Your feelings aside, are there any evolutionary benefits of being homosexual?

Source on that ? I'm surprised !

It's a non-genetic trait, and the fact it still exists tends to show it's not really dangerous for us as a specie

Seems like poorly done data collection combined with skewing statistics to get a desired result.

>are there any evolutionary benefits to being short?
>no? why hasn't it been erased from the gene pool?

Genetically something generally has to have overbearing DRAWBACKS to dissapear from a gene pool, and even then, in this day and age it would take a long, long time (see actual dwarfism or sickle cell anemia).

I think you can look at almost any mammal species and see roughly the same rates of homosexuality. Except for dolphins, dolphins are gay as shit.

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder not a genetic thing so is mostly immune to selection

>all mammals show homosexual tendancies

Full retard.

>Your feelings aside, are there any evolutionary benefits of being homosexual?

I assume it would make sense if you're a misogynist.

Because we form societies ya dumb fuck.

Just because something appears detrimental doesn't mean it will automatically be erased from the gene pool. Evolution isn't an intelligent entity that can make decisions. Gay men can't have children. Their sisters can.

Why do people have this notion that natural selection is just the end-all, sole cause of every genetic trait of an organism? There are a lot more factors here. Sometimes there are traits that natural selection can't affect. If the chance of being born gay (if it even is genetic, I don't even think we know that for certain) is independent from the parents genes, and is not necessarily inherited, then natural selection won't work.

We need weird creative fags to invent things like computers which benefit us all.

Sounds like p-hacking to me.

/thread

>Tendancies
What's beyond full retard?

You

This. Being unbridled by women while still able to have sexual fulfillment is promising in and of itself.

Frankly AIDS needs to be cured so we can provide scientific fags with a steady supply of boipussy so they can focus on their work.

Mammals have gay sex all the time. I'm not sure what your rebuttal is to that but please present it rather than just calling people names.

Lmao if homos were so smart you'd think they would have invented a cure for AIDS by now.
Well guess not.

Homosexuals aren't infertile, mong.
Besides artificial insemination and what not, there are plenty of homosexuals that have children and are/were in heterosexual marriages.
It's quite a common occurrence. (Especially a few decades ago.)

I hate this meme too namely that everything that evolved has to have had a reason for it.
Then these brainlets go out of their way to -invent- a reason in order to rationalize why it might have happened. For example
>heterosexual males had to go out hunting and homosexual males stayed in the cave to help the women care about children.
Haha no. You just made that up.

Well AIDS is close to a cure and it's only been around for a few decades so it's going pretty well compared to most other diseases.

Le baitte xD
Also, if straight people were so intelligent, they would have cured AIDS by now.

If you're a heterosexual would you suck a dick?
No.
The same way, homosexauls aren't going to fuck the opposite sex. Infertility is irrelevant.
>artificial insemination
lmao homos can't exist in nature.
the fact they do clearly indicates a mistake of nature (nobody ever said nature can't make mistakes) and they're time in the gene pool is ticking so you should go suck dicks while you can.

>Also, if straight people were so intelligent, they would have cured AIDS by now.
I guess that means you admit now the initial proposition that gays are smarter than straight people is false?

>gays are smarter than straight people
When was that ever stated or implied?

One user simply mentioned Alan Turing and another postulated (likely as a joke) that gay men could focus more on science because they don't have to deal with women.

Anons, I would also like to bring up the fact that this homo/heterosexuality paradigm is a new phenomenon. Before the sexual oppression of the dark ages, sex was just sex... beauty was just beauty. Being a householder was duty, not identity. Modern masses have really devolved a bit and are driven by their insecurities to define themselves. We are still recovering from that dark period of human history and struggling and stumbling to find ourselves.

Gay sex was considered a begrudgingly tolerated vice during the entirety of Rome's heyday. They weren't free-love types. In fact, they were largely anti-sex in general.

Even among the Greeks penetrative anal sex was largely considered unseemly, especially if you were the bottom, which was a role reserved for 15 year old slave boys. Between-the-thighs sex was however enjoyed and often celebrated in Greek culture with cities like Sparta encouraging it among their soldiers and the elite fighting force of Thebes being an all-gay troop.

But Greece was largely the exception. Most civilizations had reactions to gay shit ranging from lukewarm to cool. It was only really the tribal cultures that had no qualms with it at all.

It's possible that if there are genes responsible for dictating homosexual behavior that they have pleiotropic effects which manifest themselves in different ways depending on the sex of the individual.

In other words, there could be a gene that if possessed by a woman, makes them more likely to have children. But, if possessed by a man, makes them predisposed to homosexual behavior.

If that stands true, you would continue to get gay men so long as those women reproduce, and they certainly would if they have some kind of advantage, or at least no disadvantage.

True. I don't mean to say it was all open and free love, but that it was perceived as a behavior and not an identity.

We are way too anxious to define ourselves (and others) prematurely, cutting ourselves off from the experiences that would lead us to discover who we actually are.

forgot to mention there could be 'sex-influenced traits'; not just pleiotropy, because that's simply One Gene -> Many Phenotypes

Probably enhanced social bonds with the same sex due to muh dick logic. Gay dudes treat dudes way better than straight dudes I have noticed when they try to flirt with me, and unlike women they dont get triggered when you dont respond to them.

Lesbos seem to have a goddess view of women and many of them behave like beta men around women. Straight women are bizarre as they dont react with disgust when lesbians openly molest them in public or at the clubs.

>If not, why hasn't it been erased from the gene pool?

I read that as being basically, "Why does evolution not erase variations from the gene pool?"

Can you see the issue with that question?

Yeah, but keep in mind this is the first time in history where a nearly the entire population, not just the rich, have concerns beyond subsistence and reproduction for labor value. Nowadays marriage isn't a societal necessity, so people can exclusively live alternative lifestyles.

Do you like seeing lesbians fuck?

Do straight women like seeing gay men fuck?

It's beneficial because it makes breeders want to breed more.

Conditions that create LGBT individuals is a testament to just how sensitive neural and endocrine development is.

If you look at it objectively the answer is no. The point of sex drive is to engage in sex behavior which the point of that is reproduction. If you engage in behavior with an individual who does not have secondary and primary sex characteristics opposite to yours to achieve that end, than it is safe to say it is maladaptive. Homosexuality and treanssexuality is something that I believe should be extensively researched.

>The point of sex drive is to engage in sex behavior which the point of that is reproduction.
On a very basic interpretation, but when you get into social creatures, their value to the group can be more important than their value to pass on their genes.

Wanting to prevent pregnancy is maladaptive but humans have been trying to do that since antiquity.

Genetic elements came first. Creatures became social to benefit their individual fitness. Even if what you say is the case how does homosexuality make us better?

it's pathogenic.

What you said isn't a complication to my claim but just an expansion of it. Humans who don't want children at all fall into the same maladaptive camp those who are exclusively homosexual.

Yeah you are right, user.

>Your feelings aside
Impossible. "That's icky!" Is a very powerful feeling in some people.

>Evolutionary benefits

What is the benefit of your parents fucking to produce you, an imbecile? We would be better off without you.

same argument could be made for psychopathy, though it is obvious how it can be useful

>Gay sex was considered a begrudgingly tolerated vice during the entirety of Rome's heyday. They weren't free-love types. In fact, they were largely anti-sex in general.

I'ma challenge that last bit. Roman attitudes towards sex were complex, and varied over time and between individuals, but in general where a man put his dick was considered to be his business. As you point out for Greek culture, taking the passive role and being penetrated was considered effeminate. And it was generally taboo to fuck Roman women to whom you weren't married, because paternity determined family connections and family connections were extremely important in Roman society. But the world was full of slaves, non citizens, etc., and as can be noted in the career of serial philanderer Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator, taboos were breached by some folks, same as happens today.

The Roman world was also full of representations of vulva, erect penors, sex acts, oversized genitals -- this is not consistent with the idea that the culture was somehow anti-sex.

>this is not consistent with the idea that the culture was somehow anti-sex
It was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that the Romans saw self-control as a hugely masculine virtue, and saw the overindulgence of sex as a failure of overcoming your basest urges.

The best anecdote of that would be outlawing the cult of Bacchus because their orgies were seen as a threat to Roman virtues. I'll definitely agree that the Romans had complex and varied views on sex, but they were far more puritanical toward it than the Greeks were.

Keep in mind examples of famous Romans marrying men like Nero were met with public ridicule.

Because it's not genetic.

Yeah but you're talking about a few well-known incidents in Roman history as if they were the trend for the entire 400 odd years of the empire, when really they were isolated incidents that were noteworthy because of how different they were from the norm.

I mean, they literally made a dude emperor because he was a qt who was pretty much the most degenerate faggot in the empire at the time.

