/sci/ - Science & Math

Here's my theory on homosexuality.

Every creature has a genetic disposition to a sexual orientation. When creatures reach the top of the food chain or are in an environment with few or no natural predators, the population grows exponentially, eventually depleting food sources causing starvation. Homosexuality arises to counteract this overpopulation, acting to level off or even decrease the population growth.
Homosexuality is necessary for the survival of a species.

Not to be insensitive, but its probably a genetic alteration that causes a chemical/psychological imbalance.

My reasoning is that gay people are incapable of propogating a species, so it has to be a "flaw" that causes it. That doesn't mean gays can't be productive or happy members of society.

>>2202097
plus, men are so much sexier then women anyway

had to do it.
one of the few times it actually applies.

>>2202110

Oh lord that really hurt my feelings! ha don't worry about it, my /b/tard friends always send me emails that say 'do it faggot' when i mention something cool and it cracks me up every time. besides I'm gorgeous.

Do any other /sci/chics have theories or ideas of how or why homosexuality exists?

>>2202097
Take something like populations of mice or rabbits, however, where the population breeds till every resource is depleted then they die in their masses.

As far as I see there isn't any evolutionary sense in an organism not being able to reproduce as when the population spikes by itself they'll die off regardless. Organisms aren't great at limiting themselves.

Besides, if it was evolutionary, how was it passed on? Recessive alleles enabling parents to have a less successful (at breeding) litter? Something doesn't quite seem right with the simplistic genetic arguments.

I'm sure there is a genetic component to some degree, though I'm reasonably sure it is far more rooted in psychology.

in short

it seems men get their homosexual genes from their mothers. the genes responsible are antagonistic across the sexes, that is, they are advantageous to women's reproductive success, but disadvantageous to men's (obviously, as they make a man gay).

so gayness is a side effect of genes that offer reproductive advantage in women.

>>2202097
Considering the growth of population before the introduction of advanced technologies for agriculture, the population always grew and decreased almost in a pattern. We then, like today, were at the top of the food chain.A increasing number of gay people didn't occur. I think to be gay is a matter of society. In a society were woman are picky because they are now independent from men, creates homosexuality.

Plus the fact that there are more men than women.

>>2202127
and lesbianism is the reverse situation?

Gayfag here. I did research on this before. I'm willing to go with the 'gay gene' theory. A little piece from my essay:

‘Chromosome Linkage’ elaborates more on the connection with genetics. This research claims that gay men share similar alleles in the Xq28 region of their chromosomes. It also claims that 66% of gay brothers shared the Xq28 alleles. This linkage was once titled the ‘gay gene’ but the title was very inaccurate and controversial.

>>2202126

ok, explain the psychology theory to me, would it have been things that happened in my youth? or was i born like this with a mind destined to be feminine?

It's a medical condition, don't worry though, if you'd to fix it there will doubtless be a way of doing that within a few decades; maybe less.

>>2202127
mummy's boy lol

>>2202148

There's no scientific evidence that it's a medical condition. And no one has ever said anything about finding a 'fix'. You can't fix, homosexuality.

inb4 U MAD.

>>2202148

ok you're an asshole. it isn't a medical 'condition' and it doesn't need to be 'fixed' if you are going to be ignorant and spew condescending shit like that gtfo, I came to /sci/ for intelligent response and theories not someone telling me that one day it'll be 'fixed' so i can be 'normal' and 'healthy' like them.

Gayfag here.
I read somewhere once that homosexuality is more common in younger siblings (which I am incidentally) and its so the gay person can provide extra care to the brother or sisters offspring.
Who knows though, probably loads of different reasons contributing.

>>2202170
eh. Im not ready to believe that. I'd like to see the sample size that was used in that data. Besides, why would a younger sibling need to take care of nieces and nephews moreso than their own parents?
I don't know. It just sounds like a far reach.

I'm a science gay here as well and i red in a few articles that being gay is determined by a lot of factors, hormones, genes,...
But also other animals have gay's and i'm not sure this also implies for humans but scientists said that kids raised by gay parents have a higher chanse of survival.

>>2202097
>>2202126
i agree that homosexuality is disadvantageous from an evolutionary standpoint, but i think it has a much stronger genetic basis than psychological

like most human characteristics (personality, intelligence, artistic talent, etc.), our sexuality has a genetically determined spectrum, and environmental factors determine where within that spectrum we fall. if a man with homosexual tendencies is born into a culture where being gay is intensely stigmatized, he'll never act on those tendencies (and might not even consciously acknowledge them). but if that same man is raised by a lesbian couple in san francisco, he'll be a lot more open to experimentation, and will probably live a more fulfilling life.

at the population level, sexuality (again, like most other characteristics) is a bell curve, with most people being "normal" i.e. heterosexual, with a small percentage being outliers. and the people that are outliers didn't choose to be that way, and can't help what turns them on. so no matter what some bullshit religious text tells you, there will ALWAYS be men who like to suck dick, women that eat carpet, people who like getting pissed on, shat on, whipped, getting their nipples electrocuted, whatever fetish you can think of

>>2202176

Well considering the fact that the more children a woman has, the more the body attacks the fetus; that theory make sense. The body sends antibodies to attack the fetus. This can cause homosexuality.

>>2202155

I am most certainly not condescending.

Unless homosexual luddites such as yourself lobby to have it stopped, the research that's been on the backburner for quite some time now will continue.

There is already indication such a goal is possible.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/news/sns-health-adrenal-treatment

The latest studies I've seen suggest it's a form of birth defect caused by exposure to dihydrogen monoxide during pregnancy.

>>2202176

OP here, if these statistics are true then perhaps the theory above about antagonistic genes and the mother feminizing the fetus (for lack of a better term) is accurate in that the more children the mother gives birth to the more adept her body becomes at releasing the hormones/whatever that alter the unborn child and after one or two the process is potent enough if it wasn't already. Just a thought though.

>>2202170
dingdingdingding

everyone else in this thread so far is wrong. this guy has it closest.

there is no gay gene, but the propensity for being gay is genetic.

It is evolutionarily beneficial for EVERYONE to have the phenotype, but not the genotype, because if you don't have the genotype, you reproduce normally, but if your brother does, then he does not reproduce, and contributes extra resources to your own offspring.

remember kids, evolution isn't just about genes, it's also about how they are expressed and passed on through phenotype and genotype

>>2202185

That article is absurd. Reducing the likeliness of homosexuality in a few dozen girls with it already being a 10% chance on average is pointless. If they continued testing and developed a drug to purge the possibility of homosexuality from a fetus I would be disgusted, that is hardly ethical. It doesn't sound promising even.

Also, saying it is a 'condition' that can be or should be 'fixed' is condescending, it implies that I am not your equal, and beyond that it is ignorant and abrasive commentary that hardly contributes to answering my initial question.

>>2202181
Are you then implying that all of the paraphilias you've listed are of genetic origin? How could it be genetically determined that someone likes to get pissed on? I agree with most of what you say about the genetic link to homosexuality, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Also, not to be argumentative, but how can we tell if intelligence has a predominantly genetic component? I tend to think that a person's intelligence is connected predominantly to the emphasis placed on it by societal factors like family, social need, etc

>>2202183
What does that have to do with the concept of a gay younger brother taking care of a brother/sister's offspring though?

>>2202212
Well I was making a far-reaching assumption. Mistake on my part. Sorry. I was trying to justify >>2202170.

>>2202207
it actually is possible to polish a turd so it shines somewhat, but its still a turd.
you can cut a gem to sparkle or shine but if you dont it'll stay as a crude pretty rock.

>>2202212
more resources means greater chance of survival, it also means greater chance of reproduction. particularly to apes, it also means greater chance of becoming an alpha, succeeding at war efforts, and having access to a harem.

homosexuality is impossible to divide from our evolutionary history of family politics and war

>>2202202

Now, who's to stop parents from doing what they think is best for their children?

They'd correct trisomal deficiencies early on, if they could.

>>2202145
I don't know about you, but lots of trap threads on 4chan seem to have a distinct psychological effect....

>>2202229
in short you're saying gayness stays in the blood cause it hides it self in the non-gay brother who has a better chance of survival due to brothers help.

have you been studying bees by chance

>>2202221
Gotcha. I figured that was the case after reading this guy >>2202193

>>2202233

your argument is invalid. If you truly stand behind that statement then I assume you would grant parents the freedom to beat their children as well. This treatment is not like an abortion. This is where they want the child, but not like it is. It's the same as changing the baby's race or eye color because you think it's wrong and robbing a child of it's real identity and making it live the one you give it is robbing it of part of it's humanity, something I value far above my own life thank you.

