Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[kmoney]

Thanks for posting those links. I'm not sure I'm following though. Who is passing down the genes?
In the overdominance theory, is it that genes are carried that don't always express so the carriers do reproduce and pass it on and then certain offspring do exhibit SSB?
The experiment with flies showed more of the sexual antagonism which requires the members with SSB to still reproduce, which can still happen if the individual is bi-sexual or they simply mate with the opposite sex despite SSB.
The Kin theory, is it that the homosexuals help their kin reproduce and the shared genes keep getting passed on?

Bump for anyone who can help me understand this. :readthis:

 

[Stripe]

Bump for anyone who can help me understand this. :readthis:

Easy.

Darwinism is bunk.

 

[glassjester]

I stand corrected anna: Besides your little chickadee Art Brain, kmoney and now glassjester, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone comparing taste in music with sodomy.

I didn't compare musical taste to sodomy.

I compared musical taste to romantic parter taste.
Not in the sense that one affects the other, but that both tastes are formed gradually over time - mostly through the choices we make, as well as our culture, beliefs, values, and experiences.


A man might have a "taste" for certain romantic partners (ie, blondes, well-educated).
Just as he may have a "taste" for certain musical genres.

How did those tastes develop?
He certainly wasn't "born that way."

 

[glassjester]

YOu seem to want to be taken seriously on an intellectual level but you posit garbage like this.

Depression is disordered. Yet it exists.
Schizophrenia is disordered. Yet it exists.
Pica is disordered. Yet it exists.

Yes.

Remember, Selaphiel's claim was that, because homosexuality has survived in the species, it must have been selected for, and serve a useful purpose.

Follow?


But this line of reasoning does not work.
Not all traits that have survived in the species serve a useful purpose.

For example - schizophrenia, depression, pica.

You could apply Selaphiel's claim to all of those conditions as well.
"Schizophrenia still exists in the species, therefore it serves a useful purpose."

Really?

 

[glassjester]

I don't think it's a very good analogy but I was participating in the topic.

Yet we use the word "taste" to refer to all sorts of preferences.
I'm not the only person to ever consider one's "taste" in partners similar to one's "taste" in other areas of life. It's quite a common comparison.


And just for fun...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Probably
If there was a rational argument for why an aversion to the smell of vomit was, in and of itself, immoral, then I would certainly try to rid myself of the aversion.

As for the moldy bread... some foods are made with mold, right (blue cheese)?
Again, if eating non-moldy bread was immoral, I wouldn't do it.

Is it immoral?

I'd say you could become accustomed to the smell of vomit, to the point where you wouldn't really notice it if continually surrounded by it but I very much doubt you could enjoy it. Yes, certain folds have natural edible mould which is why I used bread as an example. If you decided that non mouldy bread was immoral to eat then you'd end up poisoning yourself.

Obviously it's not immoral to eat fresh bread but then neither is being gay and hardly a choice either.

Probably not. Besides, I couldn't habituate to it. I'd only get to try it twice!
Joking aside, I would not enjoy causing physical harm to myself.

Well, it's certainly true that you'd only be able to do it twice...

There are however, people who do enjoy, and seek out physical harm.
I consider that desire to be inherently disordered. Don't you?

I think cases of self harming are rooted in psychosis, depression, psychological trauma of some sort etc. Hardly the same thing as simply being homosexual or bissexual even. Plenty would tell you they were simply born that way without any instability or trauma or whatever informing that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I didn't compare musical taste to sodomy.

I compared musical taste to romantic parter taste.
Not in the sense that one affects the other, but that both tastes are formed gradually over time - mostly through the choices we make, as well as our culture, beliefs, values, and experiences.


A man might have a "taste" for certain romantic partners (ie, blondes, well-educated).
Just as he may have a "taste" for certain musical genres.

How did those tastes develop?
He certainly wasn't "born that way."

Your argument simply doesn't work with that analogy though. To go back to where we were at before, does somebody choose to be born with perfect pitch? No, of course they don't. It's just innate.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And just what goal is accomplished by your sperm being pumped into another man's poop chute????????

What goal is accomplished by sperm going into a condom? What goal is achieved by a plethora of heterosexual practices that can't result in reproduction? Sometimes people just have sexual intimacy for the sake of just that...

 

[glassjester]

Your argument simply doesn't work with that analogy though. To go back to where we were at before, does somebody choose to be born with perfect pitch?

I doubt it's possible to have perfect pitch.


But even if it is possible; how could you possibly know that you possessed this trait at birth?

Does one's pitch not improve with practice?

No, of course they don't. It's just innate.

You're working on three premises, here, that are by no means certain.
1. That a person can have perfect pitch.
2. That perfect pitch is inborn.
3. That one's pitch dictates his musical taste.

Even if 1 and 2 were true (which you cannot say with any certainty), 3 is ridiculous.
You have no choice over what music you like? Come on, now.

If you want to stay within the realm of facts, we can say for certain that (1) people do enjoy the types of music they are most familiar with. And, for the developed world anyway, (2) we exercise a great degree of freedom in choosing what music we become most familiar with.

Those two facts alone make a strong basis for my claim - that we shape our own musical tastes.

 

[glassjester]

What goal is accomplished by sperm going into a condom? What goal is achieved by a plethora of heterosexual practices that can't result in reproduction?

Preach it, Brother!

 

[glassjester]

You have no choice over what music you like? Come on, now

...

Those two facts alone make a strong basis for my claim - that we shape our own musical tastes.

A question occurs to me, that may demonstrate this point.

If you believed it morally wrong to listen to Ligeti's music, and, when first presented with the opportunity, you had refused to listen - would you still have come to enjoy his music?

