Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

(October 18, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Drich, you're just really a woefully ignorant dick.

Concerning what?

(An unsupported accusation such as your post would be a ad hoc attack) which is an ignorant persons response to a topical conversation.

Irony anyone?

(October 18, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Drich, you're just really a woefully ignorant dick.

Concerning what?

(An unsupported accusation such as your post would be a ad hoc attack) which is an ignorant persons response to a topical conversation.

Irony anyone?

Mermaid is right you know

it seems that others have brought many proofs on biblical bigotry of homosexuality.

I'll bring you life experience.

I am very good at observing what happens to other people. I am good at being empathetic and understanding how some one feels by looking at them.

I have witnessed the harm that homophobic bigoted men do to anyone who gives off even the slightest feminine vibe.

Put yourself there Drich and watch as not just one but 3 or more (because they are too cowardice to face him alone) verbally destroy, oh wait i mean "confront" this person. Of course the victim cant fight back or if he does he faces physical harm maybe even death. There are three of them after all.

Stand there and watch as the three sense that not only are they in power but also God tells them to kill such a man. They wont do that if he's lucky. So maybe they just punch him a few times to remind him that his "choice" of homosexuality is the wrong one. They will probably be praised for their actions. (that's when i stepped in and stopped it and made some enemies).

Their pastors teach of the "sin" of homosexuality to an already homophobic group. This fuels their desire to do harm in the name of God. This is what i have seen personally. It is deplorable.

I have not born witness to this next scenario but others have...you are there right after the gay teen has hung himself. He has befallen the attacks from these "righteous" Christian boys. If you believe in Heaven and Hell then you may see his soul sinking into the depths on his way to hell.

Would you stand there and tell this soul "see you should have not been gay." and feel no guilt no remorse at what drove him to kill himself?

There's no science in this. It's what happens to real people in real life. You would support this because God says so?

I don't think you sir would support this. I honestly don't think you are that type of person. Still think on this... if you could stop this scenario from happening would you? Do you think that living by the bible's standards allows for any other way but this violence? You may not be one of those three (abusive boys) but you know that they are out there. How are you going to spread God's "love" and not kindle the homophobic fire?

I try and encourage homophobic people to imagine what their life would be like if they were gay, and people were acting this way towards them.

The problem with many religious views like "being gay is wrong" is that it is a gargantuan oversimplification. To understand homosexuality properly takes a lot of study. To even gain a working knowledge of it takes at least a little hard work and open mindedness. It's much quicker and easier to adopt black and white thinking, which just happens to correlate with your doctrine. It's the same with morality; you can study how morality came to be, or you can say, "Don't care, too complicated, it's magic."

Staying ignorant keeps ridiculous opinions like "It's a choice" going, too. Not that this would be justification for homophobia, even if it was true.

Religion often reduces a vast, complex, intricate universe to a one dimensional narrative. It loses almost everything in the transition.

(October 18, 2015 at 1:38 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches