Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on June 01, 2010, 10:42:52 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo77w_71hA0
Watching this right now, and I thought you guys might be interested. Here's the backdrop - Uganda has/is introducing a bill which will outlaw homosexuality, and make it a crime punishable by death, and as it turns out, American fundagelicals had a major role in all of this.
-
GODDAMMIT!
My mom's a missionary, guess where she goes all the time (and where she went last night)? I'm pretty sure she and her group of people have had nothing to do with this, but i can only speculate knowing my mothers disagreement of gay people getting married. Then again she's not a spreader of hate mongering. You know, you're usual subtle and kept on the down low christian hate.
Why am i angry? I'm only pretty sure and not absolutely sure. I like to know what's up with things before i support them. For missionary related purposes, i extended the life of the ssd in her netbook, i made it faster, use less power, has all the updates, programs she wants and needs, the fact that she runs linux so she's even better off, and then i turned her netbook into a keyboard synthesizer. The keys on her netbook is like a piano now. Any sound affects she wants, playable like a normal piano (via doing the rows of keys on a piano on the netbook keyboard), and can plug into any speaker system
Why do people who believe in god need to hate on others? So, uganda is not like iran? Except this didn't come about from islam, but christianity. Send nukes to uganda (for them making stupid laws via retarded influence), but not until my mothers back?
-
Muslim nation, Jewish nation, Christian nation... they're all the same. A religious majority is opposite freedom.
-
Why do people who believe in god need to hate on others?
Speaking as one who believes in God, this blanket statement implication is false.
-
Why do people who believe in god need to hate on others?
Speaking as one who believes in God, this blanket statement is false.
I wouldn't say that I believe 100%, but even as a Catholic, I feel one must admit that strong religious beliefs have historically led to bad things eventually.
-
I wouldn't say that I believe 100%, but even as a Catholic, I feel one must admit that strong religious beliefs have historically led to bad things eventually.
Fanaticism leads to bad things eventually. It doesn't matter if it is based on religion or not.
-
But religion gets a pass as a perfectly normal thing to be fanatical about. That's what makes it dangerous.
-
Let's inject some facts into this discussion, rather than jump to unsupported conclusions.
First of all, homosexuality itself has been illegal in Uganda for more than 100 years, so this law is nothing new. Secondly, this law is not a single-minded vendetta against homosexuals. To put it in context, it comes shortly after Uganda passed laws against cannibalism and sex tourism (http://allafrica.com/stories/200904070181.html). Uganda is one of the top third-world countries targeted by sex tourism, so this comes as part of an overall campaign to stamp out the sex trade and reduce the epidemic of HIV and child slavery.
Thirdly, it is instructive to reference the law in question (http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf). Look at page five: the death penalty is very specifically authorized for the cases of aggravated rape, specifically child rape, rape of the disabled, incest, and rape when the offender is HIV-positive. And the death penalty is only applied upon conviction in a court of law. So anyone speaking out specifically against the death penalty as applied under this law, is specifically defending a convicted pedophile rapist. That's hard ground to defend.
I should also note that this law is widely supported by the Ugandan people. So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
-
Well, while we're reading the law directly...
Offense of homosexuality:
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other
sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a
person of the same sex;
(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to
imprisonment for life.
That's page five, and that's imprisonment FOR LIFE for consensual sexual activity between adults.
Aggravated homosexuality:
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or <<< I'm not clear as to whether this is just repeated consensual homosexual activity or if it is repeated "aggravated" homosexuality, but it looks like the former
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or
thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have
unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
Page six...
(1) A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality (thats consensual sexual activity between two adults) commits a felony and is liable on conviction to imprisonment seven years.
I should also note that this law is widely supported by the Ugandan people. So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
Who are we to try to stop FGM elsewhere in Africa? Who are we to stop another country from legalizing slavery? Shut the **** up, majority approval doesn't make something right.
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Why do people who believe in god need to hate on others?
Why do people who don't, feel the need to demonize those who do?
The answer: People are bastards. It doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They're still bastards.
Shut the **** up, majority approval doesn't make something right.
Wait.... Aren't you in the majority, on this?
And telling someone who offers an opposing view from yours to "Shut [...] up" doesn't make your argument correct. In point of fact, it makes you look like a complete asshat.
Just saiyajin.
-
Shut the **** up, majority approval doesn't make something right.
Wait.... Aren't you in the majority, on this?
