| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 9 2005, 06:58 PM (847 Views) | |
| Swidden | May 10 2005, 10:44 AM Post #16 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
There is no known reason or benefit. It remains quite possible that some reason/benefit may yet be discovered. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 10 2005, 03:58 PM Post #17 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Actually, there is an evolutionary reason for both homo and heterosexuality. For heterosexuality, it is the simple case that the binding of two (relatively) different genetic strands allows a great deal more differentiation then asexual reproduction (cloning). This allows the introduction and continuance of traits that would be beneficial to the person's surroundings a lot more likely. With bacteria, you are taking constant shots in the dark that a few bacteria will develop a necessary trait to survive in an environment while hundreds of thousands of bacteria die around them. Even then, they are aided by plasmids which allow bacteria to transmit genetic information to each other. Multicellular organisms, for the most part, do not have the reproduction rates to keep up with a death rate like that. Heterosexuality has the incredible advantage of making us able to isolate a certain trait and refine it more and more. Homosexuality on the other hand, if it indeed is caused by a genetic flaw, is nature's way of correcting the problem. We are wired to be repulsed by that which is different then us in our own species. If somebody is somehow different then normal, the chances of our breeding with them is lessened. This is merely a genetic safeguard to ensure that we keep on the reproductive straight and narrow. Ergo, people that seem sickly, malnourished, and physically unattractive are less likely to bag a mate then those who look healthy. Likewise, the root of racism and other biases is also somewhat engrained in us. We, like many other animals on this planet, are naturally suspicious of "outsiders". There are species of monkeys that are physically exact copies except for the fact that one species has a long tail and the other has a short tail. Because of this superficial difference, the two groups treat each other as competitors and can fight fiercely over territory. Humans have several subspecies, physically different but practically the same genetically, but still we find ourselves suspicious of those who are different from us. It could well be that it is nature's way of ensuring that new species are formed. Once a certain point is reached, the desire to interact starts to fall along with the chances that the two diverging groups melding their gene pools again falls as well until physical, temporal, and genetic blocks are put in place and reproduction is impossible. We as humans however do not base our behavior on our basic instincts, but on our thoughts. However, those instincts show up constantly in our everyday life. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 10 2005, 05:37 PM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
Doctortobe, Thank you for that very informative and well-thought out post.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | May 10 2005, 07:08 PM Post #19 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Fell asleep during biology did you? Too bad. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | May 10 2005, 09:56 PM Post #20 |
|
Admiral
|
I do agree that environment plays a role, but I don't agree that it has anything to do with a person becoming homosexual. If environment was an equally strong influence as biology in determining homosexuality, then the same would be true for heterosexuals. What you suggest means that, if we changed the environment to its opposite and completely encourage homosexuality, then most of us would end up as homosexuals instead of heterosexuals. That I can't believe because I do believe in an instinctual urge to procreate as a matter of survival of our species. And if heterosexuality is biological, why is it difficult to believe that homosexuality is too? That is not to say the environment makes no difference. For example, environment might play a role in changing the behavior of homosexuals to that of heterosexuals. Social forces can be very strong and, let's face it, there is far more societal influence to be heterosexual than to be homosexual. That shows itself in the example I gave of people who are homosexual, but don't realize it at first or don't want to believe it. They try to lead a heterosexual lifestyle, but find that it just doesn't fit them right. Some never quite realize it or never quite admit it. Others do and their heterosexual relationships then end. They may or may not move onto homosexual relationships from there. I believe homosexuality is purely biological in its root. Environment only affects what a person ends up doing or not doing about their homosexuality. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 10 2005, 11:09 PM Post #21 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Actually yes - incredibly boring stuff. Rather study physics, chemistry, engineering any day. So what's your excuse ? And why do you think you have your orientation (straight from horses [strike]house[/strike]
mouth ) ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 11 2005, 07:21 AM Post #22 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ What is a horse's house? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | May 11 2005, 10:01 AM Post #23 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
I think he was calling himself a horses a$$
(just having fun SL) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | May 11 2005, 10:21 AM Post #24 |
|
Unregistered
|
From what I've observed in terms of gay people I know talking about being gay there seems to be a concensus that being gay is biological. I don't discount that it cannot be a learned behavior under certain circumstances but my impression is that it is primarily biological. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | May 11 2005, 10:25 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
a stable, of course, of course. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | May 11 2005, 10:27 AM Post #26 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
^^^ Are you trying to make me EDit your posts? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | May 11 2005, 10:50 AM Post #27 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Groan |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 11 2005, 11:18 AM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Please, CP. You mean 'neigh,' not 'groan.' |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 11 2005, 12:03 PM Post #29 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
See corrected post . I was tempted to use a very aussie term - but with PC being so out of control here - I didn't - CP knows the term I refer to. B*@ger me , how did that happen ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 11 2005, 12:20 PM Post #30 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Hmmm. With CP and PC, will we never be the same again? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic » |


Without heterosexuality you wouldn't be here. And all higher lifeforms on this planet would long since have become extinct.
[strike]house[/strike]




1:55 PM Jul 11