At 10/16/11 04:46 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:
At 10/15/11 03:38 PM, Hybridization wrote:
Recessive genes don't deteriorate, though. Also, I didn't ignore this fact of yours.
Of course, but you seem to ignore the fact that a "homosexual gene" would have to be recessive only - and would have deteriorated very early on.
The genes themselves don't deteriorate, but after several generations, the number of carriers can easily disappear within the species - I don't know how you can argue against this. You may not have ignored it, but you certainly don't understand it.
Genes don't come out of nowhere,No, but genes can build more genes if I'm not mistaken.
You're not mistaken; but again, you misunderstand the subject. Given what I have said above, dominant genes would build at a faster rate than the recessive (understandably?), so how on Earth could this recessive gene overtake a dominant gene when it would have to build at a less than 25% rate EVEN IF "homosexuality" could be passed on through family. The dominant gene would overtake nearly all recessive very rapidly. (An example of this would be purple-colored irises).
and a mutation like this would have gone extinct due to sterilization (not that this would be a double-problem, right?).Who says homosexuality is a mutation? Can't it be carried as a trait on a recessive gene?
I believe someone else had suggested that it could be a mutation. If this was not you, I apologize. However, the point is still valid. And, I believe I thoroughly explained your second question already.
I'm not saying it's an impossibility; but, there are far too many proclaimed "natural homosexuals" for it to be true in this generation or any that come after us."Too many"? How can you come to that conclusion at all? That's just your unqualified opinion, not scientific fact.
Haha, what world do you live in? Are you saying that there aren't many people who claim they are homosexual? And, you've dismissed the scientific reasoning I've provided throughout our entire "debate". Stop asking for it if you don't understand it.
Theories of environmental influence seem to fly out the window when talking about homosexuality.No they don't. They're talked about all of the time.
And they are immediately dismissed and ignored when brought to the table (much like this entire thread). You try to argue that homosexuality is natural, yet, you dismiss contradicting evidence (environment), even fail to address it thoroughly enough for anyone to make a counter-argument.
"Psychological brain"? What the fuck does that even mean?
So, the only way it could be a biological trait is through mutation in the psychological brain,
Also, how can homosexuality only exist as a biological trait in the form of a mutation?
Because it is theoretically impossible to be passed on. My points before have been hypotheticals that would disprove the idea even if it was possible for same-sex couples to have genetic children (is this too hard to understand too?).
But psychology doesn't strongly support the idea that homosexuality is a result of the environment.
and there is no evidence for this. Psychology strongly supports the idea that we are almostcompletely shaped by our environment (parents, friends, housing, nation, etc).
This is simply not true - clearly an absolute stab in the dark, and a subject you have no background in whatsoever.
It's pretty fucking obvious if you ask me.
Even though homosexuality has more to do with neuroscience than psychology....I don't see the point you're trying to make.
Apparently not if I cued for elaboration, idiot!
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951 ; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953 ). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975). Link.
So, you are using this to argue against a hypothetical that already accepts the fact that homosexuality is a gene at all? You're not (or, rather, your source is not) addressing the issue or defending your argument in the slightest.
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, and I'm much more inclined to agree with them than I am with you.
Therefore, it is much more likely that "homosexuality" is purely a malignant psychological anomaly - like the other, more outcast forms of "love" listed by the OP.
Great! I'm sure the psychology program administrators and Phd's in the field at my university would love to argue about how your sacred APA doesn't address the problem. But, good for you not thinking for yourself! I could care less if you agree with me or not, but you're forfeiting the argument in a childish "talk-to-the-hand" method.
Because it hinders the survival of the species entirely, (I thought this would be obvious from an evolutionary perspective). Therefore, homosexuality is a malignant disorder.It's funny because homosexuality has been thoroughly observed in hundreds of species in the animal kingdom and those species don't seem to have much internal trouble increasing their numbers.
It's funny because "homosexuality" is a human construct that defines gay sexual acts; and therefore, your point furthers my argument that it is not a biological "anything". Nice work!
I respect people, but I have NO problem calling their way of life a danger to the species any more than murders (especially lesbians).*Sigh.*
Are you going to cry now? Or do I have to explain it to you.
And, if any are offended by the negative connotation, oh well - I am being purely scientific on the matter because that's the only way to argue without incorporating subjective opinions (and, probably religion).You say you're being "scientific" on the matter, but most scientists would disagree with you in a heartbeat.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a scientist. This is a surprise! Unfortunately, you also need a degree in psychology. Oh but I'm sure your knowledge of the community's stance is more than enough!
I would say the same for people who have sex with animals and introduce new diseases into our race that wouldn't have infected us otherwise.What?
Hmmm, I guess you're not a scientist after all...Why did you lie to me :(
Hundreds of species in the animal kingdom have been identified as having some members exhibiting homosexual behavior.
Homosexuality is natural and has been proven to exist in the animal kingdom.I understand this, but it doesn't mean the animal (probably the dolphin)
I know, that's why I gave an example. (?)
is "homosexual", it's simply means we define the act as "gay".OK then, so if I enjoy fucking a guy in the ass...and I'm a guy, then it's not homosexual behavior...It's just "gay."
Biological homosexuality? You know, the subject our argument has been on this whole time? Where have I used the phrase "homosexual behavior", and then please direct me to the response that I suggested it was any different than "gay acts".
And to this complete nonsense: yes it would be homosexual behavior (and also gay, obviously?). However, it would not indicate that you were naturally gay.
It has nothing to do with inclination - which is what I've been saying this whole time. Pleasure is subjective.No it's not. Pleasure can be scientifically measured by neuron impulses in the body. Pleasure consists entirely of biochemicals and electrical signals.
And those measurements are subjective from person to person. (Hence, the definition).
You're making yourself look like a fool.
I don't even know what you're talking about now. You really have lost me.
Don't worry. I'm confident you had no idea what we were talking about to begin with.