Homosexuality selected because of societal function

[annabenedetti]

Cautiously, maybe suspiciously, but not dishonestly - at least not in what I have seen.

I don't consider your dialogue to be dishonest. I didn't think that at all.

And I'm not dishonest.

And sod's a troll.

 

[glassjester]

I am not trying to say that the same principle is in play in homosexuality or any of the disorders that you mention above but it's a case where something keeps happening despite its adverse effects on the fitness of an individual and even on their circle of friends/family.

Right, so not every trait that survives within the species is necessarily due to its usefulness, or that it is selected for.
It could just be an accidental byproduct of other useful traits that are selected for.



The mere occurrence of a trait is not sufficient proof of its usefulness.

 

[kmoney]

Probably the choice to emulate the positive marriages of my parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles.

When did you make that choice? And you think you became attracted to women because you made the choice to emulate them?

I'd wager that a child decides that, well before he experiences any sexual desires.
How old are kids when they start "playing house?"

If the immediate and extended family has positively modeled true marriage, if the child has been raised to value family, recognize and respect authority, and base his actions on his determinations of right and wrong (as opposed to determining right and wrong, based on his own actions), all by the age of reason (probably age 7 years - adolescence), then by the time sexual desires arise, homosexuality has already been precluded.

Truthfully, if I was brought up to value homosexuality (I'm looking at you, Ancient Greece), I probably would engage in it. A disgusting thought, but can any of us confidently and sincerely claim otherwise?

Could anyone honestly say that every man in Classical-Era Athens had the "bisexual gene?" No way. They were just taught (as children) to value that type of sexual relationship, and to pass that value on to children.

It's not in the DNA. It's in the culture.

What do you mean by being taught to 'value' homosexuality? And do you think people are taught to value homosexuality in the way Ancient Greece did?

I don't mean to remove all fluidity from sexual attraction in EVERYONE. But I think you leave it more open than it truly is. I base that on my own experience and from a couple things your viewpoint cannot explain. Your viewpoint doesn't appear to explain that some gay people come from conservative Christian homes where they would not have been taught to 'value' homosexuality. I know someone in exactly that situation. Your viewpoint also doesn't explain the presence of gay people when they have zero incentive to be gay. It's something that has to be defended and explained. Why would people choose that? Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I think homosexuality is widespread enough that it can't be explained by simple choice or rebellion or being taught to value homosexuality.

 

[kmoney]

Right, so not every trait that survives within the species is necessarily due to its usefulness, or that it is selected for.
It could just be an accidental byproduct of other useful traits that are selected for.



The mere occurrence of a trait is not sufficient proof of its usefulness.

No, but I'm saying there could be more to the story. I think you are simplifying things too much.

 

[glassjester]

Thanks. There wasn't a lot more at the footnote link, but this is along the lines of what I've been saying:

"Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

Do you think they willed themselves aware?

No. But that does not negate the fact that sexual orientation is considered fluid. And that it develops and can even change over the course of someone's life.

It is not innate.
Do you agree?

I suspect you'd approve of gay conversion therapy, but I hope not.

I don't know very much about it.
But what little I've heard... doesn't sound very good.

As I said earlier (in this thread, I believe), it could be the case that there's some kind of "point of no return" for some people. An event horizon of sexual orientation.

You want to believe that gay can be willed away. Am I right?

I don't know.
Maybe not once the event horizon is crossed.

I already told you I don't know.

Speculate?

 

[annabenedetti]

No. But that does not negate the fact that sexual orientation is considered fluid. And that it develops and can even change over the course of someone's life.

It is not innate.
Do you agree?

It's not an either/or.

Innate has in no way been ruled out, because of the possibility that some sexual orientation can be fluid. You're going for absolutes here, when there aren't any.

Do you agree?

I don't know very much about it.
But what little I've heard... doesn't sound very good.

:up:

As I said earlier (in this thread, I believe), it could be the case that there's some kind of "point of no return" for some people. An event horizon of sexual orientation.

I don't know.
Maybe not once the event horizon is crossed.

