Evolution and Homosexuality

[Very_Bad_Man]

For evolution to occur it requires reproduction of the species. Homosexuality does not reproduce. Does this make homosexuality an aberration within evolution that is not normal behavior?

or

is it Satan?

 

[Saint Peter]

It increase your chance of getting your cock sucked by 50%.




Or 650% if you are a Marine.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

It increase your chance of getting your cock sucked by 50%.




Or 650% if you are a Marine.

scientific answers only please

 

[Saint Peter]

scientific answers only please

4 out of 5 dentists would not suck your cock.

 

[Lancecastor]

4 out of 5 dentists would not suck your cock.

According to the Dubai Medical Review, 4 out of 5 gay dentists wouldn't suck his cock.

But back to the topic...gay stem cell researchers say we are only a few years away from gay cloning, so the question is answered in the affirmative.

 

[phrodeau]

Homosexuals reproduce all the time. It's a preference, not a requirement.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

if homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't letting gays marry (and not reproducing), stop those "gay" genes from being passed on bro?

Stew

 

[blunt_trauma]

i give you... worker ants!

there are several types of social animals where non-breeding adults occur. there will be adults in a wolf pack that won't ever breed. if you are kinda sorta related to every member of your group then assisting in the raising of any young is passing forward genes close to your own. people, being horny fuckers all year around, need a distraction from reproductive sex is they are going to be any good at this role.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

4 out of 5 dentists would not suck your cock.

lucky you're not a dentist.

have at it

 

[Lancecastor]

And the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has continued for several generations, even though the members have no active uh...membership, so to speak.

 

[Liar]

scientific answers only please

I tried to educate PSW in another thread about this. It went as expected.

I've heard this theory which makes sense to me: Everyone in a herd does not need to reproduce in order to contribute to the survival and success of the herd. So it's not important for the spieces that all herd members are heterosexual and pass on their genes. It might even be beneficial, especially among males, that all are not preoccupied in fightuing for breeding priviliges. But the social bond of sexuality is still an important thing for all herd members even if they don't go penis-to-vag.

i give you... worker ants!

there are several types of social animals where non-breeding adults occur. there will be adults in a wolf pack that won't ever breed. if you are kinda sorta related to every member of your group then assisting in the raising of any young is passing forward genes close to your own. people, being horny fuckers all year around, need a distraction from reproductive sex is they are going to be any good at this role.

Or what she said.

 

[Image]

It increase your chance of getting your cock sucked by 50%.
Or 650% if you are a Marine.

Another reason why I love you, you crazy thang

 

[Liar]

if homosexuality is genetic, wouldn't letting gays marry (and not reproducing), stop those "gay" genes from being passed on bro?

Stew

I don't usually reply to a one trick pony, but I just had to say that you just broke every known law of logic reasoning.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For evolution to occur it requires reproduction of the species. Homosexuality does not reproduce. Does this make homosexuality an aberration within evolution that is not normal behavior?

or

is it Satan?

At one clinic I worked I was the only staff with children, and none of the staff were youngsters. They were dinosaurs. I now have 10 grandchildren, and a few of my spawn are hot to make babies.

Gay's about as common as retards. I knew one retarded girl who made 7 babies, but her kids were human veggies.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

My opener was an argument against homosexuality that I heard on satellite radio by religious freaks..most likely republicans. It kept me laughing all day.

 

[Liar]

My opener was an argument against homosexuality that I heard on satellite radio by religious freaks..most likely republicans. It kept me laughing all day.

Laughter is Satan.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Laughter is Satan.

the funny part was religious freaks using evolution to support the anti-gay diatribe. Am I the only one who can see the irony.

 

[Wobnoid]

Evolution is as much about social science as it is about the more 'empirical'. And neither really applies. It's not only about breeding. It's about what persists in a line.

Homosexuality seems to be of deeper long term genetic persistence than simple Mendellian fruit fly bare backing. I'd suspect that it would be easier to breed-out a specific blood type than it would be to eradicate sexual preference. Or you could aggressively repress it...

On the other hand even the most repressive social eugenicists (China, Iran, Alabama...etc) cannot 'eradicate' it either. Homosexuality abides.

So, if homosexuals cannot (generally) reproduce sexually, yet seem to re-spawn despite, your 'evolution' angle is kinda moot. Sexual preference seems to bridge more empirical brackets.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Evolution is as much about social science as it is about the more 'empirical'. And neither really applies. It's not only about breeding. It's about what persists in a line.

Homosexuality seems to be of deeper long term genetic persistence than simple Mendellian fruit fly bare backing. I'd suspect that it would be easier to breed-out a specific blood type than it would be to eradicate sexual preference. Or you could aggressively repress it...

On the other hand even the most repressive social eugenicists (China, Iran, Alabama...etc) cannot 'eradicate' it either. Homosexuality abides.

So, if homosexuals cannot (generally) reproduce sexually, yet seem to re-spawn despite, your 'evolution' angle is kinda moot. Sexual preference seems to bridge more empirical brackets.

2/3 of the GB heads exploded trying to understand your scientific jargon

 

[Wobnoid]

2/3 of the GB heads exploded trying to understand your scientific jargon

Nothing scientific about homosexuality. That's why it's so difficult a fit in an 'evolution' pantsuit.

No heads exploded in the making of this post.

 

[Comshaw]

Evolution is as much about social science as it is about the more 'empirical'. And neither really applies. It's not only about breeding. It's about what persists in a line.

Homosexuality seems to be of deeper long term genetic persistence than simple Mendellian fruit fly bare backing. I'd suspect that it would be easier to breed-out a specific blood type than it would be to eradicate sexual preference. Or you could aggressively repress it...

On the other hand even the most repressive social eugenicists (China, Iran, Alabama...etc) cannot 'eradicate' it either. Homosexuality abides.

So, if homosexuals cannot (generally) reproduce sexually, yet seem to re-spawn despite, your 'evolution' angle is kinda moot. Sexual preference seems to bridge more empirical brackets.

In other words leave it to fuck alone and ignore it 'cause you ain't gunna get rid of it anyway.



Comshaw

 

[Wobnoid]

In other words leave it to fuck alone and ignore it 'cause you ain't gunna get rid of it anyway.



Comshaw

Yeah. But don't ignore it. It makes your colours.

 

[CHNOPS]

Evolution is as much about social science as it is about the more 'empirical'. And neither really applies. It's not only about breeding. It's about what persists in a line.

Homosexuality seems to be of deeper long term genetic persistence than simple Mendellian fruit fly bare backing. I'd suspect that it would be easier to breed-out a specific blood type than it would be to eradicate sexual preference. Or you could aggressively repress it...

On the other hand even the most repressive social eugenicists (China, Iran, Alabama...etc) cannot 'eradicate' it either. Homosexuality abides.

So, if homosexuals cannot (generally) reproduce sexually, yet seem to re-spawn despite, your 'evolution' angle is kinda moot. Sexual preference seems to bridge more empirical brackets.

Two plausible theories, one 'selected for,' one 'byproduct.'

Selected for is the 'gay uncle' theory, which holds that the caretaking non-paternal male figure would have had an evolutionary benefit, and may have meant that swaths of the population with a certain percentage of gay males survived, while those without perished.

I don't find that very compelling, particularly since the genome suggests far more strongly that the maternal grandmother served that function (one of the reasons women live longer than men).

"Byproduct" is more convincing: apparently the so-called "gay gene" shares a genetic strand with the portion of the genome that regulates insulin production. So when we selected for insulin regulation, we replicated a strand that contained some proclivity toward gayness. Kill the gay, we kill the species.

Now I'll go back to being a dumb turd.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Evolution is as much about social science as it is about the more 'empirical'. And neither really applies. It's not only about breeding. It's about what persists in a line.

Homosexuality seems to be of deeper long term genetic persistence than simple Mendellian fruit fly bare backing. I'd suspect that it would be easier to breed-out a specific blood type than it would be to eradicate sexual preference. Or you could aggressively repress it...

On the other hand even the most repressive social eugenicists (China, Iran, Alabama...etc) cannot 'eradicate' it either. Homosexuality abides.

So, if homosexuals cannot (generally) reproduce sexually, yet seem to re-spawn despite, your 'evolution' angle is kinda moot. Sexual preference seems to bridge more empirical brackets.

Naaah, youre full of shit. Lotsa disorders stick around forever. Fudge packing is about as significant as old age but does discourage reproduction.

 

[Liar]

Nothing scientific about homosexuality. That's why it's so difficult a fit in an 'evolution' pantsuit.

No heads exploded in the making of this post.

English is a funny language, that doesn't call anything but physics, chemistry and maybe biology "science".