Heterosexuality, Genetics, Environment, Religion...

[Lord J]

Ok! I just finished reading Malott's (1996) "A behavior analytic view of sexuality, transsexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality," a fascinating literature review and opinion piece that suggests that the environment shapes the inherent appreciation of sexual contact into homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, or even asexuality. I want to do some further reading on the references page, and look to see what new stuff exists, but this person is an authority in my field, and his opinions are in line with current behavioral theory (at least as far as I am aware. Look it over, think about it, and post your nonsense!

This thread has been a while in coming, and I want to see what people have to say. The purpose of this thread is to be somewhat lighthearted (at least at first), but I don't doubt that people are going to become quite irate.

Eras, Dante, DK: consider this the place to argue.

Edric: I do not want this locked! If I change my mind, I will let you know. This thread may press the boundary of what is allowable on this forum, and that's fine, I'll make the decision of whether it should be locked or if a post is unnecessary or wrong. If a post specifically breaks a forum rule, you can delete it from the thread and archive it, but let me know.

[athanasios]

Good you opened this thread. All out of topic references, for the known reason, can be moved here! ;-)

-

Well needless to add I totally disagree with the exegesis given by Malott on various experiments he quotes from. For example 'the twins' as much as convincing it may appear to be in supporting his thesis is misinterpreted (both the twins had a more general sexual 'deviation'') and is statistically insignificant. Not that environment doesn't play any role, it does and a lot, but it is not the dominant one.

[Dante]

Wow, ok. The scientist in me kind of wants to go through the whole thing in order to write a proper response to each of the points raised, but I honestly don't think that would make for a good discussion. So I'll start with the point that particularly interested me: that societal condemnation of non-procreative sex would not be necessary if humans were not naturally sexually flexible.

In other words, and if I've understood him correctly, the author writes that the existence of political or religious laws against homosexuality (and masterbation) would only be necessary if, without them, people were entirely ambivalent towards differing sexual practices. After all, if the everyone was inclined to find non-procreative sex aversive then such laws wouldn't be necessary. As the author asks, "Why are there no major religious and legal laws against gouging out one's own eyes or pounding one's head on the floor until it bleeds?" There are no laws against self injury because its not something that most people do. There are laws against non-procreative sex because... Fill in the blanks.

But I do have some issues with this. Firstly, there are also laws against incest. And there are very definite genetic reasons to make incestuous behaviour aversive. The author's argument would seem to support the hypothesis that avoiding incest is a learned behaviour, which only make sense if there are other checks in place to ensure that such behaviour is learned the right way. He also references the various different cultural attitudes to different sexual practices, but such shifts also appear in the example of incest (see ancient Egypt, European monarchies and the Habsburg Lip).

Now it's entirely possible that I've misinterpreted here (anatomy was always my area of interest, psychology not so much), but it seems to me that there is a contradiction here. The author argues that differing cultural views and the requirement for political and religious laws indicate that sexuality is not genetically predetermined. Fair enough. But those same conditions exist for incest, which is very much genetically selected against.

Secondly, I'm not sure I quite follow the logic relating to the early Judeo-christian lawmakers. They made laws against X, therefore X was something so prevalent that they had to make laws against it. But there are similar laws against divorcing a woman and then remarrying her after she's married someone else. I suppose it's possible that this was some kind of scam back in the day (obtaining another dowry?), but we could be here all day discussing the possible reasons for weird old laws.

[On a side note, I've recently looked into a theory that has it that the word often cited as "abomination" in biblical quotes more accurately translates as "practice specific to a group of people," or toevah (תֹּועֵבָה or tō'ē'bā, according to my sources). It first crops up when Moses is describing Jewish practices to the Pharaoh; since it would be somewhat ridiculous for Moses to describe Jewish practices as "abomination," the conclusion that he is simply observing that these practices are foreign to the Egyptians seems a great deal more likely. The theory gains even more weight when you see that Leviticus and pals not only refered to "lying with mankind as with womankind" as toevah, but also eating bivalves, rabbits, pork and crustaceans. There are two possible conclusions from this: that practices which were toevah to Jews were not necessarily toevah to other people, and that Jews who engaged in toevah were not abominations so much as engaging in practices foreign to their people.

eras, since I know you're reading, things like this = why I know more about the bible than you do.]

