Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

The sad thing is, I can *totally* see a future where certain medical insurances deem this stuff as "medically necessary" for the "good of human kind" or somesuch. Hopefully, with the strides America has made in same-sex marriage the past few years, that would never happen. But I could see it.

If Romney had gotten into office, this kind of thing is what he would have been pushing for. Especially if he'd had the backing of a Republican-run senate.

Share this post


Link to post
The sad thing is, I can *totally* see a future where certain medical insurances deem this stuff as "medically necessary" for the "good of human kind" or somesuch. Hopefully, with the strides America has made in same-sex marriage the past few years, that would never happen. But I could see it.

I can see it as well, but because of the expesne I couldn't see insurence companies covering it like they don't cover most fertility treatments.

 

Meaning republican's (who would most likely be in favor of that) would have to choose who they want to keep more, the radical christians who want people forced to follow their beliefs or big buisness.

Share this post


Link to post
Meaning republican's (who would most likely be in favor of that) would have to choose who they want to keep more, the radical christians who want people forced to follow their beliefs or big buisness.

The radical Christians are the driving force behind this. They are the kind of people who would use it on their children if they could. However, if this hormone treatment was made available, it would need to be made affordable and easy to access. Otherwise normal people just wouldn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post

World AIDS Day is December 1. Here are some statistics on the current state of the epidemic.

 

Look how many people have aids, and look at the kids under the age of 15 that have it to. There is a time and place for sex, but for those at 15 yrs old, that have no idea what they are doing is so irresponsible. Kids are playing with sex that have consequences, and then it is to late. Yes, you can get aids in other ways than just sex. But by sleeping with different partners be it hetro or gay you are running the risk of STD's.

 

Parents need to educate their kids, and I am glad they have sex ed in schools to help this young generation. I know I talked to mine and made sure they had condoms.

 

http://www.everydayhealth.com/hiv-aids/113...26pLid%3D240218

You do realise that a significant percentage of those are either A) rape victims, or B ) children born of mothers with AIDS, yes? You can't pin the responsibility for contracting the disease on the infant whose mother birthed it, possibly without even knowing *she* was infected, or on the child whose infection was due to rape to "cure" someone of AIDS. It has almost nothing at all to do with careless teenagers getting infected by partners.

 

http://www.avert.org/children.htm

Edited by LascielsShadow

Share this post


Link to post
World AIDS Day is December 1. Here are some statistics on the current state of the epidemic.

 

Look how many people have aids, and look at the kids under the age of 15 that have it to. There is a time and place for sex, but for those at 15 yrs old, that have no idea what they are doing is so irresponsible. Kids are playing with sex that have consequences, and then it is to late. Yes, you can get aids in other ways than just sex. But by sleeping with different partners be it hetro or gay you are running the risk of STD's.

 

Parents need to educate their kids, and I am glad they have sex ed in schools to help this young generation. I know I talked to mine and made sure they had condoms.

 

http://www.everydayhealth.com/hiv-aids/113...26pLid%3D240218

Eh, I read a truly horrifying article the other day that may change your mind slightly there. Difficult reading. Please also note that article combined with this map, and you will see that by far the place with the highest prevelance of HIV/AIDS is the same area of the world where all these child rapes are happening.

 

So, no. The spread of AIDS in minors has very little to do with youngsters in the developed world being sexually active. It's got a large amount to do with children being born to HIV-positive mothers, and the rape of increasinly young children because of the 'virgin cleansing myth' (because of which many men in that part of Africa seem to believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS).

Share this post


Link to post
Eh, I read a truly horrifying article the other day that may change your mind slightly there. Difficult reading. Please also note that article combined with this map, and you will see that by far the place with the highest prevelance of HIV/AIDS is the same area of the world where all these child rapes are happening.

 

So, no. The spread of AIDS in minors has very little to do with youngsters in the developed world being sexually active. It's got a large amount to do with children being born to HIV-positive mothers, and the rape of increasinly young children because of the 'virgin cleansing myth' (because of which many men in that part of Africa seem to believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS).

There is also the fact that the *highest* risk of contracting HIV through unprotected intercourse (of any type) is about 2.5%, while it is use of IV drugs, blood transfusions, and mother-to-child that are the high-risk categories.

 

Although sexual transmission accounts for over 60% of HIV cases, it is only because of how much sex there is. And as pointed out, it's not just underage children fooling with each other. It's IV drug users that I have mostly seen HIV/AIDS present it.

Share this post


Link to post
Eh, I read a truly horrifying article the other day that may change your mind slightly there. Difficult reading. Please also note that article combined with this map, and you will see that by far the place with the highest prevelance of HIV/AIDS is the same area of the world where all these child rapes are happening.

 

So, no. The spread of AIDS in minors has very little to do with youngsters in the developed world being sexually active. It's got a large amount to do with children being born to HIV-positive mothers, and the rape of increasinly young children because of the 'virgin cleansing myth' (because of which many men in that part of Africa seem to believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS).

Could you find another link to the story TikindiDragon? its asking for me to sign up to something and I can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Could you find another link to the story TikindiDragon? its asking for me to sign up to something and I can't see it.

Oh. Uh, no idea. I don't think that I'm signed up for anything there. *clicks link* Huh. Odd, now it's asking me to. I acessed it via... either a scource link on wiki or a google search. Can't actually remember which.Plenty of scource links here though.

 

'Pologies about that. I'm not sure how I accesed it originally if it requires a sign-up blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Oh. Uh, no idea. I don't think that I'm signed up for anything there. *clicks link* Huh. Odd, now it's asking me to. I acessed it via... either a scource link on wiki or a google search. Can't actually remember which.Plenty of scource links here though.

 

'Pologies about that. I'm not sure how I accesed it originally if it requires a sign-up blink.gif

A lot of sites like those seem to require sign ups. It's a way of pulling you in.

Share this post


Link to post

I learned some cool stuff in Anatomy today, and one tidbit of information she had looked up herself and decided to share with us.

 

It has to do with homosexuality and the structure of the brain. c:

 

She told us that the hypothalmus in our brains, which is part of the "lower/animal" brain, is the processing center for basic survival emotions and reactions, and in that is included sexual drive and preference. She said that the preference is influenced by the chemoreceptors in the brain that respond to certain stimuli, the most impacting stimuli being odor and the physical perception of other people. In most people, she said, the hypothalmus has the dimorphism between male and female, whereas a male would have a hypothalmus that is more responsive to feminine odors and traits of appearance, and vice versa with females. Within the human population there is obviously variation between what features and scents are attractive moreso than others (within that, your immune system plays a role.... if someone has the same basic immune system as you, you are repulsed by their body odor! And if it is different, you're more likely to be attracted to it~). And then, she told us, that there is always differentiation within this "range" of variation of the hypothalmus. She said that changes in the hypothalmus could either be of genetic predisposition, or because how the brain formed within the womb, or even from trauma/damage or lesions in the brain and results in different preferences that aren't part of the majority.

 

So I found this interesting, anyway. I know a lot of people against homosexuality like to snark with "what's its evolutionary advantage? therefore, it's unnatural!" I find that these people don't quite grasp evolution or biology very well. Simply, because, since the human race is no longer influenced by "survival of the fittest" and therefore no longer removing the non-propagating mutations within the gene pool, there is going to be variation within the human race (and other races!) that don't necessarily NEED to contribute to the survival of the species. We've already reached that point. We don't have a biological need to keep reproducing like the animals in the wild.

 

Therefore, homosexuality (from the biological perspective I've gained from this knowledge) has no evolutionary purpose. IT DOESN'T NEED ONE. Ya know, like the color of your eyes has no bearing on your survival skills or your ability to reproduce or whatnot. Within social groups, after all, these things tend to happen. Humans don't need to worry about making babies anymore, so there's a lot more room for differences in companionship than there was thousands of years ago when we were trying to survival in the Savannahs.

 

 

I dunno if I made any sense at all since I'm an emotional mess as of current, so let me know if anything I said didn't quite come across as coherent as I wanted it to.

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is... it actually does have an evolutionary purpose. I've read that the more children a mother has, the more likely that the next child born will be homosexual (biochemical changes in the womb environment, etc); thus it operates as a natural population control. This obviously doesn't guarantee anything, and some mothers have it happen the first time, but it does increase the chances with each pregnancy.

Share this post


Link to post

That's only been a study for gay men, however. There's been no evidence of that for lesbians.

 

I don't think population control exists in nature biologically. That would be against the entire point of natural selection or existing at all- a big indicator is that it exists in animal species that don't need population control. It's just a natural deviation of sexual preferences that results (not in the case of humans, because we're not affected by natural selection any more) in stopping the spreading of genes. It would be stupid to have population control in the wild because they are driven by the instinct to reproduce and ensure their genetic material remains active. A higher chance of having offspring that won't continue to reproduce is completely counter-intuitive.

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post

I recall reading a theory that while being homosexual would be an evolutionary disadvantage to an individual because they wouldn't reproduce, having some members that don't reproduce could be an advantage for groups, especially in primitive societies. Basically, the non-reproducing adults would act as "extra parents", providing resources and care for the group's children and therefore improving the odds that they would survive and thrive. Since, in these early societies, those children would almost certainly be related to the adults, this would mean that the adults' genes would be passed on (including any that may be a factor towards homosexuality), just not directly through them. I don't know if or how that would apply to animals, but it sounds like a reasonable theory for humans.

 

(I do think that there must be some sort of evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, because on the surface of it, it's not just a neutral variation like eye color, it's actually a disadvantage. And yes, humanity as a whole will survive just fine without any individual member reproducing, but traits that prevent reproduction tend to be bred out of populations pretty quick if there isn't some compensating factor somewhere.)

Edited by bionelly

Share this post


Link to post
I recall reading a theory that while being homosexual would be an evolutionary disadvantage to an individual because they wouldn't reproduce, having some members that don't reproduce could be an advantage for groups, especially in primitive societies. Basically, the non-reproducing adults would act as "extra parents", providing resources and care for the group's children and therefore improving the odds that they would survive and thrive. Since, in these early societies, those children would almost certainly be related to the adults, this would mean that the adults' genes would be passed on (including any that may be a factor towards homosexuality), just not directly through them. I don't know if or how that would apply to animals, but it sounds like a reasonable theory for humans.

 

(I do think that there must be some sort of evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, because on the surface of it, it's not just a neutral variation like eye color, it's actually a disadvantage. And yes, humanity as a whole will survive just fine without any individual member reproducing, but traits that prevent reproduction tend to be bred out of populations pretty quick if there isn't some compensating factor somewhere.)

I've heard this argument too and I think it's the most likely if homosexuality had an evolutionary purpose. I know that a similar concept exists in certain species of birds, where older siblings that didn't leave the nest to produce (genetically weak siblings, as my professor referred to them once) stayed behind to help parents rear the next generation(s).

 

The only reason this makes me skeptical is because the sexuality of a person doesn't have much of a bearing on their ability to parent. I know many homosexuals (my parents included) who want to parent and have children and whatnot, and plenty that have no interest in being parents whatsoever. If homosexuality was designed as an extra parent set or social guardian, I'd be more inclined to think that a parenting instinct would tie into being homosexual.

 

This is why I think it has more to do with the structural make-up of the brain itself. Whether or not the individual was genetically predisposed to homosexuality itself is not something easily proven or explained. Perhaps it's a recessive trait of the hypothalmus, which would explain why it hasn't been completely bred out of the system. There are many evolutionarily-damaging genetic combinations out there that are still in existence that haven't been taken out of the population. So while heterosexuality is obviously the dominant sexuality, homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to be an evolutionary advantage in order to be passed along.

Share this post


Link to post
I've heard this argument too and I think it's the most likely if homosexuality had an evolutionary purpose. I know that a similar concept exists in certain species of birds, where older siblings that didn't leave the nest to produce (genetically weak siblings, as my professor referred to them once) stayed behind to help parents rear the next generation(s).

