[quote]rainjack wrote:
Well then, societal contributions have nothing to do with inferior, or superior. It’s simple genetics. Gays are not designed to procreate. It is a genetic kill switch. it has nothing to do with your worth. It is what it is. [/quote]
If people contribute to society, evolution favors their preservation rather than their obsolescence. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If people contribute to society, evolution favors their preservation rather than their obsolescence. That’s the only point I was trying to make.[/quote]
And here it was I thought Social Darwinism was essentially discredited.
And, you continue to stumble over the concept of “science” - evolution doesn’t give a damn about your “contributions to society”, it only cares about your ability to reproduce in a given environment.
It does not care if you write a great book or invent the internet, and, from a negative Darwinian loading perspective, the aforementioned “geniuses” didn’t pass on their genes if they followed homosexual instincts, meaning evolution took the opposite route you are claiming.
Evolution favors those that can reproduce, period - trying to shoehorn your agenda into an “evolution validates me!” approach is an error.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Well then, societal contributions have nothing to do with inferior, or superior. It’s simple genetics. Gays are not designed to procreate. It is a genetic kill switch. it has nothing to do with your worth. It is what it is.
If people contribute to society, evolution favors their preservation rather than their obsolescence. That’s the only point I was trying to make.[/quote]
Evolution has no clue as to whether one is an artist, or an ax murderer.
Simple common sense has it that if you are truly a homosexual, you are not going to procreate. It is a physical impossibility regardless if you are an super sensitive artist, or a serial killer who freezes the body parts of you victims.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Well then, societal contributions have nothing to do with inferior, or superior. It’s simple genetics. Gays are not designed to procreate. It is a genetic kill switch. it has nothing to do with your worth. It is what it is.
If people contribute to society, evolution favors their preservation rather than their obsolescence. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
Evolution has no clue as to whether one is an artist, or an ax murderer.
Simple common sense has it that if you are truly a homosexual, you are not going to procreate. It is a physical impossibility regardless if you are an super sensitive artist, or a serial killer who freezes the body parts of you victims.
[/quote]
thank you, said it much better then I did.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
If people contribute to society, evolution favors their preservation rather than their obsolescence. That’s the only point I was trying to make.
And here it was I thought Social Darwinism was essentially discredited.
And, you continue to stumble over the concept of “science” - evolution doesn’t give a damn about your “contributions to society”, it only cares about your ability to reproduce in a given environment.
It does not care if you write a great book or invent the internet, and, from a negative Darwinian loading perspective, the aforementioned “geniuses” didn’t pass on their genes if they followed homosexual instincts, meaning evolution took the opposite route you are claiming.
Evolution favors those that can reproduce, period - trying to shoehorn your agenda into an “evolution validates me!” approach is an error.
[/quote]
This isn’t quite true in the pre-historic context in which an individual’s evolutionary success is tied as tightly to the success of the tribe or kin unit as it is to an ability to knockup women/poop out babies. While the individual him/herself would fail evolutionarily if they did not reproduce at all, the kin sharing genetic material may still prosper as a result. This is the same evolutionary logic which partially underpins the willingness of the young to fight and die for their society in war even if they have no kids themselves.
This whole thread is lame though.
Thunder and Rainjack, you make some good points on evolution and gays. I think Etaco brings up a good possible explanation.
There is evidence that the mothers of gays are more fertile. On average, they tend to have more children. How might this work from an evolutionary perspective?
If gays contribute to the well being of the “tribe” (by caring for children without parents and by contributing in other ways), there would be an evolutionary imperative for preserving them.
But if gays don’t have children directly, how does nature pull this off? It looks like one possibility is through increasing the fertility of the mother. The genetic material is perpetuated through a higher number of siblings, who in turn have gay progeny over time.
A couple of recent studies on this:
In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
In 2006, research published in the journal �??Human Genetics�?? found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is that why those societies disappeared or were conquered? Becaus they became all homos? It seems logical.
[/quote]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.