Pollution Makes Birds Gay?

[IndigoSensor]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5569683-study-says-pollution-makes-birds-gay

This is a rather interesting article to say the least. There was a study done in flordia that has linked exposure to mercury with male birds mating with other male birds. There was a direct relationship with mercury levels in diet, and male-male pairing. All the way up to a 55% occurance rate. Mercury is known for interfearing with hormone levels, and this has been well documented since mercury's toxicity was discovered. I must highlight something from the article though, in regards to this translation to human sexuality:

Does all this mean homosexuality is linked to mercury pollution? For the ibises, maybe. For humans, almost certainly not. Frederick pointed out that there have been a number of long-term studies on the effects of mercury on humans, and none of those studies has noted a change in sexual behavior. Speaking more generally, the researchers noted that sexual preference is a much more complex phenomenon for humans than it is for birds.

This is true, sexuality is indeed much more complex for humans. This does beg the question though; is it possible that exposure to some hormone altering compounds at key points in ones life, could result in someone being homosexual? I personally feel this is very possible. However if this were to be true, or found to be true in the future, this would force a very large moral question onto socieity. Would it be something to fix? Discuss.

 

[middle1]

I do think hormones could come into play however whether fixing it or not is far beyond me. I believe we are who we are meant to be and God doesn't make mistakes (Edit: I must be some an "unchristian" Christian but I think God made us gay or straight whether from birth or through mercury exposure or hormones).

 

[DoveAlexa]

Hmm, hormones could change it, but you'd have to be certain of what you're starting with if you want to proceed, which isn't possible in an infant or an embryo. If they were already straight then bombarding the poor thing with extra hormones probably isn't going to "make sure" they don't turn out homosexual, if anything you'll have a kid with a buttload of illnesses and deformities, which even the most fanatical of parents probably don't think its worth it. If they were gay then you might get a straight kid but either way they still have a buttload of problems. If it doesn't work at all, you just made your perceived problem child much much worse.
Hormones should be left alone as much as DNA should be. IMO

 

[KazeCraven]

I can definitely see this being linked.

Would it be something to fix? Not at the community level. That would imply that it is a disease that ought to be prevented.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I can definitely see this being linked.

Would it be something to fix? Not at the community level. That would imply that it is a disease that ought to be prevented.

See that's the issue I have with it. I think that if there is an environmental cause there should be the abillity to "fix/prevent it", but socieity wouldn't respond to that in a good way. It would embolden anyone who is against it, and it would anger those who hold tight to their sexuality. I myself am not even sure how I feel about it, and whether or not it upsets me. I would be upset by the idea of a "cure" but at the same time I don't feel like I should be upset but such an idea in the first place. I personally would not be implying that it is a disease at all, but some people are strongly unconfortable with the idea that they themselves are gay, or could produce someone that is gay.

 

[just me]

Exposure may very well have something to do with it, but exposure to watching others do it.

Ever wonder what happened to all the water flushed down toilets and into the sinks of hospitals?

There are certain species of birds more apt to try and mount whatever they can. A drake mallard is one of them.

 

[bamf]

Possible? Yes. Needing to be "fixed" if that's the case? Most certainly not.

 

[basic]

When I wrote my paper about homosexuality, I talked briefly about animals. Instead of trying to explain it let me just quote where I read it.

In many species (such as tree shrews, squirrel monkeys, and many types of macaques; see Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) females engage in homosexual copulation when "they are in a new environment or undergoing stress." This could be an innate mechanism for limiting overpopulation or wasted energy on reproduction and fetus-production when environmental conditions make survivalship unlikely. One difficulty with applying the "density dependent population control" theory more broadly is that under "conditions of high density the frequency of any gene disposing toward homosexuality would be drastically reduced, since individuals bearing it would not breed. Consequently, the representation of such a gene would decline in subsequent generations," diminishing its effectiveness as a selected-for population control mechanism (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982).

From Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution

 

[KazeCraven]

See that's the issue I have with it. I think that if there is an environmental cause there should be the abillity to "fix/prevent it", but socieity wouldn't respond to that in a good way. It would embolden anyone who is against it, and it would anger those who hold tight to their sexuality. I myself am not even sure how I feel about it, and whether or not it upsets me. I would be upset by the idea of a "cure" but at the same time I don't feel like I should be upset but such an idea in the first place. I personally would not be implying that it is a disease at all, but some people are strongly unconfortable with the idea that they themselves are gay, or could produce someone that is gay.

Yeah, I suspected that's what you were getting at, but I suppose I didn't imply that from my response. I should add, on second thought, that considering the individuals who are being brought into this sexuality aren't able to choose for themselves that we ought to push for defaulting to heterosexuality if such a thing is possible. Assuming it is a reasonable task to prevent it.

But if it was actually a matter of curing rather than prevention, I would argue that it's really up to the individual. I suppose I'm skirting the issue regarding how people feel about it because that gets into much more complex normative issues that I really am not interested in arguing over.

 

[Saru Inc]

GODDAMNIT MOM THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULDNT HAVE CONCEIVED ME NEXT TO A GARBAGE DUMP.






i kid.



This is very interesting, but I'm too tired to make a coherent post.

 

[88chaz88]

We gotta clear up the world before these evil bird bummers start fagging up the community!

 

[just me]

 

[IndigoSensor]

...ok, I'll bite, what does this imply?

I don't get this at all.

 

[just me]

It meant nothing at all. Trying to add a smile on my frowning face. Elmer Fudd, the gweat duck hunter, having a duck point him in the wight diwection is an old classic cartoon. No implications meant at all. I am trying to have a sense of humor and being so serious all the time makes it somewhat difficult at times. Call this a disclaimer. Dump the three posts if they are not appropo.

 

[myself]

It meant nothing at all.

Daffy was gay... ?



doesn't sound good to have mercury changing up our birds

i'd like for them to stick around

imagine a world without birds...

):

 

[just me]

 

[DoveAlexa]

I have just the thing for that:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NocRG3r2zBw&feature=fvw"]YouTube - The Launched Squirrel (Spinning)[/ame]