Originally posted by: shoegazer
Originally posted by: destrekor
But seriously? There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe. If the straight men die in tribal conflict, what... are the homosexual men going to cry with the women and then the tribe dies off?
I don't want to make some kind of debate out of this, I just want to know how you came to that massive leap. More competing males is always more beneficial than less.
Natural selection is all about producing offspring that produce more offspring. So, what better place for their to be genetic variety and mutations than the genes having to do with sex? Sometimes these mutations lead to homosexuality, in other cases they lead to more offspring.
Think sickle cell anemia. Depending on the genes you inherit, you can pick up a debilitating disease (i'm not at all saying homosexuality is a bad disease) that makes survival and producing offspring much more difficult OR you can pick up resistance to malaria which is hugely beneficial to passing on ones genes in certain parts of the world. Perhaps some of the genes that lead to homosexuality are beneficial to producing more offspring in others depending on the combination received. I believe there was a recent study showing that female siblings of homosexual men tended to produce more offspring.
that's better. you have the most useles long posts this side of p&n.Originally posted by: destrekor
meh
Originally posted by: TallBill
I'd be fine with it, since I do believe that there is no choice involved. But there's no reason to use a fake voice and act highly flamboyant.
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: TallBill
I'd be fine with it, since I do believe that there is no choice involved. But there's no reason to use a fake voice and act highly flamboyant.
as opposed to using a fake deep voice and acting straight/incognito?
Originally posted by: ironwing
If my kid turned out gay I would disown him.
Why should I treat him any different than any other kid someone claims is mine?
Originally posted by: shoegazer
Originally posted by: destrekor
But seriously? There is absolutely no way having homosexual males would be advantageous at all to a tribe. If the straight men die in tribal conflict, what... are the homosexual men going to cry with the women and then the tribe dies off?
I don't want to make some kind of debate out of this, I just want to know how you came to that massive leap. More competing males is always more beneficial than less.
Natural selection is all about producing offspring that produce more offspring. So, what better place for their to be genetic variety and mutations than the genes having to do with sex? Sometimes these mutations lead to homosexuality, in other cases they lead to more offspring.
Think sickle cell anemia. Depending on the genes you inherit, you can pick up a debilitating disease (i'm not at all saying homosexuality is a bad disease) that makes survival and producing offspring much more difficult OR you can pick up resistance to malaria which is hugely beneficial to passing on ones genes in certain parts of the world. Perhaps some of the genes that lead to homosexuality are beneficial to producing more offspring in others depending on the combination received. I believe there was a recent study showing that female siblings of homosexual men tended to produce more offspring.
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: ducci
How would you feel if your child was blind? Had down syndrome? Had webbed toes? Had 1 leg?
They all should really have the same answer.
The answer, of course, being "disappointed, but still love them unconditionally".
Being gay is that same as have down syndrome? Even in the same ball park? Even in the same game?! Stupid comparison.
Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I thought we had reached the point where love really was love, and completely unconditional... especially towards your own family.
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: shocksyde
This thread will be useful in determining who I dislike on this board.
Intolerance is probably my biggest pet peeve.
intolerance? First, read my post on page 1. Please. Can't miss it, it's the novel at the end.
And secondly, any logical person can also say homosexuals are being slightly intolerant of their own bodies and nature. You know... child production? Yeah... kind of something that we're all supposed to do at some point in our lives, unless we're unfit and can't get a mate (which happens all the time these days... but eugenics isn't something that is looked at highly by... well basically anyone... Hitler kind of killed that movement).
I'll repeat though... while the things I have said might sound harsh, I'm also not intolerant, just a realist. I'll give unconditional love to any child of mine, regardless of anything about them, be it mental health issues or homosexuality or sexual identity... and will respect anyone I personally meet, regardless of race, religion, or sexuality... regardless of whether I personally approve of their choices in life.
Originally posted by: moshquerade
People do not chose to be homosexual. Why would someone WANT to be homosexual with the intolerance and shunning they would have to put up with? No one would.
Originally posted by: destrekor
As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...
Originally posted by: jonks
I'd take him to our priest, I'm sure he can straighten him out.
Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
Originally posted by: destrekor
As in my last post, while I love blaming religion for most things wrong with society, I think this supersedes religion...
the idea of homosexuality only being socially wrong because of religion is, imho, bullshit.
The idea of life is that well... you make babies so that your lineage continues. Being gay means, well... no babies in your future. I doubt any society in history ever accepted full-on homosexuality, because that meant you no longer cared about the natural need to have children.
Again, in some societies, bi-sexuality seemed to be accepted, but I still don't know a lot of the reasoning. But even these people had wives and children, just had something else on the side...
being gay does not eliminate your ABILITY to produce children. your sexual organs dont just stop their normal functions because your brain tells you you love men. a gay man can have children with a woman, would he love her? probably not. would he enjoy having sex with her? probably not. hes still physical capable of reproducing and definitely could have the same mentality of WANTING children........ hes still human
Originally posted by: jonks
I'd take him to our priest, I'm sure he can straighten him out.
