patrick.net

Of gay married couples somewhere around 25 % raise children, but at least 3/4 of those are adopted.

Hard to say, but I would think that male homosexuality being out in the open should make it a characteristic that would decrease in the population, over time. That is if it truly is an innate and heritable trait, rather than primarily a learned adaptation (or perversion, as some would say).

"Evolution continues down to the present day"

You coulda fooled me.

Ceffer says

"Evolution continues down to the present day"

You coulda fooled me.

How could you miss the evidence? Trump is clearly a missing link between man and orangutan.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

male homosexuality being out in the open should make it a characteristic that would decrease in the population, over time

I've always found it difficult to believe homosexuality is innate rather than a choice, simply because it's so harmful to reproduction.

Homosexuality is a reproductive defect.

You guys realize that the vast majority of bees don't reproduce, right? Genes don't require every single host to reproduce in order to further their goals. Have a few percentage of males and females not reproducing won't drive a species to extinction, and numerous scientific papers have been written on the advantages of having some non-reproductive members in social species like humans.

Think of it this way, if homosexuality was that bad for one's genes, choice or innate behavior, it would have been driven out of extinction by natural selection. So clearly, it's not hurting those genes. Nature is rarely straight forward.

rando says

I've always found it difficult to believe....

no matter how much evidence is presented to you. Studies of identical and non-identical twins, for example. Rather than try to persuade you of what you resist believing, I would prefer to ask two questions:
1) What is your theory to explain the correlation even among twins raised separately? Quantum entanglement? If so, what is the nature of "choice" in that theory?
2) Why do you suppose you have difficulty believing evidence on this topic? If someone tells you that energy can flow through a stationary wire and produce motive force at the other end, do you have difficulty believing that also, and suspect witchcraft must be involved somehow?

I don't see any proof there, only cherry picking and wishful thinking. Show me that identical twins nearly always have the same sexual preference and I'll be convinced.

Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select samples[9] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[10] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

rando says

I don't see any proof there, only cherry picking and wishful thinking. Show me that identical twins nearly always have the same sexual preference and I'll be convinced.

Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select samples[9] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[10] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[9]

Very interesting debate guys. I've always been convinced being gay was genetic. I'm always open to looking at differing scientific facts.

rando says

I've always found it difficult to believe homosexuality is innate rather than a choice

Are you saying that you seriously considered being gay ?

marcus is NOT deplorable says

rando says

I've always found it difficult to believe homosexuality is innate rather than a choice

Are you saying that you seriously considered being gay ?

Lol. Just sayin that identical genes should produce identical outcomes, if genes really are the cause of gayness.

Also, there's the problem of how to explain genes which would eliminate themselves in every generation.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

rando says

I've always found it difficult to believe homosexuality is innate rather than a choice

Are you saying that you seriously considered being gay ?

Patrick loves pussy's and boobs. Makes me sick.

rando says

simply because it's so harmful to reproduction

Okay, then what if most gays choose to be gay, and yet they are predisposed to considering that choice (essentially bi to some extent). This would still easily be a genetic attribute that would be decreased in the population by having gays marry and not have biological offspring.

Doesn't seem to be much of a predisposition if it works only 7.7% of the time. That could totally be social context instead.

rando says

That could totally be social context instead

[updated: see below] It's funny to watch software engineers impose false binaries in other areas of life. So, for example, how did you choose the "social context" of your nine month gestation? Did you kick your mommy until she joined the Lamaze group that you had chosen? (If you had bothered to click through to the NIH link, you would have seen the gestational component, but either you didn't bother to read it or it conflicted with your false binary so you hallucinated a blank page.)

rando says

genes which would eliminate themselves

How many generations did it take for the celibate priesthood to cause Catholics to go extinct?

Interestingly, although celibate clergy did not produce a shortage of Catholics, the social acceptance of homosexuality appears to have produced a shortage of clergy, and a resulting depression at the Vatican as they lose a major source of cheap labor. What is your theory to explain these facts?

Lastly, could you please describe the process by which you chose your sexual orientation (whatever it is), and at what age? Did you read "Consumer Reports" to compare options, or seek advice from a priest or guidance counselor?

curious2 says

So, for example, how did you choose the "social context" of your nine month gestation? Did you kick your mommy until she joined the Lamaze group that you had chosen? (If you had bothered to click through to the NIH link, you would have seen the gestational component, but either you didn't bother to read it or it conflicted with your false binary so you hallucinated a blank page.)

Can you explain in one or two sentences what your point is? I just can't parse what you wrote.

curious2 says

How many generations did it take for the celibate priesthood to cause Catholics to go extinct?

The celibacy of Catholic priests was entirely social, with absolutely zero genetic component. It was a mechanism to keep property and power within the church, not owned by any family.

What's your analogy supposed to be? Again, it's not clear to me.

rando says

Can you explain in one or two sentences what your point is?

Between conception and birth, you went through a period of approximately nine months in which your "social context" consisted primarily of a womb. I am asking for your detailed memories of that period, specifically the point at which you "chose" what your sexual orientation would be. You see, siblings separated "at birth" are genetically already several months old. You seem to be saying that twins have a social context during that period, in which they choose, maybe on a dare or something?

rando says

What's your analogy supposed to be?

Actually, I was only applying your "logic" that non-reproduction would be weeded out of the gene pool. Surely, after a thousand years, that would have happened to the Catholics by now? Are you saying Catholics are unevolved?

Lastly, could you please describe the process by which you chose your sexual orientation (whatever it is), and at what age? Did you read "Consumer Reports" to compare options, or seek advice from a priest or guidance counselor?

curious2 says

Between conception and birth, you went through a period of approximately nine months in which your "social context" consisted primarily of a womb. I am asking for your detailed memories of that period, specifically the point at which you "chose" what your sexual orientation would be.

Still have no idea what you're talking about. What does gestation have to do with identical twins not having identical sexual preferences?

curious2 says

Lastly, could you please describe the process by which you chose your sexual orientation (whatever it is), and at what age? Did you read "Consumer Reports" to compare options, or seek advice from a priest or guidance counselor?

Men are attracted to women. That is a biological fact fundamental to human existence. Without it, none of us would be here discussing anything.

Yet men are such horny bastards that they are not always terribly discriminating in their search for women. They have even been known to fuck sheep and goats. Are you suggesting there is a biological predisposition in some men to fuck sheep and goats? Do we need a new pronoun for them?

A more plausible theory is that men simply enjoy the pleasure of fucking anything and willing to do amazing mental gymnastics to justify doing what they like.

rando says

more plausible theory

In other words, as you cherry-picked Wikipedia, you are looking for a "theory" that confirms your bias. If you want to play Wikipedia tennis, maybe you should start with the larger and more robust studies:

"Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each additional older brother increases the odds of a man being gay by 33%.[31][32] This is now "one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation."[33] "

Some people believe in evidence-based decision-making, in which the theory that has the most reliable evidence is the most plausible. You prefer your caricatures. You have proposed a theory of prison rape, but not a theory of why same-sex couples get married. You do that because you reject evidence and revert to your bias.

That could totally be social. In fact, because it varies by age and not genetics, it seems like good evidence that gayness is not genetic.

What's wrong with the theory that gay men have simply overcome an initial revulsion (as other men have done with sheep and goats) in order to get lots of very easy sex instead of more difficult sex from women?

What makes you think women are more difficult? Trouble at home? Also, on what research or experience do you base your opinion about the sheep and goats?

rando says

varies by age

Really? Where do you see that?

Considering that women comprise more than half the population, and the comparative scarcity of gay men (especially in rural areas), what is your theory to explain why gay men leave rural areas and move to cities where they find other gay men?

Women have an investment to protect: 9 months of pregnancy. They evolved to be much choosier than men because they have a limited supply of eggs and time.

Men evolved to be very quick to sleep with any willing fertile woman because it spread their genes instantly with essentially no cost to themselves. Sperm is essentially infinitely renewable for them.

Gay men carried over the same quickness to fuck when it comes to other men. They are still men.

rando says

They evolved to be much choosier than men

Were you really considering starting a wine bar? You don't seem to have much experience around bars. Ask a male bartender how many propositions he's heard from female customers, for example. There are literally prisoners who get marriage proposals from women outside.

curious2 says

rando says

varies by age

Really? Where do you see that?

You just said that younger brothers are more likely to be gay. Younger means an age difference, that's all. Not a genetic difference.

curious2 says

what is your theory to explain why gay men leave rural areas and move to cities where they find other gay men?

Because that is where they can get sex most easily. And there is safety in numbers.

curious2 says

Ask a male bartender how many propositions he's heard from female customers, for example.

And yet even the hottest male bartender does not get as many propositions as the average woman in a bar.

rando says

You just said that younger brothers are more likely to be gay. Younger means an age difference, that's all.

The studies say birth order. If two guys were born the same day in 1980, they are the same age. If Adam has five older brothers, and Bill has none, then Adam is more likely to be gay than Bill is. It does not vary by age.

rando says

they can get sex most easily.

You have got to be joking. Seriously, do you think Lance Bass had trouble finding women who wanted to have sex with him? That's your "plausible theory"? How hard do you need to focus on confirmation bias in order to maintain that belief?

I hope that gay stuff not catching.

curious2 says

The studies say birth order.

I meant "age within the family" but OK, call it birth order.

curious2 says

do you think Lance Bass had trouble finding women who wanted to have sex with him?

A very small number of very high status men have the same number of propositions as the average woman.

The average man (poor guy) gets essentially zero propositions and has to go looking, hard, to get sex. Far more difficult for him than for the average gay man, who has plenty of gay men willing to have sex with him right now.

rando says

A very small number

Again, you are really working hard to maintain your confirmation bias, in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of admitting being wrong. How many famous examples do you need to disprove your "plausible theory"? You have not explained Lance Bass, nor Rock Hudson, nor Clay Aiken, nor Adam Lambert, nor Merv Griffin, nor countless others. How much disproof do you need? Ted Haggard had a wife at home, they both said she never refused him, so why was he paying a male prostitute for sex? You have perhaps proven that publishing a website gives you the opportunity to make a fool of yourself worldwide, but you have not explained any of the countless examples that disprove your "theory", which is not even a theory, merely a caricature based on stereotype.

curious2 says

You have not explained Lance Bass, nor Rock Hudson, nor Clay Aiken, nor Adam Lambert, nor Merv Griffin, nor countless others

You have agreed with me here that very high status men get frequent propositions.

rando says

You have agreed with me here that very high status men get frequent propositions.

No, I have cited examples that everyone knows about. You have failed to explain why, of the propositions they got, they wanted the males instead of the females. Also, you have failed to explain why Ted Haggard, who had a willing female wife at home, paid a male instead. Worse, you have not even tried to explain these facts, which disprove your caricature, which you incorrectly call a "theory".

Frankly, you are being so obtuse that I begin to question your sincerity. Do you seriously believe that an attractive gay kid from a Moronic family in rural Utah has an easier time running away from home (or getting kicked out by his parents) and somehow getting to San Francisco, compared to finding a local female? You should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition. Try to write from information rather than ignorance and caricature.

rando says

And yet even the hottest male bartender does not get as many propositions as the average woman in a bar.

So the gay man perhaps wants to be more like a woman ? But not only in that it's easier to get sex. Easy sex would have to get boring, even for gay men. I believe there's much more to it than that. But I'll admit that on some level I tend to think of it the way you do. Basically as a perversion. Which accounts for a part of me that is a bit homophobic.

They were confused. Their dicks were so small they thought they were born female...
At least that's dan's psychosis...

curious2 says

You have failed to explain why, of the propositions they got, they wanted the males instead of the females.

curious2 says

It's funny to watch software engineers impose false binaries in other areas of life.

You're doing that right now. Just because software engineers do precise logic for a living does not mean that they embrace false dichotomies. In software from video codecs to A.I. to business operation to online marketing, software typically does non-binary calculations from integers to floating points to fuzzy logic. A good software engineer is more than capable of handling subtleties in problems. In fact, we are the people best at doing that. I think you have a false impression of how software developers think and how they solve problems.

Perhaps my next post will illustrate that software developers understand problems better than you realize and do not fall into false dichotomies.

rando says

Lol. Just sayin that identical genes should produce identical outcomes, if genes really are the cause of gayness.

OK, there are a bunch of misconceptions about genetics and biology in this thread. Let me try to straighten them up.

Identical genes do not produce identical outcomes.

There are a number of reasons that two identical copies of a specific gene can result in different outcomes.

1. The gene can be turned on and off by other genes. This does not just include permanently turning the gene on or off, but also turning the genes on and off at different times and in different cells of the body.
2. How many copies of the genes you have matters. For example, double Y chromosome men have more testosterone than single Y chromosome men and tend to be more aggressive and more likely to be imprisoned for violent crime.
3. Genes work by encoding for proteins, which can affect and be affected by other proteins and other chemicals created directly or indirectly from the presence of proteins. As such, the effect of one gene can, and sometimes is, affected by the expression of one or more other genes.
4. Genetic code is not executed in a vacuum. Some genes are toggled or expressed more or less due to environmental conditions. For example, some survival genes are expressed when your caloric intake drops for a long period of time.
5. There is not a one to one and onto mapping of genes to traits. Genes can and do influence multiple traits, and sometimes no traits at all, such in the case of non-encoding genes. Conversely, a single trait like eye color can be influenced by multiple genes.

Not all biology is genetic.

Traits can be influence by three basic categories of factors.
1. Genes
2. The epigenome.
3. The environment.

Some research has suggested that homosexuality in men is caused, at least partly, by the level of testosterone in the mother's womb during pregnancy, which in turn is affected by how many previous sons she has. The amount of testosterone in a woman's womb is increases with the number of sons she has already had. And the higher this amount, the more likely the son will become homosexual.

From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. The older sons are going to have more resources and will be more likely to attract mates and more likely to have more children. The youngest son is at a disadvantage, so redirecting his resources to help his family, and thus the family's genes may be a very good trade-off compared to potentially wasting resources on attracting mates.

Put simply, sexual orientation can be biological but not wholly or even partially genetic.

And if that's not enough to convince you, consider this.

Straight men cannot choose to be gay.

www.youtube.com/embed/t1JhjugqB0U

Of course, it does not matter whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or biology. Neither cause should affect civil rights. Do we say that people have fewer rights if they choose one religion over another or because they vote for one party or another?

All people should have the same rights regardless of sexual orientation, gender, or race because all people should have the same rights. You either agree to that principle or don't. It's self-evident just as the principle that all people should have the right to not to be murdered is self-evident.

Yes, the cause of sexual orientation is scientifically interesting like everything else in the universe. But it should not affect the law, government policies, or even social conventions.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

Easy sex would have to get boring, even for gay men

Especially after they get HIV or HPV.

Dan8267 says

I think you have a false impression of how software developers think and how they solve problems.

Thanks, I had been fooled: Patrick was merely trolling his own site, hoping to trigger people, lying for lulz.

"If you spend a great deal of your time pretending to be an asshole to get a reaction from people...you aren't pretending."

I was not triggered, but I did not initially realize what Patrick was doing. I apologize to software engineers for understating their ability to process probability. The comment applies only to Patrick, especially when he's "pretending" to be an asshole.

curious2 says

Thanks, I had been fooled: Patrick was merely trolling his own site, hoping to trigger people, lying for lulz.

I don't think that's what Patrick was attempting, but of course, I could be wrong. In any case, I took his proposition "Just sayin that identical genes should produce identical outcomes, if genes really are the cause of gayness." to be a sincere, if incorrect, hypothesis that homosexuality is nurture rather than nature. A lot of people do think this and do have misconceptions about how genetic code works, so it wouldn't be a shocking belief.

In any case, even if it was in jest, it spurred me to list the reasons why some common misconceptions are wrong. So maybe some people will learn something about the science of genetics.

The most interesting question in the fields of genetics and evolutionary psychology, in my opinion, is what is the mechanism by which genetic code builds a brain. There's far too many bits of information in the brain's structure to be represented, even at great compression, in our genetic code. So the mechanism must have something to do with specifying how to build the brain rather than what to build. But right now, no one understands how this unfolding of neural networks is done using genetic code. It's a really interesting question though.

Dan8267 says

I don't think that's what Patrick was attempting, but of course, I could be wrong.

Consider what Patrick wrote:

Patrick says

The Joy of Triggering
***
It's just so much fun to drive easily triggered fools to insanity (any beyond!) by calmly saying or implying something just over the edge of PC-acceptability.

What are the ingredients for world-class trolling? How can I make patrick.net a center for exchange of knowledge in this delicious technique and technology?

A few thoughts:

* The trolling has to be done with an entirely straight face. The victim has to think you're serious.

* The remark has to be somewhat ambiguous, so that you have plausible deniability and can claim the victim simply misunderstood.

That thread, and this one, have changed my opinion of Patrick. The failures of logic in his "plausible theory" (counter-factual caricature) are so blatant that I can't believe it was anything other than passive-aggressive sadism.

"If you spend a great deal of your time pretending to be an asshole to get a reaction from people...you aren't pretending."

Identical twins are not necessarily completely "identical". There can developmental differences, even in the same womb, and twinning is a fascinating phenomenon. Twins often "compete" in the womb for the same resources. It is why one twin is sometimes viewed as "dominant" compared to the other.

Also, twins become less similar as they age, because phenotypic expression i.e. the decoding of various and sundry differing genetic areas is not uniform, even in twins. They may have the same genes, but not necessarily the same developmental or phenotypic expression of those genes. They are probably most like each other in the womb when the egg splits in two, and they start to vary in ways after that, even in a closely parallel environment.

As far as a "gay gene", it is a bit of a simplistic concept since those developmental, environmental, and phenotypic variations can count for a lot.

All species are basically "female" and males are spun out merely to serve genetic variation. The statistically 50-50 species such as humans have such a vast surfeit of males to do the genetic variance job, there are really a lot of left over males, so to speak, since a very small group of dominant males can accomplish the task.

It shouldn't be surprising that females would generate a group of males that reflect their tendencies, sort of biologic narcissism on the part of females. Also, an extended sociologic phenotype might make them useful to the population, whether or not they "reproduce".

The sex gene is one of 48 chromosomes. Chromosomes do have various and sundry "crossovers" where genetic matter is exchanged between the antipodes chromosomes. On an observational basis, it seems that nature does find it beneficial to transmit male features in ostensible females and female features in ostensible males, if to preserve variation if nothing else, or even to make sure the "female" and "male" archetypes continue to be preserved, whether or not they are in the "right" sex. In genetic hopscotching, you may wind up on a so called "pure" square, or not, luck of the draw.

Cultural chauvinism about male and female may be bitter, but that is because sex is fundamentally the ultimate territoriality, and as such, is subject the greatest emotional biologic forces.

EVERYBODY'S sexuality and desire (or not) for sexual expression is bound to offend somebody somewhere. It is probably why the religious controllers have tried to boil it down to Saturday night sex between married heterosexual couples in the missionary position only, because it keeps things simple and they don't have to answer a lot of complicated questions.

Konrad Lorenz commented about his "gay geese" where male geese would enter into stable bonding pairs, and engage in the usual reproductive rituals. He also commented on forlorn females, who would fall in love with one of the gay geese, and even try to wedge herself in between them during sex.