 

[Tambora]

What goal is accomplished by sperm going into a condom? What goal is achieved by a plethora of heterosexual practices that can't result in reproduction? Sometimes people just have sexual intimacy for the sake of just that...

Sure, you can get a gratifying sensation from a lot of things, simply because it's not that hard to stimulate your yang-yang.
You don't even need another person at all to do that.
Your own hand, a blowup doll, a warm watermelon, you name it.
But none of those are sodomy.
So, of all the ways one can gratify their self, why in the world would one choose to cram it into a filthy poop hole????


And I think the reason it is stimulated so easily is to keep the sperm pumping, and therefore greatly increase the chances of getting your spouse pregnant.
I can think of only one dominant mission of sperm --- to attach itself to a female's egg.

Sooooo, if that is the mission of sperm, then shooting it where it can accomplish nothing is fruitless (pun intended).

 

[glassjester]

Sooooo, if that is the mission of sperm, then shooting it where it can accomplish nothing is fruitless (pun intended).

Yep. :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I doubt it's possible to have perfect pitch.


But even if it is possible; how could you possibly know that you possessed this trait at birth?

Does one's pitch not improve with practice?

Well it is. Someone challenged me on this once by asking me to stand with my back to a piano while they played random notes on it and asking me what they were. I got every single one right as I knew I would. It's not something you learn exactly...I get an 'inward haze' of colour for each note on the scale which is also something I doubt you could learn. It's not something I can take any credit for either, it's just there.

You're working on three premises, here, that are by no means certain.
1. That a person can have perfect pitch.
2. That perfect pitch is inborn.
3. That one's pitch dictates his musical taste.

The first one is certain. I'm hardly alone in having it either.
Your second is like saying someone can never be born with a talent or disease.
Your third is one I've not exactly argued anyway. Perfect pitch may be completely irrelevant as to why I have a penchant for the types of music that engage. I do know that I have no choice in the matter of what does. I once found the whirs of a cement mixer fascinating to the ear so there ya go...

Even if 1 and 2 were true (which you cannot say with any certainty), 3 is ridiculous.
You have no choice over what music you like? Come on, now.

I can absolutely say with certainty that 1 is true and if we were in a room with a piano in it then I could prove it as I've just outlined above. Unfortunately that isn't possible so you can either take my word on it or presume I'm lying. Whichever you choose won't alter the fact - and it's not as though perfect pitch in itself is some weird phenomenon anyway. As to the rest then I know I didn't learn it. I learned what the notes were through music theory but that doesn't give you the ability to recognize them through sound alone.

Lastly, yes, I have no choice in it, just like when I was bed ridden with measles as a 13 year old kid being blown away by a tape of Stravinsky's 'Rite Of Spring'. Didn't ask for that dude, just the same as I didn't ask for measles even but an unforgettable experience for me anyway. I can choose to search out music that may appeal, through a variety of genres, but guess what? Beyonce ain't never gonna be on that list...

If you want to stay within the realm of facts, we can say for certain that (1) people do enjoy the types of music they are most familiar with. And, for the developed world anyway, (2) we exercise a great degree of freedom in choosing what music we become most familiar with.

Those two facts alone make a strong basis for my claim - that we shape our own musical tastes.

You're not stating facts, you're merely stating opinion. I can tell you now that any bland pop song that goes through the regurgitated basic chord formats is just not gonna appeal to my ear mate.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I didn't compare musical taste to sodomy.

I compared musical taste to romantic parter taste...

I'm understanding what you're getting at, but same sex desire is brought about by negative environmental factors. Whether a guy prefers a blonde to a brunette woman isn't the same.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A question occurs to me, that may demonstrate this point.

If you believed it morally wrong to listen to Ligeti's music, and, when first presented with the opportunity, you had refused to listen - would you still have come to enjoy his music?

Yep. The ear itself isn't restricted by 'morality'. If I happened to be in a record store or any place that was playing 'Clocks & Clouds' I would not be able to not enjoy the sonic experience.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, you can get a gratifying sensation from a lot of things, simply because it's not that hard to stimulate your yang-yang.
You don't even need another person at all to do that.
Your own hand, a blowup doll, a warm watermelon, you name it.
But none of those are sodomy.
So, of all the ways one can gratify their self, why in the world would one choose to cram it into a filthy poop hole????


And I think the reason it is stimulated so easily is to keep the sperm pumping, and therefore greatly increase the chances of getting your spouse pregnant.
I can think of only one dominant mission of sperm --- to attach itself to a female's egg.

Sooooo, if that is the mission of sperm, then shooting it where it can accomplish nothing is fruitless (pun intended).

So essentially your main hang up is with anal sex? Hey, it doesn't appeal to me either but I'm just pointing out that humankind has a whole load of sexual practices that can't result in offspring. Not really seeing anything wrong with that either frankly.

 

[glassjester]

I'm understanding what you're getting at, but same sex desire is brought about by negative environmental factors. Whether a guy prefers a blonde to a brunette woman isn't the same.

Hello ACW - Have you read that study in which researchers changed the sexual preferences of mice from hetero- to homo- by manipulating their serotonin levels with drugs?

I'd guess you've seen that one already.
Sheds some light on the correlation between illegal drug use and homosexual activity.

 

[glassjester]

Yep. The ear itself isn't restricted by 'morality'. If I happened to be in a record store or any place that was playing 'Clocks & Clouds' I would not be able to not enjoy the sonic experience.

Again - if you had chosen, based on some moral principle, not to expose yourself to that type of music (barring accidental exposure), would you still have developed a taste for it?

Or would your moral choice, have prevented you from developing such a taste?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Preach it, Brother!

Preach what? Do you think it's immoral for any heterosexual, fertile married couple to have any sort of sexual intimacy that couldn't potentially produce a child? Possibly a rhetorical question but humour me anyway...