[BengalTiger]

You clearly did not read or understand the papers in question.

Please reread them until you understand the concept of inclusive fitness.

The homosexuals themselves also don't benefit from being genetically set to be attracted to the same gender.

Yes they do. They get more offspring than they would by being straight.

And the genes themselves get passed down not because of homosexuality, but because they have something usefull coded into them, be it for the opposite sex.

No, they get passed down because homosexuality increases their chance of being passed down (in the case of inclusive fitness.)

All of the homosexuals' genes are however eliminated from the gene pool.

No they are not. Because they are 50% shared with siblings, they are passed down by the siblings. In fact, they are passed down better than they would be if the individuals were heterosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would be selected against and vanish.

If homosexuality were not a natural occurrence it would not arise naturally and independently in so many species. Furthermore, there are so many mating systems out there that assuming homosexuality is somehow a 'defect' is absurd. There are far weirder practices in the natural world.

I get the point about inlcusive fitness, however it seems that in your theory homosexuals support their siblings' offsprings, while heterosexuals support ONLY their own.
That would in fact give homosexuals an advantage, but I'll have to disagree with the "only", unless heterosexuals never get altruism genes.

It was also stated in this thread that a gene that encodes homosexuality for one gender also increases the other gender's chance of survival. If that's the case, homosexuals will always exist whether or not such a sexual orientation is positive or not. The genes would always be positive for the sex they make more fit, and therefore would always be selected for.

If you insert any form of infertility you'll also get specimens that don't use their siblings' recources but are often able to assist them raise their offspring and function normally in a society. This makes these forms of infertility just as usefull and important. Yet everyone treats them as disorders or illnesses.

Infertility is treated as a disorder because people who want to have children are unable to have them. When people don’t want children, they often induce artificial infertility by means of birth control or sterilization, suggesting that the crucial difference is whether or not the condition interferes with the person’s life goals.

Bearing that in mind, who are you to tell gay people that there’s something wrong with them when they’re happy the way they are? Who are you to tell them that they cannot live their lives as they choose, on the basis of a characteristic that they have no control over? If you are the one preventing them from living full, satisfying lives (through political opposition to equal rights), then perhaps you are the pathology.

I wrote that infertility still allows species to evolve via inclusive fitness, which makes it similar to homosexualism in this aspect.
I also wrote that infertility is treated as a disorder or desease.

What I didn't write is that homosexuality is a desease.
I also didn't write that gay people can't be gay.
And I didn't write I have the power to prevent them from being so.

BTW- do you alwayshave to flame everyone who disagrees with something and asks questions?

[General Battuta]

Having your argument torn to shreds isn't being flamed, it's having your argument torn to shreds.

[karajorma]

Batutta, I think the argument he's trying to make (very poorly) is why would homosexuality be selected for instead of sterility.

That argument has not been made.

Well it appears often in discussions such as this one.

It appears to counter the claim that it is unnatural. Not as a "It's natural so therefore it should be allowed" argument. One of the most common claims against homosexuality is that it is unnatural. This is quite clearly bollocks as it can be proved to exist throughout nature.

Proving that it's natural doesn't give added weight to why it should be allowed except to dismiss the claims of those who are ignorant enough to say that it doesn't exist in the animal kingdom.

[MP-Ryan]

It was also stated in this thread that a gene that encodes homosexuality for one gender also increases the other gender's chance of survival.

I'd love to see where, since there's very little evidence that homosexuality is actually subject to traditional Mendellian genetic inheritance patterns and/or encoded by a single gene or gene cluster, and I know for a fact that Battuta wouldn't make that rookie mistake since his behavioural genetics education likely now exceeds my own.

All the quotes I've seen in this thread are dealing with evolutionary selection of traits and population genetics, which is a VERY different kettle of fish from what you've written there, Bengal.

That aside, carry on Battuta.  You're doing a marvelous job with the biology side; I think I've even learned a thing or two  

[General Battuta]

MP-Ryan is correct. The case of overdominance or gender-antagonistic selection is probably not simply Mendelian. However, an allele that may promote fitness in one sex may contribute to homosexuality in the other (notice I said contribute, not determine!)

You argue that this means homosexuality is a 'byproduct', in which case my response is 'so what'? What's your point? It is a trait that boosts fitness. If homosexuality were a net disadvantageous side effect, it would have been selected against strongly, but it is not.

All this biological argument makes me slightly uncomfortable. The point here is simply to demonstrate that homosexuality is an important evolutionary phenomenon. Scientific explanations do not carry a moral component.

On the broader level, however, I don't think it matters. I would argue that there are absolutely no grounds for restricting the choices that consenting adults make so long as they do not harm each other or others...which these individuals do not.

Kara: good clarification of the point BengalTiger's trying to make. Sterility is indeed often selected for. Eusocial insects have sterile castes. Humans, however, do not have sterile castes. For sterility to be viable, we would need to be eusocial, and we are not. Homosexuals are therefore a better solution for kin selection behavior than sterile individuals, because the traits required to produce sterility would cripple heterosexuals more than they would produce useful kin helpers.

[Nemesis6]

Sorry for butting in here, but how come there has been virtually no coverage or info about this trial apart from jury accounts and stuff like that? I mean, there's a website dedicated to re-enacting the trial (marriagetrial.com), what's the deal with the cloud of secrecy surrounding this?

Also, I liked the way the lovely Mr. Cooper just flat out did a "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" kind of thing in his defence! 

[iamzack]

The side defending bigotry *****ed and complained that their witnesses would be harassed by the big scary powerful gay community if the trial was televised.

[karajorma]

Yeah. Gay-bashing is a common thing in the US. I can cite lots of examples of it happening.

*does a double take*

Oh wait. Anti-Gay bashing. Ummmm....

[Blue Lion]

Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms.  People don't want their hate broadcast out.

[Nemesis6]

Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms.  People don't want their hate broadcast out.

And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".

[Turambar]

I might even value some tradition if I had ever come across any tradition to value.

And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".

That's why, when i have a family, I'm gonna have some weird-ass traditions that are gonna be really fun, and i'm gonna stick with them every year.  that way, when my kids have families, they'll keep up with 'beat up the pinata that looks like a cylon' tradition that happens on February 3 every year.   

My kids are gonna be ****ed up anyways.  When other kids are watching Sesame Street, my kids will be watching Cosmos with Carl Sagan and learning the benefits of an objective worldview.  They'll either grow up to be the next generation's Captain Picard, or the next generation's Nietzsche.

[iamzack]

Your kids will hate science, and probably become born-again Christians just to spite you.

Bigotry is still spoken but it often done in back rooms.  People don't want their hate broadcast out.

That's actually very much it. They didn't want people who were still on the fence to see what the real reasons gay marriage is opposed were. One of the pro-prop8 witnesses that backed out actually got called up as a witness for the plaintiff side. He claimed that gays would try to legalize sex with children after they got gay marriage, blah blah blah. So the defendants had to go through all this trouble to try and show that he wasn't actually connected to protectmarriage.com. It was very silly.

[BengalTiger]

I might even value some tradition if I had ever come across any tradition to value.

And when not spoken in back rooms, it's dressed up with big words like "heritage", "tradition", "identity", and "norms".

That's why, when i have a family, I'm gonna have some weird-ass traditions that are gonna be really fun, and i'm gonna stick with them every year.  that way, when my kids have families, they'll keep up with 'beat up the pinata that looks like a cylon' tradition that happens on February 3 every year.   

My kids are gonna be ****ed up anyways.  When other kids are watching Sesame Street, my kids will be watching Cosmos with Carl Sagan and learning the benefits of an objective worldview.  They'll either grow up to be the next generation's Captain Picard, or the next generation's Nietzsche.

They might pay the price of not having friends ya know. When everyone talks about Sesame Street, they won't be interested, and when they'll talk about Cylons, noone will understand them. Then everyone will figure out there's no sense in staying in touch, and you'll end up with lonely, wierd geniuses.

At least until they figure out getting drunk at parties is more fun than science fiction. And then iamzack's words may become a prophecy.

[Nemesis6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRU4rKNIIOA

For anyone who might be thinking that domestic partnership = marriage. It also does a great job at mocking fundamentalists. 

[iamzack]

Fundamentalists do a great job at mocking everyone within their faith, including themselves.