Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

originally posted by: Ghost147

I see it took you about 3 hours to read the article and summarize it. Nice. (Although. After reading the article, I really don't think you read the full article but we will get back to that later.)

I think I can destroy your premise with this article in with one point.

However, they noticed that many males also guarded and attempted to copulate with sterile worker and male pupae.

So by your logic, extending invertebrate behavior to humans, pedophilia would be natural and normal? The very article you posted said they tried to copulate with pupae, which would be analogous to children, yes? Who knew ants had NAMBLA?

Now, lets get down to the article. THE article is about "mate guarding" where the ant will try to prevent opposing males from inseminating the females they have inseminated. This "embracing" (called this because there is not true sexual contact) of male to male is actually a competitive behavior that prevents the rival make from inseminating and thus spreading their DNA and this "embrace" quite often kills the rival male.

Third, it was previously observed that young
Hypoponera
males
sometimes do not survive the embrace of other males (
Yamauchi
et al. 2001; Foitzik et al. 2002
). If true, embracing of male pupae
might be a form of male
e
male competition. We found support for
this idea in data from a sex ratio analysis of
H. opacior
nests (
Foitzik
et al. 2010
), which showed a strong variance in the number of
wingless males per nest. While some nests contained many males,
we found a high number of nests with only a single adult male. This
could be the outcome of adult males killing young emerging
competitors and thereby lengthening their reproductive monopoly.
We recorded the survival rate of embraced pupal males and
investigated whether single-male nests occur more often than
expected. Furthermore, we expected the killing of male pupae to
occur predominantly in nests with few adult competitors. In mul-
timale colonies all males would benefit from the removal of new
rivals, but the killer male would bear the costs of this behaviour.

A few tidbits form the conclusion:

The results of this study suggest that
H. opacior
males increase
the length of mate guarding with the number of rivals in the nest.
Moreover, they guard their partners for less time if there are more
mating opportunities, that is, more pupae available per male

So behavior done, not out of "same sex attraction" but out of competition and it lessens where there are more females so there is less need to fight over the ones that are there.

The mate-guarding behaviour of
H. opacior
males can be
regarded as a combination of pre- and postcopulatory mate
guarding, because males start to guard pupae before making genital
contact and often stay attached to them until the latter emerge
from the cocoon. This behaviour is probably adaptive. First, if
a young queen is guarded before she becomes receptive, the
guarding male ensures he is her
fi
rst mating partner. Second, adult
queens are very reluctant to mate after emergence and most
copulations end when young queens fully emerge from the cocoon.
Hence a male that is still with a queen until this point will most
likely remain her only mating partner. On the other hand, it has
been shown that
H. opacior
males can mate several times (
Foitzik
et al. 2002
), which explains why mate-guarding durations are
shorter when there are more mating opportunities available per
male.

So the guarding ant climbs on a pupa in case it is a female and if so he gets the first chance to inseminate but if the pupa happens to be male, the new male dies--it's not "making love" it's killing off the competition.
Also here:

The killing of young males that are still enclosed in the cocoon
could thus be a second strategy, besides mate guarding, to deal with
male
e
male competition. Besides the high mortality rate of previ-
ously embraced male pupae, this hypothesis is further supported by
the analysis of the distribution of males within
H. opacior
nests: We
found an unusually high fraction of nests containing just a single
male compared to other ant species with similar nest sizes.

And perhaps the most important part form the article's conclusion:

Regarding the chemical
similarity of young individuals, one could argue that the guarding
and embracing of male pupae is also simply due to recognition
errors.

Yeah, that wasn't a HUGE extrapolation on your part that this paper had anything to do with homosexual behavior.

a reply to: NavyDoc

And if you do want to say these ants are engaging in true homosexual behavior (i.e. that's what homosexuality truly is), why on earth would that be a behavior a civilized society wants to encourage and be supportive of because it seems to me that would make homosexuality violent and downright dangerous.

I think we ought to be very careful when drawing comparisons because animal and human behavior. Anthropormorphizing doesn't make things the way we wish they would be.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NavyDoc

And if you do want to say these ants are engaging in true homosexual behavior (i.e. that's what homosexuality truly is), why on earth would that be a behavior a civilized society wants to encourage and be supportive of because it seems to me that would make homosexuality violent and downright dangerous.

I think we ought to be very careful when drawing comparisons because animal and human behavior. Anthropormorphizing doesn't make things the way we wish they would be.

And that's the failing in most of these sorts of endeavors and I really don't understand the drive to do so.

Question: why are you who believe it's a choice so angry to be right? what do you win?

We know it wasn't a choice because we were born this way, you are assuming it was a choice for some reason, but what is that reason?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Really a mental illness, might want to look in the mirror for that one

So... you are still in denial about your problem?

it's the same as being an 'Alcoholic' but at least they admit it at AA.

Also they give pills to people with a lot less problem than kissing/shagging someone of the same sex.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

So you can be blamed by god and looked down on by some christians.
If it isn't a choice (isn't) god made you that way and have nowt to be forgiven fir because it is just part of the human condition.
They think they are better then everyone else.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Then why hasn't god taken care of the problem? there is death and destruction all over the world.. if The god that hates us exist why hasn't he taken us away?

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

So there is a way to cure your Heterosexuality? if you can "Cure the Gay" that means all sexuality can be cured and altered correct?

a reply to: bucsarg

Of course, it doesn't matter either way, in terms of how we should treat people, and whether we should limit their freedoms through the force of big government. Personally, I think people who are unnaturally dyed purple should even be allowed to marry other purple people if they want, and even be allowed to vote in elections and own property of they so desire.

Throwing my hat in the ring here:


Just let people be people and stop asking for the Gov't to get involved in personal matters would be the intelligent thing to do.

The more issues we bring before them, the mower power over our day to day lives we give them.

They've almost all proven that they cannot be trusted with anything, and yet people keep giving them more to control....

Stop the madness. Like Marxism? Keep it up.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Throwing my hat in the ring here:


Just let people be people and stop asking for the Gov't to get involved in personal matters would be the intelligent thing to do.

Letting the government step in to put in the checks and balances needed for an oppressed group to enjoy the same liberties as everyone else is the intelligent and compassionate thing to do. Sitting back and saying "Well, not my problem" isn't. How you've managed to tie that in with Marxism is beyond me.

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
You see, as I've stated in other threads recently, it is a dis-order and should be treated as such, just like any other 'Mental' illness!

Except it's not a mental disorder or mental illness.

I'd argue that having selective psychopathy towards people different from you is a mental disorder, though.

I'm going to try to respond to the new posts from person to person, so please excuse some time differences. Not sure why that would matter in the first place, NavDoc, but apparently your willingness to openly slander people for completely off-topic reasons continues to persist.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If you are using proper statistical terminology, it is a deviation from the norm since only about 2% of the population is that way. So yes, it is very much a deviancy. If you persist in a assigning the negative connotation to the term in a discussion about the science related to it, a discussion where "deviation" is a very real and useful term ... Maybe you should go inhabit another thread.

Ketsuko, You're mixing Psychological terminology and terminology that is external to the topic at hand in an extremely inappropriate way.

You're absolutely correct, in statistical terms an odd-number-out is called a deviation. However, you use it inappropriately to suggest some kind of other meaning to the word, as if statistical values actually hold some moral integrity. Which obviously they don't.

An Odd-Number-Out could also be referred to as "queer", too. "queer" can simply mean different, and doesn't have to have anything to do with homosexuality. However, it would be extremely inappropriate and confusing for me to actually use the word with that meaning implied, just as you use the phrase "Sexual Deviancy".

So how about you be a little more responsible and actually bring something of value to this topic?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Oh, I'm sorry. Please explain how it's not simply how you have sex which is almost always the terms it gets couched in.

You know, what goes on in someone's bedroom is their own business? Two consenting adults ...

The other members are completely correct. The fact that you think that Homosexuality is strictly a sex-based action is shockingly absurd.

You cannot possibly tell us that you believe a person can only be Homosexual once they've committed to having sex with another individual of the same gender?

So in your mind, when a man rapes an 18 year old boy, that makes the 18 year old a homosexual? You cannot possibly be this ignorant.

Homosexuality, is not an action, it is a state of being where you are naturally and intrinsically attracted to people of the same gender. You can be Abstinent all your life and still be a Homosexual. Please, do us all a favor and educate yourself.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And if you do want to say these ants are engaging in true homosexual behavior (i.e. that's what homosexuality truly is), why on earth would that be a behavior a civilized society wants to encourage and be supportive of because it seems to me that would make homosexuality violent and downright dangerous.

Please, enlighten us on what "homosexuality truly is'? You clearly have some sort of divine insite to the matter that we do not have. What is homosexuality other than wanting to mate with another individual of the same gender?

It has nothing to do with how many people in society actively accept homosexuality or not. Ancient Rome and Greece were extremely accepting of homosexuality, and that most certainly wasn't the cause of all that is dangerous and violent. If you're referring to the acceptance of rape, then absolutely. But you cannot possibly tell me your so dimwitted as to compare the Ant behavior in the example I gave and call it identical to Homo sapien society.... can you?

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think we ought to be very careful when drawing comparisons because animal and human behavior. Anthropormorphizing doesn't make things the way we wish they would be.

You mean just like you just did? A bit of a hypocrite are you?

There is only one definition of Homosexuality, and whether you feel compelled to reject reality or not, those Ants certainly portrait the traits that Homosexuality is defined as.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Exactly.
It really just is bigotry people still choose what to think and just because some old book apparently tells the gay folk are bad they use that onstead of just admitting it.
Mind you it is good to see who is a bigot and who is not on ats.
Many christians are happy gay folk can get wed. I respect them a lot more now.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Helious

I don't have to prove it is incorrect, it's common knowledge it's incorrect.

At one time it was "common knowledge" that the Sun moves around the Earth.

Phage, you of all people championing junk science is making me think "Liberalism" is more of a cult than a political affiliation.

I feel like people are willing to suspend rationality to defend personal beliefs. It's interesting and sometimes, a little scary.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Yes, i know Religious people sometimes get grouped together, but there are many who do support equality and love... some take religion as a way to mask Bigotry were they can just blame it on a Book, or scriptures and say "It's Gods Will" and not be responsible for their thoughts or actions.

Pedophiles cant help themselves either. It was their Sexual Orientation and Genetics that drives their Love and Desires.

Pedophiles should have the same rights as Gays, isn't that how most of them became Gay?

No one can Help themselves, They have no Choice, because they were born that way

a reply to: SPECULUM

Are you really equating homosexuality with paedophilia? Because if you are, you are nothing more than a hateful, small-minded bigot.

is it ok to eat chicken and eggs at the same time?+

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SPECULUM

Are you really equating homosexuality with paedophilia? Because if you are, you are nothing more than a hateful, small-minded bigot.

I said nothing hateful, only Factual