[vyper]

Interesting side topic:
 I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?

[Rictor]

Hmm, I'm not so sure that romance is a dress or whatever, a charade. I think that love has become, or I assume that it has *become* since animals don't AFAIK exibit love, part of human nature.

Even if you and your spouse are incapable of procreating, or even if you just have no intention to, love iws one of the most powerful and dare I say, basic emotions. I mean basic as in, when you start stripping away logic and reason, and start going towards animal nature, I would say love would be one of the last things to go.

I think that homosexuality is not so much part of the procreation instinct as it is the pleasure instinct. Obviously, two people of the same sex aren't going to be procreating, so I think that its part of the human instinct that finds sex pleasurable. My theory is that, without any social inhibitions and conditioning, people are naturally bi. Of course, I find the thought of sex with a man disgusting, and so I guess to most of you ('cept anon and Tiara), but I'm not really certain that I was born that way. Kids generally have much less inhibitions about who they're "playing around with" than adults, so it stands to reason that its society that imposes the "straight" view on people.

[Bobboau]

sex is used as a socal bond in many socal primate speiciese, most notably the bonobo, second most closely related primate.
and given that gayity has been taboo in many civilisations it's easy to see how a gay gene could show up a lot more often in our speices, if your gay and it's genetic, but you act straight becase getting burned at the stake just isn't your thing, odds are that your gay gene is going to get passed on a lot more than it otherwise would, ironic no?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by vyper
Interesting side topic:
 I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?

Cause nature doesn't work for the good of the species or the good of the individual. You ask why would nature allow it to exist? Well why does nature allow genetic diseases like Huntingdon's or other genetic diseases?

[Bobboau]

eh, generaly it doesn't, we're defying nature a whole lot, we live three or four times longer than were suposed to and nobodys reproductive futures are effected by there genetics anymore.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by vyper
Interesting side topic:
I cannot honestly understand homosexuality, in any way. I don't understand how it's happened. Sex in general existed for the continuation of the species (however we dress it up with romance), so why does nature allow a practise which stops procreation in an individual human?

Homosexuality isn't just limited to Human beings. And from that we can conclude that it is in fact somewhat natural as it also occurs in species that only have instinct and no intelligence to speak of.

And 'nature', as you call it, doesn't 'allow' stuff. It doesn't control living beings. Yes, they are a part of it, but not under the control of nature.

If we and every living being were, then why do we murder eachother? Why would we go to war? Why would certain people rape others 'for fun'?

In my view, Humans are above nature in the sense of individuality. We can choose to be something or not to be. We can choose to do or not to do something. But yet, we are so stupid that instead of actually using that gift to prosper, we use it to kill eachother. To fight for no real reason. We designed weapons to destroy the world 50 times over. I don't see any other animal do that.

Also Vyper, you don't have to understand homosexuality. Like many things in life, you cannot understand certain things. Just don't be an ass about it.

[Bobboau]

I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.

Well, if there is a gay gene it might just be recessive in some way that only causes it to become 'active' in certain combinations... y'know, the same way someone can be red-haired if there parents are both black haired (or something like that).  Possibly in a similar way as to how people can end up with extra X or Y chromosomes.  

Of course, if bisexuality was common in the early days (i.e. of humanity), then it's possible a recessive 'gay gene' was spread out amongst the small population and has remained ever since.

Or even simply a common mutation of the genes which control the procreation drive and whatnot.

(Albeit, genetics aren't my strong point)

[vyper]

[q]I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.[/q]

Exactly, because unless it can be argued that it benefits human evolution and continuation of the species, it's no more a part of normality than the Diabetes that means I have to inject insulin each day. It's a mistake on nature's part.

Btw, I'm making a theoretical argument so no flaming about this statement ok?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]I think the question he was asking was what sort of evolutionary reason explains it, it does seem like something that would get removed from the gene pool quite fast.[/q]

Exactly, because unless it can be argued that it benefits human evolution and continuation of the species, it's no more a part of normality than the Diabetes that means I have to inject insulin each day. It's a mistake on nature's part.

Btw, I'm making a theoretical argument so no flaming about this statement ok?

Well, we don't even know if there is a gay gene, let alone what the effect of it is.  On and individual level, though, it's not damaging to a person in the way any genetically inherited flaw is.  Evolution, after all, is based around the survival of the fittest - those with defective genes reproduce less (for various reasons), which the gay gene would not really impact on a physical level.

 i.e. other than changing the persons sexual preference, it doesn't affect their ability to reproduce in any way.  If a homosexual person wants to have children, there is no genetic barrier to it.

