Why Homosexuality Is Gay

[Durin]

The way I see homosexuality is this.

First off, its not a biologically positive trait (curbs species propagation)

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or"not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop havin gay buttsex with men.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

[Sleazeappeal]

Originally Posted by Durin413

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

STANDING BY...

[Dr. Boogie]

I do believe KK has pulled a JOEBIALEK on us.

[Fat_Hippo]

Looks like it, though you can hardly blame him. Would you reply to this rampaging horde of put-downs and insults? Granted, you might never have gotten into this position in the first place, but still, I'm feeling some pretty negative vibes towards KK here, so I don't think he'll be coming back...or he's just not here. Whatever, it's all good.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Durin413

The way I see homosexuality is this.

First off, its not a biologically positive trait (curbs species propagation)

Now the, we get into the issue of whether its a choice or"not your fault", such as through genetics

If its a choice, than stop havin gay buttsex with men.

If its not a choice, but something your genes throw upon you, than we can in the future theoretically eliminate the gay gene, thus curing the world of homosexuality.

Self-reproduction is not the only way to increase the frequency of a gene. Your genes are interested in making more copies of themselves, not just in getting you to reproduce. (Sorry) What I am saying is that there is a credible evolutionary argument for a homosexual predisposition as a trait beneficial to the group as a whole (via population control, checks placed on detrimental male-male competition etcetera) Just because say, rampant lesbianism among macaques is detrimental to short-term reproduction doesn't mean shit in the long run of evolution. In fact, homosexual coupling is actually more common than heterosexual among most animals.

If homosexuality is in fact a genetic abberration, why hasn't it been bred out? If it was a genetic disorder it would be by an order of magnitude the most common such disorder in existence. How many people do you know with Huntington's disease?

[kahljorn]

I don't think the matter of if homosexuality is a choice or not is really relevant at all to if it's wrong. Unless you're a deterministic sort in which case nothing is wrong because it's all predetermined am i right? I don't know that just runs the course of eventually saying something like, "SERIAL KILLERS ARENT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE GENES THAT MAKE THEM KILL!" ... or make them more predisposed to kill in which case we can still judge them for lack of control.

Really you can say nobody is guilty of anything if you're that deterministic *shrug* Other than that it's kind of pointless. And even assuming it is a choice you still have to show how it's a bad choice which dumbass thread author tried to do with his gay arguments about MEN AND WOMEN TOGERTHER 4 EVERER

[sloth]

i really look forward to the day when people can look back and wonder how anyone ever thought genes could affect a person's inclinations, but it looks like this circle's going to keep on repeating itself - now god is dead it just seems like we've found something else to decide our fate for us. after all, it's easy to laugh at phrenology but what are CT brain scans purporting to prove? its as if mankind - intelligent mankind - is fundamentally incompatible with accepting responsibility for itself.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by derrida

Self-reproduction is not the only way to increase the frequency of a gene. Your genes are interested in making more copies of themselves, not just in getting you to reproduce. (Sorry) What I am saying is that there is a credible evolutionary argument for a homosexual predisposition as a trait beneficial to the group as a whole (via population control, checks placed on detrimental male-male competition etcetera)

Sorry, my biology is a bit out of date, but aren't group selection theories of such a nature usually considered to be not very accurate? I mean, I understand kinship altruism and so forth, but population control and the checking of male-male competition are exactly the kind of group benefits that are absolutely unbeneficial to whoever is carrying the gene for them.
I mean really, if evolution provided for genes that checked detrimental male-male competition and controlled population, what would we need governments for?

[kahljorn]

lol ya plus wouldn't everybody except the chosen ruler-gene class be homosexuals and then the chosen ruler class would fuck all the women and everybody would be inbred and sick and they would smell like mcdonalds all the time.

yes.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Sorry, my biology is a bit out of date, but aren't group selection theories of such a nature usually considered to be not very accurate? I mean, I understand kinship altruism and so forth, but population control and the checking of male-male competition are exactly the kind of group benefits that are absolutely unbeneficial to whoever is carrying the gene for them.
I mean really, if evolution provided for genes that checked detrimental male-male competition and controlled population, what would we need governments for?

Yeah, those things are unbeneficial to the organism of the species carrying the gene, but what if the gene was only passed down maternally, or only toggled on in the presence of other genes, or morphogens, or a number of other factors (understanding mechanisms of gene expression requires way too much math for my brain)

Here's a quote from Darwin:

"Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe...an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."

So, the notion of group selection isn't new (even though it's been taboo I guess since the 60's.) but what we know now about genes is that they are far more complex than a simple input-output function.

I think a useful way to understand evolution is the fact that you have groups that are divided by both geographical and ecological boundaries. These boundaries get blurred either by migration, or by scarcity, when selection pressures laterally compress co-existing niches.

[kahljorn]

derrida said: "Blah fart"
Translation!

I SOUND SMART TALKING ABOUT IRRELEVANT THINGS.

Guys I don't know if you're aware of this but generally we don't rely on what is genetically prominent to find out what's morally right or wrong. IN fact sometimes that is considered a GENETIC FALLACY and it's gay so shut the fuck up.

an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.

So like a tribe of pacifists will have an ADVANTAGE over a tribe over aggresors who like to kill pacifists? So does that mean aggressively killing pacifists is moral or something like that?