{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/3/2014 1:58:38 AM
10
-
Edited by LogicalHuman: 9/6/2014 6:13:33 AMEvolution isn't really based on reproductive purpose, but more on survival. If an organism has a gene that allows them to survive better, that gene will be passed on. The gene that causes homosexuality was able to thrive in a population of humans because homosexual men were unable to have kids, which meant that the group didn't have as much mouths to feed and to take care of. This increased the group's chances of survival. It's pretty much just like how Malaria-resistance is caused by Sickle-Cell Anemia. You have Sickle Cell, but you're also resistant to Malaria, which increased your chances of survival. If you were gay back then, you had better chances of survival and feeding yourself, but you didn't have incentive to pass your genes to the next generation. But how did the gay gene get passed on? It could be recessive trait that could be found in siblings, which means they could pass it on. This is known as the gay uncle hypothesis.
-
Being gay isn't genetic.
-
Edited by LogicalHuman: 9/8/2014 4:56:51 AMIt's a hypothesis. It could be genetic, but we don't really know. There most certainly isn't a "gay gene" but there could be several genes that come into play and effect the sexuality of a person.
-
Nice edit.
-
Well, there's a bit of evidence that being gay is genetic, but it's not much, so it may not be 100% full on genetic. We just haven't really done the research. Decided to edit cause I didn't think it through. We also don't know if it's not genetic. It could be, it could not. The tiny bit of evidence out there, however, leans to it being genetic. But again, we don't fully know.
-
so do you believe that gays are genetically predisposed not to have the tools necessary to be parents as it isn't in their DNA?
-
Edited by LogicalHuman: 9/6/2014 6:15:46 AMYes. It could also depend on the culture of their society and epigenetics for some cases.
-
interesting take and one I have not heard with your specific line of reasoning.
-
There are well over 7 Billion people (7,000,000,000) We don't need to reproduce any more. We're hurting our earth as is, any more and we're looking at losing valuable resources, diversity, and livelihoods. So, we could do with less reproducing (yay for gays)(I'm straight but don't plan on having more than one child, if any)
-
If our purpose in life was to just reproduce then whoever designed us seriously ducked up.
