A scientific View on Homosexuality

hello? McFly!? think!

this is what you wrote ^

this was in the article you gave me, which directly contradicts what you just said....hmmmm

 

I'm just happy to be here

 

not a mystake at all, but one of natures many, so far inadiqute, but it'll hit on one or more that work yet, ways to attempt to correct the imballance of excessive human population.

while i personally find the concept slightly distaseful for myself, more power to those who'se good fortune it is not to.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Dude, he did talk about lesbians. We're just regular women who want attention, apparently.

 

I saw an interesting article about the possibility of masculanized/demasculanized hearing patterns and a link to gaiety.

 

many animals will turn homosexual inan overpopulated enviornment. usually when most of the male die off theyll again seek females.perhaps the world needs to have faggots to lower the population.

 

darwins reasons your claiming to look at this scientificaly & spouting all sorts of nonsence

from a purely darwinian standpoint wouldnt homosexuality be the perfect solution to overpopulation? & in a world incapable of sustaining the population growth of humans shouldnt we instead of working towards curing this horrible birth deffect, cultivate it instead till the population isat a more managable level?
by attempting to wipe out homosexuality youd be guaranteeing extinction
the fact is way more people are homosexuals then admit it even to themselves, so creatting a society that was completely accepting of it would reduce population growth drasticaly, & give our species hope for survival

 

First of all, I like you. Posting the exact opposite of what nearly everyone believes on this forum is commendable.

That being said, I tend to disagree with you. Fetuses do NOT start out as female. Any understanding of chromosomal functions will readily explain the situation.

Not only that, but I don't believe that homosexuality in itself is a genetic flaw at all. The root of all cases seems to be purely psychological. That is not to say that certain inherited traits don't assist in the divergence to homosexuality, but it should be clarified that no gene in itself, nor any amalgamation thereof, will produce a homosexual being. I'd be able to find many effeminate qualities in a gay man also present in myself, a heterosexual.

This thread has exposed a little paradox that I hadn't realized: Evolution can't evolve.

If concepts could be transmitted genetically then your theory might make sense, yarapario. The parents must strongly desire that their children never reproduce. In that case the developing fetus would develop with the notion that it would need to censor itself from ever having offspring.

A scary thought. Controlled by society before birth.

But that would mean that the families must have wanted their children to be gay. The fact that many parents who wished their children to raise families had gay children kind of undercuts that entire argument.

Sorry, no genetics involved.

 

I agree that this is totally psychological...

Like how when kids that could be straight get raped, then later they are gay.

Doesn't mean they were born gay, it means psycologically they became gay.

 

About the concept that evolution does not see what is good for the earth...you do not have to limit your example to just the human race. If you look at the rat, you find an animal that has found a means of countering overpopulation. I'm not saying that there are just enough rats in the world... But it has developed a few mechanisms to ensure its own doom. For example, a rat will grow to become enormous, if not ensured a limited lifespan. Over time it will devolop cancerous cells and then die... Or, after a period of time without proper dental hiygene (in regards to a rodent) its teeth would grow long enough to impale itself. If the human solution to overpopulation be homosexuality, than so be it... At least this way of life is more satisfying to some, can bring happiness to so many, and allows progression for our species in more ways than just invovling procreation.

My felt opinion of the opening statement is that this person may be too biased to scientifically support some of these theories in that he may want to believe them a little too much based on faith. To say a homosexual is brain damaged definetly sounds like too much "bull". It reminds me of the youth groups from local churches that want to line the main streets of town perhaps in the pouring rain to protest issues they are too young to really understand or too morally protected to have faced in their own lives. I would say to this person as I believe about these kids that you are full of bunk and need to chill out a bit...