Correct. Even “Negative Imprinting” which to my mind is the only plausible (even if I’m not entirely convinced) psychological mechanism to account for homosexuality purports that it is immutable.
Tao, do you have an authoritative cite for this theory? It reads like a WAG to me. I would suppose that the gay caveman from Grog’s family is actually too busy hooking-up with the gay caveman from Snork’s family two caves over, and thus neither one of them is actually contributing anything to the overall well-being of their respective family, but that’s just my WAG.
This presumes that Grog and Snork do nothing but shag each other silly while everyone else is busy hunting food and raising the kids.
Grog and Snork would be expected to contribute just like everyone else. This notion was mentioned in the Economist article I linked earlier. Since Grog and Snork need not feed their own kids they have more to share from the Antelope they just brought back with the rest of the family. Since they need not spend time teaching their own kids how to hunt they can help teach other people’s kids. If mom and dad get trampled by a Mammoth Grog might assume care of his niece and nephews.
In this fashion they increase the likelihood of survival of the overall group.
That’s the notion anyway.
I think you understood what I said. The urge to have sex with someone is in no way related to the ticking biological clock in women…although the result may be similar. The urge to have children may lead a woman to pursue sex but I’m fairly certain it does not make her horny. The urge to have sex is designed to ensure that our genes are carried into the next generation but this urge is not lowered if we know that the act will not result in reproduction. I would argue that the urge may be lowered if reproduction is the likely outcome…but I digress.
For the record I do NOT believe that people choose to be gay.
Don’t kid yourself pal, that’s what all this is about.
Well begorrah, thank ye an’ all, matey!
Where I came from this place looked like a polite tea-party, with the occasional bun-fight for excitement. Did I miss something? Is someone going to take a swing at me with their handbag? What’s that about “under indictment”? Who are “these people” ?
Families with noncontributing members, gay or otherwise, would be at disadvantage anyway. Even if Grog’s spending every chance he can in orgies, not unlike hetrosexual guys would do, he’s still useful helping protect the family from attack, and building social connections.
What I was describing is a selfish gene mechanism where a gene is more likely to be passed on even though it’s detrimental to the host. Richard Dawkins wrote a book called, oddly enough, The Selfish Gene.
Here’s a wiki run down of it.
I’ll meet you half way and say as it is applies to gay genetics it is a WAG by me, but similar behavior is observed in nature. Take colony insects. A queen will spawn thousands of unreproductive workers just to help a relative few will be breed to fly away and start a new colony.
Where as humans occasional give birth to a queen.
I don’t have your cite either, but I have seen it advanced on another board with almost no overlap as a summary of a sociological treatise, presumably supported with some sort of data in the original.
Just FWIW…
I’ve seen the theory elsewhere as well and believe there are at least a few books that cover the theory more intensely
Don’t flatter yourself that anyone craves your acceptance. They don’t. They just want you to get your foot off their neck.
I really shouldn’t but I’ll tell you anyway that I misread this as something like
I’m going to whatever level of hell where there’s nothing but non sequitors and banana giraffe dumplings.
For people who say homosexuality can never be a choice, what do you think of the lesbian until graduation phenomenom?
I think it helps keep teen pregnancy down.
That they are either bisexual, lying for one reason or another, or just following a fad. Trying to be homosexual on purpose has the same track record of failure as does being straight on purpose; you can fake it for a while, but that’s all.
Bisexuals.
So you mean to tell me you’ve never met a young woman who was “gay” for 3.2 seconds in 11th grade (or freshman year or the Summer they studied abroad, etc, etc) and quickly went right back to being “straight”?
Because I have and while I know that being gay isn’t a choice, I think that switching sexuality (but not true bisexuality) will become more common.
I’d say it’s another case where it’s fair to point out the difference between acts and actual sexuality. You can most certainly choose to engage in whatever sex act with whatever partner, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re doing so because of genuine attraction. The reasons for the phenomenon might not be sexuality-motivated - either in terms of the time before or after graduation.
Oh, wait… you mean all I have to do to be gay is fuck a man in the ass?
Won’t it be a problem that I’m not attracted to men either sexually or romantically?
Who you choose to have sex with and your sexual orientation are not the same thing.
Or they haven’t figured things out yet – for SOME people it IS “a phase they’re going through”. Not everyone just “knew” right off the bat.(And many misunderstandings come when people claim that either it is always so for everyone, or never so for anyone, or for their kid it cannot be happening.)
And it’s again the difference between “being” and “doing” – your ARE gay or bi por straight, but you may engage in homosexual or heterosexual acts and relationships on a circumstantial basis w/o prejudice to your base orientation.
BTW, the whole issue of choice or not and of being vs. doing is also why there is apparently a reaction against referring to a “gay lifestyle”, as it again emphasizes specific cultural or social expressions (which aren’t even uniform from one gay to the next) rather than the identity of the individual. Which CAN make for some touchy conversations when you are trying to talk about actual lifestyle of a person or or group of persons who happen to be gay, if one’s not careful.
In any case, challenging and refuting assertions that “The Gay” is some sort of communicable condition, vice that should be gotten over, or a defect to be corrected, or something that somehow “harms” society, is in no way, shape or form “beating” anyone up in debate. Ideally, it would not need to be about “accept as normal”, but about granting full equal rights because it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket if Bob and Bart marry each other, join the Army, teach at my kids’ school, live next door, march in a parade, whatever, while being proudly queer and here. Alas, humanity has shown itself not at all disposed to use the “but exactly who does it actually harm?” test for determining if a conduct should be subject to censure. Since opponents of gay rights instead appeal to “it’s unnatural” or “it’s a lifestyle choice” as a way to disparage gays, then those arguments have to be refuted. (People have already touched on that it doesn’t need to be specifically genetic to be an immutable trait. Heck, it doesn’t even need to be adaptive!)
…err, do you mind? I’m the victim here…