LEGIT QUESTION

>>8743493
Gay men can still reproduce.

>>8743519
Then wouldnt they be Bi?

>>8743493
we just had this thread

>>8743493
Your view of genetics is pretty outdated. Genes do not survive merely by reproducing. There's +1 to genetic fitness if you die but 2 of your brothers live since they have about the same genes as you.

In addition there are genes that determine how a woman birth's children, what type of chemicals the child is exposed to for instance. Most likely its the mother that makes people gay.

>>8743542
> There's +1 to genetic fitness if you die but 2 of your brothers live since they have about the same genes as you.

What do you mean by this exactly?

>>8743493
anon, we're a non-evolving population
medicine, especially modern medicine, means we people who wouldn't normally reproduce (ie cystic fibrosis, spina bifida etc) end up reproducing anyway
There's no selective pressure, and a basically infinite population size:
"The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences."

Note also that pretty much every phenotype is partially genetic, partially environmental. There's no one "gay gene", possibly a series of many genes all getting expressed differently.
That said, I know Dawkins likes the so called "gay uncle" theory, that gay people were left to look after the children while the rest of the males in the tribe hunted, some shit like that.

>>8743558
Let's say you have a geneticvalue of 1.0
You represent 100% of your genes.

Your father and mother who has half your genes are each .5 Your brother has about the same genes as you so he is also 1.0

Even if you never reproduce in your life you can still 'pass on' your genes by insuring those with genes identical to your own live on.

If you produce a kid you get +.5 (since he has half your genes), make 2 kids it's +1. Your brother reproducing also gets +.5 for each kid.

Advanced mammals have some systems that work on this genetic math. Lion brothers might decide that only one of them gets reproduce and the other will protect the women and children. And advanced mammals like Lions also happen to be the ones that have homosexuals.

>>8743536
/pol/ is trying to 'raid'

>>8743493
It's not a gay gene, it's a bisexual gene. There is apparently some distinct reproductive advantage in being bisexual for at least a part of the population, this could be any number of things from exchanging sex for resources used to raise your offspring to being able to think outside the box and visualize solutions in pre-industrial societies in which roles strongly correspond to gender.

Gay men/lesbians may be simply extreme outliers amongst bisexuals or, if you assume most humans are latent bisexuals the opposite extreme to heterosexuals in a spectrum.

The way chimpanzees and specifically bonobos tend to organize themselves would hint strongly at this.

>>8743596
dude how is this a pol raid. The guy phrased the question badly, but it's a legit question about biology
Also will someone fucking (you) me, I do bio at uni
>>8743578

>>8743590
Hm, that is interesting. Never thought of it in that way. Now tell me, and I'm trying to be respectful about this whole subject btw, but how would this gene have developed in the first place? There is no need for a gay gene, in terms of survival, so how would it become what it is anyways? Would it be a genetic disorder, initially, or?

>>8743599
Freud thought bisexual was the default state and you than became gay or straight in early childhood. Part of this theory suggested that bi people are immature, don't know if that's accurate.

>>8743603
>dude how is this a pol raid. The guy phrased the question badly
Yeah your probably right. There was a thread about gays over on /pol/ and people were calling to raid here. I'm just being paranoid

>>8743578
>thinks modern humanity is an example of hardy-weinberg

top kek the entire model is based on an assumption no migration, no mutation, and no sex selection occurs

any one of the three fucks up the entire equilibrium and letting downs babies live didn't end the mutation rate for humanity.

what you're doing is googling Wikipedia articles, not reading them fully, and tying them into a social darwinist argument which is your true agenda

>>8743596
Wont lie, I'm from /pol/, but I'm not like most of those guys. I genuinely want to hear your side of the story.

>>8743624
>i'm from /pol/

it was obvious, you all weasel in your own little individual ways but your end goal remains the same no matter what

>>8743528
you don't have to have sexual intercourse with a woman to reproduce

>>8743599
But wouldnt you be able to exchange sex for resources regardless of your orientation?

>>8743610
Freus did consider homosexuality an expression of fixation at a certain developmental stage, having said that bisexuals do tend to be both extroverted and genius liars, at least the closetted ones who would have been a majority throughout history.

>>8743627
And my end goal is..........?

>>8743628
Heh? But only females have the reproductive organs to foster the embryo and stages of child, not men. Unless youre referring to the natural trans people who have both organ sets

>>8743652
>natural trans
intersex or hermaphrodite

>>8743660
There's a reason why I'm asking you guys these questions XP

>>8743638
Not in the same way, say you're the tribe chad's secret lover on all those long hunting-gathering trips to Brokeback mountain, it would help advance your social status at home while the other guy gets a devoted lieutenant.

Or think about the women, a widow might be able to improve her offsprings' chances of survival if she's tribbing Chad's wife, who herself gets an ally in establishing her hyerarchichal dominance over other women while the men are away, guaranteeing the lion's share of resources for her children.

>>8743643
>genius liars

Well as a bi man that fits me perfectly. I love lying. Sometimes do it recreationally, like I'll just see what the most outrageous thing I can make people believe. I'm pretty sure nature made me good at lying because pretending to be from a different team is so damn good for getting info.

I'll give you an example. One time I pretended to be gay when talking to a woman, she felt super safe with me and I got her to tell me all sorts of private things about her sexuality and where she was vunerable. You can imagine how easy it was to take her after that.

I can also pretend to be straight which is incredible fun and useful.

God I love being bi. I seriously think if I had a bi girlfriend we could do wonderful little scams together.

>>8743493
https://youtu.be/5685KJmphFs?t=54m24s

start watching at ~54:24

>>8743674
But wouldnt that then require other homosexuals in different tribes, or the same one, to have this advantage? If, hypothetically, there were no homosexuals at all, would essentially not change much, given that all the services done by homosexuals only service other homosexuals?

You get what I'm saying or did I word it weirdly?

>>8743687
I've mastered sarcasm and it's so fun messing around with people who dont understand the language

>>8743687
You're preaching to the converted, I've been leading all of my adult life like that, now that I'm transitiopning I'll admit I will miss being a man's man.

>>8743695
Hm, someone talked about that in this thread, the Uncle theory.

>>8743698
Nah, I get it, what you do require is a population significant enough to have an advantage, this is consistent with reality however. Assuming most of the population is straight, the bisexual gene doesn't die out because it is a distinct evolutionary advantage, it allows for survival strategies that would only be available to a few in times of scarcity. There are things you'll do for a lover you wouldn't for just a friend.

>>8743705
>>8743709

I'm starting to think if you got enough bi people together we would naturally form Spectre. Than it's just a matter of seducing and killing James Bond and the world is ours!

>>8743726
I forgot to add, many would carry the gene without feeling attracted to their own gender while some might get it from both sides then be born in such a way sex with the opposite gender is repulsive to them. There's obviously also both in utero and childhood developmental factors involved.
I've read that stress during pregnancy leads to higher birth rates for gays/lesbians and this was suposedly the case in Europe during WWII. That the gene gets activated during scarcity would suggest a reproductive advantage.

>>8743726
But, like I said before, the advantages of the bisexual gene would only benefit other bisexuals, correct? If this is true, then how would a gene as such develop to begin with? I said this before, and you told me because of it's societal advantages, which arent wrong, they are technically advantages. But from an evolutionary standpoint, I still dont see how this gene would become real to begin with.

I'm not trying to ignore or discredit what youre saying, but I just dont understand how a gene would evolve to aid only a few organisms. Unlike, for examples, mice who evolve their fur color to blend in with their environment, I dont see how DNA could arrange itself in such a way that doesnt give much of a survival advantage.

>>8743747
Oh yes of course. If all genes given to us were visible and active, we'd be freaks.

>>8743687
Is it weird that I read your post like you were speaking flamboyantly? What if you are lying right now?

Homosexuality is not genetic

There is no debate

>>8743822
Proof?

>>8743834

I am the proof lmao

I thought for years I was exclusively homosexual

Sexuality is less of a physical composition but rather then mentality of the mind

>>8743839
Are you still gay or?

>>8743846

dude...

i'm bi obviously lmao

Don't let anyone tell you sexuality is genetic

YOU WERE NOT BORN GAY STRAIGHT OR W.E

>>8743770
You're assuming all traits are present in a population but in reality they present in clines, or that there isn't an abvious advantage to exclussive heterosexuality for some individuals, as it could be monogamous commitment to a single individual, once the accepted societal norm.

Leaving aside variation as in height (do keep in mind you could also come to the conclusion most humans are born bisexual) mantaining two different survival strategies within the same species isn't unheard of, some plants and insects are able to reproduce both asexually (through parthenogenesis) and sexually depending on conditions. Bear populations on any given area may be inclined to be vegetarian or carnivorous. An individual bird on a primarily insectivorous species may find an advantage in eating seeds for which there is no competition, if this is the result of a genetic advantage it could eventually lead to species diferent6iation but it might not on an environment in which insects are plentiful, remaining an advantage for certain lines in times of scarcity.

Diversity in survival strategies is advantageous for the species as a whole. And a social advantage would by definition stop being one if all individuals adopted the same strategy. In a bisexual world there might be advantages to heterosexuality that ensure it doesn't die out either.

>>8743814
I'd have no reason to lie on a board that doesn't have user names. You couldn't connect 2 of posts from different threads togeather. The only exception would be if I was lying for fun.

And yeah, once people figure out you like to lie it actually works to your advantage because it makes it harder for them to focus. It also might be you say something true and they think your making it up, than they start acting on that and really fuck up.

>>8743865
But what "advantages" would trigger this special gene? Yes, I understand the examples you've given, but those are for environmental and competition advantages. The advantages that you stated earlier:

> say you're the tribe chad's secret lover on all those long hunting-gathering trips to Brokeback mountain, it would help advance your social status at home while the other guy gets a devoted lieutenant.

> Or think about the women, a widow might be able to improve her offsprings' chances of survival if she's tribbing Chad's wife, who herself gets an ally in establishing her hyerarchichal dominance over other women while the men are away, guaranteeing the lion's share of resources for her children.

I dont see how or why DNA would be manipulated to trigger this

>>8743493
Too drunk to read the whole thread, so here's the skinny: Strength in a survival/ genetic perspective is not individualistic. Gay animals tend to go with several strategies, like helping raise the offspring of others, or having offspring of their own by way of a surrogate. In fact, in the latter scenario, the offspring fare better, because their caretakers can prowl a larger area, which means more food and fewer threats.

>>8743880
I'm just speculating here. Let's say there's two strategies, one bisexual/promiscuous and one heterosexual/monogamous, in times of plenty the monogamous trategy might have been the better of the two for men, it lessened the overall male population's chances they were raising the offspring of other men and so a strong taboo against infidelity could've been a compact necessary for men in settled societies not to murder each other. The artificial plenty of agricultural surplus may have also favored this strategy. Ofc the rules didn't always aply to all, chieftains were allowed harems for instance, for the elites a promiscuous strategy may have been a way to cement their power and in times of scarcity or war it ensured their survival, eg you were less likely to be sent off to your death as part of a vanguard if you were the commander's boy toy.This strategy favors women who can obtain the better genes for themselves from the most succesful males.

So you have two distinctive reproductive strategies each favoring different groups, homosexuality has been linked to a more active libido and it stands to reason the hornier you are the more likely you'll try unconventional forms of sex. A young teen girl that isn't getting a lot of chances to get boys in her room and is going through that furious masturbation phase is a lot more likely to end up practicing kissing with her friends. And the hornier you are and the more sexual partners you have the better your chances of reproduction. genetic traits don't exist in isolation.

We could go around this for a while but the bottom line is the asumption there is a genetic pre-disposition for bisexuality explains why exclussively gay/lesbian individuals will always be born in every generation in a simple, straightforward way, you can work out all sorts of plausible ways this can work out, mind you this isn't established science but the core asumption is in my opinion the best currently available explanation,

>>8743652
my point was it does not take sexual intercourse between a man and a woman to result in a fertilized embryo

sperm donation and artificial insemination

>>8743493
The primary reason is because people believe they are what they think they are. It changes their genes and some bloodlines are more susceptible to it probably because someone in their family history was already gay at some point in time. People love to believe that their actions don't influence things that deep, but it does. The more gay people the more likely the society they are a part of is likely to collapse. Remember, the federal government in America is trillion of dollars in debt to an international entity that hails to no one. Where do you think they're gonna get the money from when they come knocking? At least in America, the country has been dead and the figure heads have been propping up a corpse for a while now.

Simple answer:
Genes only dictate which sex you are
Genes DO NOT dictate the sex of the people you will decide to fuck.

>>8744221
Pretty much all the research says otherwise. Even a quick scimm through wikipedia's page on he subject will tell you that

Here have a sample.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24132775
Even your face shape is tied to who you will fuck.

>inb4 da jews

File: fedoraman.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>8743612
>social darwinist argument is your true agenda
fucking how you stupid mong, I am A) not OP, B) I clearly said I thought our population was non-evolving- ie NATURAL SELECTION IS NO LONGER OCCURRING
do you even know what social darwinism is you fucking retard gay shitspawn degenerate

I quoted the law from wikipedia because I don't know it by memory and I'm in a rush

The hardy-weinberg law isn't hard and fast, migration, mutation, and a small population size will cause a deviation from the law, but not significantly enough to significantly affect anything
let alone the frequencies of whatever genes are responsible for homosexuality

you're a fucking degenerate gay faggot, who browses lgbt in their spare time. Don't rinse on me you dumb piece of shit. I hope you get AIDS and die

>>8743493
fitness in evolution acts on more than an individual level with mammals because we group together in herds. Homosexuals in the population would have more time for resource gathering and helping with child rearing than the heterosexual individuals. Every heard the phrase it takes a village to raise a child?

>>8744263
our population was non-evolving

impossible as fuck, the only thing that has changed is the factors that influence our evolution. War and genocide are also a part of natural selection, man made influences are also natural, don't fall for the false dichotomy.

>>8743493
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6p1nmOnILA

This video briefly covers the possible evolutionary benefits of being gay.

>>8744221
In other words; genes greatly affect biology, but biology is not exclusively affected by genes.

>>8743493
Obviously the gene is merely expressed in gay people. The answer is that hetero people also carry it.

>>8743493
Society forced gays to breed.
It will take few generations to determine if it's true or not.

>>8743493
heritable != inheritable

I believe that whatever makes women straight,makes men gay.
Why a gay gene instead of androphilic and gynophilic genes?

>>8743606
The most common theory for the existence of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective is that homosexuals can contribute to the community by gathering resources and rearing children, without focusing on raising their own.

It's the gay uncle theory, and a decent example of it would be in penguins.
Homosexual penguin couples take the eggs and chicks of recently deceased parents, and raise them as their own, thus ensuring the parents' genes are passed on.

>implying anyone cares about all this
The science of causes has nothing to do with morality.

>>8743493
We have this thread every day

>>8743493
>HOW CAN BLUE EYES BE PASSED ON WHEN THEY'RE INFERIOOOOOOOOOR GENES?
GOD: 1
Evolution: 0