OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Saturday, June 28

#19354

OMG: I'm totally for gay equality btw.

Just a random thought, if men's attraction to women is a biological imperative, like hunger, to ensure to our continued survival as a species. Are people born gay because its nature's natural way to advance natural selection? (since they die without biological children)

17 comments

  1. >nature's natural way to advance natural selection
    u wot m8
    evolution is not a directed effort, its totally random

    ReplyDelete
  2. Saying "I'm not racist" immediately preceeding saying something racist, doesn't make it less racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is this racist? OP is looking for a genetic explanation of homosexuality. It's this kind of PC mentality that keeps a lot of real and interesting research from being done.

      Delete
    2. Watch your Ps and Qs everyone, the speech police are out and about.

      Delete
    3. I like here cuz nobody is forceable to be politically correct, faggot

      Delete
  3. There's no need or mechanism to "advance" natural selection. They're just words to describe the process that's always happening..

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everyone is a little queer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In a species that allows the crippled and diseased another chance to both survive and procreate through artificial intervention, where natural selection would have removed that possibility, much of what happens to humans is no longer natural selection, but artificial selection.

    Additionally, nature lacks the ability of forethought to be like "this person is not fit for survival; better make him/her gay to remove them from the gene pool". Natural selection is undirected and based on random changes in phenotypes and their suitability to aid in survival in the current environment. Being homosexual is something that just happens. One possibility is that it actually aids, via altruism, in kin selection and inclusive fitness.

    Saying that homosexuals dying without biological children "advances" natural selection is absurd since nature has no master plan that it is working toward (and the statement borders on bigotry).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, If you think about it.Considering that humans are realistically killing the planet and endangering the survival of the species as of modern day, it is possible that by being gay and limiting the overall population, you are actually securing resources and increasing homo sapiens ultimate survival. So really, its currently advantages and theoretically adaptive to be gay :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woops, I'm high and thought you were arguing that it wasn't adaptive. Nevermind haha

      Delete
    2. lol, alturism? You're letting the muslims breed... we need a Gay fighting core against islam. At least take the sperm and cup it into lezbo's vags. Whatever the fuck it takes.

      I'm Ramadone with this fucking holiday

      - MT

      Delete
  7. Hey OP,
    I read this time magazine once that was interesting. http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/
    Also, I once read that sisters, aunts, and mothers of people who are gay tend to have more children than those of straight men. So, there is a theory that these women have more reproductive success. Also, It could be a hormonal exposure thing, as the more older brothers you have the more likely you aer to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1 I was going to talk about the exact same. Some evolutionary psychologists theorise that gay people become more connected and helpful to their families and thus become a secondary caregiver, helping the survival of siblings' progeny.

      Naturally, this advantage that increases the fitness of our species is less relevant with the advent of gay marriage, but oh well!

      Delete
  8. No, if a gene causes an individual to contribute their genes less to the next generation, it is less likely to continue existing through time. It doesn't make sense. You need to stop thinking of "nature" as some entity that is CONSCIOUSLY self-correcting. Things that propogate themselves tend to continue to exist because anything that doesn't propogate itself, well, doesn't, so it's gone. It may be that there are a lot of genes or whatever involved in homosexuality that are, more importantly, positive traits for human propogation, when separate, but if they come together it might influence embryonic development in such a way that the person is gay or whatever. These might not be in ways you expect, it might not be like "a gene for liking hugs from the same sex!" or something ridiculous like that, you have to remember that genes mostly code for proteins which are important in the biochemical structure of a cell or might regulate the expression of different genes. This is assuming it's genetic, I don't really know.

    It makes no sense that gay genes are adaptive *due to reducing the population*. This is the complete antithesis to "adaptive." If gay genes are adaptive, it might be because of indirectly increasing the contribution from blood relatives like #7 is saying.

    This is coming from a lesbian, btw. I love being gay. Being gay is great. Maybe there is some adaptive reason it exists [like 7 says] or maybe it's just a coincidence because of some adaptive genes that fall together make someone gay, or maybe a bit of both, or maybe it isn't genetic at all. But natural selection, evolution, and nature are not some entity [or entities] that 'cares' if you're being 'altruistic' by not having kids, it's literally just that genes inside of people that shit out many clones of themselves become more frequent than genes inside of people who shit out fewer or none at all.

    ReplyDelete