[vyper]

[q]If a homosexual person wants to have children, there is no genetic barrier to it.[/q]

No genetic barrier no, but a practical one. Without medical intervention to create a child it's impossible since they have no motivation to copulate with a member of the opposite sex.

[diamondgeezer]

All the homophobes I've ever discussed the matter with have given the Adam-and-Steve 'argument'. Hurrah for religion.

Dude at work was explaining how he can't resist the urge to beat up gay people. I pointed out that if we turned the clock back forty or fifty years he'd be getting the beatings due to his black skin. He countered this with 'gayness is just wrong'...

[Tiara]

Humanity is just wrong

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Funny how gay marriage continues to piss of so many people. It's just incomprehensible.

Ever since Belgium legalised gay marriage last year the issue hasn't really come up again. Two men or two women marrying is not something worthy of news after the first few times (after that it gets reduced to two people marrying, and after a while, maybe two people getting a divorce). People get married every day, big deal.  

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Funny how gay marriage continues to piss of so many people. It's just incomprehensible.

Ever since Belgium legalised gay marriage last year the issue hasn't really come up again. Two men or two women marrying is not something worthy of news after the first few times (after that it gets reduced to two people marrying, and after a while, maybe two people getting a divorce). People get married every day, big deal.  

Finally some one who understands Is it really so hard to comprehend that the government or society in general has exactly **** to say about what people do as long as it doesn't affect others?

If two people want to marry, regardless of gender, let them. Nobody is forcing you to be a witness, part of it or even to hang out with them.

And for peopl waving the 'it's just wrong' argument around... There are A LOT of things that make a gay marriage look like a divine event.

Hell, when it came on the news here in Holland for the first time it was portrait and seen as a good thing in the name of personal and social freedom. I really can't see how people just refuse to acknowledge that it is a fact of life and that you won't get it to go away just by saying they can't get married. It's just 100% plain stupidity.

[vyper]

I love how anything you believe to be correct is a fact of life to be accepted Tiara, while everyone else's opinion are a case of stupidity.

No wonder you keep thinking you win the arguments on here.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by vyper
I love how anything you believe to be correct is a fact of life to be accepted Tiara, while everyone else's opinion are a case of stupidity.

No wonder you keep thinking you win the arguments on here.

Yes, and you are a moron.

Just because 'certain' people are as thick headed that they can't accept simple facts of life like gay marriage doesn't mean I have to be like that.

My opinion (Note: opinion, not fact) is that they are wrong 100%. You can't erase a fact of life, and gay people are a fact of life, just by making something illigal. If anything, it has the exact opposite effect.

I hope that you got that, nitwit. And I also hope that you can see that I litterally hate people being so stupid when it concerns issues like this. People that want to limit social and personal freedom are the ones that don't belong. Not gay people.

[vyper]

Here I was engaging in a debate about the slightly more scientific side of things and you have to bring personal feelings into it into it...

[q]Yes, and you are a moron. [/q]

Thanks.

[karajorma]

Time for a more detailed answer.

Natural selection does not select the best genes for a species or for an individual. Due to the way NS works selection occurs at a genetic level. All the genes care about is propagating copies of themselves. If the surrounding enviroment is good for that set of genes then they will get passed on. If the genes have an effect that causes them to be less likely to be passed on then natural selection will slowly prune those genes away.

I'll bet only a few people noticed the important words in that - surrounding enviroment.

The fact is that due to the fact that gay people have needed to keep themselves in the closet there hasn't been much of a selection pressure against being gay. Sure there is a minor pressure against it because lots of gay men and women die single rather than get into a hetroisexual relationship but enough didn't to help pass on the gene. Also notice that even though the gene may not have been expressed it may be possible to cary it. IF there is a gay gene your brothers and sisters have a 50% chance of carrying it even if they are completely straight.

In addition to this they may be some qualities to being gay that have helped nullify the selection pressure against it. For instance gay men  are supposedly less prone to violence than straight men. I've got no figures to back that up but if true the fact that they are less likely to have gotten themselves killed in wars and bar brawls could have been enough to even the scales.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by vyper
Here I was engaging in a debate about the slightly more scientific side of things and you have to bring personal feelings into it into it...

Because to me this is personal. I have friends that are gay. And when people start sprouting utter bull**** about their way of life it pisses me off quite a bit.

Anyway, in your 'scientific' side, socio-political studies litterally point out that the social and political repurcussions in a modern society that come with limiting social freedoms like this, are detriment to a nation as a whole.

The only true reason for such things happening is either bigotry or religion. I condemn bigotry to the fullest but I just cannot comprehend that a religion that supposedly worships an all-loving god would exclude other Human beings just because their way of life differs from theirs. This, in a nutshell, is basically why Atheism is growing around the globe and most notably in the Western world.