The theory of evolution is based around survival of the fittest and ability to reproduce. If queers are born fags, then why hasn't evolution purged the queers yet?

Seems like at least one of these arguments breaks down when looking at both of them as a whole. Can someone explain to me. Thanks in advance.

6/22/2009 2:56:51 PM

DNA mutation

6/22/2009 2:57:55 PM

1.) O_o
2.) ....
3.) -_-

6/22/2009 2:57:58 PM

No one has ever considered this before. Thank you for the completely original thought.

6/22/2009 2:58:48 PM

1) spontaneous germ mutation

2) from a purely evolutionary standpoint, a given prehistoric family with a homosexual member has an extra hunter/gather minus extra children = more to go around

6/22/2009 3:01:35 PM

this is what happens when you get high and watch the discovery channel.

6/22/2009 3:02:08 PM

There are several possible explanations for this:

Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be nongenetic (Haynes 1995; Kendler et al. 2000; Kirk et al. 2000). To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it.

Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

The most manifest heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did nonhomophobic heterosexuals (Adams et al. 1996). Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propagated by causing latent homosexuals to behave heterosexually.

Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)

It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl 1998).

6/22/2009 3:02:56 PM

this thread is a complete and utter joke...but original!

6/22/2009 3:03:52 PM

this is what happens when you get high and watch the discovery channel.

6/22/2009 3:04:08 PM

Because all the hillbilly's and rednecks are producing enough children that there is no need for homosexuals to reproduce, in addition, homosexuals do have children either through a surrogate mother for men, and sperm donor for women

6/22/2009 3:04:59 PM

That was a copy and paste from the first link off google.

6/22/2009 3:05:05 PM

Quote :

" Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl 1998)."

That's a joke of a book. He had an opinion and pushed it with half science in his book, similar to Intelligent Design.

6/22/2009 3:06:15 PM

but wouldn't the millions of years of evolution have purged the gay gene long ago? Lots of smart asses but no smart answers so far. I'm genuinely curious.

Homosexuals hunting and gathering? lol!

6/22/2009 3:07:36 PM

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155351

6/22/2009 3:08:19 PM

just because they don't reproduce doesn't mean they can't, so evolution won't purge them from society

6/22/2009 3:10:26 PM

So gays aren't really completely gay? Is the "bisexual" the missing link here?

6/22/2009 3:11:17 PM

i think the question is far too cut-and-dry

you damn faggot

6/22/2009 3:28:57 PM

How many people in history actually got to choose their mating partners? Even today there are some cultures that still have arranged marriages and such. Do you think the families care about the sexual orientation of their sons/daughters when they set up the marriage and expect grandchildren?

6/22/2009 3:29:52 PM

how about asexuality vs evolution

i havent tried to get a date in a few months and i refuse to have a kid after 35. i'd say that people like me might become extinct, but we're the smart ones. CATCH 22?!!11

6/22/2009 3:33:58 PM

I'm disappointed an apparent Townes Van Zandt fan could be this ignorant.


You answered your own question with your first sentence however: The theory of evolution is based around survival of the fittest and ability to reproduce.

Homosexuality does not prevent reproduction and societal pressure until very recently has given gay men and women solid incentive to feign heterosexuality, to include marriage and the bearing of children.

6/22/2009 3:56:18 PM

18 minute podcast. plz to listen, starting around 8:40
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=47677917&id=121787620

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 4:03:40 PM

so gays are forced to have sex the right way because of society?

6/22/2009 4:06:18 PM

not a very noteworthy troll imo

6/22/2009 4:06:57 PM

Why they have heterosexual sex is irrelevant to your hypothesis. What matters is that they do. (Assuming it is genetic, I don't really know, I'm simply arguing off that assumption).

6/22/2009 4:07:32 PM

hmm

well, if you're gay and you and your lover go into battle, you'll probably fight better, wishing to avoid shame in your lover's eyes

and therefore will be more likely to survive, go home, fuck your token wife and have kids

I know Thebes had a whole regiment like that, and it took Alexander the Great to beat them

6/22/2009 4:08:13 PM

wasnt alexander the great the cracker who bossed around all the egyptians

6/22/2009 4:09:28 PM

^^ ahahah, nice.

