Gay Marriage and Natural Selection

Interesting thoughts. I believe in natural selection, some people, animals, organisms were meant to reproduce and some weren't. I don't think the acceptance of homosexuality has anything to do with natural selection though. I think as the world population increases, so does the number of homosexuals and the views by the masses are changing (hopefully).

IMO.

Thats a lot of swimming, but if I got to swim in that cove I'd be there many times a week too.

Edited by TriComet 2006-01-04 1:34 PM

Shaved_Wookie - 2006-01-04 1:35 PM lol... maybe I was hypoxic?

Hmmm.....

IMO, no. If you believe sexuality is inate and not the result of "what's popular" or "what's accepted," than acceptance plays no role in what a given person's sexuality is. If you're gay, you're going to be gay whether or not it's accepted. If it's "accepted" more, than homosexuality may seem more prevalent. But that's only because people feel less likely to be persecuted because of their sexualiy, and therefore are more likely to be out.

I'd venture to say, that there are just as many homosexuals relative to the population as a whole as there were 100 or 1000 years ago. But Haley said that first.

But I guess if you believe that sexuality is a choice, than, yeah, I guess you could make the argument that broader acceptance of homosexuality would lead to more homosexuality.

Regardless, our species' birthrate is probably high enough to sustain the population.

Methinks you need an underwater MP3 player.

The observation above aside (alliteration!  awesome!) I think your reasoning follows a certain logic.  The problem would be to try to study it in some type of controlled setting in other species.  Due to the time horizon required for such a study it would be impossible.  It will have to just remain a theory, but I think it goes hand in hand with something that a lot historians and philosophers discuss.  Mankind's repeated failures and mistakes due to our belief that we are more in control of our world than we really think we are, and our failure to learn from studying the past.  It's cute when a teenager learns something they think is mind-blowing only to find out that much of the world already knows it.  It's not so cute when our leaders commit mistakes that lead to the loss of people's lives.  (I'm talking on a grander historical scale here than just the last 5 years so don't take this as an anti-war post, leaders have been repeating mistakes of hubris for thousands of years.)

To get back to your original point, I kind of like it but I can't get over this concept.  Homosexuality is not new.  (trying not to insert Greek joke here).  What is new (and in terms of human civilization "new" could be meant to apply to the last few hundred years) is the conflict created by trying accomodate society's concepts of freedom, civil rights, individual rights alongside religious beliefs and then applying all of that tangled mess to a concept like homosexuality.  I would be very curious to see how aware anthropologists are of homosexual behavior in mankinds past before written history began, which could also be considered a relatively recent period of time.

On second thought I go with my first statement.  Get an MP3 player.

Ahhh! Not so! That's what computer models are for. All you need is a ream of data and some math modeling knowledge and you can predict anything. 

The question of whether homosexuality is decided in our DNA or is a choice we make later in life is a discussion upon itself. I happen to be both exist in our culture. But, for the sake of this discussion let's stick with the inate proclivity of homosexuality being decided upon conception.

My argument (its not really an argument but merely an observed possibility) does hold true. It could be possible that the increase of the presence of genes necessary to create a greater abundance of homosexual humans could be influenced by our habitat (meaning the planet as a whole). Perhaps the depletion of the O-zone layer or the vast amounts of engineered foods and substances we are exposed to constantly might realign the genetic code in such a way as to bring the 'gay gene' to the forefront? Perhaps this realignment does not only affect the creation of homosexual humans but also facilitates the acceptance of this lifestyle where as is was previously scorned?

Like it or not we are all a collection of chemicals and reactions. We do not fully understand each and every relationship of  those chemicals and reactions so it would be ignorant to dismiss that which might sound proposterous only because we haven't mastered its understanding.

Along that same theme the choice of homosexuality rather than a predisposition of such could also be attributed to being influenced by social pressures. Again, the chemicals and reactions are always working and in many ways we don't understand therefore this could very well hold true in theory.

There are six or so freaking BILLION humans on the planet.

There are more people alive now than have ever been alive before.

If 10% of them are gay (an often quoted percentage) that leaves five billion, for hundred million breeders. Not good odds for population control

I think another flaw in your argument is the assumption that homosexuality is a lifestyle and not a biological fact. I would argue that there are no more homosexuals as a perceentage of the popluation now than there have ever been.

So I guess it's possible that the "gay gene" might select a person for a higher tolerance for environmental pressures that the rest of the population might succumb to, but it'd be a stretch.

More likely, some social consturct inherent to the "gay lifetsyle" (stereotypes ahead...beware) such as the proclivity for gay men to hit the gym more often than thier stright counterparts, for example, might lead to the gay man living longer.

But regardless, since gay people don't (generally) pass their genes down the line, the point is kinda moot. If anything, since homosexuals don't, as a rule, reproduce, they should select themselves out.

If homosexuality is inate, why then aren't there fewer now relative to the population as a whole, since they don't reproduce (generally) and therefore should be selecting themselves out? 

