| Sexual Orientation and its origin |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: The Vines ® 05/18/2002, 12:40:29 Author Profile Mail author |
On a recent thread an interesting topic regarding sexual orientation arose. Personally I have many friends who are homosexual, and whom I love. I would like to understand the emergence of this character trait more fully so as to be able to understand the reality behind my friends' situation. Especially considering the difficulty homosexuals face in society, I feel it is important for me to be armed with real knowledge, scientific knowledge, regarding sexuality, so as to not fall prey of the bigotted rhetoric and misinformation that so often is presented. There were a few topics that came up that were discussed: 1- influence of maternal hormones on the developing fetus as a cause for sexual tendency 2- kin-selection theory, and other possible factors contributing to the emergence of this trait 3- can sexual orientation be learned or is it ENTIRELY determined by genetic predisposition I will express my ideas on these points, as Martin asked, so as to continue this interesting topic on a fresh thread. You can also reference the topic under the thread for evolutionists... Point 1 I believe it is possible that maternal hormones may have an effect on the cognitive development of a fetus. The argument that was proposed indicated that there were studies indicating that the uterine hormonal environment could influence the development of the fetus' brain. Cognitive tendencies that are hard-wired (instincts) are the fruit of specific structure (circuits) in the brain. This neural structure is the fruit of specific genetic instructions. Given we do not know much about this, notwithstanding there is significant evidence validating this concept. The point debated was whether or not maternal hormones could cause the emergence of the homosexual trait independent of the fetus's genetic information. I am of the opinion that this is not the case. Cognitive tendencies are the result of neural structure, and if one were to postulate that the structure corresponding to the presence of homosexual tendencies were determined exclusively by maternal hormones then we would have to demonstrate that neurons can be organized into circuits, specific circuits that recur in a significant portion of the human population, by simply immersing them in a solution. This hormonal solution would have to have the ability to create a specific and complex pattern at the neurological level independent of any genetic information in the actual neurons it is bathing. In my opinion this is bad science. It makes no sense. Structure is not the fruit of hormonal baths, it is the fruit of selection manifested through DNA. Specifically in this case through the fetus's DNA. If the maternal hormones have any effect, and this has not been demonstrated just hypothesized and investigated, then this effect would have to be relative to the DNA of the fetus. In essence, the maternal hormones could effect the manifestation of certain genes. We know that genes can be activated or inhibited by certain chemical triggers. It is possible that in the formation of neural circuits the uterine chemical environment can represent a crucial factor specifically in the development of the circuits pertaining to sexual orientation. The ultimate root of the orientation is the neural structure itself, determined by the genetic information. The uterine chemical environment can change hour after hour, there is no way the inconsistency of such an environment could provide the ultimate cause for the structural differentiation of neurons into such an organized pattern as that of a neural circuit without the involvement of the DNA of the neurons themselves. The purpose of this discussion was to identify whether or not the actual gene coding for the formation of instincts pertaining to sexuality needed to be present in the fetus or only in the mother, and this concept's link to selection. The question (in my opinion based on a false premise) was: how does the character trait of homosexuality continue since homosexuals do not reproduce? Point 2 Martin explained the kin-selection theory as a possible solution to the problem of selection. The theory sees the homosexual as substantially contributing to the survival of the posterity of siblings (who also possess similar genetic information) because he has no obligation toward children of his own. The problem I see with this theory is that it cannot be the only method, but must work in conjuction with other systems. In fact this theory hinges on the fact that the siblings have similar DNA to the homosexual, and even though the latter is not reproducing the heterosexual siblings are. If the siblings unite with others who do not possess the character trait of homosexuality wouldn't this trait be diluted in time? Why would it ever emerge to the extent that it has? One would have to hypothesize that the homosexual always took care of his siblings children. Is this a reasonable assumption? Is there any evidence that homosexuals have contributed to the survival of the posterity of siblings in the millennia of recorded history? This theory makes perfect sense but not on its own. I believe there must be some other method contributing to the emergence of this trait. It was my opinion that along with the kin-selection theory we should consider the possibility that in past eras homosexuals did unite heterosexually to reproduce, though not attracted to the opposite sex, but did so for cultural/religious reasons (fertility cults, etc..). Perhaps this genetic predisposition is more prevalent than we think but does not manifest itself during the cognitive formation of the child but in limited circumstances... I do not think the kin-seleection theory is sufficient to justify the selection of this gene in time and its development to the extent found today. Especially because I do not know that there is any proof that a homosexual will necessarily take care of his siblings posterity. I would assume that if this theory represented the mechanism through which the gene found its presence in the human gene-pool as we see it today, that there would be a stronger cognitive instinct in homosexuals to take care of their siblings' children. I do not see a greater interest for nieces and nephews expressed by homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. It would make sense to me that along with the homosexual tendency there would be a greater instinctual pattern relative to the posterity of siblings. I do not see this. Do homosexuals have less to worry about not having a family, and hence can provide for the children of the clan? Sure, but not necessarily. Who says they have to live within the bounds of their clan's structure? These are assumptions with no scientific merit. The simple fact that it is a hypothesis that works doesn't make it right. Point 3 Can homosexuality be learned? The issue is definitely complex. I mentioned a very good friend who was abused by his uncle for years (somewhere around 6-10 years of age). He was told to keep quiet, and that there was nothing wrong with what was happening... He is attracted to women, but also feels that he is gay. He identifies his feelings of being gay with his experience as a child. How can he be attracted to women and feel gay at the same time? This personal experience brings me to believe that the boundaries of sexual orientation are not only genetic. Martin argued that attempts to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals have never succeeded. My objection to this is that these attempts are always done to adults, or teens, but never to children. Is it not possible (and I suspect this to be the case based on my friends experience) that in some cases learning at a young age can influence sexual orientation? Can we say that hard-wired tendencies cannot be overriden? If we say this, then we must also say that if we were to find that pedophilia, or serial killing, is linked to genes then the person should be labeled before committing the crime because the hard-wired tendency cannot be changed through learning. I do not believe this to be the case. I do believe conditioning contributes to the overall formation of the character, along with hard-wiring; to give a special status to homosexual hard-wiring is not sound science. I believe homosexuality is detemined by genes most of the time, but I do believe it can be learned as well if conditioning occurs at a young enough age where the character of the child is not sufficiently defined in terms of sexuality. The learning at this age will associate itself to the emergence of hard-wired instincts forming a permanent sexual identity in the early teens. I do not believe the definite demarcations of sexuality we find in adults are present in early childhood, I think the lines are a bit fuzzy, and become clear as the instinctual tendencies emerge more fully on a conscious level and harmonize with the child's learning. ---------------------------------- As said in the beginning this topic is very important to me. I have never read anything on the topic, and would appreciate indications of good scientific studies in regards... I look forward to learning from everyone's comments and clarifying my own thoughts in regards with better information. The Vines |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
My opening statement Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/18/2002, 15:14:25
Author Profile Mail author
Some things are simply NOT plastic!
Dear Vines,Thanks for trying this again. I hope we can make better progress!
I want to make a sort of opening statement in this thread by re-posting much of my final one in the old thread. I hope you won't object...
You had written: "I think that sexuality is not as clear cut as you make it sound throughout the span of an individual's life. I think we are hard-wired in a certain direction, but I do not think the intensity of the adult manifestation is as intense or clear in a child. I don't think that the hard-wiring is not there, I just don't think that it is as overwhelmingly fixed as it becomes in adulthood."