And telling someone who offers an opposing view from yours to "Shut [...] up" doesn't make your argument correct. In point of fact, it makes you look like a complete asshat.
Just saiyajin.
Depends what you're talking about. Am I in the majority in my city? Maybe slightly. Am I in the majority in my state? Probably not. Am I in the majority in the world? Certainly not.
And I don't care. For the most part, there's no point in reasoning with religious people. They've already deicded reason isn't important to them.
-
But religion gets a pass as a perfectly normal thing to be fanatical about. That's what makes it dangerous.
Yes. Just like atheism. A fundamentalist is always a fundamentalist. Yes, there are fundamentalist atheist too. And they usually think it's alright in their part.
To put it in context, it comes shortly after Uganda passed laws against cannibalism and sex tourism (http://allafrica.com/stories/200904070181.html). Uganda is one of the top third-world countries targeted by sex tourism, so this comes as part of an overall campaign to stamp out the sex trade and reduce the epidemic of HIV and child slavery.
It's been decades since the last time HIV was confined to a small portion of the population with certain sexual tendencies. Outlawing homosexuality isn't going to help at all, as far as I can see. Nor is (nor was) such a measure acceptable.
I admit I haven't read the law, but if it indeed tries to penalize homosexuality... well... it will be futile at best.
NOTE: Aw, crap. Now I'm going to get flamed by both sides of the discussion. :rolleyes:
And you guys keep replying while I'm redacting! :eek2:
Why do people who believe in god need to hate on others?
Why do people who don't, feel the need to demonize those who do?
The answer: People are bastards. It doesn't matter if they believe in God or not. They're still bastards.
What he said. Though, to be fair, it's not every atheist. Just the intolerant and immature ones. Because they're intolerant and immature... like every other fundamentalist! ^^
And I don't care. For the most part, there's no point in reasoning with religious people. They've already deicded reason isn't important to them.
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
-
fundamentalist atheist
lol
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
Yep, I'm intolerant and full of hatred because I make fun of people who believe consensual sexual activity between two informed adults is a sin and deserving of death or life imprisonment just because their genitals are too similar.
-
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
Yep, I'm intolerant and full of hatred because I make fun of people who believe consensual sexual activity between two informed adults is a sin and deserving of death or life imprisonment just because their genitals are too similar.
No, you're intolerant and full of hatred because you think just because someone believes there's a god they also believe homosexuality is a crime.
-
i think of it this way, gay people aren't going anywhere, they have always existed, they will in all likelihood continue to exist. if they found a way to make people stop being gay, then people who are gay will reject it. full on eugenics would most likely fail at eradicating it. therefore its pointless to do anything about it (regardless of your opinion on gays). enforcing anti-gay laws takes resources away from enforcing laws against real sexual predators such as rapists and child molesters (same can be said for anti drug laws, taking resources away from catching more serious offenders).
-
i think of it this way, gay people aren't going anywhere, they have always existed, they will in all likelihood continue to exist. if they found a way to make people stop being gay, then people who are gay will reject it. full on eugenics would most likely fail at eradicating it. therefore its pointless to do anything about it (regardless of your opinion on gays). enforcing anti-gay laws takes resources away from enforcing laws against real sexual predators such as rapists and child molesters
:yes:
As far as I know, some theories say that there's even a biological component on homosexuality, so good luck trying to "cure" it. :lol:
Though honestly, biological or not, it's their right. And seriously, states are supposed to be doing more useful things with their (ours) money than defining what sexual activities are correct, moral, or lawful between consenting adults.
-
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
Yep, I'm intolerant and full of hatred because I make fun of people who believe consensual sexual activity between two informed adults is a sin and deserving of death or life imprisonment just because their genitals are too similar.
No, you're intolerant and full of hatred because you think just because someone believes there's a god they also believe homosexuality is a crime.
Well, I didn't write their holy book.
-
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
Yep, I'm intolerant and full of hatred because I make fun of people who believe consensual sexual activity between two informed adults is a sin and deserving of death or life imprisonment just because their genitals are too similar.
No, you're intolerant and full of hatred because you think just because someone believes there's a god they also believe homosexuality is a crime.
Well, I didn't write their holy book.
*facepalm*
-
Up to this point, I used to believe you were a reasonable person yourself, but now I see you're full of hatred and intolerance. Some day, you will realize the absurdity and unnecessary hostility of such comments and baseless generalizations, just like I did. I hope you do, because you have a lot of potential to waste it.
Yep, I'm intolerant and full of hatred because I make fun of people who believe consensual sexual activity between two informed adults is a sin and deserving of death or life imprisonment just because their genitals are too similar.
No, you're intolerant and full of hatred because you think just because someone believes there's a god they also believe homosexuality is a crime.
Well, I didn't write their holy book.
You aren't grasping it. Only fundamentalists believe in every word out of a book and every word of some guy's interpretation of it, while denying every evidence presented to them, and refusing to question anything some organization does.
Churches, priests, they are all humans or are formed by humans. Humans who make mistakes and commit sins (and sometimes even crimes).
The holy books? They have been translated so many times that taking them by word is foolish. In fact, I don't think you were supposed to take them by word even in their original place and time.
Am I going to hell for this way of believing? Well, I don't know. I know I'm a terrible person, with a lot of mistakes in my past to regret, so probably I'm going to hell anyway. But if I can believe in something that makes me feel better and helps me be a better person, embracing the good, humanitarian parts, and rejecting the rest, you can be damn sure I will. Maybe I'm right and they are wrong. Who knows? I'll have to wait until the end to see.
-
There is no hell. That's why we invented jail.
-
So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
...Seriously?
-
There is no hell. That's why we invented jail.
That's what you think. And I respect it. And maybe you're right. Again, I'll have to wait until the end and see. Though I'd seriously prefer to have to wait a lot for that answer. :lol:
Though, even if hell exists, jail is still necessary.
-
i'm kinda old school and like the pagan version of hell, you know where everyone gets to go regardless of how good they were, or how few evil things they did, or how well the adhered to the tenants of a specific religion, or even if they picked the correct religion. regardless of which version of hell i like, the concept seems arbitrary and is simply an established way to keep people in line (which christianity obviously undermines with its get out of hell free card). i really dont care one way or the other. just feed my corpse to the worms and let entropy do its job.
-
There is no hell. That's why we invented jail.
There's only one real way to find out. I simply suggest you don't try to find out with Koolaid...
-
It'd sure take most of the hate out of the thread.
-
I don't get it. :(
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Taking the lords name in vain. Or am i?
I believe the people who fight in the name of god unjustly are actually the ones who took the name in vain. Example, sort of like alquaida getting recruits by using "fighting for god" as an excuse or something to get more people bombs.
EDIT: FIXED
-
You mean 'vain'. Related to 'vanity'. Unrelated to 'sanity' or 'sean hannity'. Wait, I'm not so sure about that last one.
-
I should also note that this law is widely supported by the Ugandan people. So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
Given that most of them give a free pass to wife beating, do you really want to say that?
Evangelical christianity has been very busy the last 30 years spreading its poison, not just in the US but in some parts of the third world. Unfortunately in those areas there is no firmly established progressive element to moderate their fundementalism, allowing them to do this type of thing where they could never get away with it in the US. Read here for more (http://www.iheu.org/node/1754)
On the flip side of the coin in the islamic world there's also growing fundementalism in the form of wahhabism. So that leaves the rest of us crushed in the middle. Interesting times.
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Taking the lords name in vein. Or am i?
Oh! Keep doing it. It will be a long stay in hell, so I don't want to be alone. :lol:
-
full on eugenics would most likely fail at eradicating it. therefore its pointless to do anything about it
ironically if it weren't for thousands of years of civilisation forcing people with gay tendencies to have straight sex homosexuality would probly have self selected it's self out of exsistance.
-
I should also note that this law is widely supported by the Ugandan people. So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
We do that all the time, my friend. Certainly the missionaries involved did.
I don't see any particular reason this law should treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. Unfortunately it does.
If only there were a humane intervention method that actually worked to help places like this. :(
-
I should also note that this law is widely supported by the Ugandan people. So who are we to pass judgement on how they should or should not govern themselves?
So I take it you are against using US money to tell the Ugandans how to govern themselves and will be writing a letter to your senator complaining about it then? :p
-
full on eugenics would most likely fail at eradicating it. therefore its pointless to do anything about it
ironically if it weren't for thousands of years of civilisation forcing people with gay tendencies to have straight sex homosexuality would probly have self selected it's self out of exsistance.
doesn't that conflict with the current explanation for why it has been bred out of existence all by itself?
