[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 197 KB, 800x533, gay10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1935844 No.1935844 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural/genetic?

>> No.1935851

Yes. Your twisted relations with your father.

>> No.1935853

That depends on whether you correctly consider observational evidence scientific, or if you discount it.

>> No.1935856

>>1935844
no

>> No.1935994

I guess two male lions having sex isn't evidence

>> No.1936010

yes there is. There is a proven genetic component just like everything about you.

as for natural, every single species that has sex has been shown to have homosexual practices. Cant get more natural then that.

>> No.1936037

>>1936010
show your proof faggot

>> No.1936051

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

>> No.1936063

>>1936010
Its illogical, if there is a genetic component for choosing gay then there must be a genetic component for choosing snickers.

Otherwise its purely genetic and as it only benefits siblings, although in a very inefficient fashion then it must be a genetic disease.

I however, am content to call it a mental illness that is conditioned because it is socially accepted. No matter which way you look at it there still not passing on there genes.

>> No.1936065

Giraffes. 90% of giraffe sex is between males.

>> No.1936078

What I wonder is if there are exclusively homosexual animals? Do any animals refuse to have heterosexual intercourse, i.e. refuse to reproduce? So far, as it was stated in this very thread, I have only heard of homosexual incidents in animals, not homosexual animals. This would imply either that homosexuals aren't natural (the human ones) or that they're all bisexuals.

>> No.1936080

>>1936051
One sparrow does not make a summer.

Honestly, how can you not realise that animals are stupid and humans are corrupt.

>> No.1936090

>>1936078
Nobody answer this... just leave him be... just leave him be...

>> No.1936098

>>1936063
You sound like the sort that has done no research at all on the subject. Lots of animals are pretty gay. Like giraffes and penguins. It's just something that happens in lots of animals. Giraffes and penguins are the most known for it, though most giraffes are probably bisexual. A few types of chimp go around giving each other blowjobs(especially dominant males). It's mostly common in mammals and birds though not exclusive. Creatures which biologically can enjoy sex are more likely to become gay though.

The sibling factor is a pretty big deal in some species too. Species with gay relatives might increase the chance of the heterosexual's fewer offspring to survive by having more uncles and aunts to watch out for it.

>> No.1936106
File: 9 KB, 199x240, coolstorybro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1936106

>>1936065
wow and 90% of 99.1% of other species sex is heterosexual. Thereby proving.... anomalies exist.

>> No.1936102

>>1936078
Penguins. They'll bond with a penguin of the same gender, and some varieties of penguin mate for life.

>> No.1936108

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci%3B253/5023/1034

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.short

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/016622369580007O

Just a few. Google Scholar, motherfucker, do you use it?

>> No.1936118

>>1936098
Wow,
Ignore logic ----> present same facts.

I am aware of that... now... but my argument is unchanged. Gays exist, i'm not disputing that.

>> No.1936123

>>1936037
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
>To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00944.x/abstract
>We show that fecundity of female relatives of the maternal line does not differ between bisexuals and homosexuals. As in the previous study on homosexuals, mothers of bisexuals show significantly higher fecundity, as do females in the maternal line (cumulated fecundity of mothers, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunts), compared to the corresponding relatives of heterosexual controls.This study also shows that both bisexuals and homosexuals were more frequently second and third born. However, only homosexuals had an excess of older male siblings, compared to heterosexuals.

There you go. Mothers of gay sons have much higher fecundity proving it is an evolutionary advantage. And your an idiot if you think gay people dont have children. As well as fucking each other they also fuck a lot of girls. 100% gay people are rare, most fuck both.

>> No.1936161

>>1936063
wow you're stupid. Seems like you're the only one with the mental illness.

>> No.1936252

>>1936161
Good argument there.

>>1936123
So, let me summarise your argument:
1 - Our entire identity is formed just by 1 "genetic factor" (what type? cistron etc?)
2 - fecundity of female relatives of the maternal line does not differ between bisexuals and homosexuals.
Is this higher than if both brothers had had children? Its allot like putting your all eggs in one basket.
3 - mothers of bisexuals show significantly higher fecundity, as do females in the maternal line (cumulated fecundity of mothers, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunts)
What happens when those females have other males, what if they keep having males. MY GOD! There fecundity could go through the roof!!! Oh boy, an evolutionary circular argument.

What ells is there to say... humans will do anything... and thats sad.

>> No.1936292

>>1935844

Well, nature is that which occurs in nature, or, that which actually exists, in the observable, real world.

Thus, since homosexuality is regularly observable, at relatively infrequent, yet significant intervals, it's natural.

>> No.1936312

>>1936292
Just like insanity and genocide!

everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

>> No.1936309

>>1935844
Implying satan didn't take that picture to DECEIVE YOU

>> No.1936326

>>1936312
Lets take this debate deeper:

Social Darwinist - it is not a healthy preocupation, its easy to catch disease and you rarely pass on your genes

Chaotic evolutionist - it randomly occurs, perhapse not through evolution.

Well hurr my durr, conclusion event horizon inescapable. Must increase escape velocity trolling!!!

>> No.1936348

>>1936312

if you're >implying that these aren't also perfectly natural phenomena,

and, by extension, that my assertions are somehow absurd, you need to backtrack.

>> No.1936350

>>1936252
> - Our entire identity is formed just by 1 "genetic factor" (what type? cistron etc?)
lolwot? i didn't say that, your stupid is showing.

>Is this higher than if both brothers had had children? Its allot like putting your all eggs in one basket.
What?

>What happens when those females have other males, what if they keep having males. MY GOD! There fecundity could go through the roof!!! Oh boy, an evolutionary circular argument.
What? you're arguments are retarded.


My argument is this.

Something that is natural is something which happens in nature right? No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist
>http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Therefore it is natural. Even though saying something is natural is meaningless.

My next point was that since mothers have much higher fecundity when they have homosexual sons, it is therefore in their benifit to have gay sons sometimes atleast. Proven by:
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00944.x/abstract
which could explain why there are gay people.

I dont see why you care if someone gets off with a person of the same sex. Nearly all sex these days have the same reproductive potential as gay sex anyway. Cant say iv ever done it without knowing i wouldnt get someone pregnant.

>> No.1936357

Why would be homosexual behaviour of any evolutionary importance? Is it for social balance? Shits and giggles?

>> No.1936392
File: 229 KB, 400x304, klingontrek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1936392

>>1936348
I was implying that mice eat their young but we don't think thats natural.

C'mon things can improve and we don't have to turn into them
<-------

>> No.1936415

>>1936350
I'm afraid i must re-direct you to my earlier points.

>>1936252
>>1936326
>>1936392

To be honest, i don't think nature is a good measure of what right/wrong because its not infallible.

>> No.1936441

>>1936415
so you have no points? kk

>> No.1936468

>>1936441
¬¬
"genetic factor"
>lolwot? i didn't say that, your stupid is showing.
Doesnt know how quotation marks work.

Is this higher than if both brothers had had children? Its allot like putting your all eggs in one basket.
>What?

What happens when those females have other males, what if they keep having males. MY GOD! There fecundity could go through the roof!!! Oh boy, an evolutionary circular argument.
>What? you're arguments are retarded.
??? Hasnt read their own source? Learn 2 science.

No, i uh... don't belive i have any other points for the moment.