared it to the transmission of haemophilia (poor blood clotting) which tends to affect men, but is passed on through the female line.

But genes don't just function on a one-to-one basis. It isn't, to use a trivial example, that if you have gene A you have a green nose and if you have gene B you have a purple nose. Genes can turn actually each other on and off. So you might have a situation where everyone with gene A has a green nose, except those who ALSO have gene B, which switches gene A off so you get a purple nose. Gene B on its own might have no affect the colour of your nose.

From that we might argue that if in one generation the parents produce and pass on a certain gene combination to their daughter(s) (Mike is right about the randomness of what material gets passed on), the daughter(s) maybe be oversexed, and if they pass that combination on to their son(s) that might produce a tendency towards homosexual pattern behaviour - assuming the daughter(s) husband(s) don't introduce genetic material that would block the effect by switching something on or off again.

So whoever said this theory didn't necessarily mean that all sons of nymphomaniacs would follow homosexual pattern behaviour were quite right - I was being simplistically provocative. Tsk, tsk.

The only problems with this scenario seems to be:

The proportion of the population who can be indisputably oriented towards homosexual pattern behaviour seems to remain remarkably stable given that this particular process involves preparation in not one but two generations.

Some people like to refer back to the ancient Greeks as an example of when such behaviour was apparently commonplace. But we don't actually have a very complete picture of either what was involved, or what social pressures were in play. Except in Sparta, where the pressure was very substantial indeed - but in the long term **may** have led/helped to lead to the downfall of the society, much in the way that the Pope, rightly or wrongly, seems to think could happen in the 21st century.

One last thing.

In all this discussion we don't seem to have drawn a distinction between homosexual pattern sexual behaviour and "all inclusive" homosexual pattern behaviour, such as that which Chris apparently enjoys with his boyfriend.

There is plenty of evidence that, in the studies of rats (and mice?) homosexual pattern sexual activity can be induced in males simply by reducing the cage size for a given group to the point where the overcrowding induces significant stress, even though females are still present.

That is to say, it's comparatively easy to study the physical behaviour. Studying the mental and emotional aspects of the subject is something else again.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Some people like to refer back to the ancient Greeks as an example of when such behaviour was apparently commonplace. But we don't actually have a very complete picture of either what was involved, or what social pressures were in play. Except in Sparta, where the pressure was very substantial indeed - but in the long term **may** have led/helped to lead to the downfall of the society, much in the way that the Pope, rightly or wrongly, seems to think could happen in the 21st century.

It seems to me that the words and phrases can be incredibly powerful at planting seeds and conveying ideas. Sometimes the simplest of constructs plus an apparently common sense conclusion even with the qualification of **may**, can highlight something, that when seen in context, may be completely wrong.

It is the price we pay for having access to vast sources of information that we can only digest in the most shallow portions, cf deep and surface structures and the meta model.

Here is a site that provides a little more background life in Greece

Bad Archaeology: Question Time: Greek Homosexuality

Political and cultural life of ancient Greece is complex and not fully documented. City States grew and diminished for many reasons as towns in the modern world do today. Sparta was military state and the meaning of homosexuality as we know it would be unfamiliar to them. If anything a better description would be bisexuality but even that doesn’t really give an accurate description of the Spartan way of life in the army, where these behaviours are actively encouraged as a form of bonding. Outside of the military there is little or no evidence of these ‘commonplace’ practices.

John

Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children

What does the panel think about fetishes?

Danny Walters wrote:

What does the panel think about fetishes?

Mine are perfectly normal. Yours are a little unusual. That guy over there? He's a sick, sick man.

Danny Walters wrote:

What does the panel think about fetishes?

Some are fun; some are funny.