Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again and will the rise of homosexuality cause human

AGD said:
Ultimately these things don't really matter.
Click to expand...

I agree, ultimately it doesn't really matter, but how we react to it does, which what I was trying to get at in my post, not knowing is part of the challenge imo, when we learn to overcome this corner of diversity the 'why or how' becomes less important, as it's already served it's purpose.
 
ShaolinDreams said:
I agree with almost everything you say but your first point about it not being a choice, i dont think its as straight cut as that i think it can be a choice as well. Even though there's some evidence suggesting there maybe some signs of our sexuality in our genetic makeup but there still is no definitive proof that a "gay gene" exists. I can believe that some people do have this genetic makeup difference but i dont believe every single gay person has it.
Click to expand...

What you believe is irrelevant. What do you have evidence for?

You are creating a false dichotomy in which the only options are a single gene that causes homosexuality or that homosexuality is a choice. Those are not the only possibilities. Environmental factors are a possible explanation (e.g. conditions in the womb during gestation). Multiple genes are a possible explanation - genes don't necessarily work in isolation.

As for being a choice...it's usually been socially unacceptable, often been illegal and quite often punishable by death, but it's always been present. Why would people choose it? Your argument has no evidence and isn't logical.

People with some degree of bisexuality can choose to act on only heterosexual or homosexual desires, but that's not the same thing. I could choose to drink tea and never drink coffee, but that wouldn't change the fact that I like both.

Evolution is the adaption of a living thing over time to it's environment and conditions so it can survive and continue the cycle of life, having a gay gene would totally go against that. If 99% of the world population had the "gay gene", we would be in serious trouble wouldn't we? How would you pass on a "gay gene" anyway?
Click to expand...

If 99% of the population was homosexual, it still wouldn't necessarily matter all that much in terms of maintaining population. There are plenty of people who are homosexual but who are physically capable of heterosex if they have enough motivation for it (such as having a baby) and artificial insemination is possible without modern technology. We associate the two because AI is used when there are fertility problems, but they are different things. If there aren't fertility problems, you could do it without any technology at all. We wouldn't have the massive population increase we've had in the last 100 years, but we'd be able to maintain population and continue the species.

If homosexuality is purely genetic (and remember that it doesn't have to be in order to be unchosen) then I can think of a couple of ways it could be passed on:

1) It could be caused by a particular combination of genes, each of which has some benefit individually. Those versions of the genes would be naturally selected for those benefits, which would tend to keep them in the gene pool. The small minority of cases in which someone gets a full set and is homosexual wouldn't result in those versions of the genes being selected out of the gene pool.

2) The gay uncle hypothesis. For most of the existence of humanity, people lived in small groups of hunter-gatherers. Hunters would be away for days on hunting trips (persistence hunting antelopes and suchlike using clubs and sharpened sticks is not a quick job). Other men would be wanted at the base to guard the women and children, provide consistent male (and masculine) role models for the children, etc. If those men were gay, it's plausible that it would increase the amount of success of the hunting trips by making the men out hunting less likely to fail and/or be killed by being distracted by worrying about their women banging the men and less likely to cut the hunting trip short to rush home to stop it. The homosexual men might plausibly have a good social status as a result of their usefulness to the tribe and they'd be an option for women who wanted babies without a husband, so it's plausible that natural selection (in the form of mate selection) would favour them enough to keep the homosexuality genes in the gene pool (if it is a matter of genes alone and not environment).

It's not wrong to be homosexual but i still say it's not right either, just accept it happens. Being straight is the natural order of life.
Click to expand...

So is being right handed, using the same definition of "the natural order of life", but would you say it's not right to be left handed or ambidextrous to any significant extent?

If not, then what's the difference? Logically, handedness is considerably more important than sexual orientation because it has genuine relevance to many things and sexual orientation is only genuinely relevant in sex and sexual relationships and only on an individual scale (i.e. whether or not a specific person is interested in sex or a sexual relationship with you).
 
asim18 said:
There's no way homo/hetero is defined by genetics. If you got the sperm of a gay man and fertilised the egg of a lesbian the child would simply not be guaranteed homosexual.
Click to expand...

Genetics is more complicated than you think it is. The conclusion you make in the first sentence is a result of your lack of knowledge of genetics. It's not the conclusion that follows from the evidence you describe in the second sentence.
 
Angilion said:
Genetics is more complicated than you think it is. The conclusion you make in the first sentence is a result of your lack of knowledge of genetics. It's not the conclusion that follows from the evidence you describe in the second sentence.
Click to expand...

Okay, I never claimed to be an expert and I'm not stubborn with my personal ideas or assumptions, this very thread has already driven me to expand my knowledge on several topics and swayed my confusion on others.

Thanks for taking the time to type the post above :)
 
Last edited:
I hope in 5000 years people can love who they want to love without being pigeon-holed.

Would save a whole lot of trouble.

Also, strange all the gays you mention in the op are comedians.
 
asim18 said:
Okay, I never claimed to be an expert and I'm not stubborn with my personal ideas or assumptions, this very thread has already driven me to expand my knowledge on several topics and swayed my confusion on others.

Thanks for taking the time to type the post above :)
Click to expand...

To be fair, the whole OP was just mind-numbingly yet hilariously stupid on just about every level I can think of.
 
Last edited:
I had a good laugh at the OP too, but it's important to acknowledge how reasonable and civil asim18 has been in this thread, and how he has acknowledged that those with a different view have a point and he is willing to learn.

How often does that happen on the internet?
 
i dream for a future were all humans, no matter gay or straight can get a (Gillette)mac-10 in < 3 mins. brap brap forest gate massive.
 
I stumbled upon this video again earlier which I'd first seen about a year ago... Personally I found it rather moving - it's not quite on topic but very relevant to ongoing discussions about marriage equality.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom