Homosexual sex in animals of all kinds - including men Options

[RayK]

Mine was a general statement only of what I know to be true from personal experience and thought and not at all directed toward any particular comment other than Sophia's excellent one. Was there something about it or the previous line of discussion that indicated otherwise? In addition, since there is nothing in my statement suggesting genetic or biological necessity (quite the opposite), I'm confused by your reference to them.

You general statement seemed to pronounce that you were in agreement with Sophia's comments and her comments were quite specific so I took that you were in agreement with her on all levels.

On a side note, I do not understand how someone of the homosexual orientation should have a further understanding of their sexual orientation than a heterosexual.

[Arnold]

As I said before, evolution would come to a stop if their were no random changes or variety in offspring, so that accounts for those events that don't contribute to the gene pool.

Random changes happen that is for certain and up to this point it is natural selection that drives what is favored or not. But that which exist long-term must have a positive toward the prolonging of our genes as they are the fundamental aspect of our bodies which are carried into our progeny, into the future. So, please explain how homosexual activity works toward the benefit of the gene. You see it is not the individual nor the species that is the key evolutionary entity it is the gene and even if there was a gene for homosexuality it would have died off long ago, not been selected by nature, when the gene that mutated into it was never passed on. Just like those entities that did not carry a gene for creating large amounts of fat cells, they did not survive the starvation periods that fill man's history and hence why humans are very efficient at storing fat and those that were not died off.

Well there is more to a species than what is immediately useful to it's survival. For example, the wings on an ostrich no longer allow it to fly, yet they persist with wing attributes. There must be a reason for eliminating certain factors from the gene pool - such as death before breeding. It seems to me, that variations in sexual attraction contain no such reason for it's elimination - unless the assumption is that only those who are actually homosexual have the gene, and no homosexuals have offspring.

Not all genes get expressed, from what I gather, and other factors may be needed to trigger them. Thus there may be a genetic predisposition rather than a certainty in outcome. There is enough procreation to allow humans to survive and still carry the traits of homosexuality, and I see no compelling evolutionary reason to eliminate those who do for the reasons stated.
It may be that genetics alone is not enough to influence sexual preference. Although it is not necessarily sufficient cause, it may be essential to the cause.

[RayK]

Well there is more to a species than what is immediately useful to it's survival. For example, the wings on an ostrich no longer allow it to fly, yet they persist with wing attributes. There must be a reason for eliminating certain factors from the gene pool - such as death before breeding. It seems to me, that variations in sexual attraction contain no such reason for it's elimination - unless the assumption is that only those who are actually homosexual have the gene, and no homosexuals have offspring.

Not all genes get expressed, from what I gather, and other factors may be needed to trigger them. Thus there may be a genetic predisposition rather than a certainty in outcome. There is enough procreation to allow humans to survive and still carry the traits of homosexuality, and I see no compelling evolutionary reason to eliminate those who do for the reasons stated.
It may be that genetics alone is not enough to influence sexual preference. Although it is not necessarily sufficient cause, it may be essential to the cause.

As I mentioned earlier, your example(s) could be showing that there has not been enough of a time lapse to have gotten rid of a certain physical genetic factors that are no longer beneficial. Our last closet relative is a chimpanzee which man stepped away from about 7 million years ago, do we now look like a chimpanzee? Physical traits do not just disappear overnight and then one evolves into to something else with the next progeny, the changes take hundreds of thousands of years and multiple mutations.

But you are still missing my point, because I do not think that there is such a thing as a "homosexual gene" and think you give way to much power to the gene. Once again, genes only set the fundamental orginization of the brain and almost all of the rest of one's neuronal growth that leads to the establishment of the estimated 10 trillion synaptic connections is guided by one's individual experiences. I have continously given examples of studies that demonstrate this and we can see it in everyday life, but the examples either are being overlooked or not understood.

[Vespasiano]

On a side note, I do not understand how someone of the homosexual orientation should have a further understanding of their sexual orientation than a heterosexual.

What a peculiar formulation! Be that as it may, the answer to your question as posed is "YES", if the homosexual wishes to live, to be happy and to function wholly without shame among people who view heterosexuality as the "normal" and/or who view his homosexuality as a "problem" to be solved or as an "afllifction" resulting from choices open to alteration and change in the manner of "alcoholics, excessive drug users[s], rapist, murderers, sex addicts, [and ] schizophrenics."

I suspect the question you were really asksing is, in fact: Does an understanding of homosexuality require one to be a homosexual? The answer to that particular question is a resounding "NO". Any such understanding, however, whether one is heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, does require one to hold Reality as the only standard of evaluation.

[~Sophia~]

Once again, genes only set the fundamental orginization of the brain and almost all of the rest of one's neuronal growth that leads to the establishment of the estimated 10 trillion synaptic connections is guided by one's individual experiences.

Can you please provide the source of this information?

Last time I checked most of the brain development occurs until the age of seven. Later changes are not drastic. But I will take the time to read your source.

[RayK]

I suspect the question you were really asksing is, in fact: Does an understanding of homosexuality require one to be a homosexual? The answer to that particular question is a resounding "NO". Any such understanding, however, whether one is heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, does require one to hold Reality as the only standard of evaluation.

The question I was really asking was the question I asked. Every time a homosexual puts up a reason about why they are the way they are it seems that we are supposed to give it more consideration then the facts of reality and our own understanding (homosexual or not) of why we are the way we are. I am saying that it should not be that way nor do I obviously agree with it and hence why I do hold reality as my standard of evaluation.

