|
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom does it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept." Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found througout the animal kingdom .... A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in ... adult rams than in ewes...
and guess what this same cell group and larger hypothalmus was found in 93% of tested male homosexual humans.
Thank you for your time.
I'd heard of the previous study. I hadn't heard they'd confirmed it with a more recent study, though. Interesting.
My general feeling is that this line of inquiry does not really tell us much about humans. I'll make a big exception for primates - especially ones close to use genetically such as Chimps, Bonobo's and Gorilla's, since I do think they inform our understanding of human behavior. But Gut Worms have their own reasons for displaying this sort of behavior depending on their specific evolutionary pressures and its doubtful that those reasons tell us much about the human experience.
|
|
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in ... adult rams than in ewes...
and guess what this same cell group and larger hypothalmus was found in 93% of tested male homosexual humans.
Could lead to the answer of learned or lifestyle choice vs. inherent traits.
Which also leads me to another question - what percentage out of that 8% ram population pass on their genetic code? Assuming that it is disproportionately less than the other population (just based off of mating preference with no young being produced) would that trait then be called a defect?
|
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in ... adult rams than in ewes...
and guess what this same cell group and larger hypothalmus was found in 93% of tested male homosexual humans.Could lead to the answer of learned or lifestyle choice vs. inherent traits.
Which also leads me to another question - what percentage out of that 8% ram population pass on their genetic code? Assuming that it is disproportionately less than the other population (just based off of mating preference with no young being produced) would that trait then be called a defect?
An interesting hypothesis that is being studied among humans is that certain traits that, when found in men, tend to result in homosexuality also tend to result in higher fertility traits when found in women. That is one interesting take on why genetic combinations that lead to non-reproductive behavior continue to be passed on.
Of course, there is a long way to go in any of this research. Here is one good source, though, for those who want to read more on the genetic research that is being done on the subject. I particularly note the part that reads: "...that leaves the possibility that being gay is a byproduct of a gene that persists because it enhances fertility in other family members. Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side."
|
|
An interesting hypothesis that is being studied among humans is that certain traits that, when found in men, tend to result in homosexuality also tend to result in higher fertility traits when found in women.
I guess, if you squint at it, a gene that makes *either* sex that has it attracted to men is gonna result in more babies from the women with that gene.
"Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side."
On another note, I've read that, as women have male children, their bodies regard the influx of testosterone as something unwelcome and begin overproducing estrogen. This has no real effect on the first male child, but subsequent male children are dosed with stronger and stronger levels of estrogen in the womb, as the woman's body 'pushes back' against the invasion of testosterone.
The research indicated that;
A) gay men were significantly more likely to be the second or later male child of their mother.
B) women pregnant with their second (or later) male child had progressively higher levels of estrogen in their systems than their first child.
The conclusion, from this admittedly limited selection of evidence, was that the extra 'reactive' estrogen was 'feminizing' the male babies in the womb.
|
|
An interesting hypothesis that is being studied among humans is that certain traits that, when found in men, tend to result in homosexuality also tend to result in higher fertility traits when found in women.I guess, if you squint at it, a gene that makes *either* sex that has it attracted to men is gonna result in more babies from the women with that gene.
"Some studies have found that gay men have more relatives than straight men, particularly on their mother’s side."On another note, I've read that, as women have male children, their bodies regard the influx of testosterone as something unwelcome and begin overproducing estrogen. This has no real effect on the first male child, but subsequent male children are dosed with stronger and stronger levels of estrogen in the womb, as the woman's body 'pushes back' against the invasion of testosterone.
The research indicated that;
A) gay men were significantly more likely to be the second or later male child of their mother.
B) women pregnant with their second (or later) male child had progressively higher levels of estrogen in their systems than their first child.
The conclusion, from this admittedly limited selection of evidence, was that the extra 'reactive' estrogen was 'feminizing' the male babies in the womb.
That's also in the article I linked. It's interesting stuff, and presents an alternative (or perhaps compatible) scenario for the continued birth of gay people, despite, as the article points out, that gay men statistically have 1/5 the number of offspring as heterosexual men per capita.
Edit: For those interested in the topic, and wondering why it hasn't come up yet, researchers have had difficulty identifying consistent genetic and physiological trends among lesbians, so the research has tended to be less conclusive. No one really knows why, but as it stands, men have been much easier to research.
|
|
StuffDo you have a link or source? Not that I doubt you or plan to challenge you. I like to expand the scope of vision of the students I teach, and having new data to reference never hurts.
(Also, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this thread becomes a very ugly place. <sigh>) Well here is my original
Well the original source is from here source. The subsequent source is from a biology article from I journal I just received I have yet to find an online copy. I will search for the followup if it is available online.
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Even more pathetic is that these threads continue to be so hotly contested. Bigotry is bigotry, folks. I don't care how eloquently it is defended, or what the motivations behind it are. "Separate but equal" was B.S. before, and it's still B.S. now.
I have more important things to do with my time than watch who is _____ing whom. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is of zero interest to me. And PLEASE don't give me the "societal cohesion" crap.
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Given the report as noted, those who consider it unnatural now have the option of noting that such is related to a physical brain difference that will be interpreted as a defect.
In these matters, evidence for one side often serves the other side equally as well.
This study will settle no arguments... At least not until a pair of male dolphins is found to be communicating via squeaky show tunes. :)
(yeah, I know, that was bad) :)
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Given the report as noted, those who consider it unnatural now have the option of noting that such is related to a physical brain difference that will be interpreted as a defect.
I'm hoping it will at least quiet the people who have the bizarre notion that someone would *choose* to be gay. I've never understood that line of thinking because who would seriously decide: "I want people to hate me for my sexual orientation and live a life of constant derision and ostracization. Sign me up for that."
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Given the report as noted, those who consider it unnatural now have the option of noting that such is related to a physical brain difference that will be interpreted as a defect.
I'm hoping it will at least quiet the people who have the bizarre notion that someone would *choose* to be gay. I've never understood that line of thinking because who would seriously decide: "I want people to hate me for my sexual orientation and live a life of constant derision and ostracization. Sign me up for that."
So if there was a scientific procedure that could "correct" a homosexual's orientation (as more biological research is done, this becomes more likely), you think that homosexuals would line up to undergo it? I mean if being homosexual is so horrible, why wouldn't they right?
So if there was a scientific procedure that could "correct" a homosexual's orientation (as more biological research is done, this becomes more likely), you think that homosexuals would line up to undergo it? I mean if being homosexual is so horrible, why wouldn't they right?
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Given the report as noted, those who consider it unnatural now have the option of noting that such is related to a physical brain difference that will be interpreted as a defect.
I'm hoping it will at least quiet the people who have the bizarre notion that someone would *choose* to be gay. I've never understood that line of thinking because who would seriously decide: "I want people to hate me for my sexual orientation and live a life of constant derision and ostracization. Sign me up for that."
I honestly don't know what someone would do if there were such a procedure. I could certainly envision parents of a homosexual child electing to have that child go through the procedure. I'll admit that I don't have any answers for a eugenics discussion, though.
As someone who isn't gay, maybe I'm overstating things. I've just observed the reactions of others in my church and at work to homosexuality, and I've never understood how anyone could consider homosexuality a "choice".
|
|
So if there was a scientific procedure that could "correct" a homosexual's orientation (as more biological research is done, this becomes more likely), you think that homosexuals would line up to undergo it? I mean if being homosexual is so horrible, why wouldn't they right?
How utterly unsurprising. Eventually, perhaps studies like this will squelch the "it's unnatural" (whatever that means) argument. Then again, I'm not holding my breath; humans show a startling ability to ignore evidence that doesn't support their preconceived notions. It's really kind of sad.
Given the report as noted, those who consider it unnatural now have the option of noting that such is related to a physical brain difference that will be interpreted as a defect.
I'm hoping it will at least quiet the people who have the bizarre notion that someone would *choose* to be gay. I've never understood that line of thinking because who would seriously decide: "I want people to hate me for my sexual orientation and live a life of constant derision and ostracization. Sign me up for that."
Don't know if this answers your question but it is somewhat related. link