Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shoot them all referred to "The Human Race" because it hurts me seeing people act so stupidly. Of course eventually we'll need weaponised sharks to finish the job, so I'd say yes.

Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.

MrDwhitey wrote:This has... gone to plaid.

Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?

Oh my god! Shoot them all!

The thread or the idea? I always assumed it was the entire point of the various religions banning it.

purplefood wrote:

Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.

I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.

Out of interest which European nations?
And considering many gay couples have surrogate mothers or implanted embryos when/if they want children it doesn't really impact population growth that much...

Most notably Germany and Russia. Other nations like Austria and Greece have less than a tenth of a percent growth.

Question:
If gay people, by virtue (or lack thereof in some peoples' view) of being gay, threaten the reproduction/propagation of the human race.
Does that mean sharks, by virtue of being sharks, threaten the survival of the human race?

Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is.

Mannahnin wrote:Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.

I'm skeptical, but would you have a link to the research article by chance?

MrDwhitey wrote:

Skarwael wrote:God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?

My God, I didn't realise we'd fallen so low!

Quickly, step up breeding!

My god your right! Well I'm going to do my part.

LADIES! Remove your underpants, and single file please.

Luco wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Interestingly, there has been some research whose results suggest that having some gay people is actually an evolutionary advantage for the species as a whole. That those people can and do fulfill other important roles within the group than breeding, which contribute to everyone else's (including other people's kids') survival and success.

I'm skeptical, but would you have a link to the research article by chance?

The argument is that, because homosexuals tend to not reproduce, it should be a genetic trait that is strongly selected for. In essence, if it isn't advantageous, it wouldn't exist.

That said, such an argument depends on the idea that environmental conditions do not significantly impact genetic expression, and further that homosexuality is genetic.

I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.

Horst wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:

Skarwael wrote:God forbid anything threatens the reproduction of the human race. There are only, what, 7 billion of us?

My God, I didn't realise we'd fallen so low!

Quickly, step up breeding!

My god your right! Well I'm going to do my part.

LADIES! Remove your underpants, and single file please.

Horst, sacrificing all for the good of the species.

Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.

As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.

Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?

Obviously cloning is the answer.

dogma wrote:I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.

Actually, I give the example of sickle cell anemia. Normally, such a genetic defect would be quite rare, because it's not very good, right?

... except... it is useful. Because people whom have heterogeneous mixtures of normal and sickle cell don't have the negatives of sickle cell while having immunity to malaria (and those who are sickle cell are also immune to malaria).

The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.

The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.

d-usa wrote:Obviously cloning is the answer.

I swear its like there was a movie about that.

Melissia wrote:
The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.

The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.

I have no doubt that homosexuality is, to some degree, based in genetics, but I have significant doubts that the expression of those genes is entirely grounded in genetic. Its basically an argument from epigenetics.

This, of course, doesn't mean people choose to be gay, its just means that there is no gay gene, or necessarily a collection of gay genes that will always cause the inheritor to be gay.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.

The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.

I have no doubt that homosexuality is, to some degree, based in genetics, but I have significant doubts that the expression of those genes is entirely grounded in genetic. Its basically an argument from epigenetics.

This, of course, doesn't mean people choose to be gay, its just means that there is no gay gene, or necessarily a collection of gay genes that will always cause the inheritor to be gay.

Oh, I was just arguing that the idea that "gay genes" is not itself inherently contradictory, IE, it is not something that would necessarilly be kicked out of the gene pool.

Melissia wrote:Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.

I love logic like that. Like the whole "They can raise a kid because they are one gender", well what about single parents?

@Melissa and Dogma's back n forth
I see, that's fairly enlightening. I honestly haven't a clue as to the why's, though I definitely see it as being a recessive gene if it is genetic. Though I've always thought it could possibly be classified it as a mental illness as it gets in the way of basic reproductive instinct. Now before anyone jumps at me and claims I'm insulting them for the sake of doing so consider that I fit solidly in the 'mentally ill' catagory (clinical depression, I know how much reality can be skewed and I know the 'i'm not ill its just the way I am' argument because I've used it before) But even so that still fits into the partial genetic argument as such things are passed down.

Melissia wrote:Monogamous marriage threatens the propagation of the human race, therefor we should abolish it in favor of polygamy and polygyny.

What studies have been done to show the psychological stability of those involved of a polygamist relationship and the stability and health of the offspring that the union produces?

There is also a issue here, it will likely propagate a larger number of individuals with tendencies to be disloyal, compared to people who naturally have a tendency to stick with their mate until death will in the end breed a population where nobody has any loyalty at all. Is that where we want to be headed? Granted we are already heading that way thanks to a lack of self-control, but should we nationally endorse something that will lead to that?

@hotsauce: Statistically, are the children of single parents as healthy and psychologically stable as children with two parents?

Links are always appreciated.

Now that I've somewhat insulted just about everybody, none of which is intended at all I'm mostly just looking for information via the collected intelligence that is dakka, I'm going to be off for a long while to get some studying and wargaming done.

Cheers.

I can tell you from experiance that we are no different. and thousands of others can tell you that.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything.

If you want to make your point convincingly, you need to cite sources.

hotsauceman1 wrote:I can tell you from experiance that we are no different. and thousands of others can tell you that.

That is a lot of polygamists.

I learned from Focus on the Family that you get the gay by not having a strong bond with your father, and that there are counselors that can cure you. possibly by making you call them 'daddy'.

Luco wrote:What studies have been done to show the psychological stability of those involved of a polygamist relationship and the stability and health of the offspring that the union produces?

This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point my sarcastic statement was making-- in that the logic used to arrive at the conclusion was inconsistently applied.

And more on topic, I give you a better suggestion-- try to find good, peer-reviewed studies that show homosexual parents as less effective than heterosexual parents. It'll be hard to find, I assure you; the overwhelming majority of the weight of scientific literature on same sex parenting shows that same sex parents tend to produce children about equal to the average (lesbian parents are slightly higher in this regard, while male parents are slightly lower). This was also the US court system's conclusion on reading the gamut of evidence presented to them by both sides of the argument.

Luco wrote:Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is.

So, in other words, you're worried about the stability of something that is a temporary and non-physical feature of the Earth's geography.
Nations come and go, chap. Assuming that gay people are the downfall of empires, though, is one of the funnier ideas I've heard so far.
I mean, I always understood Rome to have fallen through overexpansion and political disunity, but what do I know? It must have been the Gayosexuals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote: Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?

I... I think I admire that.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm no geneticist, but I suspect homosexuality is not rigidly genetic, but rather determined in much the same way that my preference for cute Australian surfer girls is determined; ie. by experience. Its not a choice, but its also not hardwired.

Actually, I give the example of sickle cell anemia. Normally, such a genetic defect would be quite rare, because it's not very good, right?

... except... it is useful. Because people whom have heterogeneous mixtures of normal and sickle cell don't have the negatives of sickle cell while having immunity to malaria (and those who are sickle cell are also immune to malaria).

The idea that homosexuality is genetic works on the same principle-- complex psychological concepts such as sexuality are not controlled by a single gene, but a large set of them, and sexuality itself isn't a yes/no switch, it's a scale. The "homosexual genes" are postulated to be useful in forming communities and, for those who are homosexual, useful to the society because the homosexual(s) can be assigend to protect the children and mates of the males who go out to hunt-- but not everyone who carries parts of the genetic code that causes homosexuality are, themselves, homosexual.

The reason people say "if homosexuality was genetic it couldn't propagate itself" is becasue they don't really understand genetics very well.

You need credible research to back this up if your going to say this.

Mr Hyena wrote:You need credible research to back this up if your going to say this.

Say what, though? There were numerous statements in my post. If you want me to quote someone else aside from myself, though, I found this on a quick search: Richard Dawkins discussing the "gay gene", or more accurately, the numerous parts of our genetic code which influence mixed psychological/biological things such as sexuality, and how it could be preserved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

Richard Dawkins is, for reference, an ethologist, or more accurately, an evolutionary biologist, and quite a famous one (having invented the modern use of the term meme, for example).

Frazzled wrote:As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.

Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?

I like you frazzled. You are the cool type of conservative. if it doesnt affect you you couldnt care less.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Luco wrote:Here is where I think I am failing at presenting my view. I do not mean threaten the survival of the species when I say hinder reproduction, The survival of the species isn't my point, national power and clout is.

So, in other words, you're worried about the stability of something that is a temporary and non-physical feature of the Earth's geography.
Nations come and go, chap. Assuming that gay people are the downfall of empires, though, is one of the funnier ideas I've heard so far.
I mean, I always understood Rome to have fallen through overexpansion and political disunity, but what do I know? It must have been the Gayosexuals.

Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt.

Frazzled wrote: Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?

What if those cheerleaders happen to be cross-dressing men?

[not entirely serious with the last bit]

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As your average conservative Libertarian who just wants everyone to STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, I never understood all the emo about the topic.

Gays are gay. So????
This in no way interferes with my enjoyment of NFL cheerleader expertise. So whats the problem?

I like you frazzled. You are the cool type of conservative. if it doesnt affect you you couldnt care less.

Exactly.

I wish there were more like you living near me.

Melissia wrote:I wish there were more like you living near me.

Melissia wants people like Frazzled around her? Well, you would be safer, but you'd have to deal with marumbas occasionally, and of course wiener dog rallies, rodeos, and tractor pulls

How many wiener dogs does it take to pull a tractor? A lot, a whole lot.

The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".

But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."

(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.

What they think they are, but not actually what they are.

d-usa wrote:The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".

But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."

(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.

True dat. I'm sure its me included. I want spending on education, infrastructure, border security and technology/medical capex at the fed or state level depending on the issue.