Well seeing as how you haven't even commented on my hormonal explanation which was the primary point I made... avoiding the central argument for a length of time is grounds for me to declare victory.

 

Obviously some one has never been on a debate team :/

I never commented on your horomonal point because its more valid than a genetically inherited sexual orientation; which I disagree with. . I said "Well its certainly not genetic"

 

To which you responded:

 

Don't tell me the "it's impossible because its again evolution" bs, because cancer, alzheimers, diabetes, etc. are all genetically influenced. and of course there's always bisexuality, which wouldn't be evolutionarily removed.

 

So I made a case for the evolutionary incompatibility of genetic homosexuality.

I agree hormones make a difference in development, but I bet a majority of the homosexuals we see out in the open are the culturally changed kind. Our new culture is very confusing and there are many susceptable people out there. It's sad that it's so easy to push individuals to the edge and they go willingly. Homosexuality, obesity, and fanatacism. Just may opinion.

Just aman

If it was purely culture you couldn't account for there being only about 10% homosexuality in any given culture.

blike, no. you made the case for single-gene homosexuality without any other factors.

 

it's a small component of many, and by itself is not that much of a determining factor where it would be eliminated from the gene pool at anything resembling a fast pace.

Originally posted by fafalone

If it was purely culture you couldn't account for there being only about 10% homosexuality in any given culture.

 

In some cultures it was far higher than this.

I agree I did seem to see a larger male homosexual population in South America but it seems most of the married men stayed home so it was no true indicator. The women I met were very heterosexual. In some of the prisons it was good to band with the heterosexuals and we needed weapons to protect ourselves.

Just aman

Prison brings up an interesting point in biology. High densities promote homosexual behavoir. Homosexuality rates are higher in the cities. Furthermore, this occurs in non-human species as well. If you put 2 male rats in the same average sized cage, they'll never turn gay. But if you put 20 rats in the same cage, you'll see homosexuality. That's essentially the only way homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom, but this experiment further backs my point of there being a genetic component.

If you put 2 male rats in the same average sized cage, they'll never turn gay. But if you put 20 rats in the same cage, you'll see homosexuality. That's essentially the only way homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom, but this experiment further backs my point of there being a genetic component.

 

Sorry, but this indicates nothing about a genetic component to homosexuality. :lame: If it were genetic, why wouldn't two male rats be homoesexual?

 

And you've yet to make a valid against evolution eliminating genetic homosexuality.

Now you're just being a jackass.

 

I NEVER SAID IT WAS ENTIRELY GENETICALLY CONTROLLED. BUT THE FACT CERTAIN SITUATIONS CAN BRING IT OUT IN NON-SOCIAL ORGANISMS PROVES IT IS NOT ENTIRELY SOCIAL. THIS PROVES MY ORIGINAL POINT THAT THERE IS A GENETIC POSSIBILITY OF IT, BUT IT TAKES OTHER FACTORS.

Now you're just being a jackass.

 

I NEVER SAID IT WAS ENTIRELY GENETICALLY CONTROLLED. BUT THE FACT CERTAIN SITUATIONS CAN BRING IT OUT IN NON-SOCIAL ORGANISMS PROVES IT IS NOT ENTIRELY SOCIAL. THIS PROVES MY ORIGINAL POINT THAT THERE IS A GENETIC POSSIBILITY OF IT, BUT IT TAKES OTHER FACTORS.

 

I just responded to what you said.

 

More males would support it being a social behavior, and less of a genetic behavior.

 

What % of the rats exhibited homosexual behavior?

If it was purely genetic, it would always happen a certain percentage of the time, or not at all. But because it only happens under extreme social conditions (instead of not at all), is a blatant indication there is no "straight" gene.

I'd say AT MOST there is genetic factors that COULD determine flexibility with your sexuality. Different levels of different chemicals or something.

That's what I've been trying to say, only without the "could" since it can happen in non-social animals.

So what is your estimation? 10% genetic, 40% hormonal, 50% cultural or circumstance? That makes sense to me.

Just aman

I'd say the parts vary, but i'd set an upper limit on genetic influence at 15% for infuence and 50% for resistance (genetic disposition to NOT being gay despite any social circumstances). Hormonal influences are huge (notice how most (certainly not all) gays are effeminate? but remember not all effeminate guys are gay...)

Interesting little article in scientific american this month titled "Gay Flies".

 

The article talks about how a neuroscientist in california implanted in drosophila flies a heat-sensitive mutant gene that target specific neurons, including taste-sensing cells on the head and legs. When warmed to 30 degrees Celsius, the mutant gene disrupted neurotransmitter activity, and males began courting mails, even attempting copulation. The flies resumed heterosexual courtship when the temperatures cooled.

Why do you think they call them "fruit" flies?

That blames the behavior on a gene and disrupted neurotransmitters. It might be a clue to one of many reasons for human homosexuality also. Fascinating.

Just aman

I doubt theres any difference in percent homosexuality from death valley to the north pole :/

What about the difference between sunny California cities and Minnesota cities? How many gay Eskimos are there?

Actually trying to project animal or insect results on humans is no more than a clue and probably a wrong clue as to how we work. It was an interesting train of thought and familiar. Reminds me of one of our former members but the problem is I agree with you Faf and ain't dumb enough to argue stupid and baseless reason.

But I kind of miss the nitwit.

Just aman

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/11/05/science.sheep.reut/index.html

 

 

Looks like once again blike is losing to me in an argument This study demonstrates a strong non-social cause of homosexuality.

I've never lost to you in an argument. They always end up the same, you're still on your side, I'm still on mine, yet you perceive yourself as winning because A) I failed to convince you, B) you feel your argument was convincing enough C) I'm obviously misintepreting data D) your IQ is higher.

 

 

"We are not trying to explain human sexuality by this study," Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "Whether this is a big component of what contributes in humans, that's still debatable."

agree I did seem to see a larger male homosexual population in South America

 

What were you doing in South America? Job or something? In another post you mention panama (i think)..was it work related? travel?

 

just curious.