The Evolutionary Advantage of Homosexuality (Page 2)

[ruskodisco]

haha
oh my.
about the over population problem, that is not true. you can look up the mouse over population problem and see that is not how it goes down, or even rats, or other animals. there is no proof or evidence that animals become homosexual when there is over population. Actually what happens is males retreat and females become more aggressive, then eventually males die out and the last population members usually end up being females in these experiments and eventually they die out due to the males completely retreating.
There is no gay gene and it's never been found; and believe me they have been looking trying to prove their point. It's still a theory.
And there is no genetic benefits of homosexuals.
The only thing Homosexuals can do is have sex and that's it, their whole existence is about sex. They can't have children unless they use the opposite sex, and homosexual should not be allowed to have children, that's just child abuse.
Get mad, son.

[SaintRichie23]

Thanks for your opinion!

[BrokenPromises]

My advantage is I can have as much I want and not have to worry about getting pregnant :p

[tenofthepeaks]

we haven't gone extinct with them around, so i don't see why it matters. people need to get evolution.

[shakesomeaction]

that bugs bunny cartoon has nothing to do with homosexuality, it's bestiality.

[KBob93]

This cracked my shit up, lol

[SaintRichie23]

Its homosexual bestiality. Double wammy!

[the_unknown_panda]

I'm sorry, but homophobic people are WEAK. They stupid because they cannot stand anyone that's different and never learned to accept people for who they are. If you learned to accept them, thank you, you're are a decent human being.

[ruskodisco]

Nope, we can stand them
but when they force us to participate in their disillusions then problems happen.
In my opinon it's not normal, and i don't care what they do.
But a lot feel like they have the right to tell me that i should consider them normal, and no i won't.

[the_unknown_panda]

When do they force you to do things? I know a couple of gays, and they are fine people.

[oddwaffle]

the gay gene thing needs more study. One study on gay flies won't be enough to make a theory. Don't take scientific studies without critical thinking,

[SaintRichie23]

There have been numerous studies done on the topic, the fruit flies was just an example. I mentioned Dr. Sanders, who did GWAS analysis studies on gay men, finding correlations at chromosomes 8 and the X chromosomes. Dr. Hamer has also been studying the same topic since about 1993 and found similar results. Dr. Bailey, again, did a similar study on gay men, finding 5 SNPs that were common among participants. As of right now, scientists have located these SNPs, as mentioned, on chromosome 8 and the X chromosome.

I don't know how you read that whole thing and came out with "one study." Listed my sources for pete's sake! lol There certainly can be more data and research, but don't act like one study has been conducted.

[oddwaffle]

You sited one source and it goes to a news site. Dude you need something more. Name of the journal, name of researcher and date. Ideally, point directly to the source. Your other sources point to other arguments.

Also, it seems like there is a correlation rather than causation, still need sources. What about lesbian and bisexual or transgender? Are they genetic too? Are they also have a correlation with fertility gene? Are all gay actually have those genes?

[SaintRichie23]

The fruit fly study is being done by Dr. Nathan Bailey. If you read the article, you'd know they are still researching it, but reporting that they found info that supports other studies (like the ones cited... here). Padova, Ciani, and Capiluppi all found the same behavior regarding fertility rates in humans (sources cited). Those studies support the study (cited) that states that every species so far has SSB, and therefore must have an advantage to keeping the trait, which is linked to genetics. I already explained Dr. Hamer, Sanders, and Bailey, and what they found in humans in the last comment.

This article was about the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality. Not evidence of a gay gene, nor about the advantage of bisexuals or transgenders. Dr. Diamond did a study on female homosexuality (cited), its just easier to study men atm.

Seriously, it's a myTake, not a database of all gay studies ever done. You're nitpicking 1 source for being a news article, but ignore the 5 journals.

[coldpieceofpizza]

I'm happy to see a non-gay guy writing an article about homosexuals in such a non-hateful way. Not that there are so many men that are homophobes, but I know a lot of guys that just have an "I don't really care" attitude.

[LiveFreeorDieHard]

I never understood the problem poeple had with homosexuals. Are you gay, no, then dont worry about it.

[SaintRichie23]

I know, its pretty odd. My biggest gripe is just there comments on their evolutionary significance. Kinda a low blow to assume that they are useless to the entire species.

[LiveFreeorDieHard]

Everyone can contribute to society, if you contribute to aociety you are contributing to the human species which makes you usefull in my eyes. Of coarse there will always be people are are sexist, homophobic, racist and all that but i think that group of people keep getting smaller and smaller.

[SaintRichie23]

Yeah, I have a bunch of friends that seem a lot more open-minded then their friends.

Its the slow evolution of people just no longer giving a fuck lol

[John_Doesnt]

I'm okay with it and I think it does have an evolutionary advantage, an important one. Our species is overpopulated and gay people don't contribute to the overpopulation or have a bunch of abortions or go on welfare for their kids.

[CapitanMurica]

Lmfao blaming gayness on evolution, ok..

https://i1.wp.com/www.reactiongifs.com/r/mswha.gif

[_Lisa_]

Sure, let them exist, but don't give them rights ;)

[Riggers]

You're a waste of oxygen.

[BaileyisDarcy]

But don't give them rights.

Hmm. I detect an arsehole.

My gaydar might not be working but at least my arsedar is.

[_Lisa_]

Haters gonna hate :)

[TheSpartan]

Twin studies have shown that homosexuality is not purely genetic, though.

[SaintRichie23]

And I never said it was purely genetic. Environmental factors also have an effect.

[TheSpartan]

That was not clear from your writings, which can pose a problem.

[SaintRichie23]

This is considered a touchy topic. I don't think I would have avoided much no matter how well the editing was.

[tynamite]

Any group of people who do not reproduce are not at an evolutionary advantage..

[jakeofalltrades]

No where in there did you say how it is an advantage

[rthomas43]

What you said about twins is simply not true.

[SaintRichie23]

I do know that twins do have environmental factors that make them not completely identical, and it was something I noticed only after someone pointed it out after I posted the myTake. If I could edit it, I would, but thanks for mentioning it!

[guitar94]

Actually it isn't in the genes, just so you know. That's actually a lie. But I don't judge.

[SaintRichie23]

Nearly two decades of research seems to disagree. Have any sources?

[guitar94]

Oh, you mean the chromosomes which are admittedly "neither necessary, not sufficient"?

Get back to me when you have some real science instead of someone's agenda.

[SaintRichie23]

... Did you just say that chromosomes, the genetic makeup of living things, is not necessary or sufficient?

I do have "real science" in the form of scientific journals based off years of research... they're cited. What else you got?

[guitar94]

I want to know how you can assert (without any proof) that sexual preference is a product of genetics, when there is no EVIDENCE that is the case. It is not. It is rooted in psychology. If you are going to assert nature instead of nurture, you need proof. Am I attracted to women with red hair (for example) because a woman may remind me of my nurturing mother (psychology) or because I have some obscure red hair fetish gene that has yet to be discovered (yet, it somehow exists because we can just assume it does according to you)

[SaintRichie23]

*Looks at the five scientific journals cited in the article and the news article on research being conducted right now*

Oh, yeah... There is totally no evidence supporting my opinion. Ugh, sometimes I just can't.

[guitar94]

Let's have your most convincing piece of evidence then smartass

[SaintRichie23]

Come on, keep up, buddy, I already said they were cited in the article.

They are even numbered 1-6, just for you!

[guitar94]

I still haven't heard any evidence.

[SaintRichie23]

You don't hear it, you read it. It's in the article... Go on... scroll up. Saying the research isn't there is just being ignorant.

And if you're going to play that game, I haven't exactly seen any evidence from your end either, Einstein.

[guitar94]

You're making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. You claim all the research proves it, yet you can't provide a single piece of evidence. Unbelievable. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant.

[SaintRichie23]

This will now be the third or fourth time that I'm telling you that the myTake has 6 links for the 6 sources that the article discusses. They are numbered 1-6 as well as linked throughout the article. There is your evidence and proof. The fact that you keep asking me to provide it and pretending as if I haven't is just you being stubborn and actively ignoring it.

But maybe ignorance is just your forte. Now I'm convinced you're only playing stupid because you have no studies countering mine. There is no "burden of proof" in science. There are hundreds of tests of laws and theories in order to test their relevance and ability to hold true or not. That is the nature of science. If you are going to argue with me, you bring up sources of your own.

Again, I will call you ignorant.

[Floyd790]

Animal species also exhibit cannibalism and cancer doesn't make it normal. Cancer is abnormal and gay is nature's "fuck up"

[SaintRichie23]

Cannibalism is not related to genetics, that is a cultural/environmental factor. Cancer can be hereditary, but so are other diseases along with defects.

If you read the article, gay is nature's way of making more fertile females. There is an advantage to it. If your follow up is "well what about cancer?" then all I can say is that is due to a genetic mutation due to a mistake during replication and transcription, making it harder to "evolve out" of because mutations are random, and usually awful in most cases.

[tenofthepeaks]

define normal?

[Floyd790]

Gay people have abnormal brains not nornal

[Floyd790]

Normal

[MaiNameIsSunshine]

"Gay people have abnormal brains", oh yes, because you are a world renowned psychologist so you know everything there is to know about the human brain.😒

[meowcow]

Floyd790 is correct in noting that many people are mixing up "natural" with "normal".
Cannibalism, cancer, birth defects, autism and homosexuals are all naturally occurring in all species. Is it normal? No.

Gay people are simply defined as one of the extreme ranges of sexual behavior - where normal is defined as a heterosexual person, attracted to someone of equivalent age.
Extreme ranges of abnormal sexual behavior includes:
1. Homosexuality
2. Pedophilia
3. Incest
4. Beastiality
5. Sexual attraction to inanimate objects
6. Scat lovers

It's strange that western society defends gays, but denounces everything else in the list above as abnormal.
There is little biological/psychological difference between a person that is sexually attracted to people of the same gender, opposite gender, children, animals, poop. In the end, it's just the brain telling you what looks attractive.

[Phoenix98]

Well this was a waste of my time.

[ThatBritishLad]

Why're you telling me this?

[SaintRichie23]

Cause you clicked a link that said "The Evolutionary Advantage of Homosexuality" :P

[bubbletrouble]

Eh you tried

[SaintRichie23]

Somebody has to