Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Tucker Case said:

It's more about how traits that exist will make it more likly those same genes pass on, even if they don't come form the individual expressing the trait.


For example, let's say homosexuality led there to be more males that can be trusted to be left with the females and not bang them when the other men go out hunting.

Being men, they have more physical prowess in general than the average female, and they are not forced to worry about the kids, so they might be more useful in defending the tribe form lions and ****. Keeping the younger ones, probably related to the homosexuals in some way, alive.

Let's say there are many siblings in this group. Their genes are more likely to pass on because of the homosexual's presence. Their genes are also likely to be similar to the genes of the homosexual individual.

So although that man does not pass on his own genes, he ensures the survival of the genes that benefit the species by his very existence AND he helps select for his own genes survival via dormant passing on through hetero siblings.

Click to expand...

But what would be the homosexuals motive for risking themselves to protect the tribe? Is it not, as I understand it, the same genes in those relatives in the tribe? Evolution is still, as I understand it, working on an individual level. I am not well read on evolution, but have read some Dawkins and Hrdy.

Goobieman said:

The blue-eye GENE, not blue eyes.
I rephrased the question as I originally asked it improperly.

Click to expand...

And I answered you. A gene coding for blue eyes would not disappear from the human species even if those with blue eyes stopped reproducing. The only way to eliminate it's expression is to eliminate human reproduction across the board.

Redress said:

But what would be the homosexuals motive for risking themselves to protect the tribe? Is it not, as I understand it, the same genes in those relatives in the tribe? Evolution is still, as I understand it, working on an individual level. I am not well read on evolution, but have read some Dawkins and Hrdy.

Click to expand...

Probably the same motivations for a guy who goes to war at 18 years old. Altruism. A sense of community.

We know pack animals such as wolves will risk their lives in defense of the pack. This "altruism" trait has definitely been selected over the years for social animals. But it also means that the individuals who sacrifice themselves are not able to carry on their own genes directly.

There is a ton of interesting research on the subject.

It's all taking the idea that evolution is all about the individual and slamming it on it's ear. That's no longer the view held by most evolutionary scientists.

Tucker Case said:

Probably the same motivations for a guy who goes to war at 18 years old. Altruism. A sense of community.

We know pack animals such as wolves will risk their lives in defense of the pack. This "altruism" trait has definitely been selected over the years for social animals. But it also means that the individuals who sacrifice themselves are not able to carry on their own genes directly.

There is a ton of interesting research on the subject.

It's all taking the idea that evolution is all about the individual and slamming it on it's ear. That's no longer the view held by most evolutionary scientists.

Click to expand...

Going off to war is I doubt a genetic trait. The wolf example is genetic, and is explained by degrees of relation I think it is called. If my books where not all still packed up I would look it up for better info. My favorite explanation of it comes from: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259789124&sr=8-2]Amazon.com: Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species (9780345408938): Sarah Hrdy: Books[/ame]

Redress said:

Going off to war is I doubt a genetic trait.

Click to expand...

Then why do Chimps do it?

Singularity said:

And I answered you. A gene coding for blue eyes would not disappear from the human species even if those with blue eyes stopped reproducing.

Click to expand...

Not people with blue eyes, but the people with the GENE for blue eyes.

Tucker Case said:

Then why do Chimps do it?

Click to expand...

Pardon? Need more info.

Redress said:

The wolf example is genetic, and is explained by degrees of relation I think it is called.

Click to expand...

I separated this because I had to make the chimp point separately.

This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding homosexuality. The people that are most likely to pass on the homosexual's genes are it's siblings. The degrees of relation thing supports my hypothesis (which is pretty much entirely mine. I don't ever recall hearing anyone else espousing that particular line of thought to explain homosexuality, but I'm sure I'm not the only person to do it either).

Humans do something even stranger though. They assocate just as strongly with larger, more widespread groups than any other animal. Our intelligence makes it so that we consider ourselves things like "Patriots". Where we're willing to die for our country.

This taps into the "altruism instinct" that is seen in animals only in closely related groups. For humans, associations can also encompass shared experiences and values associated with nationality, sports team, anything. There is a certain camaraderie from shared values that is not present in other animals because their level of cognitive complexity is so much less than ours.

Redress said:

Pardon? Need more info.

Click to expand...

Chimps go to "war" with other "chimp tribes".

Logging Sets Off an Apparent Chimp War - The New York Times

They've also been observed to engage in rudimentary politics to gain favor and power in teh group.

Tucker Case said:

I separated this because I had to make the chimp point separately.

This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding homosexuality. The people that are most likely to pass on the homosexual's genes are it's siblings. The degrees of relation thing supports my hypothesis (which is pretty much entirely mine. I don't ever recall hearing anyone else espousing that particular line of thought to explain homosexuality, but I'm sure I'm not the only person to do it either).

Humans do something even stranger though. They assocate just as strongly with larger, more widespread groups than any other animal. Our intelligence makes it so that we consider ourselves things like "Patriots". Where we're willing to die for our country.

