Forums

Darwin And Homosexuality

Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
 

Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 26, 2008, 12:16

I have this dream of one day being Nat Lehrman. He’s the guy that wrote the authorized, ‘dumbed down’ versions of Masters and Johnson’s work on Human sexuality, Human sexual dysfunction and Homosexuality in perspective. Some people want to be firefighters or ballarina’s 😆 😆 But not me.


Darwinism probably isn’t as idiotic as I have made it out to be. It does explain alot of things, like why 51% of the population is female and 49% male which we really wouldn’t know otherwise. But, to be a Darwinist in the true sense takes more faith than it does to be creationist. There are simply too many holes and too many guesses.


Take this study for example… ok so the homosexual gene has a biological fuction, but how did it get there in the first place? If these things evolve for a specific purpose what role did homosexuality play? There is a joke, that it evolved around the time of the baby boomers to stop people having kids 😆 But that doesn’t ring true. It had to serve some useful evolutionary purpose in the first place.


Then what about lesbianism? Lesbians really piss nature off. 51% of the population is female because women are more biologically valuable that men as we carry the babies for nine months and mans role in that whole process takes a matter of seconds. It could account for why lesbianism is less predominant that male homosexuality but it doesn’t explain why it evolved in the first place. Nature losses out big time with lesbians so it doesn’t make alot of sense.


Alot of holes, alot of guesses and not ebough gay or lesbain people in the population to get a proper sample. 152 family trees with male homosexuals in them is hardly awe inspiring. A bigger sample might produce different results.


Anyway… I’ll shut up about it now… its just useful to critically analyse things and not always take these ‘findings’ at face value.

magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 26, 2008, 12:35

I was actually having a play stating the galapogos islands LOL I am a creationist but also believe that we adapt as human beings outside of a necessary theory such as natural selection. This could turn into quite a scientific philosophical discussion 8)

orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
June 26, 2008, 13:15

Well, my short Darwinian version is: whatever genetic component there is to (male) homosexuality has other survival benefits for the species. So it hangs around.


I’m kind of reminded of another example I know about, which is sickle cell anemia. On its own, not a great condition to have – basically your red blood cells are not as good as they should be at transporting oxygen. BUT, in some parts of the world (especially Africa), the genes for sickle cell anemia are pretty common.


Why? Because they provide protection against malaria. Red blood cells that aren’t good at transporting oxygen are also really lousy hosts for the malaria parasite. So what seems at first glance to be a ‘bad’ genetic trait actually turns out to be quite useful.

magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 26, 2008, 14:06

Its interesting Orfeo, it makes me wonder some things such as, are these things as they are due to the body making accomodation for its external environment or is it something set in place by a higher power as protection for those that would need it most? So hence a certain trait born into certain human beings (thru dna perhaps put in place by God) of particular race, so when faced with certain external environments these changes in the body takes place to keep them alive even if at only a certain percentage of living.


If its a coping mechanism of the body, how does the body know to change itself so as to adapt(I kindve have an idea but find it fascinating) and once in an environment where it doesnt have to adapt anymore does it go back to its own original make up? I think a full undertanding of the function of the human body and brain is as elusive as a full understanding of the word of God but its sooooo interesting to discuss and learn and talk about 😉


(I am a creationist but do not throw away scientific theories, I believe both have been set in place by God for us to discover and search out)

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 26, 2008, 15:09

here’s my take on it.


we are just there because we are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS!

magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 26, 2008, 16:57

😆 😆 Amennnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 26, 2008, 19:09

You’re quite the comedian aren’t you Anthony? 😆


If the study is accurate then we have the link between Darwin and male homosexuality at least, though lesbianism is a bit ambigious.


I stick to my original hypothesis that Darwin was a silly old man, it solves the conundrum completely 😆

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 26, 2008, 21:48

You’re quite the comedian aren’t you Anthony? 😆


If the study is accurate then we have the link between Darwin and male homosexuality at least, though lesbianism is a bit ambigious.


I stick to my original hypothesis that Darwin was a silly old man, it solves the conundrum completely 😆


yep……helps lighten what can at times be a very intense space at times. 😀


it seems that lesbianism is quite a different thing anyway isn’t it. The more I learn the more I realise how different gay men and lesbians are. I’m wondering in the end, if the only thing we actually have in common is that we are both attracted to the same sex. ie….men/men …..women/women. (thought it would help to clarify that ambigious last statement.) 😆

phil.evans777
 
Joined in 2007
June 26, 2008, 22:14

here’s my take on it.


we are just there because we are FAAAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS!


I like Anthony’s take. But Sandy, not only are you real smart, but man you are funny. People all starting with C. hahaaahahahahaha

Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 27, 2008, 00:10

it seems that lesbianism is quite a different thing anyway isn’t it. The more I learn the more I realise how different gay men and lesbians are. I’m wondering in the end, if the only thing we actually have in common is that we are both attracted to the same sex. ie….men/men …..women/women. (thought it would help to clarify that ambigious last statement.)


Can I just say? THANK GOD SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME THINKS SO! 😆 😆 I think its my fate in life to be surrounded by gay men, it drives me up the wall.


But Sandy, not only are you real smart, but man you are funny. People all starting with C. hahaaahahahahaha


If you think that is smart you should see me talk about sociology… I’d blow your socks off 😆 Mostly I have no idea what I am talking about when it comes to science and I winced every time I had to write “the biological component of homosexuality”.


I used to do research for a living, what seems like a lifetime ago. I got a bit of a reputation for putting humour in my work, gotta keep it interesting and readable, I find it endlessly facinating but I know other people don’t so a bit of light relief goes a long way. Makes me miss the old days. Life was simple once.


Also my father tells me he is not my personal secretary he is not going to go hunting around the dark cave of congested filing cabnets and bookcases that is my storage facility and find those earlier studies. He says he has done his bit for the greater good by contributing to the reproductive sucsess of women and thats enough of a hero ethic for one day 😆 Sometimes I think humour is the only thing that keeps us from killing each other… that and the many, many miles between us.


However, I can probably hunt them down on the net, I have access to over 500 databases with journal articles in them… not at all like trying to find a needle in a haystack 😆 But then again… its just me that finds it all facinating so maybe one is enough.
Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.073 seconds.