 

The only reason this makes me skeptical is because the sexuality of a person doesn't have much of a bearing on their ability to parent. I know many homosexuals (my parents included) who want to parent and have children and whatnot, and plenty that have no interest in being parents whatsoever. If homosexuality was designed as an extra parent set or social guardian, I'd be more inclined to think that a parenting instinct would tie into being homosexual.

 

This is why I think it has more to do with the structural make-up of the brain itself. Whether or not the individual was genetically predisposed to homosexuality itself is not something easily proven or explained. Perhaps it's a recessive trait of the hypothalmus, which would explain why it hasn't been completely bred out of the system. There are many evolutionarily-damaging genetic combinations out there that are still in existence that haven't been taken out of the population. So while heterosexuality is obviously the dominant sexuality, homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to be an evolutionary advantage in order to be passed along.

Funnily enough I am sure I rcall reading somwhere that female siblings of homosexual males had generally higher fertility. I can also see why, in a social group setting such as the ones primates are prone to living in, having male group members with no desire to mate would be useful. Certainly as it's usually noted that only the dominant male mates (unless the others are very sneaky about it). A homosexual male would offer no active 'threat' to the dominant male, but would provide advantages to the group.

 

Sad to say that homosexual females in such a setting would not normally be given a choice - potentially upping the chance of the genes being passed on.

 

Although, yes, recessive genes do not need to have an evolutionary advantage to be passed on. While the individuals that were homozygous for [whatever] would obviously not themselves reproduce, the heterozygous 'carriers' suffer no issues cna would potentially pass the recessive gene on to 50% of their offspring.

 

Incidently a study in 2006 had 20% of respondants reporting some homosexual feelings - which would fit with the idea of homosexuality being a recessive trait (although it's expression obviously varies, as that figure would include bi-sexual people, some of whom may have predominantly heterosexual leanings, which indicated more than 1 simple gene being at work).

 

Oh dear, slight detour into my having a genetics obsession at the end there. 'Pologies.

Share this post


Link to post

S'all good. I've read that about the fertility of female siblings of homosexual men, too. I'm disappointed that there isn't as much study on homosexual women, though, most biological case studies you hear about are focused on gay men.

 

Yes, that's what I was thinking of with the recessive traits as well. And though those homozygous for homosexuality may not reproduce together (so obviously there aren't any hh x hh crossing physically possible), there are still plenty of individuals who result from a cross of Hh (or HH) x hh pairings, myself being a would-be example of Hh x hh if the "gay gene" was isolated. I also think that bisexuality is more of a co-dominance factor of the genes, especially since so many different alleles go into the expression of different genetic characteristics. Asexuality and other sexualities are, in my crazy mind's eye, blended variations that either produce no sexual drive, no preference with a sexual drive, or limited/ different factors that activate the hypothalmus region of the brain in select individuals.

 

 

Edit: Also, we have to take into account the fact that we may never know the true proportion of homosexual individuals in a given area because of the cultural stigma still present. Which is rather unfortunate since it impedes so many studies, but...oh well.

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post
S'all good. I've read that about the fertility of female siblings of homosexual men, too. I'm disappointed that there isn't as much study on homosexual women, though, most biological case studies you hear about are focused on gay men.

 

Yes, that's what I was thinking of with the recessive traits as well. And though those homozygous for homosexuality may not reproduce together (so obviously there aren't any hh x hh crossing physically possible), there are still plenty of individuals who result from a cross of Hh (or HH) x hh pairings, myself being a would-be example of Hh x hh if the "gay gene" was isolated. I also think that bisexuality is more of a co-dominance factor of the genes, especially since so many different alleles go into the expression of different genetic characteristics. Asexuality and other sexualities are, in my crazy mind's eye, blended variations that either produce no sexual drive, no preference with a sexual drive, or limited/ different factors that activate the hypothalmus region of the brain in select individuals.

 

 

Edit: Also, we have to take into account the fact that we may never know the true proportion of homosexual individuals in a given area because of the cultural stigma still present. Which is rather unfortunate since it impedes so many studies, but...oh well.

Yes, unfortunately because of social stigmas that still exist self-reporting of homosexuality (or homosexual attraction, perhaps) is still likely to be considerably lower than 'actual' incidence.

 

Genetics is complicated, we all know that. There may be relatively simple genetics to explain, for example, hair colour, but the various shades that are seen are also controlled by some other genetic factors, and they way they interact in the individual (and in each individuals environment - exposure to sunlight, for example, is well know to lighten hair shades). So it's never going to be as simple as a single gene dominant/recessive. Which, to be fair, also make the various spectrums of attraction make more sense.

 

If we look at the basics those 'HH' people may be the small proportion who never experience any sort of homosexual attraction, or extremely little (say, finding the odd same-gender celebrity attractive). The Hh people (the majority, one would assume, from a normal sampling) may experience a small amount, though not enough to be considered homosexual, and probably never act on it (not with todays social stigmas anyway, or beyond the odd experiment as a teenager). One might also reasonably expect that many bi-sexuals who lean more towards the opposite gender would fit here too. The remaining hh people would be those whose sexual attraction was predominantly, or soley, homosexual, plus (dependant on other factors) bisexuals the lean more towards their own gender.

 

I'd assume that other factors (presumeably the same ones that control libido levels - which vary greatly even among the sexual population) would result in Asexuals. Although one could theorise that our hypothetical 'H' genes may have some effect on their romantic leanings.

 

Incidently the dominant H (heterosexual) would presumeably have the the original, or wild-type, gene. Simply because the species would never have got off the ground if it wasn't wink.gif The h would therefore be a mutation of a gene (probably one of many that influence the development of the hypothalmus). The spread of any such mutated gene would undoubtably been helped by homosexuals (in all liklihood mostly females) having biological children regardless of base attractions.

 

^ All theorising, by the way, peeps. Just to make that clear. The human genome is incredibly complex, and there isn't (as far as I'm aware) any actual reseach-science basis for our discussion. Although it may not seem unrealistic there's no proof of any of it here.

 

Back to fertility - I imagine there have been no studies about homosexual women for the simple reason that they can still get pregnant and reproduce (certainly in the modern age, where AI and sperm donors completely remove sex with a man from the process). Even in times prior to AI it was still possible, as women don't actually need to be attracted to their partner in order to produce offspring with them. Somewhat more difficult for the homosexual male, there, as, uh, kinda not possible if the body won't cooperate. Don't get me wrong, I would be very interested in the studies, but because of those sorts of factors I'm not sure they'd nescesarily find anything. Homosexual women would not, after all, have been effectively removed from the gene pool, so there wouldn't (in evolutionary terms) 'need' to be any side-benefit to keep them around.

 

Wow, this has got highly theoretical hasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, yes it has.

 

Wanted to toss some of my to cents in. As I've been doing research on the internet there seems to be a higher level of bisexuality in women, and most of the studies of heterosexual and homosexual woman have not given as concrete evidence of a difference as male homosexuality and heterosexuality has.

 

The best term I've heard online is that all sexuality is fluid but woman tend to be more so, hence the higher level of bisexuals overall seen right now in that population.

 

Now I could be totally wrong here but laying it out there because I think it honestly means that homoseuality may be caused by different genes/hormones exposed to rather than all people fitting to one gay gene or set of gay genes.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, yes it has.

 

Wanted to toss some of my to cents in. As I've been doing research on the internet there seems to be a higher level of bisexuality in women, and most of the studies of heterosexual and homosexual woman have not given as concrete evidence of a difference as male homosexuality and heterosexuality has.

 

The best term I've heard online is that all sexuality is fluid but woman tend to be more so, hence the higher level of bisexuals overall seen right now in that population.

 

Now I could be totally wrong here but laying it out there because I think it honestly means that homosexuality may be caused by different genes/hormones exposed to rather than all people fitting to one gay gene or set of gay genes.

I'm not sure that the apparently "higher levels of bisexuality in woman" isn't somewhat related to the different ways that society regards homosexual tendencies in men and woman (certainly western societies, at least). I think there's an increased willingness in woman to admit to bisexuality, possibly even to the extent of being encouraged to "admit" it because it's apparently an attractive factor to heterosexual men ("I kissed a girl and I liked it", anyone?)? Equally, I think there's active encouragement for men *not* to show homosexual tendencies because it's not seen as masculine.

 

But yes, I totally agree with the idea that there's a whole range of contributing 'causes' of homosexuality and the idea that it's caused by a single 'gay gene' seems a bit unlikely :S

Edited by Zaxian

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure that the apparently "higher levels of bisexuality in woman" isn't somewhat related to the different ways that society regards homosexual tendencies in men and woman (certainly western societies, at least). I think there's an increased willingness in woman to admit to bisexuality, possibly even to the extent of being encouraged to "admit" it because it's apparently an attractive factor to heterosexual men ("I kissed a girl and I liked it", anyone?)? Equally, I think there's active encouragement for men *not* to show homosexual tendencies because it's not seen as masculine.

 

But yes, I totally agree with the idea that there's a whole range of contributing 'causes' of homosexuality and the idea that it's caused by a single 'gay gene' seems a bit unlikely :S

Even though society as a whole is better about women who are bisexuals, there is also a stigma that any girl who is saying that they are is doing it for attention, because there has been such a high level of people who are admitting it.

Share this post


Link to post
But yes, I totally agree with the idea that there's a whole range of contributing 'causes' of homosexuality and the idea that it's caused by a single 'gay gene' seems a bit unlikely :S

Hence my notes on complexity. If the factors are biological, then clearly there is some genetics at work. But I did emphasise that I doubt something of that complexity is controlled by a single on/off gene. Chances are better that there's a set of them interacting in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
That's only been a study for gay men, however. There's been no evidence of that for lesbians.

 

I don't think population control exists in nature biologically. That would be against the entire point of natural selection or existing at all- a big indicator is that it exists in animal species that don't need population control. It's just a natural deviation of sexual preferences that results (not in the case of humans, because we're not affected by natural selection any more) in stopping the spreading of genes. It would be stupid to have population control in the wild because they are driven by the instinct to reproduce and ensure their genetic material remains active. A higher chance of having offspring that won't continue to reproduce is completely counter-intuitive.

I know this is going back a bit, but I had to sleep and things happened. tongue.gif

 

Anyway, while I do believe that the "extra parent" function is the stronger evolutionary purpose, population controls actually do make sense; it has to do with population density, crowding, and that sort of thing.

 

After a certain point, a population overcrowds the area in which it functions, leading to general weakness (less food availability) and greater susceptibility to disease (close quarters = easier transmission). While spreading to a new area is the best solution to this, it isn't always possible, and having non-breeding individuals does slow down the process and helps keep the population healthy that much longer.

 

 

 

Back to the more current topic, I also believe that sexuality is more than just a single switch. The continuum of preferences has too much variety to be the result of a binary system.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm reading this with *much* interest, and I'm just amazed.

 

I read news articles about the new "issues" with gays and stuff, but I've never really looked into the biological side of things. I've never questioned what makes me gay.

 

But I knew from the start it wasn't a "choice", so reading about these studies is very informative.

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. I suppose in that case it could be helpful.

 

I also don't think the "gay gene" or whatnot is caused by a single allele. I think it's a combination of different expressions that tie into the function of the brain's hypothalmus. We already know that there is genetic variation in preferences for people of the opposite sex that heterosexuals are attracted to (i.e., one man might like girls with long hair and dark skin, another might like short hair and fair skin) so I don't find it doubtful that genes of those variations could affect the outcome of sexual preference in other areas as well. Like it was said, there is rarely a cut and dry gene for any one characteristic, so the combination of different characteristics will always leave you with something different. I don't find it hard to believe at all that the different sexualities and the denominations within them are caused by these distinct differences within the hypothalmus's genetic make-up.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.