For those that don't support full equality for all Americans

[89Hen]

In their study of male twins, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

How big of a sampling could they possibly have? 2 to 4 percent of 2 to 3 percent of the population.

[OL FU]

Maybe , Just to be clear my position, based on observation, is that I support gay marriage and from what I know (which is little) support gay service in the military without hiding the fact. Basically I would leave it up to the people in the military that understand the issue more than me. Whether homosexuality is nature versus nurture impacts my thoughts on gay rights very little other than intellectual curiousity. I have always understood bi-sexuality with respect to evolution. Strong sexual desire being needed for the survival of a species would hint that one might have sex with whatever is available. But the preference for the same sex never seemed to make sense from an evolutionary aspect. However I am certainly interested in why homosexuality (not bi-sexuality which is generally what you see in mammals) might be beneficial for evolutionary purposes and would like for the earlier poster to expand on the statement.

I threw up the worker bee comment because of something I have seen in scholarly articles about younger male siblings having more of a likelihood to be gay.

I agree about military service, OL FU. I will support repeal of DADT only when the military itself supports repeal. (I don't care how many times jonboy lights his hair on fire and throws an irrational hissy fit.)

Nature vs nurture, one to the exclusion of the other, is a false choice. You can't have one without the other. Studies of other personality traits which are not so politically charged clearly demonstrate that both play a role. While we focus on "either-or," we are missing the complex interplay of nature AND nurture, which could turn out to be the most important factor of all ... the human "postmordial" soup of our complex societies.

My nature versus nuture was simply an attempt to throw out a cliche to explain a complex issue. I understand they do not have to be mutually exclusive. And they are not mutually exclusive in evolution. We have evolved our nuturing traits as well as our genetic ones.

[native]

I threw up the worker bee comment because of something I have seen in scholarly articles about younger male siblings having more of a likelihood to be gay.

I agree about military service, OL FU. I will support repeal of DADT only when the military itself supports repeal. (I don't care how many times jonboy lights his hair on fire and throws an irrational hissy fit.)

Nature vs nurture, one to the exclusion of the other, is a false choice. You can't have one without the other. Studies of other personality traits which are not so politically charged clearly demonstrate that both play a role. While we focus on "either-or," we are missing the complex interplay of nature AND nurture, which could turn out to be the most important factor of all ... the human "postmordial" soup of our complex societies.

My nature versus nuture was simply an attempt to throw out a cliche to explain a complex issue. I understand they do not have to be mutually exclusive. And they are not mutually exclusive in evolution. We have evolved our nuturing traits as well as our genetic ones.

I actually agree with virtually your entire post, OL FU. My discussion of nature vs nurture was not directed at you personally.

[native]

In their study of male twins, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

How big of a sampling could they possibly have? 2 to 4 percent of 2 to 3 percent of the population.

Regardless of the sample size of the entire study, the sample size of one set of identical twins represent 100% of the population with that particular set of identical genes. So if biology and genetics are 100% determinative, as many have suggested, why aren't both identical brothers either gay or straight?

Is not the 50% difference between the identical twins at least as illustrative as the 30% difference between the fraternal and identical twin sets?

[OL FU]

My nature versus nuture was simply an attempt to throw out a cliche to explain a complex issue. I understand they do not have to be mutually exclusive. And they are not mutually exclusive in evolution. We have evolved our nuturing traits as well as our genetic ones.

I actually agree with virtually your entire post, OL FU. My discussion of nature vs nurture was not directed at you personally.

I understand.

I do hope the poster expounds on the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality versus bi-sexuality. Mainly because I have not heard any.

[native]

I actually agree with virtually your entire post, OL FU. My discussion of nature vs nurture was not directed at you personally.

I understand.

I do hope the poster expounds on the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality versus bi-sexuality. Mainly because I have not heard any.

A bit counter-intuitive, isn't it?

[89Hen]

Regardless of the sample size of the entire study, the sample size of one set of identical twins represent 100% of the population with that particular set of identical genes. So if biology and genetics are 100% determinative, as many have suggested, why aren't both identical brothers either gay or straight?

Is not the 50% difference between the identical twins at least as illustrative as the 30% difference between the fraternal and identical twin sets?

I have no idea.

[native]

From RCP's

"...Congress has a constitutional duty to prescribe the terms under which people can serve in the military. They should - before they act - do what the Justice Department neglected to do: get the evidence they need. What are the facts behind Gen. Conway'sstatement that repeal of DADT will affect Marine order and discipline? Why did Gates say the ruling would have enormous consequences? Congress needs to consider seriously the truth of this matter: the military community is, for good reason, united in opposition to repealing DADT...."

[native]

From RCP's

Regarding Judge Phillip's judicial mischief in repealing DADT by her ill-considered fiat:

"...Congress has a constitutional duty to prescribe the terms under which people can serve in the military. They should - before they act - do what the Justice Department neglected to do: get the evidence they need. What are the facts behind Gen. Conway's statement that repeal of DADT will affect Marine order and discipline? Why did Gates say the ruling would have enormous consequences? Congress needs to consider seriously the truth of this matter: the military community is, for good reason, united in opposition to repealing DADT...."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07657.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

There is NO good reason for discriminating in any way, shape or form.

[YoUDeeMan]

There is NO good reason for discriminating in any way, shape or form.

Sure there is.

If a person had a genetic trait that would render them incapable of having children, and I specifically wanted to have children, then I would not see her as a life long partner for raising a family from my seed.

Maybe I would bang the hell out of her for fun, but that's different.

[Cap'n Cat]

There is NO good reason for discriminating in any way, shape or form.

Sure there is.

If a person had a genetic trait that would render them incapable of having children, and I specifically wanted to have children, then I would not see her as a life long partner for raising a family from my seed.

Maybe I would bang the hell out of her for fun, but that's different.

You moved in with 89Hen lately, didn't you?

[YoUDeeMan]

Sure there is.

If a person had a genetic trait that would render them incapable of having children, and I specifically wanted to have children, then I would not see her as a life long partner for raising a family from my seed.

Maybe I would bang the hell out of her for fun, but that's different.

You moved in with 89Hen lately, didn't you?

Hens of a feather...

[Cap'n Cat]

You moved in with 89Hen lately, didn't you?

Hens of a feather...

......do gay 69 together......

[YoUDeeMan]

Hens of a feather...

......do gay 69 together......

You've got birds doing 69 on your mind? Pecker's peckers pecking pecker's peckers?

Quick, see how fast you can come up with a picture for that...you'd make Joe proud.

[89Hen]

[OL FU]

I understand.

I do hope the poster expounds on the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality versus bi-sexuality. Mainly because I have not heard any.

A bit counter-intuitive, isn't it?

Bewitched, baffled and bewildered. Well maybe not bewitched.

[YoUDeeMan]

I actually agree with virtually your entire post, OL FU. My discussion of nature vs nurture was not directed at you personally.

I understand.

I do hope the poster expounds on the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality versus bi-sexuality. Mainly because I have not heard any.

Maybe gay men give females some male figure with which to talk and shop. Sometimes that superfluous stuff strains the mind of most heterosexual men. Stress lowers sperm counts. When a famale wants to breed, she selects a real man that doesn't want to shop or do much talking with her...voila..healthier sperm counts and the species benefits!

[OSBF]

Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

yet another problem for the choice crowd to try and explain away

Every population of animals on the planet has a 2% to 5% rate of homosexuality

Consistent across kingdoms, orders, sub-orders, families, species

[native]

Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

yet another problem for the choice crowd to try and explain away

Every population of animals on the planet has a 2% to 5% rate of homosexuality

Consistent across kingdoms, orders, sub-orders, families, species

Good point, OSBF.

[89Hen]

Every population of animals on the planet has a 2% to 5% rate of homosexuality

Consistent across kingdoms, orders, sub-orders, families, species

Dunno, seem to be a lot more gay bears.

[OSBF]

yet another problem for the choice crowd to try and explain away

Every population of animals on the planet has a 2% to 5% rate of homosexuality

Consistent across kingdoms, orders, sub-orders, families, species

Good point, OSBF.

I've seen some EXCELLENT homosexual Bottlenose Dolphin porn on The Discovery Channel

[native]

... I've seen some EXCELLENT homosexual Bottlenose Dolphin porn on The Discovery Channel

Just saw some AWESOME US NAVY DOLPHINS on the military channel tonight!

After six years of training, at the behest of the trainer the dolphins could search a specific area for mines, identify whether or not a mine exists, tell the trainer whether or not a mine exists, and then take a weight with a floating marking device to the sea floor and free the marking device to float to the surface.

AMAZING!

[OL FU]

Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

yet another problem for the choice crowd to try and explain away

Every population of animals on the planet has a 2% to 5% rate of homosexuality

Consistent across kingdoms, orders, sub-orders, families, species

Well it would be interesting to see those studies also. Not doubting it, but in the animal kingdom it might be tough to study motivation or whether once again it is bi-sexuality. Hell every male dog I have owned or spent any time around has a penchant for humping human legs. In fact a few females dogs do the same.

In many pack species, only the head of the pack gets laid.

Once again, not saying that isn't the case. Just wondering how they determine that.

[Chemhen]

Well in that case, well played.

I nominate ChemHen as new poster of the year.

The check's in the mail.

As to the evolutionary benefits, I did some poking around and found some animal examples:

"For example, some same-sex sexual behaviors appear to play a role in aggressive or dominance interactions, especially in males. In numerous genera and species of cockroaches, for example, males frequently elicit mountings by other males using stereotyped courtship maneuvers, or they might mimic female behaviors and mount courting males [42]. Such ‘pseudofemale’ behavior apparently increases the reproductive fitness of the males exhibiting it, because it increases the likelihood that they will mate with the female that had been courted by the displaced male. If a heritable genetic component underlies the tendency to engage in such interactions, the net effect can be to exaggerate or diminish the response to selection of traits that are involved in the interaction [38]."

I suppose that would be a bisexual example. I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I would say that more research needs to be done to really understand the evolutionary origins of homosexuality. That being said, the evolutionary pressures which lead to an adaptation do not necessarily apply to current humans (like the appendix).