GAY discussion

Everything he listed still exists.

I've read that families with gay men have more fertile women, probably caused by the same thing rather than an evolutionary advantage but none of these newspapers seem to want to link the study and apparently I'm too retarded to find it on my own.

Same genes can produce different phenotypes under different environmental conditions. This is called phenotypic plasticity. For example, sex in crocodiles is determined by ambient temperature during egg hatching

It small environmental cues during gestation (fluctuations in male/female hormone concentrations, stress, certain molecules in plasma, mother's immune responses etc.) cause changes in development in humans too. Sexual preference might be one of these changes.

It has been studied that every male child in a family increases the probability of the next male child being homosexual. Mothers might develop antibodies against some proteins synthesized by male fetuses, and immune response might destroy some cells during development.

Female homosexuality is still a conundrum though. It might be about temporal differences in testosterone concentrations during development too. It was quite recently studied that most females aren't strictly heterosexual, some have slight bisexual tendencies, some have stronger bisexual tendencies.

It's hard to say about evolutionary advantage of homosexuality. The genes of homosexual person don't get forward, but humans certainly have some "kin selection" - if one member of a clan/tribe/family can't reproduce, one is more likely to help their relative's child to survive. It's the same with ants. Workers are there just to gather food and being cannon food, so they can help their relative (the queen) to mass-produce more offspring.

Short answer: I don't have a clue.

But let's play through some scenarios anyway.

>Hypothesis 1:
It is a result of human social conditioning
>Counter evidence:
It is a well established fact that homosexual activity is observed in various animal species. Not only apes, but also various mammal species like lions, giraffes, elephants and sheep. Also birds like penguins, swans, vultures and pigeons. Even insects have been observed. And not only sexual intercourse, but also long term pairing in monogamous birds. The variety of animal species, including animals with minimal social conditioning would lead to the conclusion that physiological reasons are more likely.

>Hypothesis 2
It is caused by genes
>Discourse
Homosexual tendencies seem disadvantageous for an animal, mating time is wasted on a mate with no possible reproductive outcome. Gene(s) that promote this behavior would be removed over time in favor of genes that enable and promote animals to find a fitting heterosexual partner.
So either:
1. the genes that promote homosexual behavior have other major beneficial effects that cannot easily be separated from the homosexuality side effect
2. homosexual behavior is somehow beneficial for close relatives of the homosexual animal and the gay-genes survive that way
3. it is not genetic, but caused by some other physiological or environmental effect
4. some other explanation that I can't think of from the top of my head

>1. the genes that promote homosexual behavior have other major beneficial effects that cannot easily be separated from the homosexuality side effect

seems the most plausible. i watched a documentary about gorillas where a pack(?) of male gorillas engaged in homosexual behavior to tide themselves over when they couldn't find females, and then stopped when they eventually found female mates. perhaps full-blown homos are a byproduct of this tendency.

Too many people on the island.

>gay-gay offspring
how the fuck does that work

I think thatsthejoke.jpg

I doubt it, but I'm an engineer. Even the straight engineers suck dick.

But there would be selective pressure against it. A gay individual left to its own devices would produce no offspring. Which would be the case for pretty much all non-human animals and early proto-culture humans.
Humans invented social pressures to force gays into heterosexual relationships, but I would still reckon that gays are statistically significantly worse at making babies than heteros simply by lack of enthusiasm for sexual intercourse with their forced partner.

His ass.
That's fucking stupid. A gay couple can't foster a child together. Even with a surrogate mother, a ``gay gene'' might not even be passed on. It's more likely that the child was raised to emulate their parents. Checking the statistics for gay adopted children raised by gay couples should narrow down the discussion.

>a gay couple can't foster a child together
What if a gay couple is bffs with a lesbian couple, and they decided to procreate, with the lesbians as surrogates, and the gays as donors?

Lots of sick people in the world desperate to believe they're not. They will go to extreme lengths to believe their delusions. Once upon a time, preachers screamed pride was the worst sin and now they embrace the gay pride. But then it seems lots of preachers are rapists.

youtu.be/YuK9pxjBwX8
Potholer54 comes to the rescue with what science has to say once again.

If you can avoid thinking of the knee jerk * le fedora meme xD * as soon as you hear his name, Richard Dawkins has a video on youtube where he talks about the evolutionary advantages of homosexuals or bisexuals in the human species

>link
youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

I can't know if he's right, but it certainly changed my way of thinking towards this topic.

you'll need some proof on those stats
also that may just be because your parent are what influence you the most on every aspect

>very few species of animal engage in homosexual behaviour
i though that a lot of them actually did it and that it would take to much time to study so almost nobody cared

>Is there really any solid basis in homosexuality being a result of one's DNA? It doesn't make any fucking sense of why being gay would have any evolutionary advantages for a species
Not everything that is genetic is an evolutionary advantage. Evolution never stops, so mutations come and go all the time, and some aren't actually advantageous but don't harm the species as a whole. Such is the case for homossexuality: a few people not feeling attracted to the opposite sex, thus not reproducing, doesn't stop the species from thriving. Plus, for millenia homossexuals have suffered peer pressure to both hide their sexuality and reproduce, retaining the genes on the general population.
I think that now that society is growing more accepting towards homossexuality, gays will stop reproducing and steeply decline.

Yeah

gayness comes from being molested as a child.

They say theyve been that way since birth but its only a way of covering up the fact they were raped

...

>mutations
>advantages

Mutations that aren't advantageous don't survive on the long run.

It's a major issue socially, no matter what you claim the reason to be, because it forms an extremely unpleasant double-bind.
Either you say it's a "choice", in which case you get the liberal benefits of "do whatever you want but don't expect special treatment" or you say it's "genetic" which would mean that tolerating their existence at best and exterminating them at worst is the end result.

genius.