Is there any credible evidence to support a genetic basis to

I sincerely doubt researchers are gathering groups of homosexuals and analyzing their genes and producing definitive evidence that this shit exists.

I am about 100% sure that all studies that say otherwise are probably funded by researchers / clinics with a left wing agenda

File: 9576123.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>ppl still believing in the gay gene
>a fucking gay gene

>>8413570
if youve ever watched porn with a penis in it, masturbated and ejaculated, youre as "gay" as you are "straight"

in b4

>dont look at the dick
repressed faggotry
>i like to learn how to fuck
by watching dicks, ok
>i get off by imagining im the guy
staring at his dick while jerking it, totally straight

heterosexuality, homosexuality are memes. everyone bisexual hehe

>fucked 12 girls and 3 guys

i think about dicks while fucking pussy and think about pussy while im sucking dick

>>8413577
Yeah sure and the right wing agenda definitely doesn't have a motive to fabricate evidence supporting their claims either right. It's always those damned communist scientists and their dastardly schemes to destroy America.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15645181

File: fw.jpg (45KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 499x374px

>>8413570
no

>>8413570
>gay gene
Is there a gene for being attracted to strawberry flavored icecreams too ?

It's probably just a byproduct of multiple genes that stem from earlier populations. Which explains why it occurs in most populations and can't be actively selected out.

Gayness can exist a lot easier in a society which provides so much for it's citizens and where peace is more common than war. Look at Bonobos. They are huge fags because they have a great access to high quality foods and can afford to be gay. Chimps struggle and fight over meagre resources and kill lots of babies, so being gay would be detrimental to the species. I think humans are similar. Since we have it so easy it's possible to be more choosy about mates and reproducing isn't an imperative in a world with almost 8 billion people.

File: AlexanderTheGreat_Bust.jpg (128KB, 768x1062px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 768x1062px

>>8414183
masterrace

>>8414183
freud

go
the
fuck
away

>>8414220
Sample size of 450 from 150 families, mlod 3.45.
Is this a joke?

>>8414548
Social science is always a joke, were you expecting actual science in a social science thread?

File: wierd thing.png (835B, 33x71px) Image search: [Google]

835B, 33x71px

>what did he mean by this

>>8414446
Typical misdirected anger towards your mother, projecting onto others. This conflict can only be resolved in bed I'm afraid.

My wild theory on homosexuality:
>Men have an instict that makes them sexually aroused when they see other naked men because they need to be able to compete the other men in reproduction
>Gay men have genetics that cause this instinct to be overactive

File: tumblr_ocaf52efX81s5mfvzo1_1280.png (555KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 780x439px

>>8414446
Read Lacan

>>8413570
Its more nurture than nature. If your stepdad fucked you in the ass when you were 5, your more likely to suck cock at 15.

>>8413570
Thats as retarded as saying "being altruistic has disadvantages, so that gene would have died out!" Consider the whole group, man-only raiding parties being out for months at a time, how it beneficially works for bonobos etc.

>>8414649
such a sick-ass thing to say m9

File: 1453130055037.jpg (84KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x720px

> OP doesn't realize gay men and women can still have children
> posting on a science board while being this much of an alt-right pseud

>>8414636
Lacan is for pretentious hipsters that crave a feeling of intellectual superiority, even a false one.

>>8414681
>not knowing the difference between homosexuality and bisexuality
>posting on a science board while being this much of a strawman-erecting STEM dilettante.

>>8414708
A gay guy can still stick his dick in a lady even if he's not enjoying it.

>he wouldn't be able to get hard
He can just jerk off for a bit and then cum inside her.

>>8413570
Genes that predispose you to be gay if you're a guy can make you a better mother if you're a girl.

>>8414653
the genetic argument against altruism is inherently flawed because it doesn't consider the behavior's net gain in evolutionary viability. I understand how bisexuality can cause a net gain in social cohesion, and thus be a viable evolutionary strategy, or at least a zero sum quirk. That's a far cry from mitigating, if not disqualifying a certain percentage of a population from breeding, as with homosexuality.

>>8414718
>because a gay man is physically capable of having straight sex, his preference not to would have no impact on the proliferation of homosexuality were it to have a genetic basis.
I'm sorry, who's a pseud?