I don't buy it (not saying your wrong, just that I don't agree). If anything, societal pressures over the last millennium are dictating that people not be gay. Or, from another angle, the last 1000 years has not been enough time for our genes to skew towards a homosexual bias and further that homosexuality would be a veritable dead end for the species. Or another, for me stronger proof against is the reason for decreased childbearing is simply that our species no longer needs to produce 9 births to have 4 viable children to physically contribute towards a families wellbeing. As semi-rational beings, many 18-24 year olds don't feel a societal pressure to produce and in fact there exists pressure NOT to produce. If anything, this freedom might increase the exploration of homosexual tendencies that may exist to some degree in most of us, but to propose that genetically we are altering our sexual orientation as a whole based on increased population is jumping to HUGE conclusions that can be refuted by the simple fact that heterosexual people can remain heterosexual and still not produce. I would also point out that most first world humans have more personal space now than ever before (the discovery of America is a tiny blip evolutionarily speaking) - your rush hour may seem to be more crowded than your senses would believe, but the fact is that reliable transportation enables humans to live much farther from economic and societal focal-points. Say 5000 years ago, humans needed to be closer to each other for protection, sharing of duties, etc... In this model, you'd be looking at a home with literally of people in a much smaller space than most of us enjoy now.

...have more to offer, but gotta run!!

Not to hijack this thread, but did anyone else notice that "Welshy's" post above has not one single spelling error? The grammar and punctuation are even good.

Who are you and what have you done with Thomas?

*SHOCK*

Well yeah.  And the "reams of data" would need to contain information relating to whether or not homosexuality increases in a society due to the maximum use of available natural resources, suggesting that such an increase is evolutionary in nature.  I have a hard time imagining that anyone would put forth the time and money to even conceive of how to conduct such a study, much less actually conduct it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or hijack the thread.  This is a tiny part of the larger discussion which is a much more worthy subject.

If anything, societal pressures over the last millennium are dictating that people not be gay. Or, from another angle, the last 1000 years has not been enough time for our genes to skew towards a homosexual bias and further that homosexuality would be a veritable dead end for the species.

To me it seems your thinking is not using a broad enough timeline. 1000 years is but a blip when compared to the celestial timeclock of human existance. Also, the idea that homosexuality would claim all of humanity is not at all in my thinking. My concept is that a greater (and rising) percentage of homosexuality could be imparted upon our race as a method of self regulating our population. Sure, the current birthrate is high enough to sustain our presence but we don't know what is in store for us for the next 5000, 10000 or even 1 million years. The planet is being faced with an ever increasing number of humans to contend with. How nature deals with this issue is yet to be witnessed.

Or another, for me stronger proof against is the reason for decreased childbearing is simply that our species no longer needs to produce 9 births to have 4 viable children to physically contribute towards a families wellbeing. As semi-rational beings, many 18-24 year olds don't feel a societal pressure to produce and in fact there exists pressure NOT to produce. If anything, this freedom might increase the exploration of homosexual tendencies that may exist to some degree in most of us, but to propose that genetically we are altering our sexual orientation as a whole based on increased population is jumping to HUGE conclusions that can be refuted by the simple fact that heterosexual people can remain heterosexual and still not produce.

Could this not also be attributed to the influence of society? Or course it could. As our population grew as well as our understanding of science and engineering the need to create our own workforce to tend herds and crops became less and less. This is a societal influence. The result? Less babies, however the birthrate remained (and remains) higher than the rate of attrition. This factor is key.

The population keeps growing. Is the planet introducing yet another 'influence' to help regulate mankind's population?

I would also point out that most first world humans have more personal space now than ever before (the discovery of America is a tiny blip evolutionarily speaking) - your rush hour may seem to be more crowded than your senses would believe, but the fact is that reliable transportation enables humans to live much farther from economic and societal focal-points. Say 5000 years ago, humans needed to be closer to each other for protection, sharing of duties, etc... In this model, you'd be looking at a home with literally of people in a much smaller space than most of us enjoy now.

True, however there is much less 'free space' as a whole throughout the planet than ever before and that amount of 'free space' is continually on the decline. Again, macro-thinking can help to bring the possible repercussions of such a profound affect on our planet into perspective.

Ha! there is your gramatical error. I am indeed Welshy! Put that in your spelling bee and smoke it....

I can't believe you proffed my post... LMAO... Methinks you need a naughty thread to yank to work your moderator's muscle... Haley, your services are required - say something that will get this thread yanked.

I chose 1000 years as, argueably, the previous 1000 years were not as anti-homosexual as the most recent 1000. 

You're a big pussy and you know it!!!!

Sorry, you told me do do something to get it yanked...I had to dig deep.

See, none of us are immune to affects of societal influence.

...and we were having such a nice, intelligent discussion.  Such a shame it had to be dragged down to talking about hot girl on girl action.  Hmmm, were they drinking slurpees?

Now where's the "this thread is worthless without pictures"?