6/22/2009 4:10:12 PM

^^ yep, that was he

he was the first, anyway...unless you consider Persians and Babylonians to be crackers

6/22/2009 4:12:21 PM

Isn't 0EPII1 Persian?

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : placeholder, guys]

6/22/2009 4:13:37 PM

NO HE'S A DUNE COON

6/22/2009 4:15:50 PM

on the real though do you remember those dudes spitting on his sister after 9/11

6/22/2009 4:16:53 PM

yeah do you remember when i went to campus and met you and you had the baseball bat and he locked himself in his office in daniels cause he called my girlfriend a slut and then talked shit to us?

ha ha i love him

6/22/2009 4:21:59 PM

THOSE WERE THE DAYS

6/22/2009 4:23:27 PM

dont think you can talk shit on tww and not get called to the plate, son

6/22/2009 4:24:16 PM

and remember the time he paid me $11 because i knew where his 0EPII1 username came from

MEMORIES

6/22/2009 4:28:46 PM

are we still arguing about whether or not it's genetic? what was the big reason for that idea anyway?
I think it probably just traced back to the old "its not my fault" standard to combat the "its a choice" argument. Its too damn unlikely and convenient. Should have put more backing behind the "breast implants did it" argument that scored so much cash in the past.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM. Reason : taxes]

6/22/2009 4:28:51 PM

^ have you ever met a gay person? Ever bothered to ask them if they have a choice in the matter?
Care to explain how or when you "chose" to be heterosexual?

6/22/2009 4:32:53 PM

i think you missed the point by quite a ways. Im not sure if you're even close to the absolute-value of the point i was trying to make.
wanna take another swing

6/22/2009 4:37:02 PM

well the absolute value of your point was 0, so if he's anywhere near that he's pretty close

jk, I can't resist a math joke

6/22/2009 4:40:29 PM

Anytime a person asks a question that's clearly designed to undermine evolution, one thing is the same: they get evolution COMPLETELY wrong.

"The theory of evolution is based around survival of the fittest and ability to reproduce." Automatically proves you're basing this on what anti-evolution campaigners say about evolution rather than what the theory actually says, and that's your first mistake.

Evolution IN NO WAY is "based around survival of the fittest." Evolutionary changes can be good, bad, or neutral for an organism. The species that is the most fit often survives the longest to reproduce, yes, but evolution can (and has) created many problems for species and caused them to change in a different way or die.

Homosexuality doesn't have to be negative, since it's such a small portion of the population (< 10%). Therefore, the fact that some people are homosexual in no way causes problems for the entire species.

I recommend you read some books on the subject, or at the very least take a first-level biology course.

6/22/2009 4:46:53 PM

so which one is correct? Evolution, or being born gay?

6/22/2009 4:47:59 PM

apparently

6/22/2009 4:48:19 PM

Not feeding trolls today, sorry. Maybe if I get bored later and want to hunt homophobic creationists for sport.

6/22/2009 4:49:19 PM

^^^couldn't both be correct?

6/22/2009 4:49:47 PM

ive only seen you get your teeth smashed in on the internet dirtygreek. just what trophies have you hunted so far?

6/22/2009 4:59:07 PM

ha. only every creationist who I've ever had the displeasure of debating

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2009 5:13:54 PM

lol that reminds me. remember when esgargs thought he was the most popular person at state

6/22/2009 5:16:20 PM

he was!

6/22/2009 5:18:04 PM

I concede

6/22/2009 5:20:03 PM

Quote :

"Evolution IN NO WAY is "based around survival of the fittest.""

wow, that's 100% wrong. your credibility now is lost on me. Why don't you go argue about how homosexuality is the right thing to do in some other thread.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : []

6/22/2009 5:20:20 PM