[Discussion] What is the reason for homosexuality?

[LordRaikage]

I gain pleasure from ****ing men.

...eh..atleast you're proud.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Gay people have competition too and how would that trait even pass if they weren't breeding and going against their competition?

I answered this in the last bit of my first post (come on guys, I said edits would happen )

 

[Multiply]

This is not correct, as the individual does not adapt to their condition, the population does. As generations pass does a situation get adapted to, not immediately.



You gotta wait for the rest of my post, man I answered the benefits with this outcome later in my post.

As for competition among homosexuals, this is true. However, did any new offspring come from said competition? It did not, not directly, anyways.

Fair enough.

 

[wanderingcactus]

Envy.

Its just one wanting another ones body.

Since homo *** does not yield any offsprings, it isn't a natural behaviour but rather psychological.

There are many factors that can lead to homosexual thoughts.

Genes isn't one of them. Mammals simply cannot naturally change their reproductive organs for survival unlike other species.

Having thoughts of sexual acts of the same *** is based on envy, the way one was raised (how to think and how to behave) so yes love is a factor as well.

Ex:
It is ok to kiss kids on the lips as long as it isn't considered sexual. Imagine if a parent kisses their kids and that practice is still performed even on their adult life.

how would people take it?

Sexual is the most likely answer.

So one can mistake love or rather take it further into a more intimate stage. To them, there is nothing wrong. But it is on the basis of society (for the longest time at least) and on mammal nature.

Fish and birds and other species are different than mammals. For example, the alpha salmon will become female in order to continue their existence in that area. as well for clown fish.

 

[Power Bottom]

What are you even talking about. You're talking about my views on black lives matter when you don't know my views on black lives matter. :lol.

Humans that don't pass on their traits don't contribute to human evolution. Am I wrong? Is it bad they don't contribute? No. I even stated I had no problems with gays and I actually support them.

Yea I don't clearly since I saw your posts on it. And it isn't even all on that. Its also bad police who killed innocent people.

Like I said why do you care about these things. Stop cheery picking evolution. If you think homosexuality is not beneficial due to evolution. You should also think people who are getting killed innocently is alright. Survival of the fittest - Evolution

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Since homo *** does not yield offsprings, it isn't a natural behavioue but rather psychological.

As explained in my first post, homosexual behavior does lead to more offspring, thus is a natural, inherited, genetic behavior.

Mammals simply cannot naturally change their reproductive organs for survival unlike other species.

They can. It just takes a really, really long time with the right push each new generation. But genitals aren't relevent in regards to how homosexuality is beneficial for the species.

 

[Umari Senju]

Literally yes. If you aren't passing on your traits, you have no significance on an evolutionary stand point.

I do like the idea that perhaps homosexuality is so beneficial that we have not discovered its benefit. I doubt that's the case, but that could be interesting.

I think I see your reasoning here. First, let me mention that evelutionary isn't solely based on "biology" alone. Doctors can cure diseases and ailments like the Black Plague that devastated Europe so long ago. On that point, the person who discovered antibiotics, for example, may not have had children but thanks to their knowledge humanity's survival rate has gone way up, thus allowing us to continue to live on.

Though he/she did not have children, did they not contribute to the continuation and thus evelutionary advancement of the human race?

 

[Multiply]

Yea I don't clearly since I saw your posts on it. And it isn't even all on that. Its also bad police who killed innocent people.

Like I said why do you care about these things. Stop cheery picking evolution. If you think homosexuality is not beneficial due to evolution. You should also think people who are getting killed innocently is alright. Survival of the fittest - Evolution

Didn't say that.

I think I see your reasoning here. First, let me mention that evelutionary isn't solely based on "biology" alone. Doctors can cure diseases and ailments like the Black Plague that devastated Europe so long ago. On that point, the person who discovered antibiotics, for example, may not have had children but thanks to their knowledge humanity's survival rate has gone way up, thus allowing us to continue to live on.

Though he/she did not have children, did they not contribute to the continuation and thus evelutionary advancement of the human race?

I mean it in the basic sense of passing traits on, though I do understand what you're saying.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I answered this in the last bit of my first post (come on guys, I said edits would happen )

The edit makes more sense but it still seems like a stretch to me. So essentially gays protect the kids and don't have to deal with the problems of being killed by competition. This allows families and gays to survive longer (I know, I'm repeating what you're saying).

Still unsure about somethings:

-Gay people still are competitive among each other so I don't see how what you're saying is true.

-Gays are generally more feminine so I don't see how they protect anyone too well or is that just a social construct they've made? Also wouldn't gays be stronger if their job was to protect?

 

[Joker]

But does it matter though?

 

[Kaneki Kun]

Why do we accept Heterosexuality which breed bigots and people who will have a detrimental effect to our society.

Come on now don't catch feelings and start making yourself look like a fool he isn't attacking homosexuals in anyway.
OT: As far as what's the evolutionary reason for homosexuality I have no clue and it doesn't bother me either it's just there lmao.
On a sidenote you went ghost on this base XD

 

[Venomous Cobra]

Useless thoughts and habits were there ever since the humans were created. However you can always create a reasons for almost anything in our world regardless of whether the reason actually justifies it or not. Population reduction/controlling can imo be considered an evolutionary reason for it, even though homosexuality as an act of a human being was clearly not established for that purpose.


ps: I'm neutral

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Though he/she did not have children, did they not contribute to the continuation and thus evelutionary advancement of the human race?

I'm gonna blow your mind: this is a memetic event. This is the origin of the word "meme", which is "a social passing on of knowledge". It benefited the species, but it did not advance us evolutionarily. It has to be the species itself producing adaptive offspring for it to be an evolutionary benefit.

 

[LordRaikage]

Evolution and Homosexuality shouldn't be in the same sentence.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I'm gonna blow your mind: this is a memetic event. This is the origin of the word "meme", which is "a social passing on of knowledge". It benefited the species, but it did not advance us evolutionarily. It has to be the species itself producing adaptive offspring for it to be an evolutionary benefit.

And yet homosexuals do not produce offspring so why is that considered evolutionary and not memetic.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

The edit makes more sense but it still seems like a stretch to me. So essentially gays protect the kids and don't have to deal with the problems of being killed by competition. This allows families and gays to survive longer (I know, I'm repeating what you're saying).

Still unsure about somethings:

-Gay people still are competitive among each other so I don't see how what you're saying is true.

-Gays are generally more feminine so I don't see how they protect anyone too well or is that just a social construct they've made? Also wouldn't gays be stronger if their job was to protect?

Being homosexual doesn't necessarily diminish your body type or body strength. I've seen masculine homosexuals in my day; they can kick this straight man any day of the week.

There are two ways to be homosexual:

Late bloomer: the more babies a mother produces, the more likely a boy is to develop homosexual tendencies. This is due to a lack of testosterone absorption and more estrogen absorption that the other, older offspring took, and this is what contributes to homosexual behavior.

The actual genes: self-explanatory, this is the acquirement of the either monogenic or polygenic trait of homosexuality. We have not yet figured out if it's monogenic (one gene) or polygenic (many genes), unless a recent study was published which presents proof in the right direction.

And yet homosexuals do not produce offspring so why is that considered evolutionary and not memetic.

The families of the homosexuals contain the genes for which the produced offspring who *is* homosexual displays homosexual tendencies.

In other words, if these families live long enough to reproduce, these genes for homosexuality are passed on, like tree nuts in an M&Ms bag that says "may contain tree nuts". They are carrier genes, which indirectly influences a family's outcome.

 

[wanderingcactus]

i really like small minded people who just assume, they are quite entertaining.

This is merely a scientific question, not a moral one.

people who attack others to defend their morals is no different to those who are bigots. what if your morals are wrong? it would be too late to take back what actions occurred. pssh people are too judgemental.

 

[Elio]

...eh..atleast you're proud.

i just like to sin and admire boys ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Multiply]

Come on now don't catch feelings and start making yourself look like a fool he isn't attacking homosexuals in anyway.
OT: As far as what's the evolutionary reason for homosexuality I have no clue and it doesn't bother me either it's just there lmao.
On a sidenote you went ghost on this base XD

What do you mean I went ghost? :lol.

 

[Umari Senju]

Literally yes. If you aren't passing on your traits, you have no significance on an evolutionary stand point.

I do like the idea that perhaps homosexuality is so beneficial that we have not discovered its benefit. I doubt that's the case, but that could be interesting.

I think I see your reasoning here. First, let me mention that evelution isn't solely based on "biology" alone. Doctors can cure diseases and ailments like the Black Plague that devastated Europe so long ago. On that point, the person who discovered antibiotics, for example, may not have had children but thanks to their knowledge humanity's survival rate has gone way up, thus allowing us to continue to live on.

Though he/she did not have children, did they not contribute to the continuation of humanity and thus evelutionary advancement of the human race?