I think foundit66's theory seems plausible, and immensely preferable for a culture than cutting off one of the testis of every male child- a practice some African tribes used to slow population growth.

__________________


Give me Liberty! or give me marriage!

http://saltwn.blogspot.com/

There are several cultures who, with less false human constructs, have a positive attitude towards homosexuals not only in terms of population control, but positive omens and periods of transition in which the homosexual plays a key role. Does anyone remember the term "two-spirit"?

__________________

I agree. I read somewhere that hormonal changes in the mother brought about by stress can directly affect the fetus, bathing the fetal brain, and actually creating "a gay brain"...if pressed I can find the link.

But homosexuality still reduces the chances of a homosexual gene being passed to the next generation. You can go on and on about recessives, but the bottom line is that homosexuality is not a trait that enhances the possibility of the gene being passed to the next generation. You would see a slow, steady decline and eventually the complete loss of the gene. It's simple fact - any genetic disposition that discourages procreation cannot be genetically viable over the long term. It may persist over the short term, but it will eventually fade out of the gene pool. It's genetic attrition.

I do believe that there are hormonal influences in the womb that effect the possibility of a person being homosexual and environmental factors play huge role in it. But a genetic predisposition simply makes no sense.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

All HIGHLY theoretical and goal based research (instead of proposing a theory and then testing it to seeif it's correct, propose a theory and then prove that it's right) Basic common sense says that homosexuals reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Ergo, homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool over time. It's not rocket science, just very simple math.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

DO gays procreate at rates similar to heterosexual couples?
No.
Do gays adopt at rates HIGHER than heterosexual couples?
Yes.

While I have no doubts that some gays do choose to procreate, the bigger picture of what I said is still true.
If you want to add something intelligent, please let me know...

Would you?
Would you really?

We've got genetically passed diseases, unrefutably passed via genetics, which are directly linked to death or other circumstances which limit them.
Are THEY gone?

While you mock other people's ideas, I think you need to realize that YOU are also coming to the table with some unproven ideas.
Actually, DISPROVEN claims.


And yet, the evidence of the genetic predisposition is there.
Proven in a variety of ways.

Differences between fraternal and genetic twins in rates of homosexuality helps demonstrate a more solid genetic link.
So maybe it's us that should scoff at your idea, as you are presenting some ideas that are obviously disproven....


These are real theories.
The fact that we can't readily test them is NOT a discrepancy in the theory.
It doesn't help *disprove* the theory, nor does it make it any less feasible.

The only "goal" here is to explain the phenomenon.
Something I don't see you even trying to do at all...


When I was in high school, I came across a "math problem" that appeared to prove that 1+1=1.
It didn't. There was a flaw in one of the steps it used to reach its conclusion.

Likewise, your "homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool over time" is like that "1+1=1".
Obviously, gays aren't going anywhere.
In fact, gays are ABUNDANT in the animal kingdom as well, showing there is a lot more going on than your simple analysis.

So, on one hand we have people actually ANSWERING your question.
And on the other hand, we have you not liking the answer cause it doesn't match the conclusion you WANT (goal-based decision making), and instead you stick to an analysis which incorporates an assumption which is obviously disproven.

If you think you have a better answer, than give it.
Otherwise, your demurrals are kind of pointless.

Nope, but they have one small difference, they allow the person carrying the gene to procreate at nearly the same rate as people who don't carry the gene.

I'm coming to the table with basic common sense ideas. I make no claims to scientific studies, just good old fashioned horse sense. If you don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on. It doesn't get much simpler than that.



Sorry, but the studies that I've seen do not follow the scientific method, they start with a theory and build facts around it to support it. BAD science. Good science is just as willing to prove the theory wrong as it is to prove it right.

No it's not. C'mon, this is simple stuff: If you don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on. How hard is that to understand??


My assumption is one that is as basic as 1+2=3. It's not theory, it's simple fact: If don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on.


I already gave my explanation for homosexuality - hormonal influences in the womb and environmental influences. Both explain the results of twin studies. Twin studies are aslo flawed at thier core, because they don't remove the influence of natal hormones. A truly scientific study would be to have two different women carry the twins to term and then study the differences. The problem with that is that it would require an almost insurmountable logistical obstacle. Twin studies are flawed in this way and there's no way realistically to overcome that flaw. Therefore, the results of twin studies are questionable at best. Any scientist would know this fact and the fact that these stusies are presented as good science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientists involved are not objectively evaluating a theory, but rather trying to prove thier theory is right.

Why is it that homosexuals get all wound up about this whole genetic disposition to homosexuality? If you have a predisposition to homosexuality, then it's there and undeniable. So why try to create a false impression that it's about genes, when the facts show differently? Why not accept that it's because of natal hormones and environment? What is the big deal about wanting to prove that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality?

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

Really?
So when the disease kills off the child in infancy, that is "the same rate" for procreation?
Other Genetic Diseases - Signs and Symptoms


And it doesn't get much more simplistically flawed than that.
You should really look up "recessive genes", and then get back to this discussion.

If we assume the "gay gene" is present in me, it was passed to me by my parents.
My parents who had six other kids. Each of which who may have some form of the gene in their own genetic being.
Most of whom have had kids of their own, passing on the gene...

The complaint you raise is easily explained. In fact, some of the studies that show the younger children in larger families are more likely to be gay help substantiate such a claim, easily refuting the "passing on the gene" problem.


I'm not talking about quoting the religious right studies, which aren't typically capable of passing the scientific standard to get them published in a reliable journal.
Moreover, I am amused at how you talk about "good old fashioned horse sense" on one hand, but on the other you pretend to have intimate knowledge about the fundamental workings of these "studies"...

I'm sorry, but no. You're just throwing crap out there hoping it sticks to the walls.
And I could prove that by putting up a variety of studies, and challenging you to show how they did what you accuse them of doing...
But I think we both know you couldn't follow through with actual PROOF of your claim...
So, if you want to proceed further, then let me know. I'll happily post several studies, and you can show me how supposedly they are all "bad science".
If all you want to do is throw out quick meaningless accusations which you obviously cannot substantiate on the grander scale of scientific evaluation, then I guess you've done that.


I already threw up the road-block that addressed your concern, but you ignored it.
Twin studies DO address the issue of "natal hormones". Fraternal vs Genetic twins.
BOTH fraternal and genetic twins are present in the same "natal" environment, exposed to the same "natal hormones", right?
So shouldn't the incidence for the homosexuality be identical between "fraternal" and "genetic" twins?
But it is NOT, is it...

Such an approach helps demonstrate that the genetically identical nature of the "genetic" twins adds something that is NOT PRESENT amongst the fraternal twins.


It's funny how you talk, but you don't actually say anything.
The REAL problem here is that you cannot "study the differences" right out of the womb. The "results" won't be seen for several years.
And this isn't a fundamental flaw which eliminates the conclusions of the twin studies either. The same variables that should separate fraternal twins are also present for genetic twins.
So the conclusions should be identical.
But again, they ARE NOT.

Your comments on a "flaw" do not erase the conclusions of the twin studies.
By that mentality, I could point out the bible passages that show inaccurate scientific claims, and erase the entire book, right?


Scientists make use of any data available.
It may not be the most ideal data, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
You are making the mistake (and assumption) that data not being perfect suddenly means it should be ignored.
THAT is your flawed thinking.


ROFLMAO!
Actually, you have presented NO "facts" that it is "different".
What you have done is raise a question, and pretend that the question only has one conclusion.
You haven't presented any "facts" at all. Furthermore, you have made sweepingly dubious claims regarding the legitimacy of the scientific work.

Tell you what FS. Can you present me ANY ACTUAL research which determines, to the degree of conclusivity that you demand from the pro-genetic studies, that it cannot be "genetic"?

Don't try to tout "facts" when you don't really have any...


Actually, I believe the natal hormone environment DO have a definitive impact.
But it is not the ONLY impact.

A better question should by why you fight so hard with just "horse sense" to insist that it cannot be genetic?
Why make up claims about the genetic studies being "conclusion driven" ignoring the fact that many of them ARE CLEARLY beyond that attempt of reproach?

Creating "a gay brain"???

You gotta find the link to that one! In fact, we insist that you do. Consider yourself "pressed".

__________________
_____

Barack Obama and his Associations - A Question of Judgement & Character