homo-thoughts (886 hits)
Category: NoneLabels: blog
Rating: 0 on 25 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Nugget (View user info) at 2004-05-04 11:15:44 EDT
For some reason I really like thinking evolution. My two favorite things to post about are Sex ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/23166 ) and evolution ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/16771 ), ( http://www.ubersite.com/m/20645 ).
So, yesterday I was taking a nice warm, salty bath, and I started thinking about homosexuality.
I wanted to do some research on homosexuality and evolution. I read somewhere that homosexuality was a form of population control. When too many people start popping out, some of them are gay, in order to decrease the rate of production of said species.
Well, the obvious problem with this is that evolution is based on reproduction. And if homosexuality is genetic, then only homosexuals would be able to pass on their gay-gene... and since there aren't many gay people reproducing, there wouldn't be a consistantly level percentage (3%-10% of most populations, across the board, regardless of culture/social/economic status) of homosexuality present. It would eventually peter out (no pun intended).
Then some more research showed me that some certian species of monkey tends to be active at night. There is a small percentage of the population that has a diviant gene... these monkeys stay up durring the DAY. The day time monkeys have the disadvantage of having a harder time finding food, since these monkeys eat night-snacks (I'm assuming some sort of bugs? I didn't read up enough on this, and I don't plan on it, so, yes bugs.). The day-monkeys help the entire species by being look-outs... sounding off alarms when danger is near.
So are homosexuals around to help us, as a whole, with something? Are they fullfilling a social function, besides showing us how to decorate?
User Reviews
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-06 11:43:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I never recognize quotes of any sort. I'm very entertainmently-inept.
Submitted by NotApologizing (user info) at 2004-05-06 09:21:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, the obvious problem with this is that evolution is based on reproduction. And if homosexuality is genetic, then only homosexuals would be able to pass on their gay-gene.
~~~~~~~~~
Gyeah, i didn't read that reply. I was commenting on the above.
How did you like the God playing dice comment? It's from a video game, by the way. One of the most creatively written PC games ever-called 'Alpha Centauri'
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-05 18:45:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't miss shit, biotch. Although I didn't get into detail on genetic structure and such, I DID say:
****
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 21:35:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
depends on the kind of gene... recessive or dominant, etc etc... depends on the gene structure of both parents.
****
I didn't think I'd need to elaborate on that. Me, glaringly miss something? NOT LIKELY!
How dare you.
Homie.
Submitted by NotApologizing (user info) at 2004-05-05 14:57:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You've made a glaring mistake in your contentions about evolution and the passing-down of genetic material through reproduction. Genetic information can exist in an organism without the organism actually showing any manifestation of that trait. For example, two adults, both with brown hair, can reproduce and have blonde offspring. They have the 'blonde' gene, but it's recessive in both of them. If by a twist of faith the blonde gene in both of them meets (2nd quadrant of basic genetics diagram), voila! Blonde.
See me for more information on basic genetics daigrams. I can whip one up for you if you like.
in summary: while it is more probable to produce a blonde from two blonde parents, a recessive blonde gene present in both non-blonde parents has an outside chance at domination (blonde hair) in the offspring.
This concept is why marrying relatives is illegal. A brother and sister, neither of whom are retarded or disabled, may both possess a recessive gene for some disorder. By reproducing, the chances of those two recessive genes getting 'lucky' and dominating in the offspring are better.
"Not only does god play dice, but the dice are loaded!"
-Chairman Yang of The Hive
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 22:34:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Although I know that personal "encounters" often sound stupid when talking about a subject such as this...
I met a boy when I was 4. We have now been friends for 24 years... He's openly gay... and even back when he was four... he wanted to play barbies, and she-ra, he liked the typical "feminine" games... Even at that age, I remember thinking, "wow, that's weird, why does sean want to play with my barbies?".
I think many people stay "in the closet" due to social constraints... and surely some people "try" to exhibit homosexual traits "to be cool"... but, for myself, even at a VERY young age, I was VERY aware of being heterosexual. Speaking to my gay friends, they felt the same about their sexuality then, too...
Enviroment most likely does play a role in the development of certian sexual (or otherwise) tendencies... but I think there MUST be more to it than that. I find it very hard to believe that anything (short of a major event, like abuse) can "make someone gay".
Submitted by njdk (user info) at 2004-05-04 21:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
There is some talk of homosexuality as a kind of surrogate caring gene. In certan species of bird an induvidual will raise the offspring of a relative a not reproduce itself. I however think homosexuality is learnt, and is no less valid for being so: Learnt charactaristics form the majority of our phenotype in today's information-addicted society.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 21:35:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
depends on the kind of gene... recessive or dominant, etc etc... depends on the gene structure of both parents.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2004-05-04 18:38:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
If homosexuality was an inherited gene, it wouldn't die out. Many men with children end up confessing that they've been gay their whole life. In order to make their life easier, they decide to keep it behind closed doors with hopes that nobody ever finds out.
Now, wouldn't their children have that gene, if there was one?
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2004-05-04 12:15:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gay people are often proud of having the gay gene. i don't think it's something to be proud of. isn't a gay gene evolutions way of saying that you suck and your species would be better off without you reproducing ?
i'm not sure darwin would have put it that way though.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 12:12:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Apollo, for sure... but speaking on the evolutionary side... things are the way they are "for a reason".
Like with skin color (which is a-whole-nother topic in itself)... one popular theroy on why people near the equator have darker pigmentation is called the D-synthisis theory.
(and it's been years since I've read anything about this, so it might not be exactly factually correct, but this is how I remember it:)
Darker pigmentation hinders vitamin D absorption from the sun (UV radiation)... which in turn helps aid in skeletal development, and helps then, with reproduction. Why? Because the pelvic bones, if too weak, will break, and hinder childbirth. Mother dies durring delivery.
People who live further from the equator need more UV exposure, to ensure healthy bone structure. Therefore they have lighter skin, to aid in Vitamin D absorption.
So, that's one theory on evolution, in regards to RACE... it doesn't mean that light skinned people are "diviants" from the "norm" of dark skin. (using dark skin as the norm, since it is a widely held belief that humanity originated in Africa).
I simply believe that behavior that does not aid in the development of our species wouldn't exist. If the behavior or gene or trait was "bad", it would eventually die out. As is not the case with homosexual individuals.
Therefore, the diviant sexual preference MUST somehow aid in our species development.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-05-04 12:00:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I really like your writing usually but I just think that this is tired and patronising.
IMHO.
i just don't think that people can be lumped together and labelled deviant. the word to me invokes 'badness' not difference although i know that technically that is not what the word means.
there are all kinds of shades of sexuality with hetrosexuals as well.
i haven't thought this reply out.
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:55:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Bath salts? Wouldn't salty water make your skin shrivel and stuff?
This looks like it could go Most Heated... I'm going to spam one of my posts now: http://www.ubersite.com/m/32025
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:51:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
HAHAHA!! Bottom right is Kyan!! Seeeeeeee!!!!???!?! He's hot!
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is that the guy on the bottom right? He's hot.
I'm waiting for the whole, "Fab 5 revealed... what you didn't know... Which one is Straight?" and then it's Mr. Bottom-Right... and he comes on TV and says, "I can't forsake my Corinne just to pretend I'm gay for a tv show!".
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:48:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Kyan is a hot name.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ubermensch (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:42:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Homosexuality isn't genetic. It's a deviant sexually behavior that they choose to participate in.
***
This hasn't been proven or disproven. MOST LIKELY it is genetic.
***
And a salty bath is a bath with bath salts in it.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:46:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What the hell kind of name is 'Kyan' for a grown man, anyway?
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:44:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Apollo, you always bitch about how well I think out evolution stuff.
I know I ended it with a joke... but I am curious as to what function the 'diviant' homosexuality gene (if there is a gene as such) has in our evolutionary development.
There is some conjecture that it's "to pass down information", but... well, can't heterosexual people pass down information?
And I'm not talking here about sexual preferences, like 'oh, gays are useless' type bullshit... I'm ONLY speaking from the evolutionary aspect of it.
(and I was just bitching about getting too many +2's... so thanks everyone!! hugs all around!!)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:43:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
nice synthesis
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:43:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 only because the picture has Kyan in it. Kyan is hot, and some day I will turn him back to the other side. Muahahahahahaaaa!!!
Submitted by ubermensch (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:42:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Homosexuality isn't genetic. It's a deviant sexually behavior that they choose to participate in.
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:41:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What is a "salty bath?"
Submitted by Shaydlip (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:35:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No. Just... no.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:30:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Stick with pictures of your ass or posts about sex.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-05-04 11:24:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ill thought out dross.
Could have ben amusing too if written better.
Ho hum.