A Question to Brainy Gays....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:17 PM GMT
    Before I ask the question, I would like to bring out two main points:

    Point 1
    * The human cell has a nucleus that consist of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent.
    * Each chromosome consist of a molecule looking a bit like a rope ladder, known as DNA. The rungs of the ladder consists of a pair of bases, consisting of adenine (A), cystocyne (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). Each rung consist of ether pair, AT or CG. Therefore the ladder is sequence of paired rungs that may look like this: TA TA CG CG GC AT AT TA.....
    * The rope ladder of rungs gives a code, known as the Genetic Code, which is the instruction for the cell to produce the right protein for the organ in which the cell is found.

    Point 2
    * All computer programs and software are activated by the Binary Code. This code consist of a long numeric chain of just two digits, 0 and 1. Thus 1010 is ten, 1101 is 13, 01000001 is 65 - the computer character "A".

    So there is a strong compactibility between points 1 and 2. But there is a difference.

    * Point 2 was the result of years of research made by scientists and engineers. Of the two points, 2 is relatively simple.
    * Point 1 is much more complicated. A single cell is more complex than the whole of New York City, according to Nobilist, Lynus Pauling.

    But point 1 came by evolution by chance, a Darwinian concept.

    I much prefer to believe that I was created by a Heavenly Father, to whom I am accountable. Therefore I could be referred to as a Creationist, an idea shared with up to 53% of all Americans, according to a recent Gallup Poll.
    According to this idea, homosexuality is one of the results of the fall of our first parents in the Garden of Eden.

    Yet there are strong atheists who would throw my faith to the ground if they could, for the sake of Darwin. Four of these I am aware of. They are: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet and Christopher Hitchens. Someone has referred to them as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

    And here's my question. If Darwinism is true, then why the the Homo-Sapien (of the Primate family) the ONE AND ONLY species of animal that is capable of Homosexuality?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:21 PM GMT
    NotThatOld said
    And here's my question. If Darwinism is true, then why the the Homo-Sapien (of the Primate family) the ONE AND ONLY species of animal that is capable of Homosexuality?




    We got two shetland rams out in the yard trying to hump each other. Mountain lion got all the ewes, so maybe they're just horny as hell and have deluded themselves into thinking it'll work..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:24 PM GMT
    NotThatOld saidAnd here's my question. If Darwinism is true, then why the the Homo-Sapien (of the Primate family) the ONE AND ONLY species of animal that is capable of Homosexuality?


    The basic assumption of your question is wrong: other animals do engage in same-sex activities. This includes our nearest genetic relatives, the apes.
  • IdkMyBffJill

    Posts: 148

    Nov 09, 2008 8:25 PM GMT
    NotThatOld said If Darwinism is true, then why the the Homo-Sapien (of the Primate family) the ONE AND ONLY species of animal that is capable of Homosexuality?


    You're questioning a false premise. Homosexual activity and bonding has been been well documented in MANY mammalian species. There are a number of textbooks and dozens of peer-reviewed research based journal articles on the subject. One book that comes to mind is Evolution's Rainbow by Dr. Roughgarden.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:31 PM GMT


    First of all it's not just humans .. lots of animals show some homosexual behaviour ..


    second .. I'd rather let the creation idea wave in the air without an explanation than belive in some big man that created this world and enjoy giving us prizes or panish us ...


    it's just my opinion .. we don't have explanations for everything, that's why we belive in the one big explanation that requires no studying or thinking ..

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
    icon_biggrin.gificon_smile.gificon_razz.gif


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:37 PM GMT
    I respectfully submit that your premise is faulty and offer the following comment and weblinks as well as others that can be GOOGLED.

    "Homosexual, as well as bisexual, behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood as most species have yet to be studied. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them."....from WIKIPEDIA....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

    http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:39 PM GMT
    Same gender sexual behaviour is seen in many species. I am not sure why you think it is only in humans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 8:40 PM GMT


    NotThatOld,

    Just scroll down this forum til you come to 'gay education' and click on the video. It's an entertaining animated short that shows some of the different species involved in homosexual activity, though the producers forgot dolphins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 9:56 PM GMT
    It's already well-said by everyone above. . . but yes, animals frequently engage in same-sex behavior. It's very very common. Dolphins. . . chimps. . . gay penguins are known to mate for life, even when females are available. The list goes on, from sheep to swans. But it's only humans who ostracize their gay brothers and sisters.
  • Tritimium

    Posts: 261

    Nov 09, 2008 10:01 PM GMT
    Gay penguins:

    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1284769.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:05 PM GMT
    Your argument is fundamentally flawed....

    The example given in point 1 it's taken 3.7 billion years for life to evolve to it's current state across billions of organisms across every corner of the globe.

    The research in creating binary code took place over a period of about ten years by what a few thousand computer scientists in a few hundred universities and research centers.

    So why one is hugely more complex than the other the scale in developing them was a billion fold.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:12 PM GMT
    Maybe the question should be changed. Its clear that homosexuality exists in animals.

    Maybe the question should be why no animals have no religion of any type? (I googled this and didn't find anything).

    If there was a God, wouldn't they have something?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:20 PM GMT
    If you want to argue that homosexuality is a result from Adam & Eve's expulsion from Eden, you could argue that it was not just Adam & Eve leaving Eden. The fall of Eden marked the end of Paradise & perfection. So you could argue that in falling from "grace" & perfection, it altered the entire fundamental nature of life, not just of the human animal, but of biology in general. Hence, animal homosexuality could theoretically be linked to the same "root cause" of human homosexuality.

    It is however, a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:30 PM GMT
    Dogs do it, cats do it, fleas do it, ticks do it, cows do it, penguins do it, llamas do it... Google on it.

    Or spend a couple years living on a farm. You'll see plenty of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:32 PM GMT
    Everyone else jumped on the non-human homosexuality critique, so I won't. I feel the desire to assert my brainy gay self in regards to the earlier summoning up of creationist theory with the nod to intelligent design.

    Intelligent design tries to instill a sense of wonder and majesty in us as created beings, shaped by a divine hand, which they say, the evolutionists lack this sense of wonder and grace. However, theorists of intelligent design offer a simplistic and collapsed form of the divine. I've only read William Dembski and skimmed some Michael Behe, and from that I agree with Jake Sherman that they noticed the genuine holes in Darwinian theory in regards to the evolution of the species. Darwin spoke and wrote eloquently on the adaptability of species to the environment, but not so well at the trajectory of growth or decline of species. What affects us to grow? That's a big question. The intelligent design thinkers offer a more mechanistic model of the creation (the divine shaped creation, regulates growth, and becomes controlling). It does a sizable job of critiquing biological orthodoxy, but doesn't offer a better perspective on our relationship to the divine. Right now I am reading Whitehead and some process thinkers that see intelligent beings striving towards their own innate sense of themselves as inner growth, not so much as being forced or ordered to grow by a divine other. I think there is room for intelligent design theorists to offer a more complicated version of creation than they do now.

    Additionally I love the presence of Richard Dawkins in theological circles. In a rather convoluted way, he has shown the duplicity in having a certainty of faith. Even though he is in the atheist camp, he offers followers of religious tradition some room to have doubt. Rather than offering a great condemnation of religion (cause he has some holes in his theory as well), he points us towards being humble in our lack of knowledge.
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Nov 09, 2008 10:36 PM GMT
    NotThatOld said
    And here's my question. If Darwinism is true, then why the the Homo-Sapien (of the Primate family) the ONE AND ONLY species of animal that is capable of Homosexuality?



    Answer: They're not.

    1 in 10 rams (of all breeds) are gay, that is they only mate with males

    Dolphins are largely bisexual, but also have homosexuality.

    Homosexuality has been observed in many primates.

    Geese, penguins and swans (who all usually pair for life) all exhibit homosexual pairbonding

    Even drosophila (fruit flies) have shown homosexuality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    While we're on it... our family dog growing up was a total lesbian. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:39 PM GMT
    I grew up on a ranch in Nebraska. Nothing could be more natural than homosexuality. It's everywhere in the barn.

    Clearly, you haven't spent much time around livestock, nor domesticated animals. Man is NOT the only species capable of homosexuality, as a visit to any farm / ranch will demonstrate.

    I'm sorry that you're so disillusioned but yourthinking is flawed based in myth, rather than science. I suggest you continue your studies.

    False belief systems often encourage guilt in association with pleasure or some behavior not approved by whoever is the head deity / head pastor, etc. This much of the reason why so many gays are head-fucked, conflicted, self-loathing, and generally miserable.

    Because I grew up on the ranch, I know that nothing could be more natural, whether one denies science, or not.

    One might ponder the demographics of the recent Prop 8 vote in California...the deeper the conviction in false belief systems the more likely folks were to be hateful and intolerant. The numbers speak for themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 10:45 PM GMT
    LGWC saidMaybe the question should be changed. Its clear that homosexuality exists in animals.

    Maybe the question should be why no animals have no religion of any type? (I googled this and didn't find anything).

    If there was a God, wouldn't they have something?


    I read a few months ago an article in "The Economist" about a study at McGill University (I think) which hypothesizes that religious belief could be due to the neurotransmitter dopamine in the human brain. Religious belief systems, the scientist theorize, developed as human beings evolved to aid in community cohesion and to build trust between people (somebody who has similar belief systems as you do is viewed as more trustworthy and dependable).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 11:05 PM GMT
    Black male swans will procreate with a female solely to get an egg out of her, then the male will kick the female out of the nest, then proceed to rear the resultant baby with his male lover. Oh, by the way, black swans mate for life. They are not the only animals to do so, and they are also not the animals which display various levels of homosexuality. These include every type of animal from apes, to which we are the most closely related, to flies, to fish, and reptiles. This also includes dolphins, which just happen to be the only other animal family which has been recognized to have sex with each other for reasons other than procreation (e.g. pleasure).
    I believe this question has only proven the point that homosexuality is not unnatural and that seperates humans from animals in this respect is the fact that we are the only species (as far as I know) that hate and ostracize each other for this action. If anyone has any evidence to refute this, feel free to post it.
    I think that it poses another question that has much more validity: why are we, humans, still caring what each other is doing in the privacy of our bedrooms? Who I have sex with is really no business of anyone other than myself and the person with whom I'm having the sex with. When will we understand that? It's not a matter of genetics, religion, politics, or any other barely understood human endeavour. It's a matter of mind your own damned business.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 09, 2008 11:15 PM GMT
    Your hypothesis T'aint true

    Homosexuality has been documented many times in the wild
    While the genetic code is somewhat analogous to the binary code of a computer
    The genetic code is infinitely more complex and plastic in relation to the environment
    I'm not sure where your little genetic lesson was heading but if you were trying to state that homosexuality does not have any evolutionary basis your wrong

    Just that it exists shows that it has been selectively chosen as being positive on an evolutionary basis
    Because something on the surface doesn't show that it lends itself to making babies does not mean that it doesn't help in the natural selectory process
    What's in it for the worker ants who don't produce?
    Why does the Irish Elk have a rack of horns that are so large they can get tangled in the under brush ?

    We know that homosexuality has been with us as a species forever and will continue on as long as man and women remain here on earth
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Nov 09, 2008 11:19 PM GMT
    As many have pointed out, homosexuality is in no way confined to humanity. It's broadly found in nature. Humans happen to be one of the most sexual species in existence (notably: we don't have a breeding season, and any individual is potentially sexually receptive any given day. In most species, females in particular have defined windows of sexual receptivity, outside of which intercourse is essentially impossible), but take a look at bonobos and try to say that they don't engage in homosexual activity.

    That, however, is not an argument about whether there is anything wrong with homosexuality. It is incredibly common for people to talk about what is natural and unnatural as if that makes something morally good or not. Treating your drinking water to avoid illness is unnatural, and undoubtedly a good thing. Infanticide is wide spread in the animal kingdom, and the vast majority of us recoil in horror at it. It's a fallacy to argue what should be from what is; in fact, it's named the Naturalistic Fallacy.

    Secondly, as I stress virtually whenever I see this argument come up, there are a lot of things which are biological and yet are not genetic. Genes depend upon an environment in order to be expressed, whether that's an environment such as intracellular concentrations of another protein, physical environmental factors like temperature and pH, or biological environments like the ecosystem in which they find themselves and the social structure of the pack. The leading scientific explanation for the basis of male homosexuality is maternal hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy, most likely related to maternal antibodies attacking the developing male fetus, given that regardless of whether the mother raises the individual child or not, the more previous male pregnancies she's had the higher the probability the current one will turn out gay. That makes it inborn, biological, and not genetic--and if it's not genetic, it's not subject to evolution because there's no inheritance of the trait across generations.

    You can choose what you want to believe, but just be sure you recognize that you are choosing what you want to believe, not what the empirical evidence suggests is the most likely case. The actual scientific evidence for evolution is far stronger than the scientific evidence behind, say, how gravity works. It is merely because it contradicts many peoples' religious beliefs that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with Common Descent hasn't been renamed as a Law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 11:27 PM GMT
    Very eloquent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 11:29 PM GMT
    LOL. Who could be cranky with a penis in their bottom?

    It's fun. It feels neato.