Will Gays Dissappear Due to Natural Selection?

Well, yes and no.

Gays won't reproduce because men and man can't have children, but there will be more gay people born from straight relationships in the future, just like literally all gays in the history of time were born from straight relationships, cuz' that's how biology works, you need male sperm to fertilize a female egg

No, because it is a mental illness.

Also, no that's not how gays are born, they might as well be hermaphrodites and not gays, gays are either born gay (symbolically, meaning that they're gay since their little children, babies are asexual) or become gay.

>According to science, homosexuality is caused by the feminization of the fetus by the woman's body
By that I probably meant hormones: sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb (in any case it has to do with the mother's body)
>and it has been proven that the risk of this happening in a line of boys increases each time one is born sciencefocus.com/feature/life/gay-genetics
> There are some mothers who have like five boys in a row and none of them are gay, and some mothers that have two in a row and the younger brother is gay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_brothers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Patrick_Harris

brainlet detected

You're forgetting the social aspect.
IF homosexuals improve the survivability of the community as a whole, then it would be evolutionarily beneficial to the species as a whole for homosexuals to exist, whether they personally reproduce or not. That may very well be an explanation of what you described in the first place, if that's how it really works.
If one child reproduces, and a sibling does not, but for whatever reason, his "gay uncle" status improves the herd overall, then the gene is passed on through the mother's genes to her daughters and granddaughters to ensure a good mix of "breeder" heterosexuals and "worker bee" homosexuals.

This explanation doesn't even have to rely on your original premise being correct.

/thread

It's a GDP and GDP per capita contest between the whites, the blacks, the yellows, the browns, the reds, the straights, the gays, the old, the young, the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the unaffiliated, the red, the blue, and every other persuasion of humanity. If they help the bottom line, they survive and thrive. Before we know it, being disabled, being gay, being a foreigner, being black or brown, and being transgendered, and being any other kind of minority won't just be tolerated, it'll be preferred.

I don't really think so. And I doubt that homosexuality is caused by feminization. Assume that mother has 2 boys. Older brother is gay, younger is not.

>I'm genuinely curious: will the effect of gay men not passing on their genes eventually make homosexuality rare on account of evolution running it's course?
No. Fartknockers will always be allowed to indoctrinate children into their mental illness.

>According to science, homosexuality is caused by the feminization of the fetus by the woman's body, and it has been proven that the risk of this happening in a line of boys increases each time one is born.
Science isn't IFLS mumbo jumbo. Also, "the feminization of the fetus by the woman's body" means jack shit.

>There are some mothers who have like five boys in a row and none of them are gay, and some mothers that have two in a row and the younger brother is gay.
That's because of bad parenting and kids growing up in poo pirate-infested cities.

>So if that is the case, won't it stand to reason that the mothers whose wombs don't feminize the fetus as often have more offspring that will go on to have their own kids, as opposed to the gay men producing wombs that have less, and that that trait of producing straight babies will live on and become more prevalent in society, thus making homosexuality less prevalent?
Under this Sweden-inspired soytialist civilization, turd burglars will always find a way not to go extinct as nature has always wanted them to.

Didn't think about that. But wouldn't the idea that gays don't have kids and that would always in a perfect situation produce less kids be a larger factor in determining what gets passed on rather than a homosexual's improvement of the heard?

>trying this hard

Here's a you for the trouble.

>It's another /pol/ doesn't understand evolution, the thread
Evolution isn't driven by design or necessity, it is driven by accumulative random mutation that is 'successfully' passed on.

>it's the expected "poofter has no argument, but it's okay, he can still look edgy and cool by pretending that was a bait" post

because being gay is a choice and there's like no selection pressure so all manner of person can survive (fertile or not)

Homosexuality is not genetic, so no, evolution isn't gonna end it. In fact, if you had any brain cells, you'd realize that genetic homosexuality is impossible to exist in the first place outside of rare mutations.

if it's not genetic it has to be a choice

No, it could be psychological, you retard.

so almost a choice, ie depressed people get undepressed with effort

>Being this moronic
Ah shit, yeah, like all of those people choosing to have multiple personalities they cannot control.

I know people with mentals issues bruh lol I'm just being obtuse, but being gay isn't a mental illness and it's not genetic so...

What's the empirical difference between one psychological phenomena and another? Oh wait, you're pulling more random bullshit out of your arse. :D

>implying homosexuality is genetic

even if your hypothesis was true and faggotry was evolutionarily disadvantageous, it would probably be the same reason why we haven't evolved away downs, miscarriages, microcephaly, etc, that reason being that you're always going to have some defects in a system.

so you're saying it's just a psychological condition? Like a preference?

>it's just
Fuck off, that doesn't at all devalue it.

well it's not an illness

You're so fucking dumb, again refer to:
>

so illnesses aren't illnesses ok

They're a state of being, if they negatively impact function sure call them 'illnesses', but homosexuality doesn't, so no it isn't a fucking illness you pseud.

>According to science, homosexuality is caused by the feminization of the fetus by the woman's body,
[Citation needed]

wow you can count to potato, dumbo

Come on, you're just trying too hard at this point. Is posting things like this really better than talking to like minded individuals on a board more appropriate to your interests.

>Is posting things like this really better than talking to like minded individuals on a board more appropriate to your interests.
Veeky Forums is perfectly well-adapted to my interests, and acknowledging faggotry is a mental illness is perfectly sound since it fits the majority of the empirical evidence on the subject. Responding to tone on the other hand is a typical Reddit-tier fallacy.