File: Slavoj-Z-iz-ek-008.jpg (37KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 460x276px

>>8414707

>>8414738
You act as if a gay man has never married and had children before.

>>8414748
Let's be generous. Assuming 2/3 of gay men have done this historically, and it's not for the most part a recent development to avoid social stigma, over the course of evolution the impact of this 1/3 not reproducing would be more than enough to wipe out a 100% genetic factor.

File: HumanPopGrowth.gif (26KB, 788x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 788x600px

>>8414785
Okay, take the population carrying genetic trait x. Reduce their reproduction rate by 1/5 to be generous, this assumes 80% of all homosexuals have had children throughout history.Riddle me this: how do they not die out by 8000bc?

>>8414800
*well, it doesn't assume 80% of all homosexuals have reproduced, but it assumes homosexuals have progenated 0.8* as much as the heterosexual population, which seems unrealistic anyway.

>>8414800
Many children per coupling, there were far more important stresses on the population than homosexuality throughout human history. If you were lucky enough to live to adulthood you were pretty much guaranteed to have multiple children. Being heavily social creatures the social pressure to reproduce has always been around. I deleted the other post because it was poorly thought out and was working on a better response.

>>8414800
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

>>8414843
Thanks, this is at least coherent theory. I could be won over by this if it was backed by a handful of valid studies.

>>8414873
What kind of studies would even back up those theories? As far as I know, most evolutionary traits are only theorized on how they survived to today, with only intuition backing them. We only theorize that giraffe necks grew because those with shorter necks couldn't reach higher leaves and so longer necks were advantageous. We have no actual observable evidence of this however and we're never going to. An exception to this is when there are records of how traits are passed like we do with selective breeding in agriculture.

>>8414900
I don't have trouble believing that giraffes developed long necks because it's an observable physical trait. A repeated study with a strong correlation between homosexuality and a specific genetic factor and a large sample size of different races would be enough. Something like a less refutable >>8414220

>>8414923
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25399360

My bio prof said something about a possible "gay gene" that may increase fertility in women, but make makes men gay. So homosexuality is carried and spread by women

>>8413570
Like this?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genome-wide-scan-demonstrates-significant-linkage-for-male-sexual-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343

Or this one?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6212/902.summary

Did you even bother to google it first?

>>8413570
>Gay gene
theres probably a bunch of genes that increase the chance that someone is gay.

>>8413570

Theres loads of evidence that gayness has biological basis. both twin and genome studies and also they even know of the potential neurobiological architechture that mediates the genetic effects of gaynes and are also related to the neurobiology of gender (and maybe environmental effects too) one interesting thing they found is that some kinds of injuries to the hypothalamus can change peoples genders and theyve also demonstrated it in experiments on rats with lesions. look up simon levay and dick schwaab. their research definitely wasnt motivated by left wing principles; most of it being done 20 years ago and infact when the research came out, they actually got alot of bad reactions from the lgbt community.

i dont think the evolutionary questions about it are very useful and are usually just speculation based on information we dont know or guess. there could be multiple reasons both for selection and non-selection reasons why homosexuality is common.

>>8415126
change their sexuality* in second line.

i also imagine there is still big environmental factors for gay behaviour

>>8413570
genetic =/= heritable

File: 1472562372672.jpg (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

I don't give a fuck where it comes from. All I care is that I love fucking cute guys.

File: 1470920946879.gif (2MB, 220x190px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 220x190px

>he thinks genes are responsible for behavior
There are environmental factors which are much more deterministic of behavior.
Research suggests that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors

>>8414262
what you said sounds plausible considering that homosexuality is seen in alot of animals and that sex and hypothalamic type structures (where atleast some gay genes may have an effect) are very old.

>>8415143
Such as?
What environmental factors are common to ALL homosexuals, no matter what genes they have?

>>8415146
>common to ALL
you seem to have conflicting ideas about what "common" means

I don't know shit about homosexuality in non-human populations, but in the west a lot of homosexuals had their first gay experience when they were kids. They just never stopped being gay.

>>8415146
There is evidence it is linked to womb environment. The reason being the whole 2nd/3rd etc sons having higher chance of being gay and the changes in womb chemistry after each child.