-
full on eugenics would most likely fail at eradicating it. therefore its pointless to do anything about it
ironically if it weren't for thousands of years of civilisation forcing people with gay tendencies to have straight sex homosexuality would probly have self selected it's self out of exsistance.
doesn't that conflict with the current explanation for why it has been bred out of existence all by itself?
many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Taking the lords name in vain. Or am i?
Oh! Keep doing it. It will be a long stay in hell, so I don't want to be alone. :lol:
GODDAMNIT is hardly taking anything in vain compared to those who commit genocide claiming to be doing god's work. I've certainly GODDAMNED myself this time :p
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Taking the lords name in vain. Or am i?
Oh! Keep doing it. It will be a long stay in hell, so I don't want to be alone. :lol:
GODDAMNIT is hardly taking anything in vain compared to those who commit genocide claiming to be doing god's work. I've certainly GODDAMNED myself this time :p
satan is my lord and id never take his name in vain goddamnit!
-
satan is my lord and id never take his name in vain goddamnit!
Oh my Satan!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
satan is my lord and id never take his name in vain goddamnit!
Oh my Satan!!!!!!!!!!!!
I demand that "Satan Worshipper" be added to your title. :rolleyes:
-
many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.
I heard my cue! =)
The "gay gene" theory has been thoroughly debunked. Best theories at present deal with a combination of behavioural genetics (including one or more of the three types of gene-environment interactions) and androgen/estrogen balances during early development. Physical sex characteristics are only loosely linked to sexual attraction cues, and sexual attraction cues and gender identity are strongly tied to hormone dosage, while physical sex characteristics are entirely genetic.
There is a strong argument to be made for some sort of multi-gene recessive characteristic (with potential for an epigenetic mechanism in place) being at least partially responsible for homosexuality, because it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has development in virtually all mammals and has significant benefits for large social groups of individuals of the species.
-
many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.
I heard my cue! =)
The "gay gene" theory has been thoroughly debunked. Best theories at present deal with a combination of behavioural genetics (including one or more of the three types of gene-environment interactions) and androgen/estrogen balances during early development. Physical sex characteristics are only loosely linked to sexual attraction cues, and sexual attraction cues and gender identity are strongly tied to hormone dosage, while physical sex characteristics are entirely genetic.
There is a strong argument to be made for some sort of multi-gene recessive characteristic (with potential for an epigenetic mechanism in place) being at least partially responsible for homosexuality, because it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has development in virtually all mammals and has significant benefits for large social groups of individuals of the species.
So it's natural and good, just like sex. No wonder the religious folks hate it.
-
many things could cause homosexuality. my guesses would be either a combination of genetics and with an environmental or social trigger (similar to certain mental illnesses like schizophrenia), or a complex interaction of several genes. it could also be a chemical trigger or a commonly recurring mutation. it could even be something completely unrelated to genetics. i very much doubt its a single "gay gene" that causes it, because that would have been bred out. one must also consider that there were points in history where homosexuals was tolerated and was very common, as well as homosexuality observed in animals. seems like nature has had plenty of opportunities to breed it out.
I heard my cue! =)
The "gay gene" theory has been thoroughly debunked. Best theories at present deal with a combination of behavioural genetics (including one or more of the three types of gene-environment interactions) and androgen/estrogen balances during early development. Physical sex characteristics are only loosely linked to sexual attraction cues, and sexual attraction cues and gender identity are strongly tied to hormone dosage, while physical sex characteristics are entirely genetic.
There is a strong argument to be made for some sort of multi-gene recessive characteristic (with potential for an epigenetic mechanism in place) being at least partially responsible for homosexuality, because it seems to be an evolutionary trait that has development in virtually all mammals and has significant benefits for large social groups of individuals of the species.
So it's natural and good, just like sex. No wonder the religious folks hate it.
<insert picture of Picard beheading himself due to the force of that... duh-double facepalm (heavy echo) here>
-
GODDAMMIT!
I see what you did there. :P
Taking the lords name in vain. Or am i?
Oh! Keep doing it. It will be a long stay in hell, so I don't want to be alone. :lol:
GODDAMNIT is hardly taking anything in vain compared to those who commit genocide claiming to be doing god's work. I've certainly GODDAMNED myself this time :p
Bah', don't worry, I was joking. Even if you did took the name of the lord in vain, we aren't supposed to judge others. We're supposed to be too busy with our own souls.
