Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science has already shown that homosexuality is a beneficial evolutionary adaptation. You have a very primitive, ignorant view of biology if you think the existence of gays automatically is a detriment because they don't seek out the opposite sex.
Beneficial? Seriously? Stop conducting science experiments in your basement. WHat are they adapting to? and why is it beneficial? I never said it was a detriment, I said it was abnormal. I have no problem with gays but I do think somewhere in the brain there a wire is mislabeled. Beneficial evolutionary adaptation would be if women were wiped off the face of the earth and man was able to become pregnant...then yes your theory may hold true.
Sorry, that's NOT NATURAL! Using females as incubators instead of having a loving, nurturing relationship with women as wives and mothers, is ABNORMAL and bizarre.
Then it must also be abnormal and bizarre for sterile heterosexuals to use artificial means of fertilization for pregnancy. You do know that gay men are not sterile and can have sex with a woman that results in pregnancy and that a lesbian can have sex with a man resulting in pregnancy?
Who's spewing hate? Not me! I don't have a problem with gays getting married. I just don't think gay couples should be parents. I think infertile couples should probably just accept that they will have a childless marriage. That's not hate, that's just accepting that if something isn't "meant to be", one shouldn't go to extreme lengths to make it be.
If Britney Spears can be a parent, I see no logic in forbidding gays from doing it. Pure double standard.
Beneficial? Seriously? Stop conducting science experiments in your basement. WHat are they adapting to? and why is it beneficial? I never said it was a detriment, I said it was abnormal. I have no problem with gays but I do think somewhere in the brain there a wire is mislabeled. Beneficial evolutionary adaptation would be if women were wiped off the face of the earth and man was able to become pregnant...then yes your theory may hold true.
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.
The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding forthese epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.
Homosexual behaviour is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom... the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
I have known both kinds of people. There are some gays [I am not gay nor bi, pure hetro] that are very flamboyant. Its a way of acting. I am not bashing it its just a way of acting. I have known others who were acted so you would never know they are gay. Some people you can tell a mile away by the way they act. Others you would never know. I don't think it really makes any difference. I do think the way Williams and Lane did it in the bird cage was hilarious. The Birdcage (1996) Trailer | Mike Nichols - YouTube
2. Studies have actually shown that many anti-gays are harboring homosexual tendencies themselves... so when people say that, it's not just a slam (it's actually proven). Other than that, I have no idea why somebody would hate people based on their sexual orientation. Just how they were raised, I guess?
Just because some person did a study somewhere doesn't mean it's plausible let alone 'proven.' Maybe you can describe here how they went on identifying the 'homophobes' then going ahead and determining if they had homosexual tendencies (and what tendencies even mean) and comparing them to a control case of heterosexual males who aren't homophobes.
Just because some person did a study somewhere doesn't mean it's plausible let alone 'proven.' Maybe you can describe here how they went on identifying the 'homophobes' then going ahead and determining if they had homosexual tendencies (and what tendencies even mean) and comparing them to a control case of heterosexual males who aren't homophobes.
Participants were asked a series of questions on how comfortable they are with gays. Then they were shown pornographic videos while hooked up to a plethysmograph. Those with the most negative attitudes towards gays who claim to be straight, were sexually aroused by images of gay male porn, but not aroused by straight porn or lesbian porn.
Is it conclusive or apply to everyone? No. But it certainly supports the long held psychological theory of "reaction formation" as formulated by Freud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
