• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

If homosexuality is in nature...

You have 2 islands, one with 500 heterosexual couples, the other with 500 homosexual couples.

Given the same factors in regards to food, shelter, clothing, & barring natural disasters, one island would have no human inhabitants within approx. 120 years, the population being murdered by its sexual practice. (murdered in the context of put an end to; destroy)

So sure, it's natural, natural genocide.
 
Last edited:
Dude, it's usually at an equilibrium where the homosexual population is 10% right? Therefore, your island theory isn't really viable.

Besides, genocide requires an action to be taken to result in death. An island full of homosexuals isn't being murdered, they're dying of old age. There *is* a difference, even if you don't see it.
 
Bad science.

You have 1 island with 500 heterosexual couples, and another with 250 heterosexual couples and 250 homosexual couples.

Given the same specified factors in regards to food, shelter, clothing, & barring natural disasters, one island would have no human inhabitants within ~*** years, the population being murdered by its sexual practice. (murdered in the context of put an end to; destroy), through famine and disease due to an imbalance between limited resources and workforce.

So sure, it's natural, natural survival.

We could play this game all day. I say we do it with Herons on one island and toasters on the other next.
 
Homosexuality is probably passed on through the matriarchal line.

I still love my Mom though, and she still loves me.
 
Besides, genocide requires an action to be taken to result in death.
Click to expand...

Would not the activity of engaging in an intimate, loving relationship with another person be considered an action?

An island full of homosexuals isn't being murdered, they're dying of old age.
Click to expand...

Think of it in terms of the community as a whole's survival. In 300 years, the hetero community would still be alive, it didn't die of old age.

Corax said:
Bad science.

You have 1 island with 500 heterosexual couples, and another with 250 heterosexual couples and 250 homosexual couples.

Given the same specified factors in regards to food, shelter, clothing, & barring natural disasters, one island would have no human inhabitants within ~*** years, the population being murdered by its sexual practice. (murdered in the context of put an end to; destroy), through famine and disease due to an imbalance between limited resources and workforce.

So sure, it's natural, natural survival.
Click to expand...

Bad retort.

"So sure, it's natural, natural survival" is flawed because your island theory throws heteros in the mix. My theory depicts each group exclusively on an island. Your quip about 'through famine and disease due to an imbalance between limited resources and workforce' is off. I'm not talking about a Survivor-type island, think Truman Show, performing a clinical experiment on the longetivity of heterosexual and homosexual communities. Medicine is readily available and so are utilities and transportation. All each group has to do is inhabit its self-contained island and simply start living. Each group has members ranging from late teens to early 50s so the workforce is balanced out.

I still love my Mom though, and she still loves me.
Click to expand...

I love ya too man :)
 
Bad retort.

"So sure, it's natural, natural survival" is flawed because your island theory throws heteros in the mix. My theory depicts each group exclusively on an island.
Click to expand...
Sorry TM (and probably put less than diplomatically), but that's exactly my problem with your example. It bears no semblance to reality.
 
I think it is natural because humans are another animal on the planet inhabited by animals which includes people.
sheep do it, cows do it, lions do it, other animals do it, it has happened since the dawn of time, the only difference is that we forbid it and attach stigma and taboo on it. doesnt make it any less natural! You are an animal - driven by instincts one way or the other.

Ok God frowns upon it, but my God loves everyone enough to look at what's in their hearts, not what's up their arse.
Some people may find it revolting, but I find it revolting when you pick your nose, that's natural.
 
I believe it's purpose is mainly for a kind of population control. I don't see any problem with it whatsoever. That is of course my opinion, and may or may not be correct from your viewpoint.

Many people have realized that everything in this Universe that we're aware of, does indeed, serve a purpose.
 
Homosexuals with working reproductive organs are capable of having children.

If you isolated a bunch of male and female homosxuals on an island, I'm sure they would make do.
 
yes of course, but not with eachother - maybe that's what they meant - segragating sexes as well as sexualities
 
Pomplemous said:
yes of course, but not with eachother - maybe that's what they meant - segragating sexes as well as sexualities
Click to expand...

In that case neither island would survive.
 
there we go - is that man's population control? hahaha

or would they mutate in some way to adapt?

however, back on topic - why is it EXCLUDING the bible that makes everyone say it is so unnatural?

surely anything that a human/ animal can do is natural?
 
I think a large group of males and females that knew that they needed to band together to survive would most likely make some kind of arrangements to replace their numbers.

If they wanted to survive and thrive as a society the boys would peg the girls and the girls would take it and make the babies.

They might not pair off as males and females for life, but I'm sure that would not stop them from bonding platonically as a family/tribe.

:)
 
Survival of homosexual traits in humans

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

00:01 13 October 04

NewScientist.com news service


Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”


Relative differences

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male “X” chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. “It’s a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes,” he says.


Immune system

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.
Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004)
Click to expand...
 
Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study

Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study

10:51 05 November 02

NewScientist.com news service


A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus - the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in "straight" females.

The hypothalamus is known to control sex hormone release and many types of sexual behaviour. Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference.

The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men. His work has always been considered controversial, partly because the brains he studied were mostly from men who had died of AIDS. So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences.


Hormone converter

But the findings in sheep are an important confirmation of LeVay's work, says Jacques Balthazart from the University of Liege in Belgium.

Sheep are particularly interesting, he says, because besides humans, they are the only animal where the males may naturally express exclusively gay sexual preferences. As many as one in 10 rams can be gay.

Larkin's team also found that the hypothalamic region had a rich supply of the enzyme aromatase, which converts testosterone into oestrogen. It is in this form that the hormone interacts with the brain. This may help support one theory that sexual orientation, in part at least, may be related to the hormones present during fetal development, says Balthazart.

But Larkin suggests there may also be the influence of genes at work, at least in predisposing the animals to homosexuality. This is because selective breeding seems to have been responsible for the high proportion of gay sheep compared with other animals.

Larkin presented the research on Monday at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Orlando Florida, US.
Click to expand...

Fuck off bigots
 
Noodle said:
If they wanted to survive and thrive as a society the boys would peg the girls and the girls would take it and make the babies.
:)
Click to expand...

You're clearly stating if the society wishes to survive, it chooses to engage in heterosexual relations.

Acidfiend said:
Fuck off bigots
Click to expand...

Your malice towards those who hold different feelings towards your orientation is way uglier than those of which you curse.

BTW.. those studies you linked don't prove anything.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.
Click to expand...

If homosexuality is indeed a choice, based on social conditioning, it would persist generation after generation.

The argument will be made, "but I've always been attracted to the same sex so it's not a choice". I find this to be a very valid response. As products of our social conditioning, factors which have been around before our birth attribute to our behaviors which most certainly affect our sexual orientation.

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”
Click to expand...

Meaningless stats. You can find trends in numbers for anything, that doesn't make it the determining factor.
 
Last edited:
put religious fanatics on an island
they start religion wars and kill each other

put non believers on an island
they lived happy and had many children
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top