Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Not very. Social pressure would be heavy on having children, so they would. Just like the ancient Greek and Medieval nobility - it didn't matter who they fucked for pleasure, they still went home and fulfilled their duty with their wives in the evening. Children meant everything, it didn't exist in anybody's world to not try to have them.

[DJ]

Humans have fairly low success odds for conceiving, so it takes a lot of sex to make children. A gay man might do his marital duty now and then, but nowhere near the amount that a straight man would. This would leave his wife unsatisfied, so odds are pretty high that his children would actually be his neighbour's children.

[Frumple]

Nnyeah, reality seem to disagree. Last I bothered checking, the general percentage of the human population that could be identified as homosexual hasn't really had any major shifts in, well, pretty much ever. Genetically, if there's any basis for sexual preference in what genes influence, that means that it's either riding on something else that isn't affected by the selection pressures you're presenting, or the selection pressures aren't strong enough to make a difference. I personally haven't seen any studies -- or even well founded conjecture -- that indicate that homosexuals are any less likely to procreate than heterosexuals, to any statistically meaningful degree.

Humans have fairly low success odds for conceiving, so it takes a lot of sex to make children. A gay man might do his marital duty now and then, but nowhere near the amount that a straight man would. This would leave his wife unsatisfied, so odds are pretty high that his children would actually be his neighbour's children.

Do you... do you have any actual backing for any of those statements? Or even personal, anecdotal evidence? Or is that just unfounded conjecture?

[Il Palazzo]

Analysing evolution is almost purely an exercise in logical thinking, and DJ is doing a good job at that. He is, however, not taking all the possibilites into account.

Richard Dawkins talks about three possible causes for the prevalence of gay tendencies in the human genome(only 6 mins, you can give it a shot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

[G-Flex]

Group-oriented selection is an extremely important point. In social animals, a trait can still be positive/selected for even if it presents procreation in those individuals in which it is expressed. Obvious example: Infertile worker ants.

[DJ]

Is it really so outrageously unbelievable that people who enjoy a certain activity will engage in it more often than people who do it just because they have to?

[MonkeyHead]

Meh, sex is fun - its like a reward for reproducing. Go Pavlov!

[Frumple]

Is it really so outrageously unbelievable that people who enjoy a certain activity will engage in it more often than people who do it just because they have to?

No, but you need some numbers if you're going to say it influences procreation rate (which is actually measurable), or has any influence whatsoever on the homosexual population (ditto, though less easily due to stigma; plenty of false negatives).

Trust (logical deduction and your instincts) but verify (rigorously, when possible, but at least to the point of statistical significance when it's not). Not everything that makes sense (and follows logically from given axioms) actually holds true when tested.

[DJ]

For some subjects there are simply no available studies. So unless you're gonna finance one, we have to settle for conjecture.

And there's a point where you're verifying so much that it becomes impossible to progress a discussion. For example, can you give me some statistic on how often things that make sense don't hold true when tested

[ChairmanPoo]

I can give you several examples of thing that made sense and didn't hold true when tested.

[DJ]

That's anecdotal evidence, not proper scientific verification.

[Frumple]

And there's a point where you're verifying so much that it becomes impossible to progress a discussion. For example, can you give me some statistic on how often things that make sense don't hold true when tested

Often enough that we've had years of scientific progression "Oh shit, logical deduction based on previously accepted axioms failed in the face of reality" is pretty much one of their major kickoff points. It's especially common in the social sciences, yeah, though a lot of that is due to how young the field is.

If you'd like something more grounded in logic, the rebuttal would be that 'people enjoying heterosexual sex' doesn't necessarily entail 'will have more children.' Pretty much nobody enjoys birth (Debilitating, incredibly painful, and possibly deadly, especially in the past.), after all, so avoiding procreation while having sex is pretty high on a lot of peoples lists, and has been for a very, very long time. All you get from 'people enjoy sex' is that 'people will have more sex if possible' (assuming the axiom that people seek what they find enjoyable; something that isn't always true), not that they'll breed more. You also seem to be ignoring that social pressure to reproduce may be capable in itself to keep the homosexual population reproducing enough, assuming that the presumed genetic trait stays strictly within homosexual individuals (which I'm fairly sure pretty much no one has basis to claim. Implicit: And no be pulling it out of their proverbial arse.). If the trait is recessive or rides on something else within the larger population, reproduction within the homosexual population is entirely likely to be completely irrelevant.

What I'm basically saying is, that while what you're saying may follow logically, you're making jumps you can't back up without unfounded conjecture. Considering you're making testable claims, that's kind of a deathblow for what you're proposing.

For some subjects there are simply no available studies. So unless you're gonna finance one, we have to settle for conjecturewaiting until there is one.

Incidentally, I've shifted that for you. When we're talking things that can influence policy or peoples actions in very meaningful ways, that's the direction you need to go.

[DJ]

So we're deciding policy now? I didn't get the memo.

And you're doing the same thing I am with the "often enough" line

Basically, you're just using the ultimate argument - "citation please" which can can be carried on ad infinitum (citations for citations of citations etc) to effectively filibuster a discussion.

[Frumple]

Influences, not decides There's certain folk that would use the sort of conclusion you were coming to for evil, unfortunately.

As to the second, there's a wee bit of a difference, there. I'll go ahead and state that the point I was making about logic not always gelling with reality is held as axiomatic by a considerably larger population (and it's also a lot easier to prove, repeatedly.) than the point that homosexual populations are genetically inviable due to lack of reproduction, yeah. They're also dealing with two different sort of claims; the one with the nature of logic, the other a physical fact.

Actually, I'm using the 'back up what you're saying' argument. Citation would be best considering you're making an actual empirical claim, but just addressing the numerous sans-citation-required points I and others have been making would be enough to keep the discussion going

[DJ]

Well I'd reply to points but then I was afraid I'd have to provide verification for my replies.

Anyway, as far as birth rate being proportional to frequency of sex is concerned, I posit that reliable contraception hasn't been around long enough to have any meaningful evolutionary impact.

Also, I posit that in the long-term there's no such thing as breeding "just enough", specimens that produce more viable offspring will eventually squeeze out of the ecological niche those that produce less.