Gay Marriage and Natural Selection (Page 2)

I should really let Wookie answer this but I believe he is using the term "gay marriage" only because it is currently our societal hot-button label which kind-of sort-of represents the acceptance, or non-acceptance of homosexuality.  I think he's trying to look at it without the political baggage of biological/non-biological and religious arguments.  Think of it from the point of view that we don't fully understand evolution.  Is it possible that evolution is so all encompassing that it somehow causes a society to adapt to the amount of natural resources it has to sustain itself by creating population control methods that we don't recognize as such?  I think it's an interesting concept.

And I still think he needs an MP3 player for his swims.

possum - 2006-01-04 5:08 PM o We are actively trying to take over the world and make the entire planet gay. Didn;t you read the latest report from the Christian Right?

Or did anyone see the South Park episode where the rednecks thawrt the humans from the future from "takin' er jubs" by having massive amount of gay sex, thereby preventing the futuroids from ever being born? 

actually both gay men and lesbians have a shorter life expectancy.   For the men, well, there is still AIDS destroying my community, and yes, to a certian extent this problem SHOUDL be under control now that we know more but alas.  It's as bad as ever.  For the women,  the low pregnancy rate among lesbian women is theorized to explain the higher incednce of female cancers which, in the larger popution,  is much lower among women who have given birth by age 35.  Both lesbians and gay men also have a higher rate of smoking and excessive drinking, a statstical fact that both anti gay rights people and pro gay rights people have used in arguments as to the "health" and "natural-ness" of such a "lifestyle"

 also, gay teens are 10 times more likely to commit suicide than straight teens....

the gay gene: most gay people come from straight parents, and most gay people who have biological children produce heterosexual children 

explain to me how gay marriage, a cultural bestowed privilege, has a THING to do with anything "natural?" 

 

 bc it sounds like the op is talking more about cultural acceptance than marriage.  please do NOT negate the significance of the marriage issue by lumping it in with the nebulous idea of "acceptance"

Okay, as humans we are inherantly self-important. As I mentioned above we have a very difficult time believing that we are susceptable to the outside influence of nature. We don't have any difficulty attributing criminal behavior to someone born and raised in a ghetto. Why is it that this same mindset can not be expanded on a planetary and species wide scale?

Again, I proposed earlier that thought or 'acceptance' could in fact be influenced by societal pressures. I think this goes without saying. All we have to do it look at movies and television of 50 years ago compared to today. The level of 'tolerance' between the two is quite dramatic.

My concept is that our thought or acceptance of homosexuality (or anything else for that matter) could be a result of influences bestowed upon us on a planetary scale. This could include the cultural sway of gay marriage, public execusions, slavery, you name it.

To remove ourselves from the construct of nature is quite egomaniacle. We are all (everything that is our universe, be it man, rock or energy) part of the same machine.

I should really let Wookie answer this but I believe he is using the term "gay marriage" only because it is currently our societal hot-button label which kind-of sort-of represents the acceptance, or non-acceptance of homosexuality.  I think he's trying to look at it without the political baggage of biological/non-biological and religious arguments.  Think of it from the point of view that we don't fully understand evolution.  Is it possible that evolution is so all encompassing that it somehow causes a society to adapt to the amount of natural resources it has to sustain itself by creating population control methods that we don't recognize as such?  I think it's an interesting concept.

Bingo!

Doesn't this go against your theory of homosexuality as a genetically imposed population control? The only population this behavior would tend to limit is homosexual - not the population as a whole - for your theory to have any viability at all you need to demonstrate that homosexuality is growing faster than the hetero population. Further, you would need to show that increasing numbers of gay people are in fact not breeding at an increased rate from whatever time frame you impose and finally and most importantly, you would need to show that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, demonstrating that same sex attraction is tied to a gene. This last is more difficult a task than even the others considering that the sexual preferences from two homosexuals has no correlation to the sexual preference of the child.

Not at all. I think it is safe to assume that homosexuals procreate far less than their heterosexual counterparts. As such, the mere presence of homosexuals does have an impact on the population growth as a whole. Again, I am not proposing that homosexuality is going to be the end of the human race. Is could, however, be an added governor of population expansion.

I think I covered earlier the concept that homosexuality could be genetically inherited or a matter of choice and still be attributed to the all encompassing force of evolution. Therefore, neither method of homosexual creation is really important.

Lastly, the method of passing genes from generation to generation is something we all understand. It could be that whatever biological influences are necessary for homosexuality to occur do not operate within these same boundries but are in fact present in a manner we do not yet understand.

This is going way off topic to make a point, but if I told you that the reason the most common form of sex practiced by humans is the missionary position is because of our vocabulary you would think I'm nuts, right?  We studied this when I was in school but I can't find any source documents to reference right now.  Here goes, I'll try my best to explain this.  Anthropologists postulate that as humans developed the capacity for speech, and language became more complicated and more important humans adapted from the more common method of procreation (used by almost every animal in nature) to one in which we are able to communicate face to face during the act.  The female's body evolved to accommodate this development.  (I'm trying not to get this thread pulled here so stop snickering!)  Things moved forward.  Literally, over a great period of time.  

The point is that evolution can and is affecting us in ways we don't realize.  Maybe Wookie's right, maybe not, but there's a lot more going on with the world than most people want to spend time thinking about.

Perhaps this is a way to stall the advent of ideas untill they can be brought forward into a society that is ready for them? Intelligence has been shown to be a trait which can be passed to offspring. Could this phenomenon you mention be a way of limiting technology (cure for cancer, AIDS, renewable energy) until the rest of the planet it ready?

This is a very interesting discussion.  Several valid points have been made thus far, but I disagree with some points that have been made. 