>>2202253
the argument of allowing a parent do act this way is the same argument as allowing a gay person to live freely as a typical member of society - let me do what I want and accept me.

You can't argue for it when it applies to you and then abandon it when it doesnt.

>>2202257
inb4
>"acceptance"

>>2202090
I don't know why people are constantly looking for some evolutionary advantage produced by homosexuality to justify its existence. The most common one is that homosexuality is an adaptation to control population, but I have a hard time believing such an adaptation could evolve, and see no evidence to support this.

Reproduction isn't perfect, sometimes things go wrong and individuals get traits that aren't advantages to their future reproduction; autism would be another example.

There are so many biggots in the world that as soon as you say homosexuality is just caused some random event and doesn't really do anything useful; people start saying: Therefore homosexuality is wrong they should be cured/burned/looked-down-on/etc. Once you can mentally separate biological-wrongness from personal-wrongness it is possible to hold "homosexuality is caused by something going wrong", and "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality" in your head without cognitive dissonance.

>>2202262
Agreed
Brofist.

>>2202257

It is way deeper than that. I live a gay life and expect to be accepted because it is fundamental and there is nothing that can change it. Stealing your child's identity and perhaps personality to suit your agenda is inhumane and it is a choice. It is a choice of ethics and I stand firmly where I am in that a procedure to 'de-gay' a fetus is disturbing and changing your child on that level is an insane alteration of life. His/her entire future is literally rewritten in another language metaphorically speaking. You can decide whether you take that from someone, I can't decide whether I want to be with another man or not.

>>2202253

So, you would deny the parents the capacity to help their down syndrome suffering child have a normal life, simply because you feel it infringes on the child's 'destiny' to be a crippled mind?

Treating a child's medical conditions can't be comparable to child abuse; in fact, not treating them is.

Your argument is invalid sir.

As every condition that's treatable today would also serve to define a child.

>>2202273

>implying that a slight chemical shift is rewriting the entire child

yeah, okay pal.

>>2202274

Downs syndrome is a disorder, homosexuality is not. Downs syndrome leads to a difficult life, homosexuality does not (inherently that is) lead to a difficult life. and 'allowing kids to do what they think is right' is applicable to child abuse. My friend growing up was beaten by his father because his father thought there was nothing wrong with it. There need to be limits. I am disgusted that you compared my sexual orientation to a cognitive disorder.

I believe that it is epigenetic, rather than genetic. Epigenetic effects can be trans-generational, and effected by a multitude of things. From what your parents/grandparents ate, to how much, to if they smoked or not. And if it IS genetic, then it is obviously a recessive gene.

As for a why. I believe it has to do with early humanity. Homosexuality is found more in social animals than solitary ones (though certainly not unheard of in solitary creatures). I believe this is a 'helper in the nest' sort of thing. In a small group, it would be incredibly helpful to have an additional adult to bring in resources, but who created no further burden on supplies. More food/supplies for every one meant healthier better cared for children. Better fed children are stronger, and have a better chance of survival, and there for making it to adulthood where the cycle starts over.

the current theory is that it is caused by not receiving enough testosterone in the brain (if male) or receiving too much (if female). this has been proven on mice.
PS excuse my english, i'm a non-native speaker

>>2202273
>Stealing your child's identity and perhaps personality...

Theres a much deeper philosophical argument in this. It essentially combines the "homosexuality is caused by something going wrong", and "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality" statement from this post >>2202262

I want to give my child every social advantage possible and if that meant attempting to alter "gayness" I'd do it. It's just another "do the ends justify the means" problem. In vitro alteration of a fetus puts "gayness" in a more biological sense

>>2202279

My life would be completely different if i was straight. My friends, my job, everything. It may not define me as a person but it certainly does affect nearly every aspect of my life.

>>2202289
while in the womb, i forgot to add

>>2202299

You wouldn't notice/care. So what's your point?

>>2202299
you wouldn't know any difference if you didn't "start out" gay

>>2202299

Exact opposite for me. My life would hardly be different. Why should my sexuality dictate things well outside the realm of my sexuality?

>>2202305

Basically, even if my life would be better I wouldn't change it, and even if I would have no idea of what my idea could have been I wouldn't change it... it's hard to explain but I just feel wrong about rewriting a persons life whether for the better or worse, but of course the decision is very very personal and alot of ethics come in to play, most people don't even considr messing with a babay in the womb, let alone altering it on such a fundamental level.

>>2202316
I like this dude because he supports my argument and not yours.
Trolling will likely begin shortly, so lets remember to ignore them

>>2202317
BUT thats our point! You're not "re-writing" a persons life if they haven't yet filled it with any experience, so whats the problem with giving them social advantages?

There is none! It is the misconception by people arguing in favor of gays that "a biological problem" is the same as "problem with being gay"

>>2202323

oh lordy, can we stop debating the ethics of 'curing gayness' I find it offensive and ultimately it is an incredibly personal decision with tons of personal factors. No one ever did explain the psychology theory to me, just genetic implications. would anyone like to present that?

>>2202262
this

You don't need to find some evolutionary purpose to homosexuality to justify that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Its not a hard concept.

Wearing a condom:
From an evolutionary perspective: Wrong.
Is wearing a condom wrong: No

Being gay.
From an evolutionary perspective: Wrong.
Is being gay wrong: No

Apart from being obvious genetical anomaly in many cases, a psychological conditioning is also possible. Cases in which male child is raised by a single mother and ends up homosexual/bi are fairly common, which indicates homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, but psychological.

>>2202347

Oh yeah I completely agree, I am gay and I don't have any feelings of self loathing and I'd never change it though I do recognize my life might be alot easier at times if I wasn't. The question is just for me to understand myself a bit more I guess. I don't resent my sexuality but I just can't figure out why it is if that makes any sense.

>>2202245
I have not, actually. I'm an anthro/polysci guy. tell me something about bees

>>2202323
here ya go
>>>/b/294790159

in our species, males competed for harems, and only a few got one. the other ones could fight again and again until they die, but that doesn't increase their offspring. engaging homosexual sex until you catch the alpha off guard was a better option, thus homosexual tendencies propagates through the population. for some guys it's just too strong.

>>2202368

RAPTORS ARE LOOSE IN THE PARK

>>2202323

Oh, and lack of sufficient male perspective etc. in child's life (children learn mimick everything their parents etc. people do) will cause male child to mimick his mother's behavioural pattern, slowly turning the male child into a homosexual in some cases, or at least making him develop a more feminine approach to things in comparison to his comrades.

Homosexuality is just a weakness in genes ya know.

Alpha males reproduce and pass on their genes, weak underserving males for other weak males so that their genes die out.

Done.

>>2202349

Oh, and lack of sufficient male perspective etc. in child's life (children learn mimick everything their parents etc. people do) will cause male child to mimick his mother's behavioural pattern, slowly turning the male child into a homosexual in some cases, or at least making him develop a more feminine approach to things in comparison to his comrades.

ITT: natural-born perverts.

Take a look at the list on this wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
The majority of these animals either have no or few natural predators or thrive at the top of their food chain.
Every sexual being carries a gene that determines its sexual orientation. This gene activates in creatures living in low threat environments as an evolutionary method to prevent overpopulation.
Homosexual creatures increase the productivity and survivability of their societies while decreasing the rate of growth.

This decrease is necessary for the survival of a society in a low threat environment. In a purely heterosexual society with no natural predators, populations grow exponentially and will eventually deplete the food sources.
so just as I said here, >>2202097 but apparently a few did not understand,
Homosexuality is an evolutionary necessity for the survival of a species or society

>>2202384

I call complete bullshit, you can't develop your sexuality from exposure to others. I have a very very masculine friend who has been raised by two very flamboyant fathers his entire life. He has never considered being with another man and he is a well rounded, tolerant, friendly, athletic kid ta boot. I will add that his fathers are both loving and adequate parents to him. This is more than proof (if proof is even needed) to show that exposure to feminine people or another sexuality cannot change yours- that is myth.

>>2202402

so far your argument is the most convincing and most believable, thanks for contributing! I'm about to abandon this thread/board cuz some asshat linked it to /b/ and I expect some trolling any second now.

homosexuality is like beastiality, just in different form. a mental illness.

>>2202384
I am gay.
I had a great (masculine) dad
I had and still have a great relationship with my dad.
Your argument is shit

>>2202407
Of course you do. But of course you don't just become a replica of one of your parents.

>>2202402

Not so. Homosexuality is ubiquitous in any animals where it is possible. And in mammals, it occurs around the same amount as in humans.

Homosexuality is probably more like left-handedness. It is set at some point in the womb or early childhood, and cannot be changed after this point. It is some sort of short circuit of the normal mate finding routines in the brain, where it is set to search for male (or female) cues rather than female (or male) cues.

Historically, humans who were homosexual reproduce almost as often as heterosexuals, due to the well established causal link between hetero-sex and pregnancy, and our desire to have offspring.

In vultures, homosexual pairs are relentlessly isolated by the group. Their nests are also attacked.

This has led me to believe that an aversion to homosexuals and the discouragement of homosexuality in general natural as well.

>>2202384

Data indicates that children with homosexual parents are only slightly more likely to come out as gay in their life. This small increase could be attributed to being more likely to come out, not more likely to be gay.

Also, most homosexuals have heterosexual parents.

>>2202440

At least this doesn't translate into an imperative for action in humans, right?


Considering homosexuality has no intrinsic moral character.

>>2202402
that's not homosexuality, that's bisexuality. no animals are purely homosexual like humans can be.

>>2202429
> Homosexuality is ubiquitous in any animals where it is possible
>ubiquitous in any animals where it is possible
>where it is possible
>possible
did you even read the post?
>doesn't realize his metaphor to left-handeness isn't an argument against evolutionary principles.

>>2202402
A lot of these animals are not at the top of the food chain.
Very few are menaced by surpopulation.
Several are intelligent enough to have sex for pleasure.

You have no evidence for your claim.

>>2202450

There is strong evidence to suggest that human homosexual or heterosexual exclusivity is cultural, not natural. Meaning, if it were more acceptable, we'd see more bisexuals than we currently do.

>>2202459

There might be to some degree.

Who knows for sure.

>>2202453

I would consider sexuality to be best compared to handedness, especially in humans.

They are both set early in life, they are both impossible to change later in life, they are both later subject to learned or cultural preferences, they both seem to be unconnected to a genetic factor, they both have about the same moral dimension to them, and they were both considered immoral at points in history.

>>2202459
right, but bisexuality is a different thing. they still have the possiblity to reproduce since they're open for heterosex. exclusively homosexual people do not have that option left, so they have failed at their natural purpose of life. that can't be any more healthy than being attracted to animals.

YES! YES! MORE! LET ME FEAST UPON THE FLAMES OF SHITSTORM THAT IS FUELED BY FILTH OF MY DEPRAVATION! YES! MORE!

>>2202450
Quite false. I, again, go back to black swans. Many members are homosexual, and remain that way their whole lives, never touching a member of the opposite sex. Some, are of course, bisexual.

>>2202481
Actually, a lot of homosexuals have had heterosexual sex.

>>2202481

Except in humans that doesn't apply. As I said, there is a well established causal link between hetero-sex and pregnancy, and an equally strong link between pregnancy and childbirth. Humans have known this forever, and so homosexuals have known this forever. If they want to fulfill their desire for offspring, they know what they have to do, and historically they have often done it. So in humans at least, homosexuality is hardly maladaptive at all, even on an individual level.

>>2202481 exclusively homosexual people do not have that option left

False. It has been common in our history for homosexuals to pretend to be heterosexual. Marrying the opposite sex, reproducing, the whole nine yards. Sexuality is based on who you are attracted to, not who you are currently having sex with.

>>2202490
Black swans pair for life. That's why once they go gayck...

>>2202492
i'm talking about after, and assuming they haven't had any prior children.
>>2202503
not false. it's a cultural thing. homosexuals had to pretend they were heterosexual because of religion among other things. so this social pressure made them reproduce regardless.

with the modern gay movement, they no longer have to be in any "unwanted" relationships with the opposite sex.

>>2202481
>>2202481
>>2202481

Reproducing can't really be the meaning of life, perhaps for lesser creatures but for humans there has to be more. We already do things other animals cannot in regards to trivial shit like food and housing and comfort, why would we be so beyond all else in these things but still ultimately on the same level concerning that which is most important: our purpose

nonetheless that is a philosophic debate not a scientific one, I will say however that comparing homosexuality to zoophilia is vulgar... Whatever put me on this earth be it God or fate obviously did not intend for me to have kids. If nothing put me here other than cold science and random genetic coincidences and I cannot make kids then it is not my purpose. I have never desperately wanted to produce children and thusly I have never failed, my life purpose is something else. Of course if I did want to produce kids I'd be just as capable of that too, it isn't like my junk ceases to function, I can donate, and I very well may someday cuz hell, who wouldn't want my genes^ do you see that picture up at the top???

>>2202519
A lot of people still "discover" themselve homosexuals at 40, after having had consensual sex in the missionary position with their legal spouse for the purpose of procreation several times.

>>2202490
so? a horse can hump a wooden statue of a horse because it thinks it's real. if it paired for life it would be in trouble.

no life form other than human actively participates in homosexual behavior in full-understanding of what it is. it's a human thing and no animal compares. humans also have all kinds of myriad mental condition, homosexuality falls into one of them.

>>2202538
>Whatever put me on this earth be it God or fate
Protip : it's neither.

>>2202553
I think a few dolphins and apes species have a vague idea of what they're doing.

>>2202440
In praying mantis, the female devours her mate.

This has led me to an acceptance to mariticidals and the encouragement of Mariticide in general as well.

>>This is why you don't base moral and social beliefs on the actions of animals.

>>2202555

noice trips

and i don't care what you believe, I don't even have a solid belief, maybe not agnostic but I certainly question everything and my ideas shift constantly. HOWEVER my philosophic understanding of the universe and it's origin is certainly not relevant to this discussion. This is about why homosexuality even exists, I don't think it is bad or wrong, but I do wonder why or how it exists sometimes, if you would like to help out with that please do. this is the science board, I am not interested in debating religion which has absolutely NOTHING with science.

>>2202570
I don't believe anything.

When you essentially say "well, I was destined to be gay", don't get mad when it stays in the discussion about why you're gay.

>>2202262
>The most common one is that homosexuality is an adaptation to control population

But you wouldn't disagree that it does help control it? With every gay couple we have we can see 2 people dying most likely without reproduction.

Also to help funnel off many foster kids to good loving homes?

>>2202587

oh the innocence of nihilism... but I can admit you are right about this, and i give some apologies but I really do believe that my homosexuality was inevitable, it is my default if that makes sense.

>>2202590
It doesn't. See : china.
When the family cell has been established, homosexuals make children. When it's not, they are bisexual.
An asexual gene would be much more effective to this goal.

I hope all you /sci/fags are more educated about this physics shit when you talk about it than evolutionary anthropology, because you guys are ALL misinformed and fagging this place up.

honestly, has a single one of you even read an peer reviewed journal on this at all?

>>2202608

well maybe not more effective but perhaps more rational... however i believe that if it is evolutionary than it would be easier to have the basic attraction change from female to male than have the sexual attraction disappear altogether, and other than that it would be a miserable existence without sex of anytime, sex is a source of vitality and refreshment.

>>2202090
As you can see, the real deal with homosexuality is that he's Mr. Burns' assistant. He's in his early forties, is unmarried, and currently resides in Springfield. Thanks for writing!

>>2202600
Wow, condescension. It was all it took ! Now I believe !

Hm.
Anyway, your homosexuality was inevitable, if we don't take into account the possibility of alternate universes, because you are homosexual.
Still it wasn't written, not in your genes nor in the tablets of fate. It's the subconscious consequence of your personal history.

>>2202567
again, not exclusively homosexual.

>>2202613
>>2202613
>>2202613
>>2202613
>>2202613

troll detected

>>2202090
Oh ffs i bet your the samefag that keeps posting this. Why do you think sci has to come to your defence? Your mentally ill.

PS: Not afraid of homes.

>>2202620
Having the sexual attraction disappear is really simple. All it needs is a body unable to produce a few hormones. Changing attraction is much more complex, that's why we know the gene for testosterone, etc, but not the ones for attraction.

Asexuals say their existence is just fine, and evolution did not make a point of making us happy anyway.

>>2202627

is this more of the psychology theory? I really find that hard to believe, that subtle differences between my life and yours had such an impact on me. Plus I've never liked girls, when I was only 6 I held another boys hand on the playground and by never ever considered dating a girl. I started dating other guys when I was 14 and it's always been part of my life. I really feel like it's impossible for it to be the consequence of external stimuli.

>>2202630
why am I a troll?

because there's psych undergrads who studied some 50 year old psychology that says homosexuality is conditioned?

or because those idiots are arguing against other idiots saying homosexuality reduces population growth? (it doesn't.) a trait, by the way, which would kill itself off.

only those two motherfuckers talking about bees earlier had the slightest semblance of knowledge on the subject.

I'm willing to bet every other poster on here hasn't even graduated college yet.

>>2202640

that makes sense and I wasn't aware of that, I can find that agreeable but I really do feel like homosexuality can't really be an error... if it is i won't be crushed but that is a hard thing to come to terms with. whatever the case I do feel homosexuals are productive and sometimes valuable members of society.

>>2202647
>when I was only 6 I held another boys hand on the playground and by never ever considered dating a girl.
Like every 6 years old male.

And 14 years is quite enough to build a perversion. Why would it be impossible ?

>>2202657

it was the part where you said 'fagging the place up and calling everyone a moron and then contradicting yourself by saying you don't hate gay people that sorta pointed to you being a troll... If you know more about the subject PLEASE enlighten me, if not then don't just come into the thread and declare all other arguments wrong without reasoning and not expect someone to be surprised. I do however agree with your rebuttal in that a gene like that would most likely die off if it did not serve any other purpose.

>>2202657
start quoting the posts that you think are wrong then. let's see you argue instead of throw insults from the sidelines.

since when did schools become the only form of education?

>>2202663
It's not an error any more than heterosexuality. It's a mental development.
The continuation of the species, or of the society, have nothing to do with that.

>>2202668

are you trolling??? i have never ever had a single heterosexual thought and my life has been very near identical to many of my friends, and in some cases my friends have been around more sources of femininity than me for much much longer. I have ALWAYS been this way.

Maybe krakengineer is right, he seems to kno what hes talkin about..........

>>2202678
No you haven't. Before puberty you didn't care that much, for example.
Your life has not been identical to your friends', and it's much more complex than "feminity around = gay".
And I wouldn't trust your (or anyone's) childhood memories. There's a lot that our brains don't take notice of, or even sweep under the carpet, especially when it doesn't fit with the idea we want to have of our life or identity.

>>2202700

>implying that sexuality is subjective to external stimuli

>>2202669
right. I was kinda inflammatory. sorry about that. but honestly, the entire thread is conjecture by undergraduates or, alternatively, the personal feelings of someone who is gay. neither is conclusive, nor is either sufficient testimony to understand how homosexuality functions on a genetic and evolutionary basis.

>>2202671
schools are THE best form of education. reading articles in time written for an 8th grad reading level, then declaring yourself "educated" is pretty lame. I'm not saying school teaches you anything like, say, pragmatic job experience. But if you honestly think you can understand how the brain works without going to school and reading articles written by doctors who have studied brain chemistry, genetics, and evolution for 50+ years, then don't expect your opinion to count.

doctors are smarter in their field of research than someone who read an op-ed piece in time.

I am not a doctorate, so here's what I'll tell you to do. You want to learn?
Buy an honorary alumnus pass or something similar from a large university in your area. You will gain access to their libraries. Read academic journals in evolutionary psychology, evolutionary anthropology, and neurochemistry written in the last 4 years. Many of them are more then 50 pages. Don't be daunted. This is how to actually learn, rather than how to parrot back what some editor in the l.a. times determined were the important parts for people with the attention span of a goldfish.

>>2202511
About 10% of all black swans cheat.

>>2202519 with the modern gay movement, they no longer have to be in any "unwanted" relationships with the opposite sex.

And yet many still do.

>>2202553 if it paired for life it would be in trouble.

They DO pair for life.

from what I have read in the economist, it seems that homosexual men- who are, lets face it, more feminine on average than heterosexual men, pass on a trait that allows men to be dads, rather than cads(douches) because it seems men who are a little feminine actually care more about their children then the douchebags bad boys that seem to be so popular with women these days- you are gay because it gives some advantage to your brothers.

As for lesbians, their more assertive nature, and higher sex drive (lesbians on average have more partners through life) means that women with these traits are more likely to have and enjoy sex, rather than rather than those twats who think love is all about cuddling and 'spiritual bonding' and more sex drive=more likely to have more babies

tl;dr homosexuality helps heterosexuals become more eager/effective parents

also op- what fashion trend look hot this winter ? >:)