Most likely homosexual males and females are highly influenced by womb environment, which is where a portion of brain difference is decided on.


On intuition, "gay" could easily be removed from a society by controlling for womb environment and some genetic engineering. I'd wager, up to 80% of bi/homosexuality could be wiped out in this manner.

>>8415152
why would you want to remove it...

Actual fag here. Got any questions? Currently in grad school if anyone cares.

>>8415159
>declining population
I could at least see why white people would want to get rid of it in their population

>>8413570
>Is there any credible evidence to support a genetic basis to homosexuality

basically no, give this a read

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=lu_law_review

>>8415165
for fuck sake, not these right wing conspiracy theorists again *closing metaphorical ears* . and i imagine sexual orientation is determined by all 3 of the major factors mentioned; external environment, womb and genes.

>>8415178
>implying i'm right wing
>implying i'm a conspiracy theorist
>implying I believe there is a complete list of the causes of ANY phenomena

I imagine you're butthurt because someone with a degree told you were gay because someone diddled you when you were a kid.

>>8415170
given the widespread bias and failures in many fields I don't trust pretty much any research on this subject.

I couldn't find a GWAS look into homosexuality either and that is about the only thing I trust when it comes to psychology/genetic factors due to most gene association studies being proven false recently.

I'm not that interested in the subject but I would be skeptical of anyone purporting to know the causes. I'd expect it's similar to most behavioral traits and a combination of genetics and environment with an emphasis on womb environment.

>>8415170
this article doesnt say theres no genetic contribution to homosexuaality, it just goes against a hard completely biological basis for genes. it doesnt actually refute any of the biological evidence it just says the biological evidence doesnt refute environmental factors.

i skimmed through this very quick without reading properly and understood more than you did

>>8415180
lol im not gay and im just tired of hearing about population decline white people shit which tends to come out of right wing people. sorry for jumping to conclusions :) i dont understand the third point but you dont need you to explain it.

>>8415197
It's not just "white people", but a problem of high IQ people not reproducing enough.

http://elitedaily.com/women/women-with-high-iq/1052300/

High IQ women for instance are found to want kids less than low IQ women.

The problem of "idiocracy" is actually very real.

>>8415203
its not top of my list of world problems quite frankly.

>>8415193
>doesn't refute any of the biological evidence
Actually the article refutes numerous major studies. It doesn't rule out genetic contribution entirely, granted- that would be proving a null hypothesis.

Anyone know where I can find out more about these mystery chemical womb changes? Can't seem to find anything credible.

>>8415203
not really, it's not like intelligence can be permanently bred out of humanity

in a hypothetical universe where brainlets outbreed geniuses and eventually the entire world is brainlets, the smartest brainlets would be the geniuses. You know, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king type shit

>>8415210
flawless logic
>>8415207
"Intelligence" is actually the dominant variable when it comes to the world. It takes a while to understand this, but most intelligent people on Earth understand this fact. It would help you to understand things if you also arrive at that conclusion.

It's especially important due to the intelligence explosions coming.

>>8415213
>intelligence is the dominant variable
how anthropocentric of you

a handful of dirt contains more individual bacteria than individual humans on earth
there are more ants currently alive than there are humans who have EVER lived
there are non-senescent immortal species of life that live here on earth, extremophiles that will still be alive when this planet is inhospitable for humanity and we are forced to fuck off or die

but intelligence is the dominant variable in the world? Nah. durability is.

>>8415209
have you read the article. the bit on biological theories is actually quite short it says.

for neurobiological architecture, the studies dont tell us whether the changes were environment or genetic.

for twins it just says that the studies show both a genetic and an environmental component.

for genes it just says that genes arent the only contributor.

the article doesnt say the studies behind genome, twin studies or neurobiology were wrong it just says that both biology and environment play a part.

like i sais the article only goes against biology as a complete explanation, it doesnt say biology doesnt have a role or else at the end it wouldnt call its model a biopsychosocial model...

>>8415213
yes intelligence is important to people but i think there are bigger problems atm and i dont know what i would do about the problem of intelligence or if there is even anything to do about it other than furthering things like education or the way we raise children

>>8415231
We can genetically engineer any sort of shit to kill all of those things. Not to mention nuclear bombs and other advancements.