Much of the literature, particularly when referring to the military, deals with more chaste ideas of sex throughout Rome's history. Again, I agreed with you that it was varied, but Rome's attitude toward sex was definitely more reserved than the Greeks, and that is especially true for homosexuality.

Checks out with my ex's family

Being gay allows you to have a foothold in the oppression olympics which can lead to financial gain (preferential hiring, money for nothing but talking about oppression)

Hardly. Gay white males are barely even considered oppressed by Tumblr at this point.

It's a cultural virus that has nothing to do with genetics. The claim that it's genetic is just an excuse to get more people to support it, when in reality that's like saying I have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to scat porn.

I'm positive that the rate of gay people has been pretty consistent but now there's just more of them due to population growth. There also is no gay gene unfortunately, because if there was, they could say "I was born this way" and it would be scientifically accurate. For now we can still at least hate them for being liars.

> Rome's attitude toward sex was definitely more reserved than the Greeks

Must have been. They gave us Catholicism after all.

> saw the overindulgence of sex as a failure of overcoming your basest urges

I think this is important. It's not about how or with whom you have sex, but your motivations and intentions. My feeling is that earlier cultures understood this better than we do. Cultivate love and intimacy, not lust.

This guy gets it We live in a world where the use of arbitrary power has hit a ceiling and thus resulted in a stalemate. This in turn creates a world in which people try to use the system bound in this stalemate to benefit themselves more than their rivals and competetors. To do this you need to seem oppressed and thus deserving of resources that would mitigate those terrible conditions.

But as you suggest the criteria for what is considered marginalized is evolving at such a rapid rate. So much so, that people are creating identities to be oppressed over to further their pursuits. That's essential what the infinite genders thing is. The oppression bubble is bound to burst though.

Sure thing buddy. Maybe you can simply hold out until the straight white male becomes an opressed populace too.

there are theories about gays being able to help out in the raising of children or providing food without the child. we see the same behaviour in insects and naked mole-rats, where the genome of a drone is similar to the queen's, and as such the drones help in spreading part of their own genetic material. similarly, pack animals as wolfs only allow the alpha female of the pack to procreate, with the others tending to them as family.

...

Building on what this guy saidAlmost every gay (which includes Trans, Lesbains, bisexuals, etc) I have known has some story about them being oppressed from society/peers in some way. Sometimes they are true and sometimes they are exaggerated/self imposed.

>gay dude who had the locker next to me for years in HS would get beaten up and picked on every which way because he would flaunt his gayness about everywhere (talk about it loud in class, ask the teacher questions about class subjects relating to homosexuals, generally not shutting up about it)
>lesbian girl flirting with guys and then stonewalling them with the "oops I don't like guys"
>"WHY WONT mY PARENTS ACCEPT ME!!!"

Usually they had some sort of "mentor" who gave them the kool-aid to drink at a young age. If it didn't turn them gay it turned them into the leftists that care about nothing but the plights of the LGBT community. No joke in my attempt to make friends at HS I became the "straight officer" in the "gay straight alliance club" and i had a few people try to convince me I was gay since I didn't have a gf/couldn't attract girls (tfw no gf)

I never told my parents I took molly or smoked pot because it would upset them. And I didn't go around the whole school saying it. Why can't gays keep their head down without trying to make everyone see them as the center of attention?

My favorite story:
>28 year old white male
>was gay since middle school apparently
>parents put him on all kinds of medicine for skin problems or some weird shit
>said it fucked him up
>was bullied in HS for having makeup so he skipped college and went to massage school
>claimed to only be able to get weekend hours so had 5 days free
>convinced his sisters to admit to be bi-curious
>said parents never motivated him to work hard as he plays dragon age at 28
>watches gay YouTube buzzfeed tier channels all day
>spends excess money on vinyls and weird shit. savings likely less than

Disregarding anecdotes. LGBT people are demonstrably statistically proven to be treated worse. Some of them are over-dramatic about their personal oppression for sure.

>I never told my parents I took molly or smoked pot because it would upset them. And I didn't go around the whole school saying it. Why can't gays keep their head down without trying to make everyone see them as the center of attention?

Because being gay isn't a choice like taking molly or smoking pot. And similar behavior in straight people never bats an eye. Every conversation a straight person has about their boyfriend/girlfriend, every conversation a jock has about how hot a girl is, how x gives better head than y, etc, is "flaunting" their sexuality.

Now don't get me wrong, lots of gay people are drama queens and I hate the victim complex shit so much. As a gay person I had a great childhood and since coming out of the closet have never felt any sort of discrimination. When I was in the closet I saw plenty of bullshit from people expressing just their absolute anger and disgust at anything gay, but again, it was never directed at me so I was never victimized.