I also did not state that homosexuals should be considered in the same way morally as the other people that I mentioned. I used them to show that even their mental/psychological traits can and have been changed. So, if a person was really set in their ways at such a young age as you and others seem to think then there should be no know people that have changed their mental make-up and hence we as a society are wasting an immense amount of time in the psychologist chair.

[RayK]

Once again, genes only set the fundamental orginization of the brain and almost all of the rest of one's neuronal growth that leads to the establishment of the estimated 10 trillion synaptic connections is guided by one's individual experiences.

Can you please provide the source of this information?

Last time I checked most of the brain development occurs until the age of seven. Later changes are not drastic. But I will take the time to read your source.

Sure and a little more.

Jacob, B., Schall, M., and Scheibel, A. B., A quantitative dendritic analysis of Wernicke's area in humans: II, Gender, hemispheric, and evnironmental factors, Journal Comparative Neurology, 1993, 327, 97-111.

Kobl, B., Forgie, M., Gibb, R., Gorny, G., Rowntree, S., Age experience and the changing brain, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

Breedlove, M., Sex on the brain, Nature, 23 October, 1997.

Schwartz, J. M., et al., Systematic changes in cerebral glucose metabolic rate after successful behavior modification treatment of obsessive-complusive disorder, Archives of General Psychiatry, 1996, 53, 109-113.

Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., and Wallace, C. S., Experience and brain development, Child Development, 1987, 58, 539-559.

Robinson, T. E., and Kolb, B., Persistent structural modification in nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex neurons produced by prior experience with amphetamine, The Journal of Neuroscience, 1997, 17, 8491-8497.

Diamond, M. C., Enriching Heredity: The Impact of the Environment on the Anatomy of the Brain (New York: The Free Press, 1988).


This is just a glimpse into the totality of research articles and books that I have read on this one subject and I have read multiple thousands on so many other subjects.

[~Sophia~]

As I am very limited in my free time lately, could you please narrow your list to two best relevant sources? Thank you.

[RayK]

As I am very limited in my free time lately, could you please narrow your list to two best relevant sources? Thank you.

Kobl, B., Forgie, M., Gibb, R., Gorny, G., Rowntree, S., Age experience and the changing brain, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews.

Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., and Wallace, C. S., Experience and brain development, Child Development, 1987, 58, 539-559.

[RayK]

I would like to add that I have been reading for almost as long as I can remember and it is the accumulation of that reading along with my allegiance to reality that has guided me in the formulation of my conclusions. So, besides Ayn Rand's writings it is very difficult to determine which one writer has written the most "relevant" thing that I have read as they are all tied together. But I hope you find my list from above useful.

[B. Royce]

For your consideration:

Man is the first and only species to break away from evolution. He is not determined by genes to reproduce. He is thus the first species capable of destroying himself. The species will continue as long as 1) there are enough males and females who produce children, and 2) enough of these choose to live predominantly by reason. But to any one individual it should not be of any personal importance that more members of the race are born; it should only be important to him that his loved ones continue in a civilized world. (Don't spread semen, spread reason!)

Homosexuals have been criticized for being selfish in not caring about the human race. They are asked, "What if everyone was like you?"(as if any one person's choice determined someone else's choice). But no one should have sex for the purpose of furthering the race. Sex is a celebration of love of one's life, and there is no gene that can make you love it. Which is why sexual activity greatly declines, or ceases altogether, in those who are depressed.

[rtg24]

Man is the first and only species to break away from evolution. He is not determined by genes to reproduce. He is thus the first species capable of destroying himself. The species will continue as long as 1) there are enough males and females who produce children, and 2) enough of these choose to live predominantly by reason. But to any one individual it should not be of any personal importance that more members of the race are born; it should only be important to him that his loved ones continue in a civilized world. (Don't spread semen, spread reason!).

But actually, evolution takes care of this as well. Reason-based societies, such as post-Enlightenment Europe and the independent USA thrive over time, whilst societies based on self-destructive philosophies, such as the USSR, collapse onto themselves, its inhabitants both starved and unwilling to reproduce (there is a terrible demographic crisis in Russia, which is not helped by the extremely xenophobic Russian official position).

Some "species" (or "country business models") actually do adapt, such as China's communism after DXP.

So my view is that reason - or choice - is also subject to evolution. And ultimately, we will evolve towards a more rational species simply because reason is the best "business model" or "set of genes" in the philosophical battleground for survival.

[B. Royce]

Man is the first and only species to break away from evolution. He is not determined by genes to reproduce. He is thus the first species capable of destroying himself. The species will continue as long as 1) there are enough males and females who produce children, and 2) enough of these choose to live predominantly by reason. But to any one individual it should not be of any personal importance that more members of the race are born; it should only be important to him that his loved ones continue in a civilized world. (Don't spread semen, spread reason!).

But actually, evolution takes care of this as well. Reason-based societies, such as post-Enlightenment Europe and the independent USA thrive over time, whilst societies based on self-destructive philosophies, such as the USSR, collapse onto themselves, its inhabitants both starved and unwilling to reproduce (there is a terrible demographic crisis in Russia, which is not helped by the extremely xenophobic Russian official position).

Some "species" (or "country business models") actually do adapt, such as China's communism after DXP.

So my view is that reason - or choice - is also subject to evolution. And ultimately, we will evolve towards a more rational species simply because reason is the best "business model" or "set of genes" in the philosophical battleground for survival.

Sorry, but that's not evolution. Whether or not rational ideas spread is strictly, and will always be, a matter of choice.