Please understand that contrary to your implicit but oft-repeated suggestions, I'm not merely expressing my personal opinions on this matter! I have studied the subject at some length, and my views are formed from powerfully compelling evidence from clinical studies to neuroanatomy to endocrinology to sociobiology. The overwhelming consensus of the entire scientific world is that male sexual orientation is PERMANENTLY FIXED BY THE TIME OF BIRTH! There is no small amount of controversy as to the mechanisms by which this occurs, but there is virtually ZERO doubt that male sexual orientation is permanently fixed by the time of birth.
You write that you feel that the "intensity" of one's sexuality increases from low in childhood to high in adolescence and adulthood, and you are absolutely CORRECT about that. It is as well established a fact as is the fact that male sexual orientation is permanently fixed by the time of birth. Puberty does that.
However, you clearly appear to imagine that this is due to some kind of cognitive and/or social process that occurs as we mature; and in THAT belief, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Besides all I have read on that score, I have even recently been made aware of a case I am not free to discuss that powerfully argues against that thesis.
The most knowledgeable scientists insist that, at least among males, sexual orientation is psychologically and biologically much like handedness. It is unchangeably fixed by birth, but learning, conditioning and conscious choice can greatly increase one's versatility with the "other" hand. However, no amount of conditioning or effort can ever change one's innate handedness.
You go on to talk of your childhood love and attachment towards both genders and your desire to express those feelings with a kiss.
I have to interject a question here. Vines, aren't you Italian?? Our American view of Italians (well, mine at least) is of an emotionally open and expressive people. My image (media driven and hence likely stereotypical, I'm afraid) of Italians is such that same-gender kissing and similar displays were, if not exactly common, at least not very uncommon. Is such behavior as you describe not generally seen as completely innocent and innocuous?
In any case, you continue by saying that you think love and sexuality are somehow intertwined, even in young children, and once again we are in complete agreement! In fact, that is what I was trying to say above. But as I've pointed out many times now, heterosexuals can certainly feel and express homosexual desires. As I pointed out in an earlier post, psychologists estimate that perhaps 70% of all humans have a same-gender sexual experience by age 18! And as we all know, homosexuals make up probably no more than about 5% of the population. This is particularly significant to this discussion, don't you agree??
You then write: "What if a child (such as a friend of mine) during these formative years where the boundaries pertaining to the manifestation of love are not there is abused sexually by a predator? What if this predator exerted great pressure in convincing the child that this was right, and the way one expresses love, etc.. Couldn't this traumatic experience create a psychological twist that would have impact on the manifestation of the child's sexuality in the future, notwithstanding the genetic hard-wired predispositions?"
The answer depends on precisely what you mean by "manifestation". If you mean to ask if it can have a tremendously large effect on that child's later sexual BEHAVIOR, attitudes and personality, the answer is emphatically yes! However, if you mean can it alter the child's "sexual orientation", the answer is a resounding NO!
Male sexual orientation is NOT PLASTIC! It cannot be changed any more than the old schoolmarm's physical abuse of left-handers could change their hand orientation!
You continue: "In the case of my friend he is attracted to women and yet has doubts in his mind that he may be gay because of his experience. He is no doubt in trouble as far as psychiatric aspects go... but all this tells me that the boundaries in the manifestation of sexuality are not as defined as you make them appear..."
I understand your thinking better now. Thank you!
However, may I suggest that your friend may simply not feel comfortable enough to express all the nuances and complexities of his internal sexual-psychodynamics in this matter with you?
Let me try to make a few things clear that I may have glossed over in my previous posts...
Recall that I said that one of the things that almost always goes unreported by people who were sexually abused as children is that these children actually experience sexual gratification, even amidst the horrific situation they're involved in. The unfortunate but perfectly understandable truth of the matter is that these victims try desperately, sometimes all of their lives, to deny that uncomfortable fact to themselves most of all. My understanding is that it sometimes takes decades of therapy for this to come out into the open along with all the hideously severe shame and guilt many of these children feel about their abuse, which as you probably know, the victims very often blame themselves for! (Just thinking of that tragic reality has brought tears to my eyes... sorry)
(I should try to balance that very sad reality a bit by reporting that careful research published (over the howls of the U.S. Congress) over the last few years has revealed that many childhood victims of physical and sexual abuse do not continue to suffer any significant long-lasting psychological harm once their abuse ends).
What I'm getting at is that your friend, if I understand correctly that he is primarily sexually interested and aroused by members of the opposite sex, is clearly a heterosexual; although he recalls the sexual pleasure he experienced in those sexual acts he was coerced into participating in and thus is aware that he can also be sexually satisfied by other men. Isn't that completely rational? Doesn't it make clear sense?
Another highly likely scenario arises if he is not easily aroused by women is that he was born a homosexual like all other homosexuals, but his experiences of sexual abuse by a male resulted in a perfectly understandable fierce psychological revulsion towards homosexual activity, which thus drove him (with a boost from overwhelming social approval) powerfully towards falsely imagining a self-identity as a heterosexual. This, too, has the virtue that it is almost INFINITELY more probable than the idea that his sexual orientation itself changed!
The point, dear Vines, is that the plastic elements of our individual human personalities and psyches are molded by our life experiences and other elements of our environment ON TOP of our hard-wired biology! Experience does NOT alter our deep, biologically determined sexual orientation, it merely imparts a kind of personalized flavor -- however pungently bitter, sour, or sweet -- to whatever our body actually wants. Although we have conscious control to varying degrees over our choice of sexual practices and even the gender of our partners, we only IMAGINE that "we" (our personal "I"s) have any control over our sexual orientation. There is simply no possible means by which the environment (learning, conditioning, torture, what have you) can in any way re-wire it after birth.
I simply cannot fathom what solid, scientific evidence you might have that you have not provided us that compels you to persist in your unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims. Your assertions based on your understanding of evolutionary psychology are not consistent at all with my reading on that subject. If you have evidence or scholarship that directly backs up your preposterous and completely insupportable assertions contrary to ALL modern neurological data that genes yield the ONLY structural effect on the fetal nervous system, would you please share this evidence with us? Why you feel so uncomfortable with the best-attested scientific evidence and the overwhelming consensus of scientific research?
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sat, May 18, 2002, 17:09:04
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Sexual orientation Re: My opening statement -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 21:38:36
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for a clear and well written post Martin.
Perhaps it will surprise you that your argument on sexual orientation corresponds exactly to what I understand of it. I have consitstently expressed that instinctual sexuality is hard-wired from the time of birth. The only difference between us is that what I have called instinct, or cognitive module, you are calling sexual orientation.
I must confess that I do not understand why everything I say, which corresponds to the same ideas you express, is wrong because I fail to label the concept the same way you do, even though the content of the concept is equivalent.
OK, so because I label something differently the concept is different? I feel like there is no desire to truly communicate... Let's start fresh as we said. I do appreciate the clarity of your statements.
So starting fresh I must say that translating everything I said in the past, I believe what you are saying regarding sexual orientation as an inborn instinctual behavior to be correct.
What I do not understand is your use of the term sexual orientation and the connection between the term sexual orientation and its practical manifestation. Doesn't orientation indicate action or manifestation? You clearly state what I have been trying to say for some time, that notwithstanding one's inborn hard-wiring, that the manifestation of one's sexuality, and the subjective feeling one has of this sexuality, can be influenced by experience (learning, conditioning, etc...).
You say:
The answer depends on precisely what you mean by "manifestation". If you mean to ask if it can have a tremendously large effect on that child's later sexual BEHAVIOR, attitudes and personality, the answer is emphatically yes!