>well-adapted to my interests
Well no, eugenics and phrenology were and still are ineffective.
>acknowledging faggotry
Using a pejorative whilst attempting to sound empirical, typical pseud.
>is a mental illness is perfectly sound since it fits the majority of the empirical evidence on the subjec
[CITATION NEEDED]
>Responding to tone on the other hand is a typical Reddit-tier fallacy.
You mean just like you do, hypocrite? Better go back to Plebbit.

If gayness is genetic, it won't necessarily disappear. If the gene mutations responsible for homosexual phenotype in one sex are also responsible for super heterosexual success with in the other sex, it will always show up as long as super heterosexual success ... is successful.

If it's just environmental, I'm having a hard time seeing how natural selection plays a role. Natural selection in this context would work against people accidentally falling into vats of bubbling liquids that TURN them gay and unsuccessful at reproduction. Or if it has to do with upbringing, it's a selection for Rich People, because poor people have to drink Homosex Tap-water, or alternatively selection for how well your parents sing you My Sharona (by The Knack) to instill your healthy woman-fucking behavior at a young age.

In the purely-environment case, it'll keep happening unless other relevant traits are acted upon.

Pretty sure it's a mix between genetics and environment

Wait do you know anything about mental illness, or do you just think "He ain't know he's supposed to fuck a girl, not BE one!" makes you a neurobiologist

Being a little gay is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective because it increases social cohesion since you'll seek out relationships with other men in your community and have a better chance of meeting women since you'll be more involved in society (as long as you're closeted enough that it doesn't affect your social standing and only let your gayness be seen by other gay people in circles where it's taboo), but you have to be straight enough to want to reproduce. That being said, in places where open homosexuality is becoming more common and in vitro fertilization and surrogates are becoming less stigmatized, this "heterozygote advantage" themed hypothesis might become obsolete and gayness might be associated with fitness across-the-board.

So keep smoking those cocks, user! Your genes will thank you.

>Well no, eugenics and phrenology were and still are ineffective.
Nothing eugenic about not allowing people to indoctrinate children. Also, what the fuck does this have to do with phrenology?

>You mean just like you do, hypocrite? Better go back to Plebbit.
I didn't respond to tone you fucking nimrod.

across the board*
I was thinking about saying "across-the-board fitness" and never deleted by hyphens. I'm not awake yet.

You just did.

*my

I hate byself.

That was intentional.

There was once speculation that Italians should be stupider than other countries.
For centuries, all the smartest men were encouraged to enter the priesthood and (probably) didn't pass on their "smart" genes.
I've seen no evidence of this.
It's all statistical and wouldn't show in a mere millennium or two.

If "gayness" is the result of environmental conditions in the womb, that just makes your supposition even less likely.

>I didn't respond to tone you fucking nimrod.
You don't even know that you're talking to two different people.

People are encouraged to eat fruit and veggies -- that doesn't mean they do.

Any smart man who likes the puss isn't going to trade the puss for priesthood.

Homosexuals are born from straight parents, so no.

lol ok dude

There is evidence that links homosexuality to an imbalence of hormones in utero, so it could be considered a defect. So no, I doubt that natural selection will weed out homosexuals. Its actually a possibility that homosexuality will become more common because we aren't really in a natural environment today.

This would be valid if homosecuality wasn't so prevalent. The chances of being born with cystic fibrosis are like 1/10000, while supposedly one tenth of the population is gay.
If it indeed is a genetic defect, it sure is pretty common.

I am gay, but let me disclose that there are barely any studies out there that research into what causes homsexuality(guess most scientists don't give a shit). Over the years I've always have been looking for an answer and just until recently, the most likely conclusion I can draw is from epigenetics. For whatever reason, either in the womb, or adolescence, something just "activates" and influences my genes to feel romantic attraction towards men. Twin studies have supported this. Again not many studies exist for this. I don't know why I feel attracted to men, I just do. In my family, I have one distant relative that's a lesbian(don't really know her) and a cousin from my dad's side that's gay. I realized I wasn't that interested in girls since I was 3. Every country has it's own ratio of gays whether or not any individual would want to disclose their own. It's already found in plenty of other species in the animal kingdom and obviously not excusively among humans. So in the end, I don't think homosexuality will dissappear as long as heterosexual people still carry the genes and have the right environment to trigger this phenomenon. It just happens, and until then, no one can definitvely explain why it happens but it's probably due to a nature nurture kind of thing. I bet it is much more common than most people would think. What I don't understand is though, if it was such an evolutionary disadvantage, why even exist not just in humans but animals as well?

I tried to explain something about this here: Genes can have more than one function, and their expression can vary by sex.

The fruitless gene in drosophila splices differently depending on sex. Messing up its expression has different effects upon those sexes. Male fruitless mutants will exhibit male-male courtship, female fruitless mutants will act male and try to court males and females.

This doesn't answer the source of the issue in humans, but it demonstrates that even if something is disadvantageous for the individual, it doesn't necessarily have to be eliminated from a population if it's only actually a disadvantage to a subgroup of that population.

In other words maybe the genes that make men gay also make women highly attractive, those women will always reproduce, so they will always pass on genes that contribute to male homosexuality.

>selectively asking for citations on Veeky Forums for posts that offend your homosexual sensibilities