Besides, the definition of what constitutes "taking the name of the Lord in vain" is one of those things nobody has agreed on so far.
satan is my lord and id never take his name in vain goddamnit!
Really, as long as you respect other people's right, you can worship whatever you want. :)
-
To add to MP-Ryan's point:
Homosexuality would never evolve itself out of existence.
Homosexuality is an extremely important trait for the survival of a species, and if it ever vanished - perhaps due to extermination of everyone carrying the heritable components of the trait - it would rapidly mutate back into existence and spread through the population again.
As nuke pointed out, there have also been times throughout history when most people engaged in homosexual behavior of one kind or another. Odds are that almost everyone reading this post would have happily had sex with a man or boy if raised in the appropriate society.
-
To add to MP-Ryan's point:
Homosexuality would never evolve itself out of existence.
Homosexuality is an extremely important trait for the survival of a species, and if it ever vanished - perhaps due to extermination of everyone carrying the heritable components of the trait - it would rapidly mutate back into existence and spread through the population again.
You know, I still don't understand why is it an important trait for the survival of a species. Maybe someone can explain that to me please. :confused:
As nuke pointed out, there have also been times throughout history when most people engaged in homosexual behavior of one kind or another. Odds are that almost everyone reading this post would have happily had sex with a man or boy if raised in the appropriate society.
Yes, I've always suspected that.
-
There are a few mechanisms as to why homosexuality is so important, and why it has evolved in so many thousands of species.
1) Sexually antagonistic selection. A trait may boost reproductive fitness in the females of a species. But both males and females get almost the entire genome, so males receive the trait too. If the trait boosts fitness in females, but causes males to be homosexual, and the net fitness gain is positive, the trait will be selected for and homosexuality will evolve.
2) Inclusive fitness. In a large family, it may be useful to have a few gay men or women who do not have children of their own. Instead of reproducing, they can use their resources to help their siblings reproduce by feeding and defending their offspring. Their genes are indirectly passed on because they share much (50%) of their genome with their siblings, who do reproduce. This is the same principle that allows ant colonies to work. However, it's not clear that this mechanism is still in effect, or whether it necessarily ever has been in humans. More evidence needed.
3) Social bonding. Bisexual behavior allows intrasexual social sexual activity. American Bison and Bighorn sheep have social systems in which male-male mating accounts for nearly half of all sexual activity. Female bonobos, about the same. Homosexuality occurs in thousands of other species as well, to varying degrees.
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
-
Do gay people that do actually have biological kids have more gay kids? What about if they have kids with an opposite sex person is is ALSO gay?
can we do a 'speriment?
-
Do gay people that do actually have biological kids have more gay kids? What about if they have kids with an opposite sex person is is ALSO gay?
can we do a 'speriment?
I don't have any data to that effect, but currently the evidence suggests that the straight siblings of gay men have sex more and younger, which favors the Johnny Depp hypothesis.
-
There are a few mechanisms as to why homosexuality is so important.
1) Sexually antagonistic selection. A trait may boost reproductive fitness in the females of a species. But both males and females get almost the entire genome, so males receive the trait too. If the trait boosts fitness in females, but causes males to be homosexual, and the net fitness gain is positive, the trait will be selected for and homosexuality will evolve.
2) Inclusive fitness. In a large family, it may be useful to have a few gay men or women who do not have children of their own. Instead of reproducing, they can use their resources to help their siblings reproduce by feeding and defending their offspring. Their genes are indirectly passed on because they share much (50%) of their genome with their siblings, who do reproduce. This is the same principle that allows ant colonies to work. However, it's not clear that this mechanism is still in effect, or whether it necessarily ever has been in humans. More evidence needed.
3) Social bonding. Bisexual behavior allows intrasexual social sexual activity. American Bison and Bighorn sheep have social systems in which male-male mating accounts for nearly half of all sexual activity. Female bonobos, about the same. Homosexuality occurs in thousands of other species as well, to varying degrees.
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
Thank you.
-
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive? :wtf:
I dont understand please elaborate.
-
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive? :wtf:
I dont understand please elaborate.
The hypothesis suggests that there is truth to the commonly held stereotype that women love gay men.
-
What about gay women? (Actually gay, obviously, not Katy Perry gay)
-
What about gay women? (Actually gay, obviously, not Katy Perry gay)
You know, I'm hesitant to say that everything that holds for gay men also holds for gay women, though it might be as simple as that.
