107 replies to this topic

[Gone]

If you have the time read Evolution and Homosexuality (15 pages) on one perspective that mentions homosexuality as a sign of the ending of a species. Why did homosexuality evolve? on the other hand sides homosexuality with creating stable societies by sexual relationships between one's own sex, and actually promoting successful reproduction.

*Disclaimer-I have no opinion, on the matter, and I am just merely posting a topic for discussion. I will not post anymore comments on this post, so do not ask for my stance.*

[redlion]

If you've read Isaac Asimov, you've seen his opinion, which I agree with.

While homosexuals might not add to the gene pool, they add to humanity as a whole. While an extreme minority (probably around 1% of the population) homosexuals are extremely well represented in higher education, and contribute in all areas of society, from technology to art and culture to teaching.

On an adjunct note, this same theory could be applied to those heterosexual individuals that choose not to pass on their genes by having children. The fact that an individual is homosexual is all but irrelevant to the gene pool.

Honestly, you obviously have an opinion on the matter, and its kind of dishonest to try to look like an arbiter of impartiality. For more on this, see my signature.

[Nick]

Homosexuality is actually in no more abundance than it was 2,000 years ago. People simply chose to repress their feelings when Christianity came on the scene. In fact, before Christianity, homosexuality was an accepted practice in European societies, especially in Greece.

[Ives]

Humans fuck like bunnies and are intelligent enough as is. Homosexuality poses no harm to society. Undermining their rights probably hurts the adoption rate more than it harms. I'm sure fucking the same sex is a sin or whatever, but I've found no concrete reason for it to be a sin. Fucking for pleasure and under safe circumstances has little to no consequences except for maybe being a healthier, more active and more relaxed human being.

[pyke]

Homosexuality is actually in no more abundance than it was 2,000 years ago. People simply chose to repress their feelings when Christianity came on the scene. In fact, before Christianity, homosexuality was an accepted practice in European societies, especially in Greece.

The greeks were more for bisexuality though. They tended to encourage homosexual relations amongst troops, so they wouldn't catch anything from foreign women. Also, it was frowned upon if the relationship had any impact on the home life of the troops.

Still way ahead of not letting gay people serve in the military though.

[Grizzly]

Our species has become so overpopulated that homosexuality has no negative effect in terms of evolution. It might stunt growth expansion minimally, but that might even do us some good lol.

You also have to realize that homosexuality doesn't play the same role in Africa as it does in the US. As it was in Greece, most are bisexuals rather than homosexuals and continue to have children.

[Sida]

Human evolution has come to a halt anyway. Being born with a beneficially mutated gene doesn't give you any advantage over the rest anymore. Can't see homosexuals being a sign of anything really.

Edited by Sida, 20 December 2008 - 03:32 PM.

[Frizzle]

Human evolution has come to a halt anyway. Being born with a beneficially mutated gene doesn't give you any advantage over the rest anymore. Can't see homosexuals being a sign of anything really.

Actually human evolution is still growing at a rapid rate. This generations thumbs are dexterious than previous generations. Although small, it's very rapid.

Personally, I have no bones with homosexuality on a evolution basis, as evolution is not entirely not based on survival as many species do not evolve as their reproduction keeps them in balance.

It's more of a personal intolerance, neither hatred nor acceptance.

[Mr. Hobo]

I don't really see how humans are rapidly evolving. ex: Let's say I'm born with kidney problems, instead of dieing I'll take some medicine/get sugery/get a new kidney and have kids and pass on my defective genes.

[Sweeney]

Personally, I have no bones with homosexuality on a evolution basis, as evolution is not entirely not based on survival as many species do not evolve as their reproduction keeps them in balance.

lolwhut... that's entirely wrong

[The Dirty Filipino]

blah

Edited by T.E.I., 20 December 2008 - 08:22 PM.

[Frizzle]

I don't really see how humans are rapidly evolving. ex: Let's say I'm born with kidney problems, instead of dieing I'll take some medicine/get sugery/get a new kidney and have kids and pass on my defective genes.

The process of evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not required to see evolution, or even to see speciation (a change in characteristics of a kind of organism) in action. Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.^[63]

lolwhut... that's entirely wrong

The characterization of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" (in the sense of "only the fittest organisms will prevail", a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself before dying is considered "fit". If the organism is able to do so on an ongoing basis, it will survive as a species. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".^[70][71]

[Sweeney]

stuff

Lee, that supports my point... not yours x_X

[Frizzle]

Lee, that supports my point... not yours x_X

You had a point in this thread? I thought you just came to bitch.

[Jackle]

I haven't read anything about it, don't plan to, don't care that much, but I feel like being homosexual is against the nature of life.

[Sweeney]

I haven't read anything about it, don't plan to, don't care that much, but I feel like being homosexual is against the nature of life.

Then you're an idiot

[Tetiel]

I don't really see how homosexuality evolved, though, nor what its actual purpose is. I'm not speaking of any offense to gays at all, but I personally believe it's an error caused by hormones in a woman's uterus. Not genetics. Therefore, I don't believe it has anything to do with evolution. I think men were meant to be attracted to women and women were meant to be attracted to men, but something happened where a gay man's brain is more like a woman's brain. That's the way which makes the most sense to me. I just don't think evolution has a thing to do with it as mostly gay men and women do not pass down their genetics unless they decide to force themselves into heterosexual relationships or become a sperm or egg donor.

[Sweeney]

I don't really see how homosexuality evolved, though, nor what its actual purpose is. I'm not speaking of any offense to gays at all, but I personally believe it's an error caused by hormones in a woman's uterus. Not genetics. Therefore, I don't believe it has anything to do with evolution. I think men were meant to be attracted to women and women were meant to be attracted to men, but something happened where a gay man's brain is more like a woman's brain. That's the way which makes the most sense to me. I just don't think evolution has a thing to do with it as mostly gay men and women do not pass down their genetics unless they decide to force themselves into heterosexual relationships or become a sperm or egg donor.

Think of it from the perspective of the parents instead.
Women that are more likely to give birth to homosexual offspring are less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. However, it has persisted, so either it's a byproduct of the way the reproductive system has evolved that cannot be removed, or it has an indirectly benificial effect (perhaps similar to carers in some bird species).
Either way, it's still a product of evolution, and may even be a beneficial attribute for the parents.

[Tetiel]

Think of it from the perspective of the parents instead.
Women that are more likely to give birth to homosexual offspring are less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. However, it has persisted, so either it's a byproduct of the way the reproductive system has evolved that cannot be removed, or it has an indirectly benificial effect (perhaps similar to carers in some bird species).
Either way, it's still a product of evolution, and may even be a beneficial attribute for the parents.

Or, because of the lack of a large gay population, it could be due to the age of the mother much like Downs. (once again I am not comparing people who are homosexual to being retarded and mean no offense!)

[Waser Lave]

Or, because of the lack of a large gay population, it could be due to the age of the mother much like Downs. (once again I am not comparing people who are homosexual to being retarded and mean no offense!)

I think it would have been noticed already if a significant proportion of mothers of homosexual people were of a certain age range. The whole having sex with someone of the opposite sex thing goes against it being hereditary.

Perhaps it's just a mutation which takes place when the brain is forming...though they probably wouldn't make very good X-Men.

[nishant]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you can classify homosexuality under the category of "Right or wrong". It's just not that clear cut anymore, and it's very subjective. Similarly, attempting to classify homosexuality under the category of "Natural or un-natural" is also really subjective. The entire premise of homosexuality being "against" the nature of evolution, has some fallacy in it. I have to stress what a subjective matter it is. There have been theories put forward to suggest that we are all born bisexual, but the very large majority of us simply "grow out" of our bisexual nature, the largest influential factor being social engineering through the pressure of soecietal norms on our mental growth and personality development.

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

In animals such as giraffes, males that have sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings. Doesn't this just remind you of dominance traits shown in prison sexuality? Some theories have been put forward to suggest that such behavior may have its origin in male social organization and social dominance. But of course, there are actually MANY other theories. No one actually has any solid proof as to the role homosexuality plays in evolution. Not that I know of at least.

Cheers.

[Grizzly]

If it was against the nature of life, natural selection would eventually make this genetic trait extinct. Yet it hasn't in humans nor in animals. This can perhaps hint that homosexuality has a positive (or I guess neutral) impact on maintaining the fitness of a species.

Studies have found that maternal relatives of homosexuals had increased fecundity. So while homosexuality can be viewed as a detrimental trait in males, it can be viewed as a beneficial one in females.

[kneegrow_4_lyfe22]

yo, da reson fo homos is cause derr too many chineese round and mah main man jc wants to limit dem numbers yo -startin wit dat ericc kid

Edited by kneegrow_4_lyfe22, 07 January 2009 - 07:27 PM.

[Ives]

I agree with kneegrow 4 lyfe, everyone should take some money out of their pocket and give a gay guy or lesbian a beer. They're trying to help regulate populations and what do we do? Beat them senseless and accuse them of being immoral.

Honestly, if I could get it up for guys, I'd go full bisexual. But I'm not bisexual. I want to be, i feel like theres something im missing out on. But I'm not, so its all guuut.

Edited by Athean, 21 January 2009 - 10:08 PM.

[Jake]

1) We don't need the population to be larger, just have babies in like 40+ years.

2) Less competition because you always here the gay men are the best/taken.

But if a friend told me he was gay, our friendship would end there because IMO, it would be way too weird.