Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do however believe that being gay is a genetic defect.....
To appeal to something being a "defect" one would have to have a design or standard from which to deviate. If the spark in your cars spark plugs is not reaching the right place to ignite what it is meant to ignite... this is a defect because it is clearly counter to the design and intent.
There is no design and intent apparent in biological systems, including sexuality and reproduction. So calling it a defect is just a definition error. Even if we were to imagine design and intent however what we find is that in many many species evolution has "designed" non reproducing elements. Parts of the species that do not reproduce.
HOW it does this differs from species to species. It makes some sterile, asexual and more. Who is to say that directing the normal sexual drive into a non reproducing outlet (such as towards ones own sex) is not just as valid a methodology for achieving that?
To appeal to something being a "defect" one would have to have a design or standard from which to deviate. If the spark in your cars spark plugs is not reaching the right place to ignite what it is meant to ignite... this is a defect because it is clearly counter to the design and intent.
There is no design and intent apparent in biological systems, including sexuality and reproduction. So calling it a defect is just a definition error. Even if we were to imagine design and intent however what we find is that in many many species evolution has "designed" non reproducing elements. Parts of the species that do not reproduce.
HOW it does this differs from species to species. It makes some sterile, asexual and more. Who is to say that directing the normal sexual drive into a non reproducing outlet (such as towards ones own sex) is not just as valid a methodology for achieving that?
I wouldn't call it a "Design" but there's certainly a 'standard' from which being 'gay' deviates from. It is called being attracted to the opposite sex. man & woman. that is indeed the standard. would you not agree?
So to deviate from that 'standard' can be arguably called a 'defect'. Do keep in mind, that i'm not saying that the defect is necessarily bad, or that it does not have potentially positive applications.....i also am not saying anything about the morality or the personality of gay people. AND, as i mentioned, i could be wrong about the idea of 'gay' being a 'genetic defect', but as i said, that genetic deviation from the norm, to me seems like a defect more than anything else, and i would be interested in any genetic studies, etc. that can shed more light on this...
I wouldn't call it a "Design" but there's certainly a 'standard' from which being 'gay' deviates from. It is called being attracted to the opposite sex. man & woman. that is indeed the standard. would you not agree?
So to deviate from that 'standard' can be arguably called a 'defect'. Do keep in mind, that i'm not saying that the defect is necessarily bad, or that it does not have potentially positive applications.....i also am not saying anything about the morality or the personality of gay people. AND, as i mentioned, i could be wrong about the idea of 'gay' being a 'genetic defect', but as i said, that genetic deviation from the norm, to me seems like a defect more than anything else, and i would be interested in any genetic studies, etc. that can shed more light on this...
I think that perhaps the problem here is semantics. Might I suggest searching for a less loaded term? "Defect" has some pretty negative baggage associated with it.
Also, considering the fact that straight, gay, and even bi can be found all over the animal kingdom, what is "standard" and what is a "deviation" becomes fuzzier and fuzzier as we learn more about this stuff.
I wouldn't call it a "Design" but there's certainly a 'standard' from which being 'gay' deviates from.
Again no, for the same reasons I already gave in the last post. There is no standards or designs or any of that here. It just is what it is. What you are appealing to here is majority more than anything else. The majority of our species is reproducing. More than that you can not really say.
Again however if we do not limit our view to just our own species we find that we are just one point on a continuum. Some species reproduce more than ours. Some less. Some species such as insect and mammal hive species in fact have vastly less reproducing elements than those that do not.
It is too easy to narrow ones view to one statistic in the diversity of life and then view everything else as conforming or deviating from that statistic. To that narrow view it appears correct to do so too. However when one has the bigger picture of the true diversity of life one can see just how bankrupt such a view is.
I think that perhaps the problem here is semantics. Might I suggest searching for a less loaded term? "Defect" has some pretty negative baggage associated with it.
Also, considering the fact that straight, gay, and even bi can be found all over the animal kingdom, what is "standard" and what is a "deviation" becomes fuzzier and fuzzier as we learn more about this stuff.
I don't think so. I'm not here to offend, and i don't think people are seeing it that way necessarily.
