(February 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:46 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Some people believe it's a choice,

Who believes it's a choice?  I don't think anyone is really holding onto that idea anymore.  Even the ultra conservative churches have changed their tune and no longer believe it's a choice.  Hell, the Mormons, arguably the most conservative church there is, have accepted that being gay isn't a choice.

There are people holding onto that idea you can google it easily.  I already did, the main person it has as an example is Ben Carson.  I've watched other Islamic videos too stating the same thing.

(February 11, 2016 at 3:10 pm)TaraJo Wrote: [
What a lot of churches are doing now is kinda horrible in a different way.

They admit people are gay, but to be accepted by the church they have to not have any gay, sexual relationships.  Not only that, they're encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex, have straight sex and even have children within that marriage.  Observe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaxrN1IUDYA

Kinda horrible if you ask me.  I can't imagine being married to someone I have no sexual interest in.

I don't know. He says he's sexually attracted to his wife. Clearly he's not a six. She knew what he was when he married her. Their body language together suggests a sexual relationship. They love each other. What it suggests is he's bi with a strong attachment to men.

What concerns me is holding him out as an example. There are too many things unlikely to be replicated there. The best friend who is female and willing. An attraction to this one woman. An accepting Mormon family. I don't think most gay men could do that.

And marriages between gay men and women often end in much pain.

It seems to me that it's more than just being attracted to a certain gender. It's about feeling a kind of very special close bond. In my experience at least, they go hand in hand. I'm not attracted to men, nor could I have the same sort of loving relationship I can have with a woman. I can be great friends with men, but there's a line that somehow can't be crossed. I can't logically explain it as to why that should be; it just is. To me, this bond is most important in a relationship.

I would imagine it's the same being gay. In the end, I think it's the close bond that people crave more than the sexual part, and probably why pretend relationships are so often doomed. But generally, as I say, they go together anyway.

Am I getting it right?

There is a lot of evidence that things that you are sexually exposed to as a child/adolescent tend to hardwire attractions in adulthood.

It's one of the reasons that the popularity of heterosexual anal sex has exploded with the widespread availability of that type of porn. Some of that stuff gets hardwired into the highest arousals because kids are exposed to it at younger and younger ages now.

So yes, there is an element of environment that goes into sexuality. But it's not the only factor---by a long shot. A lot of boys experiment with other boys as preteen/adolescents. And yet the percentage of the population that identifies as gay still hovers around 10%.

Evolution doesn't mess around. If something is detrimental to a specie's continuance it disappears within a few generations. At least that's how natural selection works. Cultural selection, which seems to take precedence in human reproduction, is too new - it's conceivable that we might select ourselves out of existence. That's doubtful though.

Homosexuality shows up in many species. This makes sense in a way as there are usually a batch of surplus males hanging around. Yes I know there aren't usually batches of surplus females waiting around, except in wolves and hyenas, but brain wiring is brain wiring. Baboons have a matriarchal culture, with, I imagine, the grooming getting a little heavy on occasion. I don't however, remember reading of female homosexuality in other species. This might be because guys do most of the writing. Neanderthals might have split into groups based on sex and only interacted on rare and all too brief occasions. There is some evidence of this. If they did it homo Sapiens might have lived in a similar fashion until recent times. This allows room for all kinds of sexual variation to be hardwired into the gene pool and persist.

I like the Rich Uncle Hypothesis. An extra spear chucker on the old homestead - available for relatively low overhead - would be very handy. One would think a small desert tribe would see the economic and survival benefit of such an arrangement. Just imagine how the book might read if they had.

(February 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Occams Arrow Wrote: Evolution doesn't mess around.  If something is detrimental to a specie's continuance it disappears within a few generations.  At least that's how natural selection works.  Cultural selection, which seems to take precedence in human reproduction, is too new - it's conceivable that we might select ourselves out of existence.  That's doubtful though.

Homosexuality shows up in many species.  This makes sense in a way as there are usually a batch of surplus males hanging around.  Yes I know there aren't usually batches of surplus females waiting around, except in wolves and hyenas, but brain wiring is brain wiring.  Baboons have a matriarchal culture, with, I imagine, the grooming getting a little heavy on occasion.  I don't however, remember reading of female homosexuality in other species.  This might be because guys do most of the writing.  Neanderthals might have split into groups based on sex and only interacted on rare and all too brief occasions.  There is some evidence of this.  If they did it homo Sapiens might have lived in a similar fashion until recent times.  This allows room for all kinds of sexual variation to be hardwired into the gene pool and persist.

I like the Rich Uncle Hypothesis.  An extra spear chucker on the old homestead - available for relatively low overhead - would be very handy.  One would think a small desert tribe would see the economic and survival benefit of such an arrangement.  Just imagine how the book might read if they had.

I think you are being a little simplistic here. Natural selection chooses among inherited traits based upon successful reproduction into future generations.   But genes are rather more complicated than single traits. One useful trait may be linked genetically to another detrimental one. If the useful trait is more valuable than the detrimental one is detrimental,  the detrimental one will persist.  Additionally, traits which promote the fortunes of relatives may persist, even if they don't directly increase the reproduction of the individual.  Homosexuality might be such a trait.

And remember that there are environmental traits which are not affected directly by natural selection of genes such as fetal alcohol syndrome.  Some drugs are known to increase Homosexuality progeny.  

Finally,  traits are more and less useful in different environments.  There really aren't good and bad traits, only more and less useful in certain environments.

I am a straight male leaning asexual and I'm attracted so some males, but not in a sexual way, if that makes any sense.

Hope this helps.

Why yes, I like simple.  (But just because I like simple doesn't mean I should be allowed to get away with it.  Thanks.)  I do know a little about this snippet working with that snippet, but on the whole the snippets have to produce a benefit.  Or at least a 'don't care' situation.  And the 'don't care' may be transitory and later prove to be necessary or detrimental.

As for the fetal alcohol syndrome and the drugs - these things are cultural selection.  Our ancestors probably had to deal with something like fetid meat syndrome but it would have taken some form of culture for the meat to hang around long enough to become fetid.  Basically, we are in agreement and I thank you for responding.

(February 17, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Occams Arrow Wrote: Evolution doesn't mess around.  If something is detrimental to a specie's continuance it disappears within a few generations.  At least that's how natural selection works.  Cultural selection, which seems to take precedence in human reproduction, is too new - it's conceivable that we might select ourselves out of existence.  That's doubtful though.

Homosexuality shows up in many species.  This makes sense in a way as there are usually a batch of surplus males hanging around.  Yes I know there aren't usually batches of surplus females waiting around, except in wolves and hyenas, but brain wiring is brain wiring.  Baboons have a matriarchal culture, with, I imagine, the grooming getting a little heavy on occasion.  I don't however, remember reading of female homosexuality in other species.  This might be because guys do most of the writing.  Neanderthals might have split into groups based on sex and only interacted on rare and all too brief occasions.  There is some evidence of this.  If they did it homo Sapiens might have lived in a similar fashion until recent times.  This allows room for all kinds of sexual variation to be hardwired into the gene pool and persist.

I like the Rich Uncle Hypothesis.  An extra spear chucker on the old homestead - available for relatively low overhead - would be very handy.  One would think a small desert tribe would see the economic and survival benefit of such an arrangement.  Just imagine how the book might read if they had.

I think sexual traits as deep as sexual attraction would have formed before humans.  Since sexual reproduction is about 1.2 billion years old, and asexual reproduction was around before that. What I mean is , I don't think anything humans could do culturally could prevent homosexuality occurring whether homosexuals would have been seen as useful or not in the spear chucking days.

Where's Scooby with a theory about this? I'm sure Dimbulb has figured out the conspiracy behind this one too.