If our environment stays the same, wouldn't the percentage of homosexuality drop every generation?

[Arsene]

I suspect that if our environment would stay the same that homosexuality would rarely occur in 2000 years or more. It's evident that there is a strong evolutionary pressure on homosexuals, since the trait of having love chemistry for the same sex instead of the other sex will most likely cause you to not reproduce, in other words, homosexuals are actually very genetically inferior, just only because of that one trait. You have more chances of reproducing being 4foot tall with IQ of 55 than being homosexual. And yes there a genetic component to being homosexual, which a twin study strongly suggest. I guess that the reason why homosexuality didn't rid itself already is because of a new factor in our environment that causes genes to out itself in homosexual behavior, whereas those genes 2000 years ago, when the environment was different, wouldn't have caused homosexuality.
 

(Now I didn't really need a twin study to know that there is a genetical component to being homosexual because in my philosophy, genetics have to do with everything. In my words are you are the results of your genetics reacting with your environment. Even Rabies caused by the Lyssavirus is genetically determined, we don't think about it this way only because there are yet no humans/no genes in the human genepool who ARE immume to rabies caused by the Lyssavirus. But if you would have the genes of a whale than you are indeed immuum to the Lyssavirus. So yes, rabies is genetically determined and enviromentally determined. 

 

The Enviromental factor of aids: You ofcourse need the Lyssavirus to have rabies.

 

Genetically: Not every organism will get rabies when confronted with the lyssavirus. If you have the genetics of a whale (than you will be a whale), than the virus won't onset rabies. If you have the genetics of a human (so you are a human). Than the virus WILL onset rabies. The same logic should be applied to everything. Everything about your behavior is both genetically and enviromentally determined. So nurture or nature? Everything is both.)

It's just natural selection really. Anyway, I am pro-LGBT movement, I'm very much for gay acceptance,  because if you give the people their freedom, and let them behave how they want to instead of having this social pressure causing gay people to oppress their natural behavior and follow the norms, than the darwinistic process of homosexuality getting out of the genepool will only slow down. Just like the father in the movie American Dream, who because of social norms oppressed his nature/tendencies, did have a wife and reproduced. If that father would've been born a generation later, than he would most probably be a happy gay man but also wouldn't have reproduced because of it.

cheers

[AncapFTW]

I think that there was a study that said that homosexuality likely developed for closer social ties within a species.  Essentially, more breeders aren't as important to the survival of the species as stronger social bonds between its constituent members, as societies are a larger driving force than speed of reproduction at this point.  Also, most people with homosexual attractions aren't purely homosexual, and can therefore pass on those genes.  (1% strictly homosexual vs. 8% bisexual I think)

[Mister Mister]

my understanding is that homosexuality is more epigenetic.  Some studies have shown that it is strongly correlated with certain hormones being released by the mother, as a result of stress, during a certain part of the pregnancy.  It may be that certain genes are more susceptible to these hormones turning the fetus gay.  I've also heard that there is a correlation between promiscuity of the mother, and homosexuality in children.  And, a radical view held by some more conservative homosexuals such as Milo Yiannopolous and Camille Paglia is that there is some choice involved as well.  I don't know how any of this answers your question, but it is certainly a very complicated topic.  And it really doesn't matter.  The religious conservative bigotry towards homosexuals, especially as experienced by children in a family, where they have to hide a part of who they are, is awful.  Similarly, the leftist pandering to homosexuals, and bullying like in the case of bakers who don't want to make cakes for gay weddings, is also not good.  I hope we can get past this as a culture and focus on the real moral issues of our time - child abuse, war, mass incarceration for non-violent crimes, and public debts.

[regevdl]

Stefan recently had a guest on that discussed the genetic factors of homosexulity...It was 2 or 3 episodes ago.  But I agree with RoseCodex that sometimes it's during gestation or even after birth that can (my understanding) even trigger those genes to turn on.  Again, maybe I don't have a full understanding but possibly one could have the so-called 'gay' gene but it may not be triggered or the enviornment can trigger it.   I think this is why some people who smoke get cancer and some do not.  (not  in all cases, of course) but some are more genetically susceptible and they add more risk factors and boom...cancer, etc. 

 

I know many of the gay community who suffered physical and emotional abuse or exhibit gender resentment symptoms which then causes the stress that might trigger the genes to activate (again..sorry for my lay man terminology).  Where as others seem to have a less stressful or non abusive childhood and are still gay. 

 

I full support ppl's lifestyles but here is where I caution anyone to simply keep an open mind on the subject.  I wouldn't  treat or deny any person for any biological or life choice, by any means  There is no excuse for being a douche in our society. But that also means I am not going to jump and give people special treatment because of their differences either.  

 

That goes for these women who think sleeping around is empowering and awesome. I used to think that way!  oh gawd!!   But in reality, they are cheering on these women to carry out and glorify personal traumas and I refuse to be part of that 'celebration.'

 

When people 'celebrate' and the verdict is still out that abuse may have some connection to SOME of those who are homosexuals I just want to make sure I am not celebrating a symptom of abuse, which can only be partially  sorted out  or deduced through individual dialogue, not cheering on a group.  

 

That's why I don't get into political groups or other groups that are directed at supporting and applauding the group as a whole because when it's lumped and grouped together, you cannot get an idea of who might be that way because they were born that way and who might be that way because of stress factors and abuse which is nothing to celebrate.  

 

There is homosexuality in animals and insects and it could very well be that during the gestation there were stress factors or a period of environmental stressers, etc

 

What's ironic is that lefists typically like the big spending large gvt and homosexuals so the less heterosexuals breed (due to overtaxation) and the more homosexuals there are the less taxable income or offspring there is to cover the cost of their social justice ventures.  So another reason to make sure that there may or may not be a gay 'side effect' from environmental factors.

 

I have a few gay friends who came out to me right away, as soon as they really 'knew' or had their first experience so even though I am not the leader of the LGBT group, they felt secure in sharing with me and knew they could without me judging or rejecting them.  They are fully aware of my views and have a lot of respect for them and we had many long talks about their childhood to rule out if abuse might have anything to do with it.  

[bugzysegal]

On the question, evolution wouldn't breed out homosexuals if homosexuals chose to reproduce with women to carry on their genetics (as has often been the case). Greeks considered women for the baby making and men for the real sex. Odd, yes, but not unworkable. I think you're not accounting for behavior despite sexual preference. Indeed, lesbian couples can have a "donor" impregnate both partners so that their children will be related. This has always been an option, despite their not be IVF options in the distant past. That all being said, the hormonal exposure model is likely a much stronger case for why homosexuality persists. RoseCodex is entirely right to point this out. I suspect that the Milo Yiannopolous is deeply confused. It seems that his religious convictions determine his outlook on the source of homosexuality, not vice versa. As a side note he had sex with a priest at the age of 14 and thinks that if anything, he preyed on the priest. That  may be an indicator as to the general coherence of that mans thinking.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think that there was a study that said that homosexuality likely developed for closer social ties within a species.  Essentially, more breeders aren't as important to the survival of the species as stronger social bonds between its constituent members, as societies are a larger driving force than speed of reproduction at this point.  Also, most people with homosexual attractions aren't purely homosexual, and can therefore pass on those genes.  (1% strictly homosexual vs. 8% bisexual I think)

A Molested Generation Contracts a Death Wish

 

 

Prehistoric tribes would have practiced more homosexuality when conditions caused overpopulation.  The fact that they didn't and preferred  territorial aggression, genocidal wars, infanticide, suicide,and starvation in order to reduce population surpluses indicates that their instincts told them there was something seriously destructive to society about this practice.  

[A4E]

I was going to drop the bomb that animals are gay too, but regevdl did already.

 

Why did humans lose most of their body hair? The world can be a really cold place, so why would the evolution of humans result in everyone losing most of their hair? This happened naturally. And I would imagine that it is very hard to find really hairy people.

 

This is important, because it means that in an evolutionary perspective, losing most hair was more important than making everyone heterosexual. This means that evolution still place some value in homosexuality in humans. No matter the cause, evolution would find a way to stop homosexuality if it really wanted to. Like it did when it removed gills and scales and whatnot for humans to become what they are today.

 

The degree to which evolution holds on to homosexuality can perhaps be tested by comparing how many people are born sterile, and how many are born homosexual. If say 50 times more people are born homosexual than sterile, then I would say that evolution is clearly holding on to it, and is not going to remove the occurrence of homosexuals any time soon. (not saying this test is possible)

 

My conclusion is that being born homosexual is as natural as being born without lots of body hair. If someone finds a clear environmental cause, then I stand corrected.

[dsayers]

While it's interesting for knowledge's sake, there's not much difference in whether it's hereditary, epigenetic, or a choice. As long as they're not initiating the use of force, I don't care what somebody does or why.

 

Making the source more important than it might actually be is just a way to divide people. Distract them so they won't notice that the State steals from and threatens all the same. I used to enjoy Ann Coulter's writings once upon a time. After a book or two, I was turned off by the way everything's right vs left with her when the reality is that it's top vs bottom. Anyways, she once had me convinced that it MUST be a choice because if there was a biological root, it's something that would've died off since it's not conducive to reproduction. It's a convincing argument... until you consider things like epigenetics, recessive traits, ancestral traits, etc.

[bugzysegal]

A Molested Generation Contracts a Death Wish

 

 

Prehistoric tribes would have practiced more homosexuality when conditions caused overpopulation.  The fact that they didn't and preferred  territorial aggression, genocidal wars, infanticide, suicide,and starvation in order to reduce population surpluses indicates that their instincts told them there was something seriously destructive to society about this practice.  

Are you an anthropologist!? Hey everybody, this guys an anthropologist!

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you an anthropologist!? Hey everybody, this guys an anthropologist!

Didn't You Mean, "Android Apologist"?  I'm Not One of Them.

 

If I were an anthropologist, I'd be a bitter vindictive misfit professor judging all my fieldwork through the distorted vision of academentia.  Lonely from the fact that I was treated like a weirdo, just because I was one, before I found sanctuary in the Ivory Tower, I'd be blindly following the crowd there by conforming to all the other fugitives let into those dark, echoing caves..  Those freaks would be the first people in my life to ever accept me, so I'd be desperate to fit in with them in their worship of their father figure, the Department Head, in their revenge on society.  I would humiliate the human race by calling all of those outsiders vicious perverted beasts.   

[Eternal Growth]

Why would humans still be reproducing naturally 2,000 years from now? We're most of the way to having the technology to directly pick and choose which parts of the human genome are best (cutting out disabilities and susceptibility to illnesses would be a great place to start; human engineers could proceed to add features above and beyond those possessed by natural humans), developing an artificial environment that is optimal for the growth and development of the human embryo, and then introducing new humans to the world in that manner.

 

Heterosexual / homosexual will be irrelevant.

[AccuTron]

 

Why did humans lose most of their body hair? The world can be a really cold place, so why would the evolution of humans result in everyone losing most of their hair? This happened naturally. And I would imagine that it is very hard to find really hairy people.

 

This is important, because it means that in an evolutionary perspective, losing most hair was more important than making everyone heterosexual. This means that evolution still place some value in homosexuality in humans. No matter the cause, evolution would find a way to stop homosexuality if it really wanted to. Like it did when it removed gills and scales and whatnot for humans to become what they are today.

 

The degree to which evolution holds on to homosexuality ...

 

We lost hair because our ancestors were living near proto-Nairobi, not proto-Spitzbergen.  But that's old hat.

 

Notice your wording.  You assign inherent value to homosexuality, you good closet livveral you.  Gills and such partly evolved into other structures.  I think ear drums stem from ancient jaw structures, waaaay early in fishes.  We ditched our tails.  

 

But we still have freckles.  An appendix.  That danged tail-end spinal remnant that hurts like hell if it gets hit.  Evolution didn't value those things per se, they just weren't enough problem to root out.  Remember, we are complex code, and rooting out something isn't as simple as one snip, no repercussions.  Think how easy it is to fatally crash software by making one change.  An organism is worse.

 

Bluntly put, homosexuality has such a trivial effect on species-wide existence (and it IS a numbers game), that it's not even on evolutionary radar.  I know that with overcrowding rats, there are changes in behavior, etc.  But mostly, species don't overcrowd in a laboratory.  If they population bloom, then some hawks show up and dial it back.  So those behaviors might just be leftover clutter, not evolved strategy.  If later cultures make use of them, fine.  But that's like using a stone as a tool; the stone was not created for later tool use.

[bugzysegal]

Didn't You Mean, "Android Apologist"?  I'm Not One of Them.

 

If I were an anthropologist, I'd be a bitter vindictive misfit professor judging all my fieldwork through the distorted vision of academentia.  Lonely from the fact that I was treated like a weirdo, just because I was one, before I found sanctuary in the Ivory Tower, I'd be blindly following the crowd there by conforming to all the other fugitives let into those dark, echoing caves..  Those freaks would be the first people in my life to ever accept me, so I'd be desperate to fit in with them in their worship of their father figure, the Department Head, in their revenge on society.  I would humiliate the human race by calling all of those outsiders vicious perverted beasts.   

That sure is a convenient way to get around holding yourself to any kind of scientific rigor. What kind of comedy do you enjoy? Please answer my question before divulging any more ad-hoc hypotheses.

[RCali]

Didn't You Mean, "Android Apologist"?  I'm Not One of Them.

 

If I were an anthropologist, I'd be a bitter vindictive misfit professor judging all my fieldwork through the distorted vision of academentia.  Lonely from the fact that I was treated like a weirdo, just because I was one, before I found sanctuary in the Ivory Tower, I'd be blindly following the crowd there by conforming to all the other fugitives let into those dark, echoing caves..  Those freaks would be the first people in my life to ever accept me, so I'd be desperate to fit in with them in their worship of their father figure, the Department Head, in their revenge on society.  I would humiliate the human race by calling all of those outsiders vicious perverted beasts.   

 

Finally, you share a glimpse of your past with us. Do continue.

[A4E]

We lost hair because our ancestors were living near proto-Nairobi, not proto-Spitzbergen.  But that's old hat.

Yes I figured it was a weak example, but then I remembered that Egypt is supposed to be very cold during the night, so I went with it.

 

 

 you good closet livveral you.

Not sure what you mean, but I am somewhat sure it is some kind of ad-hoc. I do not reside in the states, so if you would categorize me as a liberal, then please tell me how, and what consequences that can have for my judgement. (Because I am not too familiar with it.)

 

 

Gills and such partly evolved into other structures.  I think ear drums stem from ancient jaw structures, waaaay early in fishes.  We ditched our tails.

But we still have freckles.  An appendix.

The appendix has already been assigned a function, which would be to restore good bacteria in the guts after diarrhea. Have no idea if its true or not.

 

 

   That danged tail-end spinal remnant that hurts like hell if it gets hit.  Evolution didn't value those things per se, they just weren't enough problem to root out. 

Do you have any other examples than freckles and tail end spinal remnants to support your assumption that evolution just ignores anything that does not pose a significant foreseeable problem?

 

 

 

Remember, we are complex code, and rooting out something isn't as simple as one snip, no repercussions.

I would say that the evolutionary process with mutations and whatnot is still largely not understood when it comes down to what is actually going on with the genes. Your statement makes logical sense from what we 'know', but maybe there are hierarchies or systems in genes that we have not identified yet.

 

 

 

Think how easy it is to fatally crash software by making one change.  An organism is worse.

I don't really agree with this assertion. Do you have any examples of one change in an organism that completely 'crash'/kill it? Though, you could very well be right, since x amount of life does not survive beyond fertilization.

 

 

 Notice your wording.  You assign inherent value to homosexuality,

Yes, because I don't regard evolution as a mistake conserving process.

 

The fact that we have homosexuals means that the evolution process accepts it. There are several factors/benefits of being a homosexual that supports this. The most obvious one is that homosexuals can and do have children. After thinking about this now, I believe we should get out of the mentality that it is somehow a mistake by nature. I admit up until recently this was my view as well, but these threads here on freedomainradio has really caused me to alter my thinking on this.

 

 

Bluntly put, homosexuality has such a trivial effect on species-wide existence (and it IS a numbers game), that it's not even on evolutionary radar.  I know that with overcrowding rats, there are changes in behavior, etc.  But mostly, species don't overcrowd in a laboratory.  If they population bloom, then some hawks show up and dial it back. 

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that something/homosexuality is not taken into account by evolution. From what we have figured evolution to be, absolutely everything is taken into account / on its radar.

 

 

 So those behaviors might just be leftover clutter, not evolved strategy.  If later cultures make use of them, fine.  But that's like using a stone as a tool; the stone was not created for later tool use.

I have several thoughts on culture/environment, but don't want to get into it here, or yet, as it will likely just clutter the conversation.

 

I still stand on homosexuality being natural in accordance with the process of evolution.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Femininnies Breed Girlymen

 

 

Homosexuality is not physical, it is a psychological disorder. It is not even sexual; that's a designation forced on us by those who want to promote it.  Are we allowed a word such as "pedosexual"?

 

As for evolution, we have all kinds of anti-social elements such as liars, thieves, weaklings, and cowards.  How does their continuing existence imply some evolutionary utility? 

 

Homosexuality comes from a socially engineered dysfunctional family.  Strong males threaten the regime; the son sees his father as someone he doesn't want to be, so he wants to become a woman.

[Mister Mister]

As for evolution, we have all kinds of anti-social elements such as liars, thieves, weaklings, and cowards.  How does their continuing existence imply some evolutionary utility? 

An Unreciprocated Request for Proof of Concept

 

Don't forget bullies.

[bugzysegal]

Femininnies Breed Girlymen

 

 

Homosexuality is not physical, it is a psychological disorder. It is not even sexual; that's a designation forced on us by those who want to promote it.  Are we allowed a word such as "pedosexual"?

 

As for evolution, we have all kinds of anti-social elements such as liars, thieves, weaklings, and cowards.  How does their continuing existence imply some evolutionary utility? 

 

Homosexuality comes from a socially engineered dysfunctional family.  Strong males threaten the regime; the son sees his father as someone he doesn't want to be, so he wants to become a woman.

Your ability to ad-hoc analyze fact patterns is not persuasive. Nor does it seem you have a firm grasp of evolution. Evolution doesn't have concerns such as "utility." It is completely unmotivated in any anthropomorphic way. Deleterious traits are often selected against in environments which make them inhibit reproduction. However, evolution does not operate in strict rule like patterns, nor would any mutations which would ultimately be selected against be "bad" mutations, they simply reduce fitness. It is simply a matter of probability. Even if that were the case that homosexuality was a mutation that was somehow deleterious, the fact that these traits would be from non-chosen origins strictly bans them from moral categorization. Lions are not evil for eating gazelles. 

[AccuTron]

A4E:

 

Clearly I'm not an authorized, nor possibly accurate, spokesperson for Evolution.