As i've said before, yes, there is straight/gay/bi found all over the animal kingdom....but so is missing limbs at birth, defects as far as being born without eyes, etc. These are defects in the genome that's passed from the parents (or further out ancestors), and i don't see them any differently than the way i 'think' being born gay comes about.
Again no, for the same reasons I already gave in the last post. There is no standards or designs or any of that here. It just is what it is. What you are appealing to here is majority more than anything else. The majority of our species is reproducing. More than that you can not really say.
Again however if we do not limit our view to just our own species we find that we are just one point on a continuum. Some species reproduce more than ours. Some less. Some species such as insect and mammal hive species in fact have vastly less reproducing elements than those that do not.
It is too easy to narrow ones view to one statistic in the diversity of life and then view everything else as conforming or deviating from that statistic. To that narrow view it appears correct to do so too. However when one has the bigger picture of the true diversity of life one can see just how bankrupt such a view is.
I think the 'majority' often sets the 'standard'. It is 'standard' to have two eyes when you're born (if you're a human at least). If you're born with 3, it can be said that you are deviating from the 'standard' and that your condition (however wonderful and useful it may prove to be) can be argued as a defect. The 'standard' can be argued to be two opposite sexes that are able to reproduce, and therefore continue to exist...if a very small percentage of that species diverts from that path, and instead exists while unable or unwilling or without the desire to reproduce and continue passing on the genes, one could make the 'genome defect' argument.
I see being gay simply in the same lines as my example above. I'm not certain about the actual stats....but i'd argue that the percentage of non-gays in the human (and other animal species perhaps) is close to 95% if not more. that majority can be argued to set a 'standard' by which any deviation can be measured against, in my opinion.
In which case you are just playing linguistics rather than facts. If you want to make "majority" and "standard" synonymous in this fashion then fair enough, but it clouds rather than illuminates the issue. Especially as I said when you take into account that in the great picture of all life you will probably find that those that reproduce are not as much in the "majority" as you might expect as you refer to the percentages above. Insects make up a vast number of creatures on this planet and in hive insects and some hive mammals the % of them that actually partake in reproduction is relatively minute.
Another error possibly inferrable in your post is to think that reproducing and successfully "passing on genes" into the next generation are 1:1 synonymous. A create can ensure the successful passage of genes into the next generation without ever reproducing itself. If this were not so, hive animals for one would never have evolved.
The only real "standard" we can refer to without playing simple linguistic games or appeals to the majority is that genes reproduce and work to try and survive in successive generations. How they do so is just detail. Being a non reproducing element of a species, whether a gay human or a sterile worker ant does not in any way deviate from that standard.
In which case you are just playing linguistics rather than facts. If you want to make "majority" and "standard" synonymous in this fashion then fair enough, but it clouds rather than illuminates the issue. Especially as I said when you take into account that in the great picture of all life you will probably find that those that reproduce are not as much in the "majority" as you might expect as you refer to the percentages above. Insects make up a vast number of creatures on this planet and in hive insects and some hive mammals the % of them that actually partake in reproduction is relatively minute.
Another error possibly inferrable in your post is to think that reproducing and successfully "passing on genes" into the next generation are 1:1 synonymous. A create can ensure the successful passage of genes into the next generation without ever reproducing itself. If this were not so, hive animals for one would never have evolved.
Your point about insects may be valid, as far as their rate of reproduction, but i challenge you to look at the percentage of their gay specimens to the straight specimens. I would think that the rate will be lower as well.
The second point you brought up is very interesting and it got me thinking. You are right in that 'reproducing' and 'passing on genes' aren't synonymous. however, the 'gay' specie that doesn't reproduce, has an almost zero chance of 'passing on genes' (at least in most cases).
As far as Parthenogenesis which is producing an offspring from an unfertilized egg (which i think is what you were talking about), that's in my opinion very different than the 'gay' we're talking about. the 'gay' we're referring to can not or will not reproduce, whereas the species you're referring to do in fact reproduce, they just have a different way of doing so. (that is in my opinion a lot closer to a 'variation' than a 'defect')
i challenge you to look at the percentage of their gay specimens to the straight specimens.
