It has recently been crossing my mind that homosexuality is a key part of evolution. Fred Phelps, an anti-gay activist proposed the idea the homosexuality is a cure for over-population. I certaintly don't support the anti-gay activist, however to any logical person it can make sense.
I know there were homosexuals throughout history. I also know that its easier to be homosexual in modern day society, thus, it seems there are more homosexuals now than ever. So I was wondering what peoples views were on the idea that Homosexuality could be some type of genetic code that attributes to preventing over-population. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees ( Ibarurri 1895)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/03 18:13
By: Catherine
Status:
that's an interesting thought. but then wouldn't there be an abundance of homosexuals in asia, where overpopulation is an actual concern. in western countries populations are growing and there will come a point (but probably not for a long while) when we are faced with the same overpopulation issues that some other countries are, but there is a bigger presence of homosexuals in western countries now when it's not that big of an issue.
maybe that's where the whole evolution thing is coming ito play. since western civilzations are younger than eastern ones, homosexuals are being used by nature to stop overpopulation before it becomes a problem.
hmmm... now i'm gonna ponder this for a bit. haha.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/04 18:09
By: GNR7600
Status:
Yes, I mean speaking if humans began accumilating at an exponential rate, what would we have to do to create a depression in human population.
I mean we can't just send batches of humans into space and hope they find some new home. I sometimes wonder of every human is imbedded with one universal genetic code that prevents and stops problems like overpopulation.
Unless its just Darwanism and humans just evolve for the sake of adapting to a less luxurious environment. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees ( Ibarurri 1895)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/05 02:14
By: BravoLima
Status:
No, I disagree that homosexuality is an evolution 'advantage'.
To start with, evolution isn't designed, it's a series of changes, the ones that gives the animal the advantage will survive due to survival of the fittest, and so will improve over time. To say that we've evolved to meet a certain situation of over-crowding is like saying that in a few decades, our bodies have evolved to be better at computer literacy.
Evolution would not favour such a 'wholistic' approach such as curbing population numbers. It's nothing as planned and designed as that, it's simply a ravenous force, creating as much life as possible. Besides, overpopulation has only been a problem in countries comparatively recently, and homosexuality has been documented every since documentation has come about.
No, evolution will not curb human population, only culls, genocide and wars will accomplish such goals You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/05 12:06
By: GNR7600
Status:
You would dissagree. BravoLima, you are the devils advocate of gyc, with annoying touch of unconformed sarcasm. Just kididng, sort of It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees ( Ibarurri 1895)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/05 15:11
By: dragon_14
Status:
I would say that it is not an evolutionary trait. My reason for this is that species want to pass on their genes, it is an inherent trait possessed by all species, and a trait that at least some homosexuals have. It would also fail to explain bisexuality. Also it would not really be an overly effective trait since evolution tends to pass on genes by procreation, and this would be a trait that typically could not easily be passed on. I do think it's an interesting idea, one I've actually thought about before. But as far as what I can take from it, which is worth only what it's worth, it doesn't seem to be tenable. Shawn"Dragon_14"
-Senior Manager Operations Department -Training Officer -Forum Assistant Manager TheGYC Chat Service
Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/05 19:06
By: chemical_flare
Status:
Dragon14 and bravo are both correct.
However there is some interesting research exploring the fact that the female sisters of male-homosexuals have more children then woman without a gay relative. This would make homosexuality evolutionarily viable.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/06 16:00
By: msant0816
Status:
A lot of people seem to have this obsession with homosexuality being totally inherent and innate; however, homosexuality may as well be simply another mental process. The human genome has been studied so extensively that a gene for homosexuality would most definitely have been found, or at least hypothesized to exist. At this point, there are absolutely no leads as to the genetic foundation of homosexuality. Therefore, it is logical to look elsewhere. Our mind is where most of our personality is formed. It seems to me as though we are all born not with innate characteristics, but with innate "guidelines," meaning that our minds create the parameters which are then filled in by our life experiences. In other words, nature works hand in hand with nurture, rather than separately. Based on this conclusion, the only revelance evolution would have on the issue is the evolution of the mind. Seeing as though homosexualy has been existent for as long as there have been people, it is apparent that there is no evolutionary basis behind homosexuality.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/07 00:51
By: BravoLima
Status:
'However there is some interesting research exploring the fact that the female sisters of male-homosexuals have more children then woman without a gay relative. This would make homosexuality evolutionarily viable.'