We agree on this. If one can feel, and act homosexual while being a hard-wired heterosexual (or the other way around) because of conditioning experiences , how can we tell the difference? We do not have genetic tests that say Mr. X has the gay gene, and Mr. Z doesn't. We base our assumption of hard-wired sexual orientation on the manifestation of sexuality. So I do not see how your argument comes together. How can we tell when one is genetically predisposed and one is not? Based on both of our ideas, it can't be from sexual manifestation. I do not think a process of counseling can necessarily reveal effectively the intricate play between hard-wired and plastic aspects of the brain and how these then manifest themselves in our consciousness. Do you know of any methods that are believed to be scientifically sound in determining whether one is a hard-wired homosexual or not?
As you say, and I agree, sexuality's manifestation is influenced by learning even though the inborn cognitive modules determining sexual orientation are determined before birth and cannot be changed. They are structural neural circuits. These are not plastic aspects of the brain. Everything I have studied in regards confirms both of our ideas in regards, and I am grateful that we have finally understood each other in regards.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/18/2002, 17:23:37
Author Profile Mail author
Vines, Point 1:
You write: "Cognitive tendencies are the result of neural structure, and if one were to postulate that the structure corresponding to the presence of homosexual tendencies were determined exclusively by maternal hormones then we would have to demonstrate that neurons can be organized into circuits, specific circuits that recur in a significant portion of the human population, by simply immersing them in a solution."
Vines, that is such an egregious simplistic and shallow analysis I am once again having great difficulty keeping my frustration and anger in check...
No, I just can't do it right now. I want to rant in outrage at your obstinate refusal to accept freshman biology! It is simply INFURIATING that you so implacably refuse to open a book or do a web search on human gestation, not on homosexuality specifically, but on the effects of maternal hormones on fetal neural organization.I can't do this and remain polite. Therefore, I am dropping out of this thread again until I can more calmly and politely approach your excessively intractable unwillingness to accept basic biological knowledge.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin Re: Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 21:42:46
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Martin:
You are more than welcome to drop out if you are not going to provide scientific evidence that a chemical solution can create structural complexity in neuronal connectivity independent of those neurons' DNA.
That idea resounds more of alchemy then of science.
Neuronal structure and circuity is determined by the genes of the cells pertaining to the developing brain. These cells once in place never reproduce (at least as far as we know) but their development is determined by specific genetic instructions. This is the basis of Evolutionary Psychology.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/18/2002, 19:07:54
Author Profile Mail author
One final and important observation before dropping out. In a moment of commendable frankness in the conclusion of your opening post, you write: "I have never read anything on the topic, and would appreciate indications of good scientific studies in regards..."
Vines, do you now begin understand why I am so FURIOUS at your hair-pulling, mulish obstinacy in DEMANDING that certain facts are inarguably true EVEN THOUGH YOU NOW ADMIT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT???
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!
I have read three recent, highly respected scientific books that are concerned with NOTHING ELSE but the investigation into the origins of homosexuality, yet you have ignorantly rejected almost everything I have reported to you!They are...
Chandler Burr's Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation.
Dean Hamer's The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior
Jim McKnight's Straight Science?: Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation
Yet you stubbornly REFUSE to thoroughly and carefully consider the legitimate scientific findings I have reported!
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Modified by Martin at Sat, May 18, 2002, 19:21:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A conceptual tornado Re: Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/18/2002, 21:50:39
Author Profile Mail author
Martin I must admit you are the equivalent of a tornado when it comes to twisting things conveniently to back up your argument. Your twisting of my words is far from commendable.
What I said I have not studied is the emergence of homosexuality, and most definitely NOT OF COGNITIVE CIRCUITS, or of the evolutionary aspects of our hard-wired instincts.
Though I have not studied the specific inborn aspects of homosexuality, I am prepared to understand much of the theory regarding its emergence on a neurological level through my studies of evolutionary psychology, of biology, micro-biology, and bio-chemistry.
You invited me to open this thread. My objective was to learn more, and I thank you for the reference to these books that I no doubt will invest in.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Reviews to your books Martin Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/19/2002, 00:28:24
Author Profile Mail author
I found the reviews on the books you suggested very interesting, and I thank you for the recommendation. I look forward to reading Burr's book which I have already ordered.
From the brief editorial reviews I looked through it seems that the topics are exactly the one's we are debating. I reiterate my conviction regarding the genes of the fetus being the ultimate source of the neural structure determining sexual orientation, whether or not maternal hormones activate these genes or not. From the brief summaries and editorial reviews so far read, I find this idea to be echoed by these authors.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Reviews to your books Martin Re: Reviews to your books Martin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/19/2002, 17:09:24
Author Profile Mail author
Burr's book may well be the least informed of the three. Burr is just a journalist, and he comes to some unwarranted conclusions. Just because I read that book doesn't imply that it's a good book. Listing those books most certainly did NOT imply a recommendation!
By listing them, I merely wanted to illustrate that -- actually having read ANYTHING scientific on the subject -- I am better educated on the subject than you, who has admitted your lack of any significant knowledge of the subject even though you persist in ranting like the world's greatest expert anyway!!
Even your linguistic expression on subject of fetal neural development is completely wrong-headed!
Pull your head out, Vines.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Sun, May 19, 2002, 20:47:58
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Nice retraction Re: Re: Reviews to your books Martin -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/20/2002, 11:46:44
Author Profile Mail author
Above you posted:
Burr's book may well be the least informed of the three. Burr is just a journalist, and he comes to some unwarranted conclusions.
Just because I read that book doesn't imply that it's a good book. Listing those books most certainly did NOT imply a recommendation!
By listing them, I merely wanted to illustrate that -- actually having read ANYTHING scientific on the subject -- I am better educated on the subject than you, who has admitted your lack of any significant knowledge of the subject even though you persist in ranting like the world's greatest expert anyway!!
Even your linguistic expression on subject of fetal neural development is completely wrong-headed!
Pull your head out, Vines.
Well, this retraction is interesting considering the fact that you were claiming superior knowledge because of these books, and criticized me for not accepting your words:
I have read three recent, highly respected scientific books that are concerned with NOTHING ELSE but the investigation into the origins of homosexuality, yet you have ignorantly rejected almost everything I have reported to you!
They are...
Chandler Burr's Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation.
Dean Hamer's The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior
Jim McKnight's Straight Science?: Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation
Yet you stubbornly REFUSE to thoroughly and carefully consider the legitimate scientific findings I have reported!
Well then its a good thing I stubbornly refused to accept what you characterized as legitimate scientific findings, which now, at least for Burr's book, has been transformed into: least informed, not necessarily a good book, and coming to unwaranted conclusions.
As to neural development of the brain, and the science dealing with the formation of neural circuits and subsequent hard-wired cognitive modules, your knowledge has proven to be flawed throughout your posts on this subject, and in particular when speaking about the effects of maternal hormones on the developing brain. You have consistently demonstated a poor understanding of the very material you have studied dealing with this topic.
BTW, having spent many hours now investigating the topic on the internet, my lack of study on the topic is outdated. It would be good if you actually addressed the issues rather than simply trying to demonstrate to someone that you are right through your rhetorical devices. Addressing the issues of my rebuttals to your claims will say much more about your knowledge than simple assertions about being knowledgeable.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Nice bullshit Re: Nice retraction -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/20/2002, 17:14:50
Author Profile Mail author
All you are doing at this point is distorting what I have argued, implictly DENYING that you have been PRETENDING TO ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A SUBJECT YOU KNEW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT and seeking to spare yourself the humiliation of that fact by attacking me as a scapegoat for your ignorance.
You have indeed returned to being the loathsome, self-flattering know-nothing you were when you first came here. Screw you, you narcisstic, self-important asshole.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yes that is exactly what you did! Re: Nice bullshit -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/20/2002, 22:39:23
Author Profile Mail author
Yes Martin, that is exactly a perfect description of what you have done!
You are the expert remember??? You have presented your profound knowledge gathered by "scientific sources" which I have ignorantly refused.... TV is the idiot for not accepting what the knowledgeable Martin has said...
Your insults are worth nothing... the issues are on the table. The negativity of the discussion came from you, not me. The narcissism and self-flattering is your's... The issues are still there, you have failed to address them, and to resolve the objections I have found to them. Instead you have resorted to name calling and characterizations...
"TV refuses my arguments because he is a self-important, loathsome ass-hole, that knows nothing...." and where are the answers to the issues??? I don't care about your game, though I will play it to get to the bottom of the issue if that is the way you want to go... and I will call you time after time to the fact that you are avoiding to discuss the actual issues.
If your ideas are sensible and scientifically sound, I would like to know why you think so; and if I agree with your assessment I will ammend my views... No such valdidation to your ideas has been presented. As we have discussed them, I have continued to share my doubts, and you have not resolved them in the least... Rather you have actually demonstrated to me that you know very little about the topic, though you may not think so.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Information from SCIENTIFIC sources Re: Sexual Orientation and its origin -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/19/2002, 04:08:55
Author Profile Mail author
In a review on the book suggested by Martin: The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior by Dean Hamer, I found the following information:
Before they started looking at genes, Hamer and his group considered the family histories of the pairs of gay brothers who he used in his study. The researchers found more gay men on the maternal side and eventually realized that this was due to recessive X-linked inheritance. "X-linked traits always are passed to men through the mother's side of the family, which is the pattern we were seeing for homosexuality."
The book carefully explains how the research was done and what conclusions could and could not be drawn from it. They did not find a gay gene; they only showed that one exists. It does not "determine" homosexuality; it is only one factor in the makeup of those gay men who inherited it. There may be other genes that play a role and there are surely many environmental factors that influence the expression of homosexuality. Some of the evidence from Hamer's study "suggests that Xq28 plays some role in about 5 to 30 percent of gay men."
Hamer's book seems to state that homosexuality is determined by the genes of the fetus.
As to Martin's statement that virtually all authorities concur with his positions, a brief investigation on the topic revealed completely different results.
For example in regards to his Kin-selection theory:
As Weinrich (1987), LeVay (1993, pp. 128-129) and others have pointed out, if individuals are to devote their efforts to helping siblings, it would seem more productive for them to be asexual than to expend efforts pursuing members of their own sex (and being exposed to the risk of venereal disease that sexual activity brings).
As to homosexuality being exclusively determined by maternal hormones and not by fetal genes:
In regards to the activation of fetal genes by chemical triggers in maternal hormones as I suggested:
Since it is hard to imagine a mechanism emerging just so homosexuals can recognize and be attracted to other males, it is very likely that homosexuality involves the activation of this mechanism in the few males that become homosexuals, when it would normally be inactivated in males.
The general theory of sexual development is that it is controlled by hormonal signals (or the absence of such signals) and that once the signal is given it affects a wide range of development conditions, from the genitals to the brain (see Gandelman, 1992 or Ellis & Ames, 1987 for good summaries). Indeed, the prevailing wisdom is that humans are programmed to develop as females (which presumably includes a sexual attraction to males), and that testosterone from the fetal testes masculinizes the males, leaving the remainder to develop as females.
Since sexual orientation is just one of a number of traits that normally separate females from males, it very likely that all or most of the sex specific traits are activated (or turned off) by a single hormonal mechanism, which occasionally is partially activated in males, producing homosexuality. Other traits (including personality ones) in which females differ from males, presumably are partially activated by the same signal that produces homosexuality.
Edward Miller, PhD
Department of Economics and Finance
University of New OrleansThis essay can be found at http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html
In essence what I have found so far is that the opinions on the mechanisms causing the emergence of homosexual orientation are varied, and there is all but harmony in regards to the possible scenario in which the presence of these genes persisted in the human gene pool.
The very book Martin suggests by Jim McKnight suggest a totally different scenario than the Kin-Selection theory presented by Martin as the leading theory in scientific circles (which apparently is not a correct assessment), and McKnight suggests rather that pleitropic genes would give heterosexual men carrying the gene a reproductive advantage by making them more attractive to women because of various character traits (empathy, tenderness, altruism, etc...), hence the persistance of the gene in the gene pool.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Information from CREDIBLE sources Re: Information from SCIENTIFIC sources -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/19/2002, 20:43:59
Author Profile Mail author
Vines, must you be such an intolerably smug and self-righteous twit? To suggest -- as you obviously imply -- that a review gives you enough information to reach an adequate understanding of the true complexity of the author's analysis is just plain dumb. Furthermore, don't you realize that Hamer's book was published in 1994?? And that his findings have not fared all that well?
Well, at least you'll see when you read Burr (published only two years later!) that Hamer's conclusions have not been adequately confirmed nor otherwise well borne out by later research.
More to the point, your own quotation of Hamer's words contradict your own subsequent assertion that homosexuality is completely controlled by the genes of the fetus!! Immediately after you quote Hamer saying: "It does not "determine" homosexuality; it is only one factor in the makeup of those gay men who inherited it. There may be other genes that play a role and there are surely many environmental factors that influence the expression of homosexuality", you go on to stupidly write: "Hamer's book seems to state that homosexuality is determined by the genes of the fetus."
DON'T YOU READ YOUR OWN POSTS???
You then contemptibly write: "As to Martin's statement that virtually all authorities concur with his positions, a brief investigation on the topic revealed completely different results."
I NEVER SAID THAT, CREEP!
What I actually said is that there is an wide consensus among the scientific experts on the individual points on which I claimed there was! For you to so unconscionably assert I said "virtually all authorities concur with [my] positions" easily ranks among the most contemptibly intellectually dishonest thing you've ever said in your entire history here!
But HERE'S another example of your intellectual dishonesty: Why didn't you cite a few other things from that very same article? Such as:
Blanchard & Bogaert (1996b) and Blanchard & Klassen (1997) have presented a fascinating biological hypothesis for the birth order effect in homosexuality.It is hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigen) by each succeeding male fetus, and the concomitantly increasing effects of H-Y antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain in each succeeding male fetus....
Fortunately, the above discussion of why a birth order effect might contribute to diversification explains how an effect such as Blanchard & Klaasen propose could survive. If homosexuality is merely a byproduct of a mechanism that adjusts personality in a more feminine, more sensitive direction (possibly through pre-natal hormonal effects), and there are advantages to younger sons being more feminine and less aggressively masculine, a mechanism that produces such a femininity shift could indeed survive, and even be selected for...
A mechanism in the mother that moderated the younger sons' competitive drive could be in the mother's reproductive interest. The Blanchard & Klassen H-Y antigen mechanism might do this through somehow changing the "masculinarity" of the later sons. Such a mechanism coded into the mother's genes could be selected for...
One's first reaction on hearing of a mechanism that might make later borns sons more likely to be homosexual is that the resulting increase in homosexuality would reduce the both the mother and the sons reproductive success. It would hence be strongly selected against. The above argument shows that this need not be the effect in full equilibrium.
A maternal mechanism that operates on the degree of "masculinity" can explain the homosexuality birth order effect. The homosexuality is just a byproduct of shifting in the feminine direction....
The beauty of the mechanism proposed by Blanchard & Klassen is that it provides a way for the mother to keep track of the number of sons borne and to have the personalities differ. This insures the desired diversification.
Having behavior depend on birth order could be achieved by other mechanisms. Such mechanisms would require that somehow the mother's body retain knowledge how many previous children had been born and their sex. There is one other mechanism known which could retain this information. Male fetal progenitor cells persist in maternal blood for as long as 27 years postpartum (Bianchi, Zickwolf, Weil, & Sylvester, 1996). It is possible that the mother might somehow use this information to modify the personality of her sons, thus achieving optimal diversification.
In other words, your own "expert" cites highly persuasive evidence and arguments that INVALIDATE your moronic assertions that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the mother's biochemistry to effect the fetus' neural organization and structure!
Playing that ugly kind of game, Vines, is a two-edged sword.
As for kin selection (inclusive fitness) your thinking is once again EXTRAORDINARILY shallow. As I've already demonstrated with the link I provided earlier, kin selection as a mechanism for indirectly passing down genes through an arbitrary number of generations IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT!! One can always find people who will contest any argument, as you have. Furthermore, I EXPLICITLY insisted that the kin selection hypothesis for the existence of homosexuality has not been proved, and also that the mechanism by which genes code for homosexuality is very controversial. But for you to argue, as you have quite stupidly, that kin-selected genes would somehow "weaken" in the absence of direct reproduction is LAUGHABLY STUPID!
Ever hear of honey bees, Vines? Termites? Ants? THE STERILE CASTES OF THESE INSECTS CANNOT REPRODUCE, YET THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO EXIST FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!!! That PROVES that direct reproduction is not necessary for kin-selected behavioral genes (those that code for their selflessly altruistic defense mechanisms) to be passed on to subsequent generations intact!
Furthermore, the ridiculous claim that the kin-selection hypothesis should logically favor asexuality over homosexuality fails utterly for several compelling reasons. First and most obvious, homosexual behavior does NOT produce children, the feeding and caring for of which is the greatest consumer of energy and effort after self-care! THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT! The theory does not require that homosexuals spend EVERY WAKING SECOND caring for their siblings and their sibling's children!! It only requires that they should have at least enough free time and energy to spare so that their kin-altruistic efforts give their relatives a fairly consistent -- even if relatively small -- edge in fitness.
Another objection is that if throughout the millions of years of primitive cultures during human evolution homosexuals were more often than not given their own special roles in society such that they would either not be encouraged to reproduce or even actively discouraged from reproducing, the net effect would be the same as asexuality. However, you IGNORANTLY maligned my observations on that score in a previous post by asserting that I would have to PROVE what happened in pre-historic cultures to make that case!! Yet we KNOW that many primitive cultures -- BECAUSE THEY STILL EXIST TODAY (or existed recently enough for anthropologists to have studied them) -- grant homosexuals special roles wherein reproduction was neither expected nor encouraged! Your excessively overconfident ignorance is extremely vexing, Vines.
From Sexual Identity:
Williams (1986) discussed the Native American Indian culture and how the berdache (the term for the "two-spirited" individual) was given the utmost positive regard and respect. The berdache was given the freedom to take a same-sex partner and to assume an opposite gender role, reflected in the cross-dressing. Conner (1993) gives numerous historical and cultural reports of how gender-variant individuals were honored as special, gifted, and highly spiritual with a connection to the deities.From A New Spirituality For Gays:
In most ancient and “primitive” tribal cultures boys and girls who had homosexual inclinations as children were singled out to be taught the arts of the shaman, visionary, priest(ess) and healer. Or they were followers of the Goddess, the Cinaedi, organized into groups of worshipers, similar to monks, who led religious ceremonies. They were revered as chosen ones by the gods, as was the Native American berdache, because their special ability to integrate the masculine and feminine polarities of the self gave them powers of insight and spiritual wisdom. Gays were integrated into the cultures in respected roles.Contrary to your inexcusably ignorant assertions, Vines, since we know that most primitive cultures of which we are aware granted homosexuals special societal roles, it would require the fallacy of special pleading to argue that the primitive cultures of our distant and long-lasting hunter-gathering ancestors did NOT grant homosexuals such roles!
Finally, you have misrepresented the full depth and the plausibility of McKnight's arguments, which in any case are not at all credible in light of very compelling criticisms directed against it by a substantial array of neuroendocrinologists, geneticists, sociobiologists, and -- yes -- evolutionary psychologists.My criticism of your uninformed arguments and obnoxious attitude stand, Vines. You have been spouting massively and inexcusably ignorant bullshit for days now. Just because you are only NOW starting to actually try to learn something does NOT mean you haven't been a total ass thus far.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
What a disillusioning experience! Re: Information from CREDIBLE sources -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/20/2002, 06:03:51
Author Profile Mail author
First of all you suggested Hamer, and if his work is outdated why did you bother?
As to the quote you refer to, and your comments:
More to the point, your own quotation of Hamer's words contradict your own subsequent assertion that homosexuality is completely controlled by the genes of the fetus!! Immediately after you quote Hamer saying: "It does not "determine" homosexuality; it is only one factor in the makeup of those gay men who inherited it. There may be other genes that play a role and there are surely many environmental factors that influence the expression of homosexuality", you go on to stupidly write: "Hamer's book seems to state that homosexuality is determined by the genes of the fetus."
First of all this was a review and are not Hamer's words to be specific. Further, the IT in the statement refers to the gene identified on the X chromosome Hamer speaks of. So when he says that it does not determine sexual orientation on its own he is not referring to genes in general but to that specific gene. In fact then the quote is very clear as the reviewer goes on to state that "There may be other genes that play a role.... [in] the expression of homosexuality." The author also states that Hamer indicates that there are environmental factors that contribute to the outcome but I did not give this too much weight because you indicated that these authors backed up your assertions that environment did not have an impact. So before I accuse you of misrepresenting the facts I will go and find out from the source whether or not the reviewer is representing Hamer's ideas correctly, or if you did not.
In any case, "IT" was a gene, and the other factors were genes too, just different ones, so your argument is simply fruit of not reading accurately what was written. So don't ask me if I read my own posts, ask yourself if you read my posts before shooting off your mouth impulsively..
You then quote and write:
You then contemptibly write: "As to Martin's statement that virtually all authorities concur with his positions, a brief investigation on the topic revealed completely different results."
I NEVER SAID THAT, CREEP!
What I actually said is that there is an wide consensus among the scientific experts on the individual points on which I claimed there was! For you to so unconscionably assert I said "virtually all authorities concur with [my] positions" easily ranks among the most contemptibly intellectually dishonest thing you've ever said in your entire history here!
I apologize (not). So I guess you said that the experts generally confirmed only the things you said they confirmed. I see... And what did you say they confirmed? When I qualified my statement by saying that you were backing up “your positions” with these authorities, was I wrong? Did you tell us something that was not backed up? I don’t recall you saying “this is my idea“, and “I think this...”, but rather you constantly backed up each individual argument with statements regarding scientific studies and so forth, and for some you actually provided links and referrences. To say now that not everything you said was backed up is simply put a lie. Name one point in your posts where you didn’t indicate that it was backed up by experts... The impression your posts aimed toward giving was conveying authority Martin. Don’t BS me.
As to the Blanchard & Klassen studies, they are highly interesting in explaining the statistics regarding birth order, and personally I do believe this direction of study will lead to a clarification of the mechanism.
Unfortunately Martin you seem to either ignore a simple fact, or you are just not expressing your ideas fully. The fact that the mother’s genes can code for X-Y antigens that can effect the morphological development of the fetus’ brain, and perhaps of sexual orientation, is just telling us that the chemical mixture (hormones, antigens, etc..) that we have been discussing is probably not totally random, but might have a genetic basis. This says NOTHING of the actual mechanism of how these chemical substances determine the neuronal differentiation and subsequent circuitry leading to specific, recurring, and predictable character traits.
Your statement:
In other words, your own "expert" cites highly persuasive evidence and arguments that INVALIDATE your moronic assertions that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the mother's biochemistry to effect the fetus' neural organization and structure!
... is in fact a completely moronic statement, because that is not what I have been saying at all. I fear not to be analyzed by anyone here. RPCMAN is more than welcome to investigate to see if I will, or have changed any of the content of my posts...
I have consistently stated that it is impossible for the mother's biochemistry to effect the fetus' neural organization and structure ALONE, WITHOUT THE GENETIC INSTRUCTIONS OF THE FETUS. Structure, my dear Martin, is not the consequence of an alchemist's solution... You don’t get structure by bathing neurons in solutions of chemicals alone.... Structure results from the effects of these solutions on the manifestations of the genetic instructions in the differentiation process and development of the various neuronal structures. That is exactly why there is only a specific window of time for these tissues to be exposed to these chemical agents, because once the differentiation occurs the circuit is set. The genetic instructions are in the fetus. The fact that the mother has genetic instructions pertaining to the uterine environment are secondary, though they may contribute to the ultimate outcome.
What needs to be proved is whether or not there is an actual gene coding for homosexuality. If there is, and it seems there is, this will be found on the chromosomes of the fetus, not of the mother. The mother’s uterine environment, even if specified genetically to select for homosexual outcome in the fetus, ONLY acts as an activator or an inhibitor for genes that are already present in the fetus, and which determine the structure of the brain. Your assertions to the contrary are ridiculous.
The fact that you misrepresent my ideas, I hope is simply a misunderstanding on your part, rather than a dishonest attempt to bolster your argument by using strawman rhetorical devices.
As to Kin-Selection, you provided a link: http://www.taumoda.com/web/PD/library/kin.html that explains well the statistical validity of the concept of altruistic behavior in terms of selection. However, the link you provided referred to Kin-Selection in general in the mammalian world, but does not take into account a particular characteristic of Kin-Selection in the case of homosexuality, and that is that homosexuals do not reproduce unless they unite heterosexually. The link did not address the peculiar issues pertinent to the trait of homosexuality that we have identified, and which I will go over again.
When you say that:
!!As for kin selection (inclusive fitness) your thinking is once again EXTRAORDINARILY shallow. As I've already demonstrated with the link I provided earlier, kin selection as a mechanism for indirectly passing down genes through an arbitrary number of generations IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT
That is a misleading statement Martin. I think of you as better than that. You know well that Kin-Selection, though a reality in general, may not apply at all to the selection of homosexuality, which is the context of this post. Are you making a general statement out of context thinking that you can't get called on it?
You say:
But for you to argue, as you have quite stupidly, that kin-selected genes would somehow "weaken" in the absence of direct reproduction is LAUGHABLY STUPID!
Ever hear of honey bees, Vines? Termites? Ants? THE STERILE CASTES OF THESE INSECTS CANNOT REPRODUCE, YET THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO EXIST FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS!!! That PROVES that direct reproduction is not necessary for kin-selected behavioral genes (those that code for their selflessly altruistic defense mechanisms) to be passed on to subsequent generations intact!
Your analogy is so far from the reality of the homosexual trait that you should be ashamed of even making these analogies Martin. How could you write such a stupid thing? Where is the Martin I am used to hearing?
Yes, the idea of kin-selection can work for selecting homosexual genetic traits in association with other mechanisms; I have said this all along, but in any case your analogies do not work.
First of all, you would have to correlate the concept of altruism in the case of these insects with the supposed altruism of homosexuals toward their kin and their offspring. You would have to demonstrate that, in fact, this altruism exists in every case leading to the caregiving assumed in the kin-selection theory specific for homosexuality, at least to the extent of it providing a selective edge.
How could you use this analogy? Have you ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there is a correlation between the hard-wired instinctual behavior of these insects leading to a selective advantage for the reproducing segment of their population, with an even remotely similar consistency in behavior among homosexuals toward their kin and their kin‘s offspring? Can you prove that homosexuals take care of their kin consistently the way insects take care of theirs’? What sense is there in this analogy if the conditions leading to the insect advantage are not mirrored in the homosexual issue?
Are you just proving that kin-selection works?
Your statement:
That PROVES that direct reproduction is not necessary for kin-selected behavioral genes (those that code for their selflessly altruistic defense mechanisms) to be passed on to subsequent generations intact!
..is useless proof. No one is doubting that “KIN-SELECTED BEHAVIORAL GENES” do not require reproduction, according to the parameters inherent in the insect scenario; no one is doubting that!! But to say that due to what we see in insects we can also conclude that the trait of homosexuality can be transmitted solely by “Kin-Selection” mechanisms (which is what you have stated) without reproduction of the homosexual is altogether false, because you would need to also demonstrate that the “altruistic” behavior inherent in these insect mechanisms are also present in the homosexual scenario, and you cannot do that. What other sense does your analogy have but to imply a similarity between kin-selection in insects and in the human homosexual trait? This similarity cannot be proved and is an empty assertion.
Then you say:
.Furthermore, the ridiculous claim that the kin-selection hypothesis should logically favor asexuality over homosexuality fails utterly for several compelling reasons. First and most obvious, homosexual behavior does NOT produce children, the feeding and caring for of which is the greatest consumer of energy and effort after self-care! THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT! The theory does not require that homosexuals spend EVERY WAKING SECOND caring for their siblings and their sibling's children!! It only requires that they should have at least enough free time and energy to spare so that their kin-altruistic efforts give their relatives a fairly consistent -- even if relatively small -- edge in fitness.
Another objection is that if throughout the millions of years of primitive cultures during human evolution homosexuals were more often than not given their own special roles in society such that they would either not be encouraged to reproduce or even actively discouraged from reproducing, the net effect would be the same as asexuality. However, you IGNORANTLY maligned my observations on that score in a previous post by asserting that I would have to PROVE what happened in pre-historic cultures to make that case!! Yet we KNOW that many primitive cultures -- BECAUSE THEY STILL EXIST TODAY (or existed recently enough for anthropologists to have studied them) -- grant homosexuals special roles wherein reproduction was neither expected nor encouraged! Your excessively overconfident ignorance is extremely vexing, Vines
First of all the rebuttal regarding asexuality was not my idea but that of an expert, and specifically it was Jim McKnight’s contingent, the very author you recommended to me. My point was to provide a contrasting viewpoint from an expert to your idea of kin-selection as the sole responsible method of transmission of the homosexual trait.
As to your rebuttal, I agree with you that in order for Kin-Selection of the homosexual trait to work all that is required is a small edge in terms of survival. What the Kin-Selection theory fails to produce is any evidence that this edge would exist, because it bases the assumption of this edge on the altruistic behavior of the homosexual, and there is no proof for this behavior, and it assumes that social conditions, even if this altruistic trait were present, would allow for the homosexual to take care of his kin to the extent of providing a selective advantage for their genes.
You falsely state that all the Kin-selection theory needs is “...It only requires that they should have at least enough free time and energy to spare.” That is completely false. You would need to demonstrate that “the energy and time to spare” will be used caring for the kin’s offspring to a degree that will provide a sufficient edge in terms of survival.
As to this statement:
Another objection is that if throughout the millions of years of primitive cultures during human evolution homosexuals were more often than not given their own special roles in society such that they would either not be encouraged to reproduce or even actively discouraged from reproducing, the net effect would be the same as asexuality.
This statement is false! It is not the equivalent of asexuality.
Think of it this way, if a homosexual is in a relationship with another, it stands to reason that the two "partners" will care for each other. Without implying the presence in times past of modern paradigms of homosexual courtship, fidelity, and couple union, (before you take the excuse of my semantics to criticize the concepts) we cannot exclude the reality of the fact that a homosexual probably could have had profound feelings toward a mate in times past as they can have today. This diversion of attention and care is in direct contrast to your idea of more time and energy to devote to kin... The idea of asexuality would have selected against this diversion of energies in favor of the kin-selection theory, but we do not find this.
Further, you ignored how these experts included the idea of venereal disease as an aspect contributing to the selection of asexuality rather than homosexuality. Why didn’t nature select for an asexual with altruistic behaviors? It would make more sense in terms of kin-selection.
As to cultures granting homosexuals special roles, this actually works against kin-selection.
Contrary to your inexcusably ignorant assertions, Vines, since we know that most primitive cultures of which we are aware granted homosexuals special societal roles, it would require the fallacy of special pleading to argue that the primitive cultures of our distant and long-lasting hunter-gathering ancestors did NOT grant homosexuals such roles!
And your point???? Your argument is bolstered by this statement ONLY if the roles you mention excluded the possibility of reproduction, which was the main issue at hand.
In any case... what a contradiction!!!! You postulate that homosexuals had special roles in society that probably excluded them from the reproducing segment of humans, but you don’t say that these roles would have taken up their time, energy, and resouces, working directly against the possibility of Kin-Selection! Yes Martin, a special role of homosexuals in societies of the past impedes your very idea of kin-selection, or IMO, makes of it one of the many methods through which the gene pertaining to homosexuality continued in the gene pool.
It is quite evident to me, as I have said from the start, that Kin-Selection was most likely one of the various methods through which the genetic presence of the homosexual trait persisted, and not the only method as you suggest. It is just bad science to postulate to the contrary. There are too many factors running against it as the sole method.
Finally, you have misrepresented the full depth and the plausibility of McKnight's arguments, which in any case are not at all credible in light of very compelling criticisms directed against it by a substantial array of neuroendocrinologists, geneticists, sociobiologists, and -- yes -- evolutionary psychologists.
You suggested McKnight’s work not me. I just posted some comments regarding his work by other experts to give contrasting opinions.
Then you say:
My criticism of your uninformed arguments and obnoxious attitude (look who's talking!!) stand, Vines. You have been spouting massively and inexcusably ignorant bullshit for days now. Just because you are only NOW starting to actually try to learn something does NOT mean you haven't been a total ass thus far.
It is obvious to me Martin, that if I have been spouting bullshit you sure have not demonstrated this. As to my learning ONLY NOW (which pertains only to the specific concepts on homosexuality, but that DO NOT extend to the majority of aspects of the discussion) , it doesn’t follow that I cannot criticize the bad science you have proposed from start to end. There is not one sound argument that you have made that makes sense scientifically in its entirety. You can keep being an ass and insulting me as you have done, but that doesn’t change the fact that your science has been bad and your assumptions shallow and senseless in many instances.
You have not addressed my objections to your ideas, you have just tried to validate your points. I have consistently given you my reasons of objecting to the ideas that I thought were bad, and you have responded only with ad-hominem, strawmen, and have not addressed the issues with any where as close the effort that I have put in to explain why I rejected your positions. The length of your posts is defined by their rhetorical devices, not by their information, which instead has been, as far as I am concerned, poor, and scientifically flawed throughout.
You asked me to start this new thread so as to start fresh a dialogue. What did you expect me to just take any BS you throughout? It is offensive that you would even imagine this! As much as I respect your intellect, I have not seen close to any of it in this discussion, and have been thoroughly disappointed with your offensive remarks and your outrageously stupid and alchemist science.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Why all the acrimony? Re: Information from CREDIBLE sources -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/20/2002, 13:17:04
Author Profile Mail author
Do either of you disagree that there is a genetic component helping to determine any given individual's sexual orientation? It doesn't appear to me that you do. Do either of you disagree that can't be the only determining factor? I don't think you disagree on that either. It is my understanding that while identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to be of the same sexual orientation, it is not always the case that they are. Am I wrong in this? Like both of you, I am reasonably certain that sexual orientation is not a matter of conscious, deliberate choice. I also have no problem with the idea that sexual orientation (in males, at least) may already be irrevocably determined at birth. I do, however, have a problem with anyone, no matter how scientifically qualified, claiming to know with absolute certainty that this is necessarily always the case, with no possibility of exception. We human beings (as are all living organisms) are enormously complex and varied entities. Surely there are few, if any, things that can be certainly applied without error to every single human being in existence.
Besides that, whether sexual orientation is irrevocably determined at birth or not, one's sexual orientation need not and ought not be a moral issue. Sex and sexual behavior ought not be a moral issue unless they are used to unjustly exploit, harm or endanger others, with no consideration given to their well-being, wants, needs and feelings. It is awfully easy, of course, to get or cause hurt in any intimate relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Nevertheless, IMO, willfully or negligently hurting others ought to be the moral issue--not whether sexual intimacy is involved in the relationship, though it is certainly better to err on the side of caution with regard to sex. As long as we keep these considerations in mind, are differences of opinion over to what extent sexual orientation is genetic or environmental, innate or learned, really worth ruffled feathers, abandoning of civility and endangering friendships? Also, is it really necessary to have read everything anyone has ever written about the subject to legitimately raise questions about some of the conclusions reached?
With regard to your above comments about sexually molested children experiencing sexual pleasure and gratification, I think they made a lot of sense. I have long thought or at least suspected that children who have been sexually exploited or fondled are often traumatized as much or more by their caregiver's and official reactions to awareness of that fact than by the fact itself, especially if the molester made no attempt to physically injure or induce pain. I have little doubt that being made to feel that they are somehow evil and/or abnormal for having experienced any pleasure from it is more likely to be the cause of lifelong trauma or emotional problems than the act itself, if no physical injury, pain, sexually transmitted disease or pregnancy resulted. This, of course, does not justify anyone trying to take any kind of sexual liberties with minors. The tricky part is to get across to the young victims that while what the molester did was wrong, there is nothing intrinsically evil or abnormal about them having experienced sexual desire and gratification.
In closing, I want to emphasize that I continue to value your contributions to this forum, and The Vines' as well. I have learned from and often been intellectually stimulated by both of you. Just lighten up a little. Not all of us are as well read and smart as you are! You have to make some allowances! :)
Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Mon, May 20, 2002, 13:52:51
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You're right as usual, Gunnar Re: Why all the acrimony? -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
05/20/2002, 17:40:33
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Gunnar, I'm ashamed that I let Vines' ignorant arrogance push my buttons like this. This debate started off okay, even though Vines asserted his alleged "facts" with such absolute certainty that it was very off-putting. Before long, he was arrogantly demanding that any scientific facts and hypotheses which didn't conform to his "superior" knowledge were IMPSOSSIBLE.
I find that kind of absolutism when he later admitted he knew NOTHING about the subject enormously hard to take! It is precisely the kind of self-flattering certainty and claims to solid knowledge that he didn't actually posses that characterized Vines' earlier presence here that also elicited many angry responses to him. When he continued to insist that well-known biological facts were IMPOSSIBLE, I grew very angry at his ignorant presumption.
Foolishly, I ratcheted up my rhetoric to match his excessively venal, self-admittedly ignorant and mulish statements, and then everything escalated inevtably towards conflict.
Now here we are.
I'd very much like to just drop it, and I will as soon as Vines stops attacking me and calling me a liar.
I'm sorry that I'm too worked up about this right now to say something more calm and reflective, but I'm still just too angered by Vines' mockery for that.
I'm sorry to let you down, Gunnar.
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I apologize Gunnar Re: Why all the acrimony? -- Gunnar Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/20/2002, 23:11:11
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you Gunnar for your comments. They are appreciated, and your gentle rebuke is useful to me to help me recommit to a better behavior. I apologize for causing any offense to you or anyone.
As to why I am even discussing this topic in the first place has to do with the fact that in my field of employment over 50% of the folks are homosexual, and I have many friends I love who fall into that category. I feel that I can come to understand better their situation, and also defend them from an aggressive bigotted society if I am armed with knowledge. I entered this discussion with this in mind.
Unfortunately, the discussion has become nasty... I approached Martin several times about this, as you can see by visiting the posts, and he apologized for losing it with me and invited me to start a fresh thread to discuss more civilly and patiently the issue. Unfortunately the intention to start fresh a civil discussion turned out to be just a TV bashing thread, rather than a learning experience on the topic. I don't think my opening post was negative at all toward Martin, though I didn't hide my objections to issues discussed, and invited discussion in regards to arrive at a better understanding of the scientific motivation behind certain positions...
I could care less about the bashing, the issues are on the table, and if Martin wants to play the game of avoiding the issues by setting up strawmen, characterizing me as the ignorant one, the one who speaks with absolute knowledge, etc... he is more than welcome. He is clever in accusing others of doing exactly what he is doing... Its not the first time he tries this with me. I will continue to respond and call him to the fact that he is avoiding to respond to my objections, and is rather insulting instead of answering.
If he doesn't want to talk about these issues, fine... I am doing my research independently anyway... but I don't think I am just going to sit back and let him bully me around while not addressing the issues. Sorry if that means that negative vibes come out of it... As to my friendship with Martin, my friends respect me, even when I don't agree with their ideas and don't insult me for differing with them. Martin is not a friend at this point, though I do not exclude that friendship can come again if respect were present. I will not try to establish a tone of friendship with him. I will not respect those who do not show respect for me. I will not let him bully me and allow myself to be distracted by his bullying to the point to lose track of the fact that he is not addressing the very issues he is offending me over.
BTW Gunnar, Martin and I are not agreeing on these issues, only partially. Though the disagreements are only technical scientific issues that should not produce such negativity, they have, and I doubt not that I am also responsible for this and I apologize to you.
I thank you for your goodness and example... and I apologize for not contributing to a more positive experience here.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Vines Re: I apologize Gunnar -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
05/21/2002, 05:15:40
Author Profile Mail author
Vines,
I'm replying to a question you asked on another thread here so you don't miss it. I see from reading other posts you've made that you are indeed under pressure. Perhaps you're on overload here, I know it well.
Vines, you said your friend was molested between ages 6-10. There are missing pieces to his puzzle that I do not have...for example, was he molested once, a few times or repeatedly over a period of years. Was the offender a person in a position of trust (teacher, coach, parent, uncle, scout leader, etc). Did the molestation include violence? Threats? Was he able to report the incident(s) to a trusted adult? Were his reports believed? Were legal and therapeutic measures taken?
Without knowing those things I cannot even ballpark the long term effects of the events but this much I can tell you. Your friend (prior to the abuse) could be hetero, homo, or bi-sexual. Whatever his orientation going in, it has not changed. He was abused during the transition between pre-operations and concrete operations (cognitively speaking). Let me try to describe the world from his standpoint without getting too technical.
During that shift Vines, a child is gravitating from seeing the world as a flat painting lets say (God, there are so many particulars shall I write them?). they do not see the world in abstract ways Vines. As they progress toward concrete operations the painting becomes three dimensional and the world begins to resemble reality. Even so, they are still acquiring information about relationships, people, the expanse of the world, how things work, how to manipulate letters, numbers, words on a page. He was learning to think symbolically, that one "thing" for example can hold more than one meaning. So while you're friend was being abused Vines, his world was not yet in focus nor did he have the cognitive ability to understand sexuality or sexual acts.
My best guess Vines, is that when these events occurred he mentally shut down (during the acts themselves) it's not that he couldn't allow himself to think about what was happening, more to the point, he didn't KNOW how to process what was happening. He probably shut down during the abuse. It is highly possible that the molestation, if it were gentle, was pleasurable to him.
So what you have Vines, is a child who is not able to accurately process what took place (I'll go back to this, keep reading), has been told not to allow others to touch certain parts of his body so he understands it was wrong, yet...it may have felt good to him.
The question then Vines is ...what does a child do with those feelings? In part, they do the same things you would. They fantasize about it, they feel guilty about it, but somewhere along the way Vines...there is a need to make sense of it. A child of that age Vines, learns to define themselves. "I am a brother", "I am 7 years old", "I am tall", "I am a child of God" even. While they are learning to conceptualize math for example, they are also learning to conceptualize THEMSELVES. You friend might have done this any number of ways...
He could (a short time later) masturbated and fantasized over the events, when he became sexually active he could have explored homosexual behaviors. It is not uncommon for pre-adolescent or adolescent boys to masturbate eachother or in the presence of eachother (don't ask me how I know this, I just do :)If so, these new experiences could have brought back the pleasure, guilt and shame involved with the earlier events. This doesn't mean he "turned" gay Vines, it means he was trying to figure out how the events fit into his self-portrait...his concept of self. Who am I?
Like this....my name is Tom, I am tall, I am funny, I am good at math, I am good at baseball, my teachers like me, I like Suzie, I like it when another boy touches my penis. So....what AM I? A child, now pre-teen, teen, young adult, adult...will keep repeating the events to relive them Vines...to re-experience them Vines, it's like re-building the puzzle over and over again until you finally get all the pieces to fit. Do you understand?
I'm off to my meeting now Vines. I'll come back later and read what you have written. Your friend needs a good therapist Vines to work with him, to help him express his feelings about the old events and his current state of conflict.
I'm not so bad after all, huh? ;)
Vicki
Modified by Jersey Girl at Tue, May 21, 2002, 05:42:26
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks.. here are the details Re: Vines -- Jersey Girl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
05/21/2002, 05:29:25
Author Profile Mail author
I am not 100% sure, but I think it all started when ny friend was about 7 years old. The offender was his paternal uncle. This continued regularly for about 3-5 years. I think he was starting adolescence when it stopped. The molestation did not include violence. My friend was constantly reassured by his uncle that everything was OK, and that he shouldn't tell his parents, or anyone else.
My friend grew accustomed to this, and as Martin and Gunnar have suggested, I think he felt gratified by these experiences. From what I understand at some point he understood that this type of experience was considered homosexuality, hence he concluded that he was homosexual since this had become an ongoing accepted thing.
It stopped when he somehow found a way to tell his parents. They scolded him for telling them!!! It was a shameful thing for the family and shouldn't be spoken about, but the uncle was put out at this point...
My friend now feels attracted to women but also strangely to men. He has attempted to have girl friends but has been rejected usually because is not considered very attractive... He has very good male friends... some of which he has somewhat fallen in love with... he doesn't know... His "orientation" is all but clear to him...
It could be that he has not been open to me, but what he has said, I have been able to verify independently.
He is now in his late 30's, single and with no significant relationship with either sex.
My thanks if you can shed any light on this...
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Thanks.. here are the details Re: Thanks.. here are the details -- The Vines Top of thread