I would argue that those women who are waiting until later in life to have children (or not altogether) are those women who live in the western world and are a) very well educated (according to global standards) and b) fairly well off financially (also, according to global standards).  With regards to average life span, I would also say that those numbers offered by the original poster (Shaved Wookie - what a great handle!) are again only applicable to members of western societies. 

That said, the only reason that some eastern countries (China, in particular) require their populace to have only one child is that of over-crowding.  If we were to project population estimates out to 20-30 years, we'd see that the population of India will surpass China, and continue to boom.  What's interesting in population estimates is not only pure numbers: it is also the make-up of a population: relative age abundancies, in particular, and mortalities.  If, for example, we see an incease in the average age of the Chinese population, that should let us know that the populace is in effect "dying" (less reproduction).  What is being seen in India (through historic data and current trends) is a decrease in the average age, indicating that the population will only continue to get larger, if no population controls are put in place.  Some experts seem to think that unless some population controls are established in India like the ones that China installed a few decades ago, India's population will grow much larger than the carrying capacity of the country and its' resources.   

With regards to whether or not homosexuality is a natural response to potential overcrowding on the planet?  I disagree.  I think it would take a GLOBAL epidemic for a population control to be a natural response.  Take the plague for instance.  The plague reduced the global population by nearly half.  Half.  But, shortly thereafter (in historic terms), the industrial revolution made life easier for alot of people, thereby reducing mortality the world over, and allowing for a significant increase in global population. 

That's really the question we should be asking:  Is there a carrying capacity for humans on the earth?  Is there a limit to the number of humans that can exist at a given lifestyle?  Can we reproduce willy-nilly with no regards to the consequences of our lifestyle, here in the U.S.?  Should we expect other developing countries (which tend to have the higher populations growth) to limit their reproduction in order to keep the world at a comfortable population?

Long story short (too late, I know!), I don't believe that homosexualty is a natural response to "overcrowding" on our planet.  I do however, believe that if left unchecked, we will soon find ourselves with ALOT more people on the earth that the earth can sustain.

I've attached a few fun learning things:   

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html#summary

Find out how many earths it would take if everyone lived like you here:

http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp

Interested in Zero Population Growth the world over?  Check out this link:

http://www.zpg.org

Does any of the above have anything to do with the original question, or have I just spouted off alot of rambling, potentially non-information?  Oh well - it's dinner time!

Steve 

EDIT FOLLOWS:

Regarding homosexuality as a means of natural selection:  Natural selection is a means by which genes are selected for or against.  What that means (sorry if I'm being pedantic) is that if a gene or collection of genes is better suited to a set of environmental pressures than another gene or set of genese, then the better suited genes would be more prevalent in the next generation.  If the pressures change, then the relative abundance of any given gene or set of genes would change as well. 

One example (however implausible it may seem) follows: If there is a "gay" gene somewhere on a DNA strand or if it is a random mutation, then we are of course going to have gay people in a given population.  If (for the sake of argument) there is a rapidly reproducing, quickly mutating disease that is going around that has an incredibly high mortality rate and lightning-fast incubation time and only infects heterosexual people, then this disease would kill off a high number of heterosexual people.  Now, the gay friends that I have that are reproducing are not engaging in heterosexual sex to reproduce; they are either going the artificial insemination route or the good ol' fashioned dixie cup/turkey baster.  Based on the above example, Natural Selection says that the number of heterosexual people in the next generation would be very low compared to the number of homosexual people, right?  Natural selection could go both ways, strange as that may sound within the context of this discussion!

Again, the possibility that none of this has anything to do with the discussion is very real...

SR

Like the outcome of a presidential election?  Yeah, right.

Eventually, we will be a female-only race.

Google "Y chomosome under seige." 

Heh...he has a monkey named Ampersand. Sweet. 

Nope. For your evolutionary position to have any validity, this would have to be a genetically passed trait - simply stating that you have discounted this necessity does not free you from it's obligation.

Have you ever read "Adam's Curse: the Science that Reveals Our Genetic Destiny"?  We may be closer than you think, geologically speaking...

SR

Interesting thoughts....thanks to you all for discussing. Maybe during my run, I can ponder something remotely intelligent to say.

I do have to ask...how does one COUNT these 2000 yds (or was it meters) while having such a deep thought. I can hardly count laps before morning coffee! 

I think that if you apply the modality of evolution outside the scope of genetic linage and allow that the influence of environment could provide the necessary stimuli to foster change the requirement of genetic traits to be passed via DNA is much less important. Further, if the lack of necessity for the discussed traits to be passed via DNA the system of supression could be better modulated via the environment. DNA trait heredity could, as mentioned earlier, gain unwanted momentum possibly extinguishing the species (in this case). Perhaps the vehicle of evolution itself is evolving?

The original labelling of this thread used 'Gay Marriage' only because it is the current hot-button of discussion. Again, I have no stand on gay marriage. I do feel that the sociatal acceptance of a homosexual union could greatly increase the number of homosexuals in western society. Whether by experimentation, trendiness or the lack of the fear of being exiled by an intolerant society the more previlant and ensconsed homosexuality becomes the more likely homosexuality will be practiced, if even on a casual level. I chose the label of gay marriage to represent that concept.

And yes, the advent and social implications of intercourse without the chance of pregnation does certainly fit into my macro system of human population control. When the triggering level of human poplation was acheived the appropriate technology and social lifestyle changes were manifest. 

Open water swim. Its 1km down and 1km back. Believe me, there is no doubt in my mind when I have finished one lap.

Careful! By accepting this concept you must also accept the idea that our parkinglots, skyscrapers and highways are just as 'natual' as an ant hill.