But there's some evidence that female sexuality and, in particular, female homosexuality work differently than male sexuality and homosexuality. So I want to wait until I know more on the topic.
-
Why is all the research done on men first? Seems like it would make more sense to study female biology first.
-
It seems to be like most laws passed these days, an idea presented as a positive thing, but with a pile of deliberately concealed curtailments on freedom inside them. Not surprised, I doubt the US Fundamentalists had to do much coaxing.
Male homosexuality is investigated first because it's not only a homophobic world, it's a misogynistic one too, women having sex isn't threatening male sexuality as much, at least from the perception of the ignorant. Those who actually stop and think will realise that Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go ;)
-
Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go ;)
Lesbianism is homosexuality. *ducks*
-
Why is all the research done on men first? Seems like it would make more sense to study female biology first.
It's not. But my immediate sources referenced gay men. I just may not have read research on female homosexuality recently.
-
Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is, but there you go ;)
Lesbianism is homosexuality. *ducks*
:lol: I know, I'm just sticking to convention here of Homosexuals and Lesbians to represent gender, since most words for representing homosexuality tend to be appliucable to either gender, which makes a kind of poetic sense :p
Edit: I will add that neither of the Lesbians I know are particularly fond of 'Homosexual' or even 'Lesbian', and prefer to be called Gay if their sexuality is to be referred to :)
-
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive? :wtf:
I dont understand please elaborate.
The hypothesis suggests that there is truth to the commonly held stereotype that women love gay men.
Okay, wait. I have a gay friend, and he is not sexually attractive in any way shape or form (being straight I'm not exactly the best judge of this, but I can tell you he's as dead sexeh as the sexeh Scotsman, and indeed looks quite a lot like him).
-
Those who actually stop and think will realise that Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is
Yes, but lesbianism is hot... at least in theory. :lol:
-
4) My favorite: the Johnny Depp hypothesis. Basically, there are a lot of genes that make you attractive to members of the opposite sex. Get a bunch of these genes, and you're in luck, because they make you 'more feminine' which is attractive to women. Get too many, and you become gay. The notion is that there's a whole bunch of genes which push you closer and closer to the gay tipping point, but also increase your fitness. Sometimes you only get a few, sometimes you get the right balance, sometimes you get a whole load of them and end up homosexual. In this way, all these genes evolve in the population and become more frequent, but as a side effect, homosexuality also sticks around.
Wait so all gay people are sexually attractive? :wtf:
I dont understand please elaborate.
The hypothesis suggests that there is truth to the commonly held stereotype that women love gay men.
Okay, wait. I have a gay friend, and he is not sexually attractive in any way shape or form (being straight I'm not exactly the best judge of this, but I can tell you he's as dead sexeh as the sexeh Scotsman, and indeed looks quite a lot like him).
lrn2statistics
The level of attractiveness across the population is what matters.
-
I don't think you could apply any theory universally, but it is true that homosexuals tend to find it easier to communicate with girls in their teens, because they don't have several gallons of testosterone trying to drop hints in the way that Heterosexual males do, girls who don't pick up on the sexuality will read this as someone who is 'comfortable' around girls, not someone who isn't interested in a sexual relationship, and that will attract them. Often knowing they are gay means that the girl can get a male perspective on certain things in life from a male without having any pressure put on her, the 'Gay Friend' effect.
I've known Gays who wouldn't be considered sexually attractive to women in any way, one of them liked dressing up as Vera Lynn, and yet the number of girls constantly coming round to visit him for a chat, advice or even fashion tips was astonishing.
Those who actually stop and think will realise that Lesbianism is far greater threat to male sexuality than homosexuality is
Yes, but lesbianism is hot... at least in theory. :lol:
As one of my friends put it, the main difference between Male and Female interpretations of Lesbianism is the phrase 'with a man watching' ;)
But yes, in essence, I'm not arguing your point... :nervous:
-
They're not lesbians if they're trying to get a guy off. They're just irritating ****s who should all die.
-
Sez You! :p
Take everything else, but leave the male half of the species their dreams at least! :p
-
Well, you don't decide my sexual fantasies and fetishes. So :p
-
Just informing you. They're not lesbians. They don't even like women most likely. They're just good old-fashioned liars. :P
-
Just informing you. They're not lesbians. They don't even like women most likely. They're just good old-fashioned liars. :P
Let them lie then, you cruel being! :lol: