Why so few homosexuals?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That isn't the question I am addressing. Rather, I am addressing the questions 1) why there are so few homosexuals in the population, and 2) Is homosexuality abnormal. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was referring to your first post as the foundational question as explained and expounded upon by later posts.

On 3/18/2017 at 10:39 PM, wenglund said:

At issue is whether homosexuality is normal, natural, healthy, and moral.

Normal, I don't think anyone will argue with your notion that it is not normal when it is such a small percentage of the population.  It's simply a question of numbers.

Healthy -- yes, you could make a great argument for it being healthy physically.  The venereal disease argument is blunted when you compare that to any heterosexual who engages in casual sex.  I believe the more powerful argument is if it is emotionally or mentally healthy.

Moral -- this is solely a religious question.  And that is and should always be NO!

Natural -- This is where I thought the bulk of the discussion was focusing specifically from a natural selection perspective.  To wit:

On 3/20/2017 at 11:57 AM, wenglund said:

Actually, "making babies" serves the fundamental function or purpose or design of nature--i.e. survival and perpetuation of the species and survival of the fittest. In other words, the purpose in nature is the same as the purpose/plan in the gospel: evolve/progress.

On 3/20/2017 at 0:03 PM, wenglund said:

My focus will be on reproduction rather than mating.because of its fundamental and critical important to the natural scheme of things. 

On 3/20/2017 at 4:28 PM, wenglund said:

generally speaking, nature is structured to survive and evolve--such is the fundamental order, function, purpose of living things?I ask because my arguments presuppose this to be true.

On 3/20/2017 at 5:13 PM, MrShorty said:

It might depend on how you establish this foundation, but I'm not sure it is a universal belief. Evolution's main "purpose" (personifying again) is to make more babies. To the extent that survival contributes to making more babies, then, yes, survival is good. Perhaps the reason that the menopause discussion could be interesting is that this discussion talks about the pressure to get out of the system once you are done making babies.

On 3/21/2017 at 0:25 AM, wenglund said:

The first argues persuasively that, in terms of evolution, "survival of the species" is a myth.
The other paper argues persuasively that it is a misconception that evolution results in progress, and that organisms are always getting better through evolution.

On 3/21/2017 at 11:23 AM, wenglund said:

This is the distilled essence of my survival of the species and fittest arguments.

On 3/21/2017 at 0:01 PM, wenglund said:

If so, does the instinct to survive extend beyond self-preservation to preservation of offspring, families, groups, and even species? And, most important, in addition to fight-flight, does survival instinct also include the inclination to reproduce? Or, is that a separate "instinct"?

So, that is what I addressed.  And I only went half way through this discussion for these quotes.  For one who was not addressing natural selection, you certainly spent a lot of time on it.

And I specifically offered two explanations of why there are so few in the population that actually argue that homosexuality is superior.  Not that I agree with that conclusion.  But they are logical, scientifically sound arguments.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Guest

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm still a little shaky on the distinction, but it probably doesn't matter as long as you are clear on the distinction.

As suggested, I think an interesting counter example to this are the social insects, where you have multiple (a majority of) individuals who are asexual or otherwise not in the breeding pool. Often, the breeding individuals are maladapted in their own way (too large to move, to feed or defend themselves).

In principle, you are correct to a point. As long as the "breeders" within the species, or even the group/hive, are reproducing enough to offset the number of deaths and maintain or grow the population as needed, they will survive. If they don't, they won't. However, on an individual level, the lineage of the non-breeders becomes extinct.

The comparison breaks down somewhat further for both the reproductive and the evolution arguments since human females do not lay several thousand eggs per day, and not all human males and females are relatively alike--as with the worker and queen bees, not to mention the vast difference (in complexity) between human and insect social systems. ;).

In other words, while homosexuality in humans is proportionately small enough not to pose a threat, reproductively, to the species, it does pose a threat to the survival of the homosexual community and to their personal lineages. But, for my purposes, that puts the cart before the horse, or the chicken before the egg. My arguments are only intended to explain the small population sizes and to evince the abnormality of homosexuality. On those terms, I don't see how your example applies or how it counter my conclusions..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I was referring to your first post as the foundational question as explained and expounded upon by later posts.

Normal, I don't think anyone will argue with your notion that it is not normal when it is such a small percentage of the population.  It's simply a question of numbers.

Healthy -- yes, you could make a great argument for it being healthy physically.  The venereal disease argument is blunted when you compare that to any heterosexual who engages in casual sex.  I believe the more powerful argument is if it is emotionally or mentally healthy.

Moral -- this is solely a religious question.  And that is and should always be NO!

Natural -- This is where I thought the bulk of the discussion was focusing specifically from a natural selection perspective.  To wit:

So, that is what I addressed.  And I only went half way through this discussion for these quotes.  For one who was not addressing natural selection, you certainly spent a lot of time on it.

And I specifically offered two explanations of why there are so few in the population that actually argue that homosexuality is superior.  Not that I agree with that conclusion.  But they are logical, scientifically sound arguments.

I apologize for the confusion. I am in the process of addressing each of the components (normal, natural, healthy, and moral) of my overall argument somewhat separately, all with the intent of answering the topic of the thread: "Why so few homosexuals?". I began with the uncontroversial proposition that homosexuality is not normal, but left open the more controversial question of abnormality to be addressed while arguing the other components.  I am in the process now of arguing from nature, or in other words, addressing whether homosexuality is "natural"--meaning, in accordance with the laws and order of nature, with the intent of showing that it is not, and that this explains, in part, why there are so few homosexuals. It also speaks to the issue of abnormality as promised.

Does this clear things up?

[edit: I also need to more carefully consider your "superiority" argument to see how or whether it counters what I am arguing. And, while I made earlier references to natural selection, those points didn't factor much into the informal arguments I am not making.]]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 23, 2017 by wenglund

[Mike]

On 3/20/2017 at 11:03 AM, wenglund said:

My focus will be on reproduction rather than mating.because of its fundamental and critical important to the natural scheme of things. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Consider the following. There are only two types of reproduction, i.e. sexual and asexual. In this sense the word homosexual is something of a misnomer because it doesn't address reproduction--it addresses a behavior. There is no such thing (it goes without saying) as homosexual reproduction even though a gay man can reproduce and a lesbian can reproduce. So can a rapist, a zoophile, or any other person with a behavior. But we don't think of any of those behaviors as a form of reproduction from an evolutionary or biological paradigm even though they are known or hypothesized to have genetic basis. There are many more genetic behaviors, and many of those involve sex organs, but none of them have to do with reproduction. And we don't typically look to Evolution nor to its mechanisms to explain the relative percent of the population that practices them, nor why the behaviors haven't died out. This is another reason I think your pursuit is destined not to yield the results you seek.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Mike

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Let me seek to clarify some of what I've said. Keep in mind, too, that personification is merely a means of getting a point across from one person to another person. But if it muddies the conversation I'll avoid it.  Speaking of laws is also related to personification, however, because persons make laws, Nature doesn't. So I'll be happy to simply talk about how things work (oops, if not personification, then equivocation may easily creep in even with a word like "work").  

By way of clarification about personification as well as the laws of nature. Earlier in the thread I was criticized for "personifying" in assuming a purpose or goal or intent in nature. I accepted the criticism and have attempted to discuss things as if nature were entirely mindless and without will.  I brought it up with you as a way of keeping the discussion on that plane, though personally I don't have a problem with personifying otherwise.

Accordingly, when I posit the laws of nature, I am not speaking to who "makes" them, but rather in rational or scientific observation of how nature operate. Think of it like the laws of physics. We don't speak of physical nature as "making" the law of gravity. Rather, we simply observe gravity and induce the law.  Does that help?

I apologize if my communications are confusing. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

Consider the following. There are only two types of reproduction, i.e. sexual and asexual. In this sense the word homosexual is something of a misnomer because it doesn't address reproduction--it addresses a behavior. There is no such thing (it goes without saying) as homosexual reproduction even though a gay man can reproduce and a lesbian can reproduce. So can a rapist, a zoophile, or any other person with a behavior. But we don't think of any of those behaviors as a form of reproduction from an evolutionary or biological paradigm even though they are known or hypothesized to have genetic basis. There are many more genetic behaviors, and many of those involve sex organs, but none of them have to do with reproduction. And we don't typically look to Evolution nor to its mechanisms to explain the relative percent of the population that practices them, nor why the behaviors haven't died out. This is another reason I think your pursuit is destined not to yield the results you seek.

Ahhh, you are spilling some of the wind from the sails of my next argument. We'll see if I am still able to convincingly tack forward. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I am in the process now of arguing from nature, or in other words, addressing whether homosexuality is "natural"--meaning, in accordance with the laws and order of nature,

What exactly is your definition of the laws of nature?  And who else shares that definition?  Without a clear definition that is widely accepted, it is difficult to make a point as what you seem to be making.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What exactly is your definition of the laws of nature?  And who else shares that definition?  Without a clear definition that is widely accepted, it is difficult to make a point as what you seem to be making.

A worthwhile clarification. I frankly do not understand the word "natural" as used by e.g. Spencer W. Kimball. Maybe it's something like Carole King feeling like a "natural woman"? 

 

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

In principle, you are correct to a point. As long as the "breeders" within the species, or even the group/hive, are reproducing enough to offset the number of deaths and maintain or grow the population as needed, they will survive. If they don't, they won't. However, on an individual level, the lineage of the non-breeders becomes extinct.

The comparison breaks down somewhat further for both the reproductive and the evolution arguments since human females do not lay several thousand eggs per day, and not all human males and females are relatively alike--as with the worker and queen bees, not to mention the vast difference (in complexity) between human and insect social systems. ;).

In other words, while homosexuality in humans is proportionately small enough not to pose a threat, reproductively, to the species, it does pose a threat to the survival of the homosexual community and to their personal lineages. But, for my purposes, that puts the cart before the horse, or the chicken before the egg. My arguments are only intended to explain the small population sizes and to evince the abnormality of homosexuality. On those terms, I don't see how your example applies or how it counter my conclusions..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was just an example of how evolution would not only tolerate, but might even encourage, some individuals to be non-breeders within a population. If you don't think it applies, then it doesn't apply.

In what way does homosexuality pose a threat to the survival of the homosexual community? Certainly, the community itself does not propogate the trait into the next generation, but the trait seems to arise from heterosexual "carriers" in some way - perhaps in a similar way to how other deleterious recessive genes can be hidden in the population. This is where the examples of CF or other genes that seem like they should go extinct but don't may apply.

 

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was referring to your first post as the foundational question as explained and expounded upon by later posts.

Normal, I don't think anyone will argue with your notion that it is not normal when it is such a small percentage of the population.  It's simply a question of numbers.

Healthy -- yes, you could make a great argument for it being healthy physically.  The venereal disease argument is blunted when you compare that to any heterosexual who engages in casual sex.  I believe the more powerful argument is if it is emotionally or mentally healthy.

Moral -- this is solely a religious question.  And that is and should always be NO!

Natural -- This is where I thought the bulk of the discussion was focusing specifically from a natural selection perspective.  To wit:

So, that is what I addressed.  And I only went half way through this discussion for these quotes.  For one who was not addressing natural selection, you certainly spent a lot of time on it.

And I specifically offered two explanations of why there are so few in the population that actually argue that homosexuality is superior.  Not that I agree with that conclusion.  But they are logical, scientifically sound arguments.

On second thought, you evidently put in some decent thought on this and paid me the respect of  reading what I said. That deserves more than just what may appear to be, but wasn't intended as a flippant dismissal. And I will do so, though I am going to have to mull your's and other participants comments over for awhile.

Given all the pushback from you and Mike and Volt and Mr.Shorty and others, it appears that I may be approaching the nature issue a bit over- simplistically. Clearly, my arguments aren't resonating, and I need to up my game. I plan to do so, but I can't promise satisfactory result. As may be surmised, I  haven't plumbed the depths of biology, and so my learning curve is quite steep at the moment. Please be patient while I try and catch up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

A worthwhile clarification. I frankly do not understand the word "natural" as used by e.g. Spencer W. Kimball. Maybe it's something like Carole King feeling like a "natural woman"? 

That made me smile. And, the point is not lost on me.

Undoubted, I made the mistake of assuming that the term "laws of nature" was self explanatory, and that likening them to the laws of physics would have provided sufficient clarification (or I could have added the laws of economics, like suply and demand). However, it is evident that I will have to do some scholastic defining for my scholastically minded  interlocutors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 24, 2017 by wenglund

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What exactly is your definition of the laws of nature?  And who else shares that definition?  Without a clear definition that is widely accepted, it is difficult to make a point as what you seem to be making.

I don't know if the Encyclopedia Britannica may be indicative of wide acceptance, but this definition suits my purpose: " Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right or justice supposedly derived from nature.) "

in terms of metaphysics, and for the purposes of this discussion, I take the Regulatory Theory view of Laws of Nature, which "are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is." (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

in terms of metaphysics, and for the purposes of this discussion, I take the Regulatory Theory view of Laws of Nature, which "are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is."

While I agree this would be a widely accepted definition, I'm afraid that definition is too close to the definition of "normal" to be of much use in this discussion.  We'd just be repeating ourselves.  I have a hunch, though, that your meaning when you began this thread was something else.  Can you put it in your own words?

But again, looking at it in a more broad context, this definition would actually say that homosexuality IS part of the Laws of Nature.  So, again, this line of logic actually defeats your intent.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know why it's complicated. It seems pretty clear what Pres. Kimball meant. Don't put gasoline in your radiator.

[wenglund]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If I understand correctly, the fundamental question here (being based on natural selection and inheritance) would be:

Simple.  The "trait" of SSA is not a single trait.  It is an amalgam of multiple traits.  Each of these individual traits has some way of being positively selected for on their own or in partial combinations.  But when they all combine into one person, they still gain the positive selection traits, but also result in homosexuality which prevents that complete combination from being propagated.

Or one could simply say that it is an anomaly or mutation that keeps popping up in 2% to 4% of the population.  This is a less plausible explanation since anomalies or mutations tend not to be so common.  And when they in and of themselves provide no way to propagate throughout the gene pool, they tend to disappear.  But when such a trait is suppressed in its presentation, the gene gets propagated anyway.  So, that propagation will produce additional offspring according to the other traits which would be selected for or against. IOW, if a gay man hides or suppresses his sexuality and tries to behave like heterosexuals...

This then opens the door to saying that homosexuals who are willing to engage in heterosexual behavior are actually superior to heterosexuals in general.  So, when you go down this road, it ends up defeating the argument you were going for.

At first blush, this sounds plausible. However, to test it more critically it would help to learn at least two things. First, what are the traits that make up the amalgam of human homosexuality? And, second, what measurement is being used to determine "superiority"? It can't be the capacity to reproduce since sexual attraction in human homosexuality is non-reproductive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

At first blush, this sounds plausible. However, to test it more critically it would help to learn at least two things. First, what are the traits that make up the amalgam of human homosexuality? And, second, what measurement is being used to determine "superiority"? It can't be the capacity to reproduce since sexual attraction in human homosexuality is non-reproductive.

This is the danger of oversimplification. It is crystal clear that homosexuality is not a single gene defect (or trait), like diabetes or a widow's peak. But it is also quite clear that there is an inherited component, a genetic predisposition of some sort. Both the pro-homosexuality and the anti-homosexuality camps have shown a propensity to use arguments from either extreme when it seems expedient. This has been the thrust of my attempts to counsel you in this thread, that you avoid such oversimplifications. They will weaken and ultimately torpedo your arguments.

In my opinion, homosexuality is best thought of as a behavioral trait with some genetic components, acquired through social conditioning, predisposition, and opportunity. If you see homosexuality as non-sinful and perfectly consonant with a healthy society, and if you are a member of a modern western society that values individual liberty and freedom of expression, then obviously you are going to champion all natural expression of homosexuality. You probably won't even be too concerned if there is some homosexual recruitment going on, because so what? It's all good.

On the other hand, if you see homosexuality as a sinful practice and an erosion of the very core of our society's fabric, then you will preach vociferously against it and try to put (or keep) laws in place to isolate the core of society, including impressionable children, from homosexual influence.

In entering into dialog on this topic, you are dealing with people of the first type. Arguments about homosexuality being "unnatural" will, at best, fall on deaf ears, and may instead cost you all credibility. I believe that the best, and perhaps only, fruitful avenue to pursue is to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy for society, and that we depend on the male-female bond created by marriage as the fundamental basis for raising children and for societal operation.

This will be a hard sell for those who insist on viewing things from a humanist and irreligious perspective, but not all such people are close-minded. If there is convincing evidence of the position that the acceptance and promulgation of homosexuality is deleterious to society -- and I believe there is such evidence -- the honest and open-minded may be convinced. That is the best we can hope for, since the dishonest and close-minded are beyond reach. Any other approach to the topic in conversation with the irreligious is likely to be a dead end.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, wenglund said:

At first blush, this sounds plausible. However, to test it more critically it would help to learn at least two things. First, what are the traits that make up the amalgam of human homosexuality? And, second, what measurement is being used to determine "superiority"? It can't be the capacity to reproduce since sexual attraction in human homosexuality is non-reproductive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Multiple "genes" that we take for granted (say eye color) is actually already proven to be a combination of multiple sequences.  Hence, we have people of slightly different shades of blue, green, brown, etc. eyes.  

The same would logically apply to homosexuality.  It is pretty clear from the dozen or more homosexuals I've known personally that they vary in their level of attraction to the same sex.  Some were so flaming from the get go that there was no question from childhood.  Others might have been on the fence, but being raised this way or that, they had tendencies strengthened or weakened.  What exactly those traits are, no one has done enough research to find out.  But genetic science is pretty solid that such obviously presented traits are generally a combination of lesser traits.

"Superior".  I was speaking in terms of natural selection.  If they are selected for, then they are considered superior to those without that trait. Those traits that are selected for at a greater rate per capita would be considered superior to other traits that are also selected for at a lower per capita rate.

If we assume that this one mutation (assuming that it is just a mutation and not an aggregate gene) was somehow selected for again and again and again until it made up 3% of the population even though the very nature of gene would cause it to be selected against, then there is something that is obviously considered an advantage.

IOW, a certain trait allows an individual to 

A) Survive
B) Reproduce
C) Preserve others of their species to also survive and reproduce

If the trait of homosexuality is such that it would remove itself from "B", then the same trait must be pretty strong in A & C in order for it to be attractive enough for the opposite sex to try to choose FOR it.  One must admit that the tremendous disadvantage that the lack of B affords, the same traits must also afford tremendous benefits for A & C.

So goes the logic...  But I'd echo Vort's post above that this is due to oversimplification of narrowing it down to "natural".

Conversely, I'd echo FP's post above that we need not look at anything else.  We simply have it from God that the behavior is wrong.  Nothing else matters.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Guest

[MrShorty]

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

Undoubted, I made the mistake of assuming that the term "laws of nature" was self explanatory, and that likening them to the laws of physics would have provided sufficient clarification (or I could have added the laws of economics, like suply and demand).

I think the problem with comparing the "laws of evolution" with the laws of physics is that the laws of physics (at least, the Newtonian laws that I think most of us think of when we think of laws of physics rather than the more chaotic "laws" of quantum mechanics) are very "deterministic". If I give you initial conditions (position, speed, acceleration, forces), you can predict with very good accuracy where an object will end up in the future. These are the laws that allow us to look back/forward in time thousands of years and predict planetary conjunctions, eclipses, and so on. Unless you are a Harry Seldon type, the laws of Evolution are not deterministic. They rely on probabilities and chances and distributions and statistics and so on to predict trends. They cannot predict the eye color of my son's daughter's son's son's 3rd child.

I think Carb's point is a good one. Deleterious traits can remain in the population if they contribute some kind of minor positive. I have mentioned sickle cell anemia as a fairly well established example. So far you have not really talked about or mentioned the kin selection hypothesis that your lesbian friend suggested. It is probably going to be difficult for them to demonstrate that kin selection is definitively a part of keeping homosexuality at low levels in the population. I don't think it is any easier to demonstrate that such kin selection cannot be at work to keep the homosexual trait in the population. I would expect an attempt to demonstrate the homosexuality is contrary to laws of nature to tackle this issue at some point, because this is an important part of explaining how deleterious traits can overcome the strong selective pressure to become extinct.

[Traveler]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:16 AM, prisonchaplain said:

For this time and season it's unlikely will influence secular culture much. Sadly, there is enough to do convincing God's people that homosexual practice is wrong.  The reason is that God said no. That's it.  Those believers who suffer from attraction to the same gender bear a tremendous cross. Should they choose to obey God by remaining celibate, we do well to applaud their faithfulness, and support them through prayer, fellowship and encouragement.

 

I realize and understand that we should have faith and respect for G-d.  However, I am convinced that the concept that – Because G-d said so, it is wrong.  I believe such thinking is somewhat of an affront towards almost everything I believe that a G-d of “Truth and Light” stand for.  I believe that we have an obligation, in every condition where there is question or incomplete understanding to what G-d ask of us (or others) to seek with humility and honesty – further light and knowledge.

I also realize that because of pride many think their own knowledge and understanding is better than G-d’s but even in such conditions of pride – I believe it is both a matter of shoddy perceptions of one’s own ability as well as very incomplete understanding of G-d knowledge.

I believe G-d is logical to a fault and that there are empirical reasons that connect into eternity to back up everything he declares.  Homosexuality is not a problem because G-d opposes it.  The reason (and only reason) G-d opposes homosexuality is because it is a problem for anyone caught in the wide net cast – not just for those that define themselves as homosexuals but those that rationalize that there are divine and eternal benefits for those that choose to be so influenced.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While I agree this would be a widely accepted definition, I'm afraid that definition is too close to the definition of "normal" to be of much use in this discussion.  We'd just be repeating ourselves.  I have a hunch, though, that your meaning when you began this thread was something else.  Can you put it in your own words?

But again, looking at it in a more broad context, this definition would actually say that homosexuality IS part of the Laws of Nature.  So, again, this line of logic actually defeats your intent.

How about this (I am borrowing from Merrian-Websters definition of "Law"):

The laws of nature are:  "statements about the order or relation of phenomena [in nature] that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions." (see HERE)

For example, the condition of limited lifespan makes death apparently inevitable--hence, the stated law of nature i"that all living things eventually die."  In terms of lineage, families, groups, species, etc. the ratio of life creation to deaths entail the condition of survival or perish inevitable. Thus, the law of nature "reproduce or perish."

I could go on to explain the other laws of nature that I have, or will yet purport, but the explanation for each are included in the arguments containing them, and so hopefully this will suffice.

The laws of nature I have posited seem so uncontroversial that I am amazed by the pushback. Is it the rationale that is objected to, or simply the terminology (law of nature) used to identify the rationale?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

It is crystal clear that homosexuality is not a single gene defect (or trait), like diabetes or a widow's peak. But it is also quite clear that there is an inherited component, a genetic predisposition of some sort....In my opinion, homosexuality is best thought of as a behavioral trait with some genetic components, acquired through social conditioning, predisposition, and opportunity.

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Multiple "genes" that we take for granted (say eye color) is actually already proven to be a combination of multiple sequences.  Hence, we have people of slightly different shades of blue, green, brown, etc. eyes.  The same would logically apply to homosexuality.  

I am not questioning the notions above in principle. I am simply asking for specific traits that supposedly make up the "amalgam" or "combination" that when collected together through nature and/or nurture produce homosexuality in humans.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I am not questioning the notions above in principle. I am simply asking for specific traits that supposedly make up the "amalgam" or "combination" that when collected together through nature and/or nurture produce homosexuality in humans.

If you figure that out, publish ASAP and sit back to await your Nobel Prize.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think the problem with comparing the "laws of evolution" with the laws of physics is that the laws of physics (at least, the Newtonian laws that I think most of us think of when we think of laws of physics rather than the more chaotic "laws" of quantum mechanics) are very "deterministic". If I give you initial conditions (position, speed, acceleration, forces), you can predict with very good accuracy where an object will end up in the future. These are the laws that allow us to look back/forward in time thousands of years and predict planetary conjunctions, eclipses, and so on. Unless you are a Harry Seldon type, the laws of Evolution are not deterministic. They rely on probabilities and chances and distributions and statistics and so on to predict trends. They cannot predict the eye color of my son's daughter's son's son's 3rd child.

 

The laws of nature that I have posited  are descriptive rather than proscriptive, observations of what is rather than governing principles, as well as conditional in their cause/effect. This pragmatically provides room for explanatory and predictive powers, while avoiding the controversies of both determinism and personification.

Quote

I think Carb's point is a good one. Deleterious traits can remain in the population if they contribute some kind of minor positive. I have mentioned sickle cell anemia as a fairly well established example. So far you have not really talked about or mentioned the kin selection hypothesis that your lesbian friend suggested. It is probably going to be difficult for them to demonstrate that kin selection is definitively a part of keeping homosexuality at low levels in the population. I don't think it is any easier to demonstrate that such kin selection cannot be at work to keep the homosexual trait in the population. I would expect an attempt to demonstrate the homosexuality is contrary to laws of nature to tackle this issue at some point, because this is an important part of explaining how deleterious traits can overcome the strong selective pressure to become extinct.

You may be correct. However, among other things I want to look closer at the traits of human homosexuality to see if, or how well they match up with examples of social insect oft cited in discussion such as this.

And, I am not sure the issue will factor into the arguments I have or will be making--as opposed to some of the oft-hand comments I have made. I say this because the arguments i am making are basic and general, and don't necessarily speak to the nuances of nature where the issue of selection you and others mentioned come into play. we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

If you figure that out, publish ASAP and sit back to await your Nobel Prize.

I suspect that if or when whoever figures it out will be dumped in the bag of deplorable rather than receive a Nobel or any of the other top prizes in science. My guess is that the traits don't match up well with comparisons typically posited in discussions like this (such as social insects), and may unavoidably be unflattering, and thus politically incorrect, to homosexuals. My working hypothesis is that several of the traits are some of the more undesirable drawn from either of the sexes (promiscuity, aggression, overly dramatic, petty, vain, etc.), in part because there is the lack of tempering and elevating influence that each of the human sexes have on each other. So, it is probably not best to go there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 24, 2017 by wenglund

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

The laws of nature I have posited seem so uncontroversial that I am amazed by the pushback. Is it the rationale that is objected to, or simply the terminology (law of nature) used to identify the rationale?

I won't speak for others, but I don't think it is the terminology, so it must be somewhere in the rationale. If I may summarize (over simplify??), (Even if I get this wrong, it might help you see where I am coming from at this point.) I see you trying to define two basic laws to form the basis for the argument:

Every individual in a population ought to be making his/her own babies.

Every maladaptive, heritable trait ought to be trending towards extinction.

I guess we also need a basic assumption that homosexuality is heritable (even if we don't yet begin to understand the mechanism).

Way back when I was learning how to take tests, one of the test taking strategies they talked about was, if you have a T/F question with "every, all, never, etc" in it, you only need to be able to think of one exception to the statement in order to render the entire statement false. If forced to give a binary T/F answer, I have to choose false for both statements. If allowed to give a more complete answer, I would want to answer "mostly true with exceptions". In discussions like this, the cases that follow the general rule are not that interesting. The really interesting parts of these discussions is trying to understand the exceptions.

If I understand your end goal here, then it seems to me that the argument needs to either have a better starting point (something that is universally true and not just generally true with exceptions) or it needs to be able to deal with those exceptions. If the exceptions stand, then homosexuality will likely end up as simply another exception to the general rules.

After that, maybe it still is in the terminology. Or maybe I have not well understood the starting foundations of your argument.

Edited March 24, 2017 by MrShorty