Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Raging? Its natural to be homophobe.I say allow homo in the military and place them in the front lines . No one cares if they die. Thats the only good use i can come up for them.
You should move to Uganda.
I just watched the news where a college football player was banned from the team for being gay. Lionel of Pix 11 News said that it was wrong, and they should not have banned a very good player for his choices, but then Lionel went on to say that how could it have been a choice, when being gay is not a choice, but who you are.
I'm not sure what to believe at this point, because I do not believe that we are born with a sexual preference, because at that age, the human brain is not developed enough to know what it wants. Which leads me to believe that only later on in life do we choose what we are attracted to.
I believe that much like the rudder steers a ship, the brain steers the body, and to say that it is not a choice would be much like saying that other parts of the body aside from our brains make our choices.
Some say choice, some say gene, which one makes more sense, and if it is a gene, how many gay people actually fall into this medical condition, and how many people prefer same sex over opposite sex due to choice? If of course it could be called a medical condition without being viewed as bigotry. Can we really afford to hold an absolutists stance on either possibility, when there are so many different opinions, and genetic dispositions?
I doubt there is such thing as a 'gay' gene, but what I'd be interested to know is what evolutionary benefit homosexuality confers seeing as homosexuality crops up in many "brainy" species like bonobos and dolphins. I can't imagine a wholly useless trait would appear in so many different, taxonomically staggered animal species.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I doubt there is such thing as a 'gay' gene, but what I'd be interested to know is what evolutionary benefit homosexuality confers seeing as homosexuality crops up in many "brainy" species like bonobos and dolphins. I can't imagine a wholly useless trait would appear in so many different, taxonomically staggered animal species.
A trait doesn't need to be beneficial to stay with the population. So long as there is no specific selective pressure against it, many things that are not useful or beneficial (sometimes even downright detrimental) can stick around in the gene pool.
So long as homosexuality isn't attached to a gene that is selected against (which is highly unlikely given that it is thought to arise from hormonal interactions in the womb currently), there would be no reason why it would stop cropping up.
Originally posted by Omega VisionStops population growth.
I doubt there is such thing as a 'gay' gene, but what I'd be interested to know is what evolutionary benefit homosexuality confers seeing as homosexuality crops up in many "brainy" species like bonobos and dolphins. I can't imagine a wholly useless trait would appear in so many different, taxonomically staggered animal species.
Increases fashion awareness.
Originally posted by Omega Visionwith bonobos there seems to be a social element to it.
I doubt there is such thing as a 'gay' gene, but what I'd be interested to know is what evolutionary benefit homosexuality confers seeing as homosexuality crops up in many "brainy" species like bonobos and dolphins. I can't imagine a wholly useless trait would appear in so many different, taxonomically staggered animal species.
though i don't think the species actually has 'homosexuality' in the same way humans do. they just seem to not really have the same boundaries.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I doubt there is such thing as a 'gay' gene, but what I'd be interested to know is what evolutionary benefit homosexuality confers seeing as homosexuality crops up in many "brainy" species like bonobos and dolphins. I can't imagine a wholly useless trait would appear in so many different, taxonomically staggered animal species.
Maybe it's not the trait itself but the social attitude towards said trait...
I mean in most Western societies,a male in a monogamous relationship is seen as ideal compared to infidelity whereas in the animal kingdom, males are meant to breed with numerous mates to keep their lineage dominant.
So maybe homosexuality could be deemed as no desire to spread one's seeds or little indifference to know one is perceived by society...
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Maybe it's not the trait itself but the social attitude towards said trait...I mean in most Western societies,a male in a monogamous relationship is seen as ideal compared to infidelity whereas in the animal kingdom, males are meant to breed with numerous mates to keep their lineage dominant.
So maybe homosexuality could be deemed as no desire to spread one's seeds or little indifference to know one is perceived by society...
Well there seems to be good reasons attached to monogamous relationships, HIV and various other sexually transmitted diseases that can be contracted from leading a swingers lifestyle, are good reasons to remain faithful.
Originally posted by Esau Cairnthere are other pair bonding animals in nature, though none that i know of which include homosexual pair bonding.
Maybe it's not the trait itself but the social attitude towards said trait...I mean in most Western societies,a male in a monogamous relationship is seen as ideal compared to infidelity whereas in the animal kingdom, males are meant to breed with numerous mates to keep their lineage dominant.
So maybe homosexuality could be deemed as no desire to spread one's seeds or little indifference to know one is perceived by society...
but it's kind of hard to imagine that they 'don't want to spread their genes,' since that's arguably the primary purpose of life. besides, a lot of gay people do want to have their own kids.