I have to say on this point we're at a solid disagreement.

A person's orientation, whether it's innate, fluid, settled... is their orientation. It's not a matter of will, it's a matter of psychological and physiological/biological factors so complex that even the experts can't adequately explain them.

Speculate?

No. I don't see the benefit to speculating about someone's sexual orientation. It's one thing to be a researcher or a clinical psychologist.

It's another thing entirely to be a heterosexual prognosticating on the internet as to whether a homosexual could will a change in their orientation.

It seems so demeaning to do that, doesn't it?

That bothers me.

I think I'll end my contribution to it here.

 

[Crucible]

I was simply curious to know if you had experienced falling out of love.

Hurt is the only thing that brings a person out of love.

 

[glassjester]

It's not an either/or.

Innate has in no way been ruled out, because of the possibility that some sexual orientation can be fluid. You're going for absolutes here, when there aren't any.

Do you agree?

This is paradoxical.
"There are no absolutes," is, itself, an absolute.

A person's orientation, whether it's innate, fluid, settled... is their orientation. It's not a matter of will, it's a matter of psychological and physiological/biological factors so complex that even the experts can't adequately explain them.

But there exists no evidence that orientation is set-in-stone at (or before) birth. Right?

No. I don't see the benefit to speculating about someone's sexual orientation. It's one thing to be a researcher or a clinical psychologist.

It's another thing entirely to be a heterosexual prognosticating on the internet as to whether a homosexual could will a change in their orientation.

Keep in mind, the question of mine you're refusing to even hypothesize about, came as a direct response to a question you asked me.

When you asked me whether orientations change, I said that they generally do not.
You replied:

Why do you think it's "generally, no?"

You did not seem to mind asking me to speculate.
To which I obliged.

It seems so demeaning to do that, doesn't it?

That bothers me.

Again, you did not seem to be bothered by asking me to speculate about why orientations generally do not change. Were you asking me to do something demeaning?

Asking you why sometimes orientations do change, seems to be the natural corollary to the question you first asked me. It is a fair request.

How is it that orientations do sometimes change?

So you don't know what it's like to fall out of love,

This, I'm still thinking about.

I realize you do not like to go back over something you've already addressed.
I will understand if you wish to ignore this last topic.


I do not believe I know what it's "like" to fall out of love.
I would not count the coming and going of adolescent crushes as falling in or out of love.

My wife and I have been together since we were teenagers (I am 31, now), and I have not fallen out of love with her.

But, while I have not had the subjective experience of falling out of love, it is possible to know how that happens (though not what it feels like, when it does happen).

Just as I may know how to die, but I do not know what it feels like, to die.

I can state with a great degree of certainty what choices my wife and I make, in order to stay in love.
Therefore, it is possible for me to know how to fall out of love.


To clarify:

A) For my wife and I to stay in love, we must choose to do XYZ.

Implies...

B) If we choose not to do XYZ, we will not stay in love.


Again, I do not know what it's like to fall out of love. Nor do I know what it's like to die.
Yet I can know this:

A) I must eat in order to not die.

Therefore...

B) If I do not eat, I will die.

 

[glassjester]

No, but I'm saying there could be more to the story.

Agreed.

I think you are simplifying things too much.

Selaphiel's maxim, "If the trait exists, it must be useful," is the true oversimplification, here.

I am arguing against that overly-simple (and unsupported) assertion.

 

[Selaphiel]

Selaphiel's maxim, "If the trait exists, it must be useful," is the true oversimplification, here.

I am arguing against that overly-simple (and unsupported) assertion.

If you are going to assign a maxim to me, at least get it right.

If a trait exists, it must at least have been useful, either directly or indirectly, to the perpetuation of a species. And it is not an unsupported assertion, as we have seen there are studies that both suggests a genetic origin of homosexuality. It doesnt matter if it the homosexual individuals themselves contributed as individuals. It certainly does not seem to be a threat to the perpetuation of the species that exhibit the behavior, then it would have been eliminated at least in the wild. It would certainly not have persisted as a trait in so many species.

It is really irrelevant whether it serves a use in let us say modern western civilization and culture. But it doesn't cause any harm to the man as a species.

The real unsupported assertion is the ridiculous claim that it an act of will or being taught it. As kmoney pointed out, homosexuals emerge in environment highly hostile to it. People suffer radical breaks with their families because of it. Not to mention that they have been ostracized and hated in so many cultures, yet homosexuality exists even in the most vehemently anti-homosexual environments and cultures. As if anyone would will that amount of suffering for themselves.

 

[Selaphiel]

You are saying that a belief in God's creation of the human soul precludes a belief in evolution. That it could not be God's will and the product of evolution?

I am thinking about that.

Is the automobile a natural product of evolution, or an unnatural intervention?

Depends what you mean with your terms, your statements are too ambigious. If it means that God infused man with a rational soul from above, then it is not really accepting the theory of evolution. Rationality is, like most other things in nature, a matter of gradation. Rationality in man is a highly developed form of it, especially when linked with the evolution of symbolic representation and language. There is no simple de-lineation in nature between rational/not rational which can be used to describe man as absolutely unique and thus be understood as imago dei. Indeed, the psalmist himself asks: "what is man that you are mindful of him?". I think the entire project of assigning some wholly unique trait as the imago dei is a theological blind alley.

 

[glassjester]

If you are going to assign a maxim to me, at least get it right.

If a trait exists, it must at least have been useful, either directly or indirectly, to the perpetuation of a species.

This just isn't true.
That is an oversimplification.

A trait could be a completely useless consequence, of a complex interaction between other traits that were selected for, and are useful.

It could be a malfunction.
Or do those not exist in biology?

And it is not an unsupported assertion, as we have seen there are studies that both suggests a genetic origin of homosexuality.

There have been cases of identical twins, in which one is gay and one is not.
I am aware that in many cases, identical twins have the same sexual orientation.
But even one counterexample would prove that genes do not dictate sexual orientation.

It is really irrelevant whether it serves a use in let us say modern western civilization and culture. But it doesn't cause any harm to the man as a species.

I agree.
I do not believe I've claimed otherwise.

The real unsupported assertion is the ridiculous claim that it an act of will or being taught it. As kmoney pointed out, homosexuals emerge in environment highly hostile to it. People suffer radical breaks with their families because of it. Not to mention that they have been ostracized and hated in so many cultures, yet homosexuality exists even in the most vehemently anti-homosexual environments and cultures. As if anyone would will that amount of suffering for themselves.

I have never said that one's sexual orientation is determined in a single, willful act.
I do not believe that anyone wakes up one morning and decides to be homosexual or heterosexual.

All I am claiming is that sexual orientation is not innate
(again, no one's ever met a gay baby).

And that a long chain of events takes place during someone's development and socialization, that leads to them being attracted to the types of people they're attracted to - to the traits they look for in a potential mate (their "taste").

The experiences taking place in that chain of events, are influenced by our culture, values, and the choices we make.

 

[glassjester]

Depends what you mean with your terms, your statements are too ambigious. If it means that God infused man with a rational soul from above, then it is not really accepting the theory of evolution. Rationality is, like most other things in nature, a matter of gradation. Rationality in man is a highly developed form of it, especially when linked with the evolution of symbolic representation and language. There is no simple de-lineation in nature between rational/not rational which can be used to describe man as absolutely unique and thus be understood as imago dei. Indeed, the psalmist himself asks: "what is man that you are mindful of him?". I think the entire project of assigning some wholly unique trait as the imago dei is a theological blind alley.

This is a good explanation of your thoughts.
Thank you for taking the time to write it.

I think your answer to the following question will help to disambiguate my statements.
Is the automobile a product of evolution or an unnatural intervention?

 

[annabenedetti]

This is paradoxical.
"There are no absolutes," is, itself, an absolute.

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you work or studied in a scientific field, you're probably very familiar with phrases such as "recent evidence suggests..." or "the current understanding is..." because you're working with hypotheses and theories, which are always up for revision. There's always the open door to new information, findings, discoveries. As scientific knowledge advances, particularly in genetics and epigenetics, we can expect to know more about homosexuality from a biological and psychological standpoint, so I'm going to stand by my statement.

But there exists no evidence that orientation is set-in-stone at (or before) birth. Right?

Wrong.

Keep in mind, the question of mine you're refusing to even hypothesize about, came as a direct response to a question you asked me.

When you asked me whether orientations change, I said that they generally do not.
You replied:

You did not seem to mind asking me to speculate.
To which I obliged.

Again, you did not seem to be bothered by asking me to speculate about why orientations generally do not change. Were you asking me to do something demeaning?

Not consciously, I wasn't. As I was typing my last response to you, I began to feel that way about the conversation itself. I'm not being critical of you, I'm being critical of myself, and doing something about it.

Asking you why sometimes orientations do change, seems to be the natural corollary to the question you first asked me. It is a fair request.

How is it that orientations do sometimes change?

Again, we don't know the answer to that, do we? I drew a comparison between research/clinical work and internet forum discussion, because we're not going to know the answer as a result of this discussion. It's endless speculation, and I grew tired of it. I'm sure you have other people with whom you can continue the discussion.

This, I'm still thinking about.

I realize you do not like to go back over something you've already addressed.
I will understand if you wish to ignore this last topic.

I do not believe I know what it's "like" to fall out of love.
I would not count the coming and going of adolescent crushes as falling in or out of love.

My wife and I have been together since we were teenagers (I am 31, now), and I have not fallen out of love with her.

But, while I have not had the subjective experience of falling out of love, it is possible to know how that happens (though not what it feels like, when it does happen).

Just as I may know how to die, but I do not know what it feels like, to die.

I can state with a great degree of certainty what choices my wife and I make, in order to stay in love.
Therefore, it is possible for me to know how to fall out of love.


To clarify:

A) For my wife and I to stay in love, we must choose to do XYZ.

Implies...

B) If we choose not to do XYZ, we will not stay in love.


Again, I do not know what it's like to fall out of love. Nor do I know what it's like to die.
Yet I can know this:

A) I must eat in order to not die.

Therefore...

B) If I do not eat, I will die.

First, dying is a biological action, it's not a state of mind.

Second, being in love, or falling out of love is not the same thing as doing the thing that will continue that condition.

I know you're sincere, but I continue to think that you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I had wondered if you knew the experience of falling out of love not as a point of discussion but simply from human interest. Sometimes unless or until we've experienced something ourselves, we don't know how it can be possible for others.

 

[glassjester]

I don't know what you do for a living, but if you work or studied in a scientific field, you're probably very familiar with phrases such as "recent evidence suggests..." or "the current understanding is..." because you're working with hypotheses and theories, which are always up for revision. There's always the open door to new information, findings, discoveries. As scientific knowledge advances, particularly in genetics and epigenetics, we can expect to know more about homosexuality from a biological and psychological standpoint, so I'm going to stand by my statement.

And the current understanding (as the APA suggests) is that sexual orientation develops over a person's entire life.

Wrong.

Right.

Not consciously, I wasn't. As I was typing my last response to you, I began to feel that way about the conversation itself. I'm not being critical of you, I'm being critical of myself, and doing something about it.

Again, we don't know the answer to that, do we? I drew a comparison between research/clinical work and internet forum discussion, because we're not going to know the answer as a result of this discussion. It's endless speculation, and I grew tired of it. I'm sure you have other people with whom you can continue the discussion.

Ok

Second, being in love, or falling out of love is not the same thing as doing the thing that will continue that condition.

Sure, but willingly doing something with the intention of continuing that condition, is tantamount to willing the condition, itself.

I stay in love on purpose.

I know you're sincere, but I continue to think that you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I had wondered if you knew the experience of falling out of love not as a point of discussion but simply from human interest. Sometimes unless or until we've experienced something ourselves, we don't know how it can be possible for others.

Alright.

 

[annabenedetti]

And the current understanding (as the APA suggests) is that sexual orientation develops over a person's entire life.

One line from wiki versus the body of ongoing work in the scientific community... I'll go with the ongoing work being done in the scientific community.

Right.

I don't believe you'll be able to provide scientific support for your assertion.

Sure, but willingly doing something with the intention of continuing that condition, is tantamount to willing the condition, itself.

Right there, you can see they are two things, you've said it yourself: will and condition. Apples and oranges.

I stay

Action/behavior. That's your apple.

in love

Condition. That's your orange.

 

[glassjester]

One line from wiki versus the body of ongoing work in the scientific community... I'll go with the ongoing work being done in the scientific community.

I don't believe you'll be able to provide scientific support for your assertion.

It's not my assertion. It's the APA's assertion.
And I trust they have based it on psychological evidence.

On the other hand, I don't believe you'll be able to provide scientific support that orientation is innate and immutable.

Right there, you can see they are two things, you've said it yourself: will and condition. Apples and oranges.

Willfully maintaining a condition is tantamount to willing the condition, itself.
If I've erred in my reasoning above, please point out my error.

Action/behavior. That's your apple.
Condition. That's your orange.

I just don't understand.

You're saying that I willingly maintain a condition, but I do not maintain the condition willingly?

 

[annabenedetti]

It's not my assertion. It's the APA's assertion.
And I trust they have based it on psychological evidence.

Your quote is a line from wiki that, when you check the footnote, doesn't go directly to the APA. Look for yourself. There are a lot of psychologists and behavioral scientists and biologists and medical doctors out there, pursuing various lines of research, testing various hypotheses.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a professional or academic background in the study of human sexuality. If you do, please feel free to correct me. If you don't, you can cherry-pick a line from all kinds of places that may appear to bolster your assertion, but you simply haven't studied the subject in depth enough to speak with any authority. And neither do I.

On the other hand, I don't believe you'll be able to provide scientific support that orientation is innate and immutable.

I certainly can provide support which suggests that there are genetic and epigenetic factors involved, since I've studied the subject at an academic level. I'm not going to do that though, because this is my last post in the thread. That doesn't mean there may not be other factors involved - again, this is a very complex field of study which crosses multiple disciplines.

Willfully maintaining a condition is tantamount to willing the condition, itself.
If I've erred in my reasoning above, please point out my error.

Let's go back to homosexuality, which is your ultimate focus in this conversation.

People can use their will to abstain from sexual behavior. That's not the issue. You're saying (if I've understood you correctly all through this), that heterosexuals can will themselves to become homosexual, and that homosexuals can will themselves to become heterosexual. As in: "Just do it."

The willing of a state or condition is not the same thing as the state or condition itself. Forget apples and oranges, and think noun and verb.

I just don't understand.

You're saying that I willingly maintain a condition, but I do not maintain the condition willingly?

No, I'm saying that your willing the condition is not the condition itself.

Simply abstaining from homosexual behavior doesn't mean there is a change in orientation.


And that's it from me in this thread.

It's been a pleasure. :e4e:

 

[glassjester]

People can use their will to abstain from sexual behavior. That's not the issue. You're saying (if I've understood you correctly all through this), that heterosexuals can will themselves to become homosexual, and that homosexuals can will themselves to become heterosexual. As in: "Just do it."

Nope.

Though I realize my view has been misconstrued as such, several times.
As I clarified earlier (and numerous other times):

I have never said that one's sexual orientation is determined in a single, willful act.
I do not believe that anyone wakes up one morning and decides to be homosexual or heterosexual.

All I am claiming is that sexual orientation is not innate
(again, no one's ever met a gay baby).

And that a long chain of events takes place during someone's development and socialization, that leads to them being attracted to the types of people they're attracted to - to the traits they look for in a potential mate (their "taste").

The experiences taking place in that chain of events, are influenced by our culture, values, and the choices we make.

Simply abstaining from homosexual behavior doesn't mean there is a change in orientation.

Agreed.

It's been a pleasure. :e4e:

Likewise.

 

[patrick jane]

Are you done already?