Bad News. Gays are dying out

[Eon]

this guy lives his life from the perspective of heterosexuality. he's obviously not understood the theory of evolution but just like most people he's heard the most often quoted evolutionary principles of the survival of the genes and reproduction which reinforce the way he experiences the world. it's not the factual value that he (and others like him) is appealing to here, it's the empathic value that comes from looking at the evolution in a certain way so as to reinforce his identity and way of life. and you can't bring him out of that because he sees the proposition that homosexuality is evolutionarily beneficial/enduring as a threat to his existence. it's as if homosexuality and heterosexuality were competing for survival, which is not the case and never has been. they're both an expression of the same function in human beings. if you started to eradicate homosexuality, you'd, in fact, end up eradicating heterosexuality along the way, and that's when the human race will die out for sure.

This guy understands evolution better than you. What he said would make sense if for example homosexuality was coded on a single gene and dominant. In that case, homosexuality/heterosexuality competition is irrelevant, homosexuality would disappear by itself because of the absence of reproduction.
If we started to eridacate homosexuals it wouldn't affect heterosexuals, the human race wouldn't die at all since homosexuals aren't supposed to reproduce in the first place.

The guy is wrong because homosexuality mainly isn't coded in genes.

[meridannight]

This guy understands evolution better than you. What he said would make sense if for example homosexuality was coded on a single gene and dominant. In that case, homosexuality/heterosexuality competition is irrelevant, homosexuality would disappear by itself because of the absence of reproduction. If we started to eridacate homosexuals it wouldn't affect heterosexuals, the human race wouldn't die at all since homosexuals aren't supposed to reproduce in the first place.

absence of reproduction, you say? most homosexuals in history reproduced. a lot of them are, in fact, reproducing today. by means of surrogacy, or denying themselves and marrying a female and having a kid. dominant/recessive traits aside. but i agree, it's highly unlikely it's a dominant genetic trait. most likely it's brought on through an interplay of several factors, genetic and biological.

and i'm not hitler. i didn't say ''eradicating homosexuals would affect heterosexuals''. such supposition would be false. but eradicating homosexuality would affect heterosexuality. since they are not two distinct species of traits existing in isolation from one another, like genes that encode for different enzymes or ion channels in the body, that you can just delete one and not affect the other. as much as we know, homosexuality and heterosexuality are brought about through mechanisms which are difficult if not impossible to untangle one from the other. ergo, when you start modifying one, you'll probably end up modifying the other in the process.

because homosexuality mainly isn't coded in genes.

okay. what causes homosexuality then?

[ceez]

why is Pat Robertson not dead yet :confused:

[ShiftyNJ]

why is Pat Robertson not dead yet :confused:

We're still paying down Fred Phelps.

[Iceblink]

A couple weeks ago Pat Robertson told an elderly man to stick with letting god be his doctor. He had the perfect opportunity to advise this man that he could go to the doctor and still believe in god and be a christian. Instead he gave the guy some pretty awful advice. What a hypocrite, since you know the minute Robertson feels an ache or pain, he is visiting the best doctor that money can buy. The day this worthless piece of crap is six feet under, is the day the world becomes a brighter place.

http://bluenationreview.com/pat-robertso...tor-video/

[Virge]

okay. what causes homosexuality then?

Believe it or not Meridan, no one in science is able to answer that question without using words like IF... MAYBE.. IN WHICH CASE... POSSIBLY... COULD BE...

The most recent and credible theory is that it's SOMEHOW related to hormone levels in the womb.... but at the same time the people who are saying this admit that there has to be more to it than hormone levels.

[Virge]

The day this worthless piece of crap is six feet under, is the day the world becomes a brighter place.

Is it wrong of me to want to go Westboro for his funeral?

[Hardheaded1]

Point in play -- when nature says "should" in some genetic or biological way, that doesn't necessarily carry much force.

By rights, humans SHOULD all be lactose intolerant as adults because nature "expected" the need to digest lactose to disappear after nursing on mother's milk ended. Making lactase becomes a wasted process.

But, as omnivores, we learned to exploit mammalian milk in animals, creating a use for lactase. To not eat milk products would have been counterproductive to our survival as a race, regardless on any detrimental effects to the health of individuals. The simple fact is, milk is an additional food source, thereby helping prevent starvation in populations. If some die of cardiac disease, or simply fart away the bacterial offgasses resulting from undigested lactose, then so what?

Evolution's "shoulds" are a bit academic. Reproduction of gays, or the gay gene, if one exists, is a bit likely to be as moot a point.

[ShiftyNJ]

Is it wrong of me to want to go Westboro for his funeral?

You're late. Fred Phelps died last year, and the tribe of cretins he raised didn't give him a funeral because he somehow pissed them off in his last days.

[Eon]

absence of reproduction, you say? most homosexuals in history reproduced. a lot of them are, in fact, reproducing today. by means of surrogacy, or denying themselves and marrying a female and having a kid. dominant/recessive traits aside. but i agree, it's highly unlikely it's a dominant genetic trait. most likely it's brought on through an interplay of several factors, genetic and biological.

and i'm not hitler. i didn't say ''eradicating homosexuals would affect heterosexuals''. such supposition would be false. but eradicating homosexuality would affect heterosexuality. since they are not two distinct species of traits existing in isolation from one another, like genes that encode for different enzymes or ion channels in the body, that you can just delete one and not affect the other. as much as we know, homosexuality and heterosexuality are brought about through mechanisms which are difficult if not impossible to untangle one from the other. ergo, when you start modifying one, you'll probably end up modifying the other in the process.

Of course a lot of homosexuals reproduced and will go on reproducing, but so far in average a homosexual reproduces a lot less than a heterosexual. Homosexuality is a big evolutional disadvantage in that sense. That's why it has been hypothesized that heterosexuals possessing the genes predisposing to homosexuality had a reproduction advantage.

I don't get exactly what you mean by eradicating homosexuality. How would you proceed concretely ?

okay. what causes homosexuality then?

As Virge said, scientists still don't know exactly. What I said is still true though. Studies proved that the probability of being homosexual increases by 34% for every older brother your mother gave birth to. If genes were the main factor, we wouldn't get these numbers.