 

Now that you mention it, if freckles and a tailbone remnant are the exceptions, then by comparison markedly little other clutter is retained.  Good point.  I was reacting semi-consciously to an assumed list of ailments, heard perhaps decades ago, and now that I think of it, are mostly because we're living longer in general, and stuff just wears out, compared to paleo-people.

 

Yes, that was an ad-hoc comic elbow jab, a touch of online vaudeville, and I guess pretty language specific, and good luck even then.  A knee-jerk on my part, reaction to the notion that if it's homosexual, it's superior, needs special laws...which in many ways are quite true statements up to a point...and which reside in my knee-jerk mind along with other items, such as women are always superior/right and facts don't matter; or whites are dirt and blacks are better than gays or is it the other way around or are they the same?  A certain collection of things which over time rub raw on one's psyche.  No reference at all to your abilities, just a joke.

 

Appendix...oooh, never thought of that.  Makes sense in several ways including location, and yes, I'd expect (pun alert) in my gut that evolution would have deleted it entirely if not useful.  It's like a little bomb shelter for friendly flora.  Only the top layers need to fend against the onset of illness, with plenty of backup.  Like tiny Spartans holding against numerous tiny Persians at the pass.  

 

 

Good point about undiscovered human system hierarchies.  Relatively recently, new understandings of genetics have been discovered, game changers.  

 

 

Where I'm guessing from is an assumption that if someone is homosexual or not or some variation, it is likely an in-utero event, a trigger or drift, something within a range.  If "having a range" is a key characteristic of what I'll here simply call (sexual, but could be anything) development, and most of the range serves very well the overall species survival -- the hyper-hetero perhaps being more useful at snarling at cougars or chopping logs, or more likely to do something dangerous when the females are threatened, either way it's a "keeper" end of the bell curve -- then having a homo end of the range is a mathematical bell curve reality.  

 

How does one in mathematically general nip off one end of a (however shaped or skewed) bell curve?  Trying to imagine a blur of mathematics to do this, it would seem to require adding from scratch a strong suppressive element at one end -- begging questions of intermediate evolutionary steps, and molecular energy requirements or side effects.  

 

It seems like a student mathematician would much rather say Oh the heck with it, rather than do all the extra math add-on constructions required to resolutely push in one side of a bell curve.  How would "resolutely" be defined, would it match the general percentage of population homosexuality as is?  

 

Important wording note:  I do not imply the word "mistake."  It's like if I were using a prismatic flashlight, and certain frequencies were not visible to my eye, I wouldn't call them "mistaken frequencies."  They're simply the ones at that part of a continuous spectrum.  A further discussion of them would likely be in reference to another phenomenon, my eyes in this case.

[AccuTron]

Thieves, liars, etc., have high genetic utility.  They survive and gather resources with a looser rule set, possibly giving advantage.  Females like this.  Breeding results.  Heck, do politicians have kids?

[Arsene]

Why would humans still be reproducing naturally 2,000 years from now? We're most of the way to having the technology to directly pick and choose which parts of the human genome are best (cutting out disabilities and susceptibility to illnesses would be a great place to start; human engineers could proceed to add features above and beyond those possessed by natural humans), developing an artificial environment that is optimal for the growth and development of the human embryo, and then introducing new humans to the world in that manner.

 

Heterosexual / homosexual will be irrelevant.

This is exactly why I explicitly said "If our environment would stay the same". The release of that technology will change something in our environment which will completely rid all the natural evolutionary pressures on such traits as homosexuality or narrow hips (we find women with wide hips and narrow waist beautiful because they have a superior morphology to pop out children). And that's why I actually don't want that technology to come, because if we would certain traits the ability to reproduce that in nature would otherwise not be able to reproduce, than we will dirten our genepool. It will make us adapt to that technology to the point that we wouldn't be able to live without, like dogs have adapted to be domesticated and now can't live without (take for example shih tzu).

 

Anyway im getting too far off topic.

 

________________________________________

 

Here I found a video where Richard Dawkins say things which I consider to be in my favor.