So suffice it to say I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree that gay people, especially teenagers, should have to hide themselves because it annoys others. If they're annoying then they're just annoying. I've met annoying gays and annoying straights, but I never thought the former should go back in the closet (since they're usually so flamboyant it's a glass door anyway).

>So suffice it to say I agree with you to an extent, but I don't agree that gay people, especially teenagers, should have to hide themselves because it annoys others.

Being straight is the norm. Frankly deviating from the norm draws negative attention. Like tattoos and obnoxious piercings. Only those who are in those groups think it's okay while the vast majority of productive people eschew it. No one wants to hear about how some dude fucked you in the ass or sucked you off.

I have only met one tolerable gay dude. And he only told us once and that was it. Knew the man for 5 years and had no idea until he got kicked out of his mom's for being gay. Just look at a gay pride parade and see what people in their 20s/30s are doing instead of being semi responsible adults.

Also I am inclined to believe that being gay is a choice. All human actions are conscious choices (not including uncontrollable bodily functions like breathing, heartbeat). I can watch gore videos while some other dude can choose not to despite both of us being physically able. The other guy just finds it repulsing. Same logic. You and I can both fuck dudes in the ass but I find the idea absolutely nauseating.

I would end this by asking you "why don't you like pussy?" But women can be shitty 99% of the time.

[citation needed]

Wanting to have gay sex isn't a choice, but actually doing it is.

Wanting to do drugs also isn't a choice but doing it is

Just because you make your pets be gay with you

user never claimed the guy was telling everyone about getting fucked in the ass, just being gay.

Well telling them is also a choice

But how is that relevant? user said he hid his drug use from his parents and implied gay people should do so as well.

He probably also didn't tell his parents that he wanted to do drugs before he actually did them.that's analogous to not telling them if you want to suck dicks

Is it? Is a little boy telling his dad he thinks a girl in class in cute the same thing as him saying "Dad I want to cum in that bitch's cunt."?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I also had a case study about Japanese macaques in anticipation of ">using Wikipedia as a source" but Veeky Forums thought it was spam for some reason.

>Ctrl+F
>"wild"
>nothing indicating most of these observations were in wild life
>"freq"
>only result is faggot bonobos
Opinion discarded.

>this bait

If you were really interested in knowing this you'd just Google it yourself.

Ok but even if you aren't vulgar about it.

Saying "that guy is attractive" is analogous to saying "mdma sounds fun"

Homosexuality isn't transmitted genetically

Except thinking drugs would be fun isn't the same as a central part of you.

I honestly don't think straight people realize just how often their sexuality is brought up. The only ones that do are robots.
>Find a nice young girl yet, user?
>Have a girlfriend?
>When are you gonna get married and have kids?
>You'll understand when you have a wife of your own, son.
>Femanon thinks you're cute! What do you mean you're not interested? You say that about every girl! Are you gay or something, lol

I just fail to see how anyone benefits from a gay teenager lying to those questions for the sake of some people who'd prefer not to know they're gay.

There are lots of reasons you don't want to go around advertising your usage of drugs, namely legal reasons.

Sure, from a language point of view you can substitute trying anything into anything. But from a practical standpoint you know it's bullshit.

>[citation needed]
>lmao gugl it :)))))
Leftists are mentally ill.

>tips fedora

>I honestly don't think straight people realize just how often their sexuality is brought up.
Straight guy here. Its pretty much never brought up. I don't hear any bullshit like the examples you gave. /r9k/ hears it once and it ruins their year, because they believe sex is important, and they aren't getting any. People aren't constantly bringing it up to them; THEY are beating THEMSELVES up about it.

...

...

...

...

>tfw not born as a bonobo

Well a pretty damn important aspect is the ability to REPRODUCE, which gays can't, so the 'gay gene' could never be passed on to offspring. According to the theory of natural selection, this means no more gays should exist, or it should just be a rare mutation.

>g-guys look at how happy the monkeys are
>we should be just like them if we want to be happy

>gays don't have children

Come on user, don't tell me you are this retarded?

Idk about you but my Grandma asks me if I have a girlfriend every time I visit ;_;

are there any other types of numbers besides positive and negative

>Implying gays have to reproduce themselves to be an evolutionary advantage

What brainlets keep misunderstanding is it's not about the individual's traits, it's about the DISTRIBUTION OF TRAITS that their genes can make.