This taps into the "altruism instinct" that is seen in animals only in closely related groups. For humans, associations can also encompass shared experiences and values associated with nationality, sports team, anything. There is a certain camaraderie from shared values that is not present in other animals because their level of cognitive complexity is so much less than ours.

Click to expand...

Right, but what I am saying is this expanded "altruism instinct" is I don't think actually instinct in this case, or comes from another instinct(competition for needed sources of food?). If the former, it is a nurture aspect that mimics to an extent the "altruism instinct".

Goobieman said:

Not people with blue eyes, but the people with the GENE for blue eyes.

Click to expand...

And since every single individual on planet Earth carries the genes for that particular eye color in addition to the others, they would be impossible to breed out. Simply put, it would be impossible to genetically eliminate a particular eye color - in this case, blue - from being expressed, like I said.

Genes don't really get 'bred out' of a population, anyway. They can undergo mutations and base pair changes, of course, but they don't just up and disappear. The particular oligonucleotides coding in a particular gene either get translated into proteins, or they don't. Think of it like a room with many different light switches. Turn on a certain switch, the room turns green. Turn on another, the room turns blue. In the blue-light room, the possibility of turning on a green light is there, but it isn't expressed because the blue light switch is on.

Tucker Case said:

Chimps go to "war" with other "chimp tribes".

Logging Sets Off an Apparent Chimp War - The New York Times

They've also been observed to engage in rudimentary politics to gain favor and power in teh group.

Click to expand...

Interesting, and I suspect that does come down to instinct, the need for territory for relatives, though I would not know for sure.

Sarah Hrdy does talk alot about apes(it is her specialty) and has some fascinating stories about them. her first field work was with some apes where the males would commit infanticide, and she talks alot about the societies apes build. She does some great writing if you have not read her books.

Hatuey said:

I guess it's only okay to discriminate against them AFTER they're born.

Click to expand...

Can we equivocate death and discrimination on the same level?
Discrimination in our society is a necessary thing, when done for the acceptable reasons.
Death is so final, so cold.

jallman said:

First off...not a liberal here. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Secondly, evidence has been provided on this forum in numerous places indicating that there are genetic factors that make one predisposed to homosexuality.

So when did you "make a choice" to be straight?

Click to expand...

Yes, I know many a flaming liberal that prefers the demure title of "centrist."

In any event, I haven't seen anything except specious social science that argues the idiocy of being born with homosexuality.

This "making the choice" of straightness is silly. I can choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle -- as many do. The reason why I don't is because it is disgusting, repulsive, unnatural, and frankly, the height of moral degeneracy. Straightness is natural -- so I didn't choose to be straight. Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore one has to rebel against nature (by active choice) to lead that lifestyle. It's really not that hard.

K-1 said:

Yes, I know many a flaming liberal that prefers the demure title of "centrist."

In any event, I haven't seen anything except specious social science that argues the idiocy of being born with homosexuality.

This "making the choice" of straightness is silly. I can choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle -- as many do. The reason why I don't is because it is disgusting, repulsive, unnatural, and frankly, the height of moral degeneracy. Straightness is natural -- so I didn't choose to be straight. Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore one has to rebel against nature (by active choice) to lead that lifestyle. It's really not that hard.

Click to expand...

Now I am a liberal, very much so. I consider Jallman a conservative. "centrist" understates his righty leanings. Leaving aside the "flaming" aspect(which Jallman and I will share a laugh about later), calling him a liberal only is going to make any one who knows him immediately dismiss what you are saying.

Now, you made a claim, which is that homosexuality is a choice. You got called on it, asking for a source for your claims. Wanna man up and do so?

windovervocalcords said:

I'm pretty shocked that people think it's ok to abort someone just because they may turn out to be gay.

I wouldn't have thought it possible to see 22 people agreeing on genocide for gays.

Click to expand...

What has happened is a certain percentage of our population was born without any brains(no ability to think or reason), quite horrible, and its a very low percentage, and a good reason for abortion. Apparently, these people have congregated here.

K-1 said:

Yes, I know many a flaming liberal that prefers the demure title of "centrist."

Click to expand...

Isn't there a smirk smiley anywhere? Which of the smileys denotes smirking? Yeah, I need that one.

In any event, I haven't seen anything except specious social science that argues the idiocy of being born with homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Then you haven't looked. Studies with drosophilia indicate that a gene on the right arm of the third chromosome ironically called "fruitless", determines courtship patterns and sexuality. If there is such a gene in the drosophilia, it is not far fetched to believe that there is a similar compelling genetic factor in human sexuality.

Since 1973, it has been accepted fact that certain compounds found in nature called "endocrine disruptors" play a a huge role in determining gender assignment in fish and other reptiles and also in influencing sexuality in greater cats in the wild. These endocrine disruptors are found in more heavy concentrations in the human food supply due to our use of artificial growth hormones and antibiotics.

Further, twins studies consistently show a pattern of higher rates of homosexuality in identical twins than in fraternal twins, indicating a genetic factor.

This "making the choice" of straightness is silly. I can choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle -- as many do.

Click to expand...

That's cool. I am glad you could decide at any time to go down to the local YMCA and getcha gay freak on if you wanted. I can't say that's true of most straight people I know. All the straight people I know would be physically and emotionally inhibited from hooking up with a member of the same sex, let alone living their lives attracted that way.

That's becuase they are straight. But I'm glad you could choose to do otherwise.

The reason why I don't is because it is disgusting,

Click to expand...

So are turnips.

repulsive,

Click to expand...

So is ignorance.

unnatural,

Click to expand...

Unnatural like that computer you are sitting there sending messages through space with? Well that's funny...I don't see you railing against that unnaturality. That's why appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. :2wave:

and frankly, the height of moral degeneracy.

Click to expand...

Oh this should be...enlightening. How is homosexuality any more morally degenerate than any other sex act that isn't undertaken strictly for procreation purposes?

Straightness is natural

Click to expand...

As natural as automobiles, sun glasses, and blended fibers in your clothes?

-- so I didn't choose to be straight.

Click to expand...

That's my point. You didn't choose to be straight. Sexuality is compelled by several factors...genetics being one of many.

Homosexuality is unnatural,

Click to expand...

Unnatural like your microwave, airplanes barreling through the sky, and microphones that amplify sound when you hear a speech?

therefore one has to rebel against nature (by active choice) to lead that lifestyle. It's really not that hard.

Click to expand...

So is wearing eye glasses and contacts, tempering metals, electricity, oil refinement, and plastic. I don't see you bitching about that rebellion against nature.

So, yeah, it really does seem to be that hard for you to make a coherent argument here.

Psst...that's because you are defending an irrational position. :2wave:

Redress said:

Interesting, and I suspect that does come down to instinct, the need for territory for relatives, though I would not know for sure.

Sarah Hrdy does talk alot about apes(it is her specialty) and has some fascinating stories about them. her first field work was with some apes where the males would commit infanticide, and she talks alot about the societies apes build. She does some great writing if you have not read her books.

Click to expand...

I'll have to grab some of them. Thanks! :mrgreen:

K-1 said:

This topic is silly. People choose to be gay, they are not born gay.

Click to expand...

This comment is silly. You have no evidence of such. Until you present some, your opinion remains nothing but silliness.

K-1 said:

The onus is not on me to back it up, the onus is on liberals to back up their foolhardy opinion that somehow homosexuality is congenital.

Click to expand...

You stated an opinion. The onus IS on you to back your assertion. If you can't, instead of grandstanding, just say, "sorry, but I have no evidence to back my foolhardy position...therefore pay no attention to it." That would suit your position on this quite accurately.

K-1 said:

Yes, I know many a flaming liberal that prefers the demure title of "centrist."

In any event, I haven't seen anything except specious social science that argues the idiocy of being born with homosexuality.

This "making the choice" of straightness is silly. I can choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle -- as many do. The reason why I don't is because it is disgusting, repulsive, unnatural, and frankly, the height of moral degeneracy. Straightness is natural -- so I didn't choose to be straight. Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore one has to rebel against nature (by active choice) to lead that lifestyle. It's really not that hard.

Click to expand...

I was wrong. The comments you made aren't silly. They are ignorant and devoid of facts.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This comment is silly. You have no evidence of such. Until you present some, your opinion remains nothing but silliness.

Click to expand...

Conversely, so is yours....

You have no proof gay is not a choice.

Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice.

MrVicchio said:

Conversely, so is yours....

You have no proof gay is not a choice.

Being left handed is a birth issue. Allowing another male to push a blood engorged tube of his flesh into your rectum is a choice.

Click to expand...

See...I didn't make any assertion one way or the other...please point out where I did if you can. My point is that his position is silly because it was presented with no substantiation. That's what I said.

K-1 said:

This "making the choice" of straightness is silly. I can choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle -- as many do. The reason why I don't is because it is disgusting, repulsive, unnatural, and frankly, the height of moral degeneracy. Straightness is natural -- so I didn't choose to be straight. Homosexuality is unnatural, therefore one has to rebel against nature (by active choice) to lead that lifestyle. It's really not that hard.

Click to expand...

What an odd reasoning.

That's not at all why I'm not gay. I don't think it's disgusting, repulsive, unnatural or any of those other weird reasons you give.

I'm simply not attracted to women. :shrug: I can't imagine anyone deliberately forcing themselves to be attracted to someone they're simply not attracted to. What purpose would that serve?

I love it when people say that homosexuality is unnatural, despite plenty of evidence that it happens in nature all the time. It always makes me think of some Lovecraftian monstrosity from beyond nature exerting it's malign influence on our world...to get penguins to have gaybuttsex.