My point is, however, not about "gay" specimens per se. My point is that it is very much normal in nature for animals and species to contain "non reproducing elements". It differs wildly across species how this is achieved. Some are created sterile like worker ants. Some are created with no interest in reproduction even though they are capable... not responding to certain chemicals etc to remove their reproductive drive. Others are killed if they try to reproduce.
We could go on listing the ways nature achieves this. The point I am making is simple: Who is to say that homosexuality (observed in more than just humans btw) is not just another perfectly valid way to achieve the same thing? The redirection of the reproductive urge to a non reproducing outlet.... the same sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinking-man
The second point you brought up is very interesting and it got me thinking. You are right in that 'reproducing' and 'passing on genes' aren't synonymous. however, the 'gay' specie that doesn't reproduce, has an almost zero chance of 'passing on genes'
Not at all and I predicted this point from you when I was alluding to how one can pass on ones Genes without ever reproducing. What I meant by this was nothing to do with Parthenogenesis but everything to do with taking a genes eye view of things.
In many species the non reproducing elements of the species ensure the success of their own genes.... without reproducing themselves.... by helping towards the success of their siblings which ALSO contain many of the same genes. In other words by reproducing you pass on your genes, but by not reproducing and assisting your siblings in passing on their genes you are... effectively.... also helping pass on your own.
So no... it is simply wrong to assume that gay elements will not pass on their genes. A gay uncle or aunt will in fact have more resources available... due to not having children of their own.... to help assist their niece or nephew and their own siblings... thus increasing the reproductive strengths of those elements.
The mistake in other words is to take an individual view of evolution and successful gene transfer. Take instead the genes eye view and realise that a gene can ensure its success in later generations vicariously just as well as directly. It is genes that "want" to pass themselves on into later generations not individuals and many genes have evolved to do so vicariously by helping the success of copies of themselves in the bodies of others. Helpful is to forget that genes are packed up in individuals at all, and to imagine them all together in one massive pool which we call the species.
This is how hive species for example could even evolve in the first place. How, for example, do genes for being a non reproducing worker ant pass down the generations if the workers never reproduce? The answer is because the reproducing elements ALSO contain these genes and the workers help THEM to pass it on.
My point is, however, not about "gay" specimens per se. My point is that it is very much normal in nature for animals and species to contain "non reproducing elements". It differs wildly across species how this is achieved. Some are created sterile like worker ants. Some are created with no interest in reproduction even though they are capable... not responding to certain chemicals etc to remove their reproductive drive. Others are killed if they try to reproduce.
Very interesting. I didn't know that. can you give examples by name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Not at all and I predicted this point from you when I was alluding to how one can pass on ones Genes without ever reproducing. What I meant by this was nothing to do with Parthenogenesis but everything to do with taking a genes eye view of things.
In many species the non reproducing elements of the species ensure the success of their own genes.... without reproducing themselves.... by helping towards the success of their siblings which ALSO contain many of the same genes. In other words by reproducing you pass on your genes, but by not reproducing and assisting your siblings in passing on their genes you are... effectively.... also helping pass on your own.
So no... it is simply wrong to assume that gay elements will not pass on their genes. A gay uncle or aunt will in fact have more resources available... due to not having children of their own.... to help assist their niece or nephew and their own siblings... thus increasing the reproductive strengths of those elements.
The mistake in other words is to take an individual view of evolution and successful gene transfer. Take instead the genes eye view and realise that a gene can ensure its success in later generations vicariously just as well as directly. It is genes that "want" to pass themselves on into later generations not individuals and many genes have evolved to do so vicariously by helping the success of copies of themselves in the bodies of others. Helpful is to forget that genes are packed up in individuals at all, and to imagine them all together in one massive pool which we call the species.
This is how hive species for example could even evolve in the first place. How, for example, do genes for being a non reproducing worker ant pass down the generations if the workers never reproduce? The answer is because the reproducing elements ALSO contain these genes and the workers help THEM to pass it on.
i have to think more about this. what you describe seems to me to be fine in theory but i wonder if it actually works this way. i think the examples you're going to give me above will help in my thinking/research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