Barely.
If an individual creature has a change in nature, and let's say for example, it's a bad thing. If this very bad thing means that it's brother gets a good thing, then the first individual with the bad thing dies off, with it's problem being bred out of existence. For homosexuality to be 'directly' genetic, it would have to be a benefit for the individual, not for others. If so, the 'others' would live, and the homosexuals would die, killing of the 'homo-gene'.
For this and other reasons, I believe it's not just genetic, though I think that has something to do with it.
And no msant, it's not inevitable that the 'gay-gene', if it existed, would have been found by now, it would be naive to think so. There are still genes being discovered, from research that receives a lot more money than 'homo-science'. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/24 21:29
By: Edengoth
Status:
First off, GNR, congrats on not demonizing anyone to the point of thinking they will never say anything intelligent, even a man so hatable as Phelps. (I myself agree with some of Osama bin Laden's opinions...but, of course, not his methods.)
As for the idea: it is folly to say that any evolutionary change is for this reason or that reason. Reason is born of a change, not the other way around. Good changes survive. (So to say, Catherine, that this would have occured in Asia, is not valid. It would be benificial if it did, but that fact doesn't make it happen.) So gays didn't happen into existance to cut the population back, but finding a purpose like this for our condition is, in my opinion, a good thing. Some, like myself, see gays as social functionaries (an idea borrowed from Sister Unity...look him up on YouTube, especially "Berdache").
Human evolution is different than animal evolution. Because of civilization, we need worry not about predators, and in most places in the world, food aquisition is not something we need specialized bodies for. So the evolutionarily inferior won't die out unless they are unsexable. Attractiveness is basically the only noticable form of natural selection left to humans.
As for what BravoLima said, I sincerely believe there is a lot more to this condition than sexual attraction. Otherwise why would SO many gays act feminine? This goes along a bit with what chemical_flare said about the sisters of gays. It is possible the same gene that causes homophilia (or makes one prone to be homophilic) in males causes females to be more fertile. It may also come with a larger set of traits, just the most obvious being primary same-sex attraction. However, the potential to be gay may be in some brain-structure gene common to all humans, and it may be a biological condition (womb chemistry) or one acquired by non-biological psychological influences. Or it may be genetic. No matter what you think, the jury is still out as relatively few studies have been done on the issue due to controversy.
So we can sit and ponder just why we are the way we are, or we can make purpose of it. I believe the most expedient way to be accepted is to prove that we can be something very positive on the world. Waiting for proof of the only thing we know, that it isn't a choice, is going to be a long wait. Let them accept us for who we are by liking who we are, not feeling bad for the fact that we can't change it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Evolution
Date: 2008/02/25 02:15
By: BravoLima
Status:
Edengoth wrote: As for what BravoLima said, I sincerely believe there is a lot more to this condition than sexual attraction. Otherwise why would SO many gays act feminine?
Stereotype. The identification to a unifying and archetypal behaviour. Did homosexuals in Ancient Greece act feminine? Who knows, but before the stereotype was born, I just wonder how many people put on the camp voices and began to consider if the colour of their robes really matched their eyes.
I am not in the least feminine. Now whilst I agree that everyone's different, the single unifying thing about 'homosexuals' is that they are all, by definition, attracted to the same gender. Nothing about behaviour, or other less definite preferences like shopping and fashion etc. So I concentrate on this, and ignore the little inconsistencies, that were most likely largely born of society itself anyway. You should always respect one