Another thing I wonder about is the author's stance on, well I'm not sure what to call it, sort of an extended version of the Kinsey scale. He seems to refute the study of homosexuality as a discrete subject, which seems sensible as neither sexuality nor sexual behaviour (which we know aren't the same thing) are discrete. He also (maybe? I'm not sure about this) refutes a correlation between the two, thus indirectly acknowledging, for example, heterosexuals who like anal sex, bisexuals, and all the other host of people who fall somewhere north of missionary position heterosexuals.

I have more, but I'd like to have more of a discussion than a lecture, so that will do for now.

(p.s. ath, did you understand what he was saying about the twins at all?)

[athanasios]

Probably you didn't! :P

[Dante]

Good to see someone's keeping the idiocy levels up.

On another note, if I've understood him the article's author is basically stating that sexuality is shaped by environment, but long before it becomes expressed. Or in other words, when you're born you are a tabula rasa but by the time you've reached puberty you've already developed, for want of a better word, your sexuality (in the sense of the whole slew of sex-related behaviours rather than the rather narrow definition of the gender you find attractive). He also seems to say that this sexuality, once formed, becomes the concrete behaviour pattern throughout life.

In which case one wonders how this applies to the development of different "kinks." Is someone who discovers late in life that they prefer oral to genital pleasure developing a new liking or simply uncovering an inherent one?

Or have I gotten entirely the wrong end of the stick?

[arnoldo]

. . . [On a side note, I've recently looked into a theory that has it that the word often cited as "abomination" in biblical quotes more accurately translates as "practice specific to a group of people," or toevah (תֹּועֵבָה or tō'ē'bā, according to my sources). It first crops up when Moses is describing Jewish practices to the Pharaoh; since it would be somewhat ridiculous for Moses to describe Jewish practices as "abomination," the conclusion that he is simply observing that these practices are foreign to the Egyptians seems a great deal more likely.

Bible commentaries on Exodux 8:26 state that the Jewish practice would appear as an abomination to the Egyptians since it involved the sacrifice of animals sacred to the Egyptians (picture devout Hindus responding to witnessing the sacrifice of a sacred cow).

[arnoldo]

Ok! I just finished reading Malott's (1996) "A behavior analytic view of sexuality, transsexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality," a fascinating literature review and opinion piece that suggests that the environment shapes the inherent appreciation of sexual contact into homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, or even asexuality. I want to do some further reading on the references page, and look to see what new stuff exists, but this person is an authority in my field, and his opinions are in line with current behavioral theory (at least as far as I am aware. Look it over, think about it, and post your nonsense!

Interesting article which may support the politically incorrect hypothesis that there is no "gay" gene.

[ErasOmnius]

This guy is known as the Autism guy here in Michigan.

Malot is trying to give society-altering discussion on behavior that has been condemned for 6000 years, without a medical degree. The guy doesn't even mention the role of hormones when talking about sexuality. That testosterone encourages aggressive behaviour, and estrogen does the opposite.

Where's the rest of what he is trying to say? Don't try to alter what's worked for 6000 years without devoting a least 30 pages while doing so.

But it was worth a read.

[Dante]

Arnoldo, how do we know that this isn't the same mistranslation cropping up again?

Well done eras, way to respond to the article without actually responding to it or indeed saying anything of worth. Kudos.

[athanasios]

He said a lot to respond and debunk the mad pseudo-scientist, but you are blind to read. That guy's paper is rubbish and unscientific a complete waste of time to discuss about it. I was waiting to see who would post such a wise medical argument. Bravo ErasOmnius.

[Dante]

Oh look, the lickspittle appears again. Well, excuse me if I don't see any more evidence in your post than in his, or indeed any sort of conclusion in his besides non-sequiter point-stating without structure or analysis. "Medical?" I'm not sure whether that's sad or really frightening.

Geez, do you people have no idea how to conduct an argument properly? It's like arguing with apes. Help me out here Lord J, I need someone with a brain.

[ErasOmnius]

We have natural law on our side, Dante. That when our sperm enters a woman's vagina, our species can procreate and move forward. The foundation of both Evolutionary and Creationism thought. That's why I asked you about your belief in your version of Gaia Theory. We are wondering how you reconcile what you do with both kinds of science.

But a while ago, you wanted to show what a 'smarty-boots' you were, and you asked me the definition of Gaia Theory. Or the 3 tenets of non-religious philiosophy. Or whatever. Or if I understood the basics of natural selection. You see, you still haven't justified why society should change. Just because a majority in parliament, or 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say that homosexuality is okay, doesn't mean that it is scientifically or anatomically correct.

The normal 'stands', until the abnormal can justify itself. Medically, showing proof in genetic theory, not some 'autism' guy who wants everyone to buy his book, and use it as a teaching manual.

[Spectral Paladin]

On another note, if I've understood him the article's author is basically stating that sexuality is shaped by environment, but long before it becomes expressed. Or in other words, when you're born you are a tabula rasa but by the time you've reached puberty you've already developed, for want of a better word, your sexuality (in the sense of the whole slew of sex-related behaviours rather than the rather narrow definition of the gender you find attractive). He also seems to say that this sexuality, once formed, becomes the concrete behaviour pattern throughout life.

In which case one wonders how this applies to the development of different "kinks." Is someone who discovers late in life that they prefer oral to genital pleasure developing a new liking or simply uncovering an inherent one?

Or have I gotten entirely the wrong end of the stick?

I admit I 've only skimmed through the article at the moment. If I may assume you 've got the right of it though, I 'll respond to that; I won't back it with anything at the moment, simply state what I think for what this is worth.

I have strong doubt that everything has been set in stone by puberty and everything that pops up since is a manifestation of it. Yes, children learn fast and are much more likely to do a 180 in their perception of the world. Adults still learn though and have also shown to change greatly through their lifetime. Sexuality is no more formed than anything else by the time of one's puberty.

Therefore, as to whether people's sexual preferences can be changed throughout their lifetimes the answer is yes, in general, they can.

(I 'm fairly sure there was a topic here once named "homosexuality, genetics, choice or both" or something along those lines. I had opted to stay out of that one but "choice" was what I was leaning towards. Not in the sense of a clear-cut fully concious choice obviously; anyone interested feel free to dig it up.)

[Dante]

Wasn't that topic one of Gunwounds'? No, I avoided it too, and for good reason. As for whether or not our developmental years are really that, I'll leave it to our resident psychologist to explain further.

eras, you've used "natural law" for several months now without ever actually explaining what it is. Now's your opportunity to prove that it actually exists.

Furthermore:

> The Gaia theory has nothing to do with this discussion or indeed homosexuality at all. You're stupid.

> You don't get to talk about any "foundation" of evolution until you've proven that you know how natural selection works. Still working on that answer?

> What's this "we" you mention? The only person I see who seems to be making an argument against me is you. Ath hardly counts, he just pops up to kiss arse every so often.

> I asked about systems of morality, you dunce. And I asked about the Gaia theory because you kept bringing it up and I wanted to see if you had any idea what you were talking about. Evidently not. It's nothing to do with proving my own intelligence, and everything to do with exposing your lack of it.

> I think you'll find that legal systems define what is legal. It's kind of their job.

> Ok, you're showing your ignorance again. "Anatomically correct" is a term used to describe physical bodies that don't differ from the norm. Something that is anatomically incorrect is something that just wouldn't work in reality (Piltdown man, early Victorian images of dinosaurs, child's drawings with skewed proportions, etc). Don't confuse anatomy with physiology, biochemistry, ecology... in fact, how about you just stop pretending to know anything about biology? You can't even get the words right, how can you possibly expect to sounds like an authority on the subjects?

> You've also got a job cut out for you in defining "normal." Because believe me, "normal" is very much a sliding scale.

When are you going to come up with some new material? Surely you must be bored of pretending to know things by now.

[ErasOmnius]

This article by Malot...is light on the science.

Why don't we start talking about young people before puberty not identifying with the correct gender? Then taking that mis-identification, and dwelling on it psychologically, till it becomes a way of thinking, and way of life. So that eventually the male identifies with female orientations and occupations. Hair stylists, room decorators, etc. So that the misguided male is unable to function around other straight males. Doesn't want to play team sports, doesn't want to learn building trades, etc. Let's focus on these things, instead of all of those other activities. Eventually the male so is-identifies with his gender, that he believes that his rectum is a penis-receiving vagina. The male believes that his prostate gland is a sexual organ that is to be stimulated by a male penis inside of his rectum.

But of course, there is no reproduction is such a 'life'-style. The male personality takes on none of the overt positive personality of females, such as compassion and kindness. Instead the misguided male becomes bitter, gossipy, and campy.

And our society is supposed to give a great, big cheer about it all. Throw in the cost of lifetime of HIV treatment, and it's just 'Jim Dandy'.

[Dragoon Knight]

[colour=#005FFF]Just so you know, everything you just posted was idiotic and wrong. I'm just highlighting the worst parts.

But first of all? You don't get to say that anything is "light on the science". Nothing at all. Not even a kid's colouring book. Compared to the putrescent drivel you poison our eyes with on a daily basis, that article should be framed and hung in the damned Museum of National History.[/colour]

So that eventually the male identifies with female orientations and occupations. Hair stylists, room decorators, etc.

[colour=#005FFF]Implying that "real men" (or at least "straight men", which is the same to you) can't be either of those occupations without being gay. Also that those are "women's jobs". Sexist. And yet more evidence that you are a horrible human being, with your attitude towards gay people.[/colour]

So that the misguided male is unable to function around other straight males. Doesn't want to play team sports, doesn't want to learn building trades, etc. Let's focus on these things, instead of all of those other activities.

[colour=#005FFF]Leaving aside your moronic belief that being gay is simply being "misguided", this is another example of bigotry and unbelievable idiocy. If you don't play team sports, you don't "function" correctly? This kind of ridiculous reasoning leads to even more hideously incorrect generalisations. Anti-social? You don't "function" correctly. Gay? You can't have played team sports. Because there aren't any gay sportsmen at all.[/colour]

Eventually the male so is-identifies with his gender, that he believes that his rectum is a penis-receiving vagina. The male believes that his prostate gland is a sexual organ that is to be stimulated by a male penis inside of his rectum.

[colour=#005FFF]Once again, you continue your butchering of the English language while simultaneously demonstrating that you have no understanding of what homosexuality is. You really have no ability to separate being gay and having anal sex, do you? Further, do women who are anally penetrated by men think that they have two vaginas? And not to burst your bubble, but the prostate gland is a sexual organ. It can be stimulated by anything. It doesn't have to be a penis. Stop obsessing about anal sex. You are literally the stupidest person I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with.[/colour]

The male personality takes on none of the overt positive personality of females, such as compassion and kindness. Instead the misguided male becomes bitter, gossipy, and campy.

[colour=#005FFF]More prejudiced hatespeak in the form of generalisations! Here, you imply that homosexuals have no positive femine characteristics. You also imply that all gay people are "bitter, gossipy and campy". But wait, there's sexism in there as well!

And throughout it all - this entire post - notice that once again, all you can focus on is GAY MEN and ANAL SEX - seriously, there are eight instances of the word "male" in your last post, two of "penis" and two of "rectum". Nothing about lesbians. No distinction between being gay and having anal sex. No acknowledgement that straight male-female couples participate in anal sex as well.

I... hate you so much. I just wish there were more words for what you are. A hateful, spiteful little man, whose repressed sexuality has taken the form of a particular breed of idiocy, racism and prejudice. You exemplify the word "wrong". Every time I want to show someone what I mean by a "bad" Christian, or what religious bigotry can lead to, I'm going to point them towards the shit you spew, day after day. Take solace in the fact that, through your stupidity, you are indirectly preventing people from being like you.[/colour]

[athanasios]

I 'pop up' to say that it is getting very repetitive and boring. Started skipping lines, paragraphs. See you later...

[ErasOmnius]

I... hate you so much. I just wish there were more words for what you are. A hateful, spiteful little man, whose repressed sexuality has taken the form of a particular breed of idiocy, racism and prejudice. You exemplify the word "wrong". Every time I want to show someone what I mean by a "bad" Christian, or what religious bigotry can lead to, I'm going to point them towards the shit you spew, day after day. Take solace in the fact that, through your stupidity, you are indirectly preventing people from being like you.

Drag, you really are carrying on a bit much, aren't you? Not racism, I think your word would be 'homophobia'.

But on to the next subject, this really has become boring.

[Dante]

Boring? I find that curious, given your failure to deal with any of the points put to you. It's a classic post, true to eracist form. Lets look it over, shall we?

Ah! A familiar and oft used opener, the reliable old "Lets talk about what I want to talk about (because I don't understand what you were talking about)." This is especialy handy as it simultaneously allows the user to change the subject and ignore all of the previous subjects, thus doing away with the pesky need for any form of segue. Establishing relevancy is rather overlooked with this method.

Lets see, following that is the usual tripe without a shred of objective proof or background reading. But I'm willing to toy with you (akin to the way a cat toys with a mouse) for now, so I challenge you, eracist, to produce what we in the real world call "evidence." And to make it even easier for you, I'll describe what that is: a peer-reviewed paper by credible authors which establishes a causal relationship (note, correlation is not the same as causation) between homosexuality and: gender confusion, hair stylists, room decorators, inability to function around heterosexuals, aversion to sport, physical employment, bitterness, gossip and camp behaviour (whatever that is).

You will also have to produce similar evidence proving a causal relationship between being female and being compassionate. That is, you have to prove that being female necessitates compassion.

I advise you that you may run into stumbling blocks, given that there are gay sportsmen, straight decorators, unkind women etc. Also, if homosexuals can't function around heterosexuals, you're going to need to explain (with evidence) why we aren't living in some kind of segregated society.

While you do that, I have two further pieces of advice for you:

> An association is not the same as causation. Many gay people are camp, this is true. It is also true that many women are compassionate, and that many butterflies are yellow. However, just because an animal is yellow does not mean that it is a butterfly, and just because someone is camp doesn't mean that they are gay. Similarly, there are butterflies that are blue, women who are cruel, and homosexuals who aren't camp.

> Lesbians. Lesbians lesbians lesbians. L.E.S.B.I.A.N.S. Any theory (and associated evidence) that you put forth has to be able to explain homosexuality, which is a gender-neutral term. You persist in overlooking the poor neglected lesbians.

Now stepping back a bit, you have yet to explain what "natural law" is. If you feel like providing any evidence for that, which would be my next point regardless of what you say, that would save us some time.

...and that's actually it, for now.

Lord J: Have you found anything more up to date? If that paper was written more than a decade ago, there must have been some progress since.

One final note to ath: it might be more interesting if you contributed anything beyond one-line irrelevance. Just a thought.

[Spectral Paladin]

Hair stylists and decorators are indeed jobs taken up by women and gay men. There's a definite pattern there, regardless of counterexamples you may come up with. Are you so concerned with political correctness and scientific rigor (rigor in psychology, amusing), you can't see past your own nose? I suppose what it means or what are the causes may be up to debate and investigation but the observation is valid. Even a fool can notice such patterns.

I 've noticed people with sexual kinks very often aspire to study psychology. There's another pattern for you.

Unkind women...that's what you get when you let them out of the kitchen.

[Dante]

Are you... entirely serious? I can't tell. Either way, you need to provide evidence of your random claims just as much as eras does.

[Lord J]

In the words of a gay hero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ALsvU50wQ

Sorry it's been so long since I've posted. It's nice to see you all getting along.

One interesting point that I noticed Malott did not really elaborate upon was the concept of scents and pheromones in producing sexual behavior. It seems to me that this plays a role, possibly a very large role.

Ath: Yeah, you don't really understand his point regarding the twins. Your point is that, somehow, because their sexuality is socially deviant then it shows that, specifically, gay sex between men is genetic. Do you understand how that doesn't make sense?

So Dante, interesting points. I would say that the reason that Malott focuses so much on environmental causes for sexual behavior is that he is a radical behaviorist. In an attempt to create a scientific approach to psychology, with the assumption that we can predict human behavior with some accuracy, the environment was considered a causal factor for all behavior. Indeed, early behaviorists (and many current behaviorists) completely ignored genetic factors with the assumption that, simply, if you change the environment, you can change the behavior. Unlike most of the psychology of the time, behaviorism provided clear, discreet, counts of behavior and environmental events. This science has been used to successfully treat autism (as Eras mentions) better than any other type of intervention. It is used in managerial training, military training, drug treatment, and advertising. And hey, who here doesn't want a beer right now, eh Eras? More recent behavior analysis has taken into account genetic predispositions for certain behaviors.

Now in regards to incest versus homosexuality, I would argue that the answer is specifically in what you said. "And there are very definite genetic reasons to make incestuous behaviour aversive." But are there genetic reasons to make homosexuality aversive? The simple fact of the matter is that gay people can still have children, and therefore carry on any "gay genes", whereas incest is less likely to produce viable offspring. The same also applies for the case that there is no genetic background for homosexuality. Malott doesn't address incest (probably for multiple reasons) because it's something that could probably be addressed biologically, whereas homosexuality is not as clearly biologically based. My preference for boobies over hairy chests could be at least associated with early childhood experiences and some genetic factors, but my preference for the boobies that aren't closely related to me could be more genetic than environmental. In other words, I think Malott didn't bring up incest because it's unrelated, not because it somehow disproves behaviorism.

I'm not sure I understand the specifics of the example you're giving in your second point, but I think you're probably onto something there, although it may simply be a case of using confirmatory evidence on Malott's part. I don't know that his example can really be used to address other Jewish laws. Your bit about "abominations" was very welcome and interesting. I think I've run across that description before, but it's very applicable in the current discussion.

I'm not directly sure about the author's stance on sexuality vs. sexual behavior, but your assertion seems to make sense. Kinseyan (is that a word?) definitions of sexuality puts everyone in a specific box. But what if you're a happily married guy who sometimes asks for a "happy ending" at the massage parlor from your male masseuse? What if you're a very gay man who likes breasts? What if you're a lesbian who uses dildos? In other words, preferred types of sexual stimulation can be unrelated to any professed sexuality, because it's related to the difference between "personality" and specific behaviors, something that Eras doesn't seem to get. Of course, it's difficult to understand that gay people aren't all the same when you... think that they're all the same....

Your second point is partially true. Very early behaviorists believed that the human state was, at birth, one of tabula rasa, and that experience alone wrote personality and systems of behavior upon them. However, it's since been shown that what we learn and how we learn are at least moderated by genetics. I think (and I could be wrong) that sexuality, as a personality variable, is somewhat stable across the lifetime. Now, that being said, a gay person may live a straight lifestyle for many years due to social pressures, and a straight person might experiment with gay sex. in other words, behavior is related to current events as well as events in distant history. I think in this case, Malott may have been writing more to those with a knowledge of behaviorism than those in the general audience.

No, I've been distracted this last week or so and haven't checked out any more recent articles. I'll be doing that soon, though.

Eras: The name is Malott, with two t's. Actually, testosterone has not been specifically related to aggression. I cannot be bothered to find the appropriate readings right now, but the science just isn't there.

Ath: Malott may not be an MD, but he is a Ph.D. and highly respected within the field of psychology. Sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior are all psychological processes. Besides, you're missing the importance of behaviorism to the topic; what goes on under the skin only happens because it has been selected by the environment. I daresay fewer MDs know what the hell they are talking about when considering psychological, political, and social science than your average bum on the street.

Eras: Physiological reproduction is a thing of the past. Women can easily reproduce without male intercourse, and if we were all like you, I wouldn't blame them for it. "Natural law:" Natural selection is natural law. Dumbass.

[ErasOmnius]

Eras: Physiological reproduction is a thing of the past. Women can easily reproduce without male intercourse, and if we were all like you, I wouldn't blame them for it. "Natural law:" Natural selection is natural law. Dumbass.

LJ, tell us about your parents, fully and completely. Trust me, Glee-ful 3-ful; it's not because I want to get my jollies.

You see, you can hand out put downs till you are blue in the face. But I will hold my life-style out as a beacon for everyone. Stable marriage, 3 wonderful children, joyful, volunteer at the shelter, teach at the college, co-own a marketing firm.

So you LJ, tell us about your unique point of view. Tell us about your mother and your father. All about them. Their marriage. Their break up. How you felt. Everything. Tell us how proud you really are.

Dante, you are a genetic dead end. You cannot reproduce correctly. Correctly does not mean that you could perform the function with a turkey baster and a test tube. Unless, you think that is success. If you do and plan on doing it soon, tell us.

How does your inability, or lack of desire, to reproduce, fit in with Evolutionary thought? Honestly, we have been beating around the bush for months. I bring up Gaia, you say I don't have it completely correct. How does your homosexuality fit in, in the grand scheme of Evolution?

[Dante]

Kin Selection, developed by R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane and first truly expressed by W.D. Hamilton. Used to explain the evolution of altruistic behaviour and the positive effects of having non-breeding individuals in a population.

Brief detour: You don't have Gaia correct and, I think for the third time now, Gaia has nothing to do with this discussion. It doesn't even have anything to do with what you're talking about. The Gaia theory describes how organic creatures and non-organic factors (lithosphere, cryosphere...) interact with each other and suggests that their interactions are balanced such that conditions are kept roughly in homeostasis. Incidentally, if you had said something like that when I first put the question to you, you might have earned a few points. Too bad.

Back to Kin Selection.

Mankind is just one of many species that has been subject to social evolution (in this case defined as evolution of and through social behaviour). In the same way that our genes have influenced our sociality, our sociality has also influenced our genes.

Take an example. Say there is a population of birds in a hostile environment. Each breeding pair can guard a territory large enough to provide food for themselves and one chick per year. They could produce one chick per year, kick it out of the nest, and that would be the pattern.

But what if the chick, once it reaches adulthood, cannot find a territory (and/or a mate) of its own? It could live without one, and thus be unable to set up a nest, attract a mate, feed its prospective young or reproduce successfully. Or it could return to its parents and assist in raising its siblings.

Why is this a better option? This is why:

> The parents now have a grand total of three adult birds dedicated to raising their young. Where before they could only have a maximum of one bird seeking food and fighting off competition at a time, now they have two.

> For this reason, it would not be unexpected for the larger team to be able to cover a greater territory and return with more food.

> If the larger team can recover enough extra resources, the parents could raise two chicks, thus doubling their yearly reproductive success.

> The offspring doesn't get to reproduce that year, but it keeps itself alive in a stable territory, making it more likely that it will reproduce the following year instead of dying.

> Further, it is assisting in the success of genetically related individuals (more on this below*).

> And finally, there is the certainty that sooner or later the parents will grow weak and unable to defend their territory. When this happens, the offspring will be there to step in and inherit it. This benefits the parents and the offspring equally, as offspring survival is in both of their best interests.

It is in everyone's best interests for genes predisposing these birds to altruistic behaviour to remain in the population. In terms of natural selection, they will be selected for because those birds that have them will enjoy greater reproductive success, despite reproductive losses on the part of some individuals. In other words, the social system will select some genes and inhibit others (much like more famous cousins, natural selection and sexual selection).

*genetic relatedness.

It could be broadly stated that living creatures (not just animals) have a drive to reproduce. In more specific terms, creatures attempt to propagate their genetic code (and to a much lesser extent, inhibit the propagation of the genetic codes of others).

But what if a creature is unable to propagate its genetic code? What if there are only limited resources, or it exists in a seriously skewed gender imbalance such that, for example, there are very few males and only a rare female gains access to one.

In circumstances such as these, the next best thing to reproduction is to assist in the reproduction of very similar genetic codes.

A quick lesson in relatedness:

Most species in the world are diploid, that is they have two copies of every chromosome and thus two copies of every allele. Some have many chromosomes, some have few, some have XY combinations and some have WZ, there's a whole lot of variation, but almost all are diploid (exceptions include some plants,

ssome of which can have as many multiples as they like, and prokaryotes, which are uniformly haploid).

When diploid species reproduce, they "shuffle" their genes so that their offspring gets a random selection of half of them. There are many reasons why this is a good idea that we needn't go into right now, suffice to say that genetic recombination is extremely important to everything.

And, just to mess things up a bit, these two copies of chromosomes are not identical. And, only one is active at a time in any one cell. But its not necessarily the same one as its neighbour.

But we needn't go into that. Where was I? Oh yes.

Each child receives 50% of each parent's genes, randomly shuffled for variation (this is why children born to the same parents aren't identical unless they're twins). This means that every child shares 50% of its genes with its parents. It will also share 50% of its genes with its own children, and so on and so on.

While the random shuffling adds an element of chaos to the calculation, every child will also share an average of 50% of its genes with its siblings. Sometimes this will be more (think brothers who look very similar), sometimes less (think siblings who don't look at all alike), but mathematically it works out as a 50% average.

Using this as a starting point, we can calculate relatedness of any two members of a family. An individual will share, on average: 50% of its genes with parents, children and siblings, 25% with grandparents, cousins and grandchildren, 12.5% with nephews and nieces, 6.25% with the children of nephews and nieces...

You get the idea. Now pay attention because this next bit is important: Assisting in the success of related individuals is indirectly furthering part of your own genotype.

It can't really be put any simpler than that, but let me elaborate.

If circumstances arise where an individual cannot reproduce (as detailed above), it can still further its genetic code through the production of family members. Every extra sibling is another 50% of your genes running around with the potential to reproduce. Every extra cousin is an extra 12.5% (this is why siblings are a better investment than cousins). And as detailed above, it is often in the best interests of the population to have some non-breeding members to assist those individuals who are able to breed.

Now here's the big point: how useful would it be to a population to have individuals who would not reproduce even if conditions were ideal for them to do so?

Homosexuality (to take an example, even though the author of the paper did say that he was attempting to construct a model for all kinds of different behaviours) has been around for thousands of years and exists not only in our species but many others, including many who mate for life. While it does not remove the drive to procreate (which would be suicidal for the genes concerned), nor the ability, it does remove the opportunity, thus establishing, for most intents and purposes, a population of non-breeding individuals.

What does an animal do when it wants to procreate, can procreate, has all the necessary instincts to procreate, but has no offspring? Kin Selection would suggest that assisting in the production of family members would be the most logical course of action. And as explained above, this behaviour is likely to be evolutionarily successful. An animal with altruistic genes that assists in the production of siblings has a ~50% chance per sibling of passing on those same altruistic genes to a breeding individual.

Of course, this is just one theory. There are others which I would be more than happy to detail. But I happen to like Kin Selection as a theory, and it plays into Lord J's interest in evolutionary psychology, and with its emphasis on behaviour and sociality is more on topic than most of the alternatives.

On an individual note, I do not lack the ability to reproduce, I lack the inclination. Just like many heterosexual people, I find children annoying and burdensome. Further, while one could argue that artificial reproduction is still reproduction, it depends on a degree of technical advancement that only one species possesses, and is in any case beyond the conditions and calculations of the natural world.

Also, as demonstrated above, I am not, as the resident village idiot accused, a genetic dead end. My own 100% genotype may end with me (though not necessarily), but a good 98%+ average of my genes are walking around just waiting to further themselves. My own lack of reproductive success is more than offset, genetically speaking, by the success of my siblings and cousins.

And finally, thank you Lord J for your reply. I was beginning to fear that you'd just built an arena, tossed in the christians and the lions, then sat back to watch the fun. ;) I'll reply to you soon if I can, need some time off after this epic.

[athanasios]

Ath: Yeah, you don't really understand his point regarding the twins. Your point is that, somehow, because their sexuality is socially deviant then it shows that, specifically, gay sex between men is genetic. Do you understand how that doesn't make sense?

Of course it doesn't make semce, because I didn't draw such a conclusion. That was your conclusion from distorting my post.

The simple fact of the matter is that gay people can still have children, and therefore carry on any "gay genes", whereas incest is less likely to produce viable offspring.

!!! (first part already covered by ErasOmnius) Who told you this? That's nonsense. Again that 'less likely' is statistically insignificant.