Equating bacteria to humans is pretty stupid.

>>8415241
you are completely ignorant on the subject

Tell me the education or "raise children" system that produces a von neumann

a very small % of humans are responsible for pretty much all advancement.

>>8415296
nigga there are trees older than civilization
you think that just because humanity learned how to do chemical reactions and then artificially reproduce fusion that we're the apex of everything?

>>8415308
There are no trees older than civilization. Cite your sources

>>8415312
after googling "really fucking old tree" and being rewarded with geriatric porn, i've decided to leave you with a wikipedia page while i sanitize my mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

also I saw some documentary about a network of trees which is actually just one single organism which is supposed to be 40000 fucking years old or some shit. I think it was called Pando

Human civilization is ~6000 years old at best

>>8415317
>human civilization is ~6000 years old at best
I'm done here. Dat Pando preddy old doe.

>>8415297
So how do you propose we create these geniuses?

>>8415332
Well, one example of a multitude of ways would be to dig up the body or use a tissue sample (einstein) and synthetically recreate the DNA from scratch. aka cloning of current known geniuses.

Wouldn't hurt to have 1,000 baby elon musks, 1,000 baby einsteins, etc.

>>8414730
Yeah, but then you have insect hive species where almost NONE of the individuals ever participate in breeding.

Having a small chance in producing a human that doesn't participate in the breeding cycle could convey an advantage to the line. So many societies employed eunuchs for the same sort of reason.

Gayness is likely all due to a more homosexuality inducing sexual circuit imprint at a young age desu.

File: which_one_is_OP.jpg (3MB, 2768x1864px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2768x1864px

>>8413570
There's *some* evidence to suggest an epigenetic component. Though, when it comes to animal sexual behavior, there's a lot more evidence for it.

Basically, the more male offspring a female herd mammal has consecutively, the less apt the subsequent males are to engage in sex or even associate with females, and the more frequently they tend to "play games" with males.

There's some fanciful explanation that this maybe an evolved defense against overpopulation, since males can impregnate multiple females.

Back in the days before artificial insemination, this was a common "superstition" among farmers attempting to breed males - if a female animal already had several males, they'd switch up the breeding stock. This maybe the reason behind the tradition.

There's been some surveys to suggest that, among humans, males are more apt to be gay if they are the third or fourth brother in a series, than they are if they are the first - but there's a lotta social interaction to consider there - and some other studies have shown otherwise. (Thus I'm skipping the bonus points, as it'll just turn into an endless link battle.)

File: download (36).jpg (38KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x360px

>>8413570
>Surely, to oversimplify, the faggo gene would have wiped itself out from the gene pool if this was the case.
Unless, of course, a bunch of social pressures came together to basically threaten their lives unless they had children in some effort to prove they weren't gay.

Good thing no one was stupid enough to do that, or there'd be a huge overload of the gay today, wouldn't there?

Oh... Wait...

>>8415748

surely purely epigenetic explanations dont need selection explanations.

>>8415748
oh actually i can imagine what you mean

>>8415768
Certainly not for OP's question, though lots of common epigenetic changes apparently arose from selection pressures. There's still selection pressure involved, as the species that commonly generates an advantageous epigenetic feature, is more apt to survive than one lacking it. The process that creates the potential for the epigenetic change, is still inherited, if not the change itself.

Plus more fundamental epigenetic changes, such as maggots being chemically altered to indicate which end is the head, among certain flies. (Though don't ask me how or why that came about.)

File: hellajeff.jpg (33KB, 337x294px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 337x294px

if you are gonna argue that people can't be born homosexual because it hinders reproduction, and would therefore be filtered out genetically
then you would have to deny that people can be born genetically infertile, when there is a whole table of genes that when mutated cause female infertility
you can also be born genetically just plain fucking dead, which sure as hell makes it hard to pass on your genes, yet you're still going to have those mutations keep emerging
and your going to have more gay genes passing on than infertile and dead genes so there you fucking go

It could be a recessive gene or caused by several genes.

I don't think that's it. I think a lot of LGBT is caused by chemicals that interfere with the development of the brain. There are some that are good mimics of estrogen (bpa for one) and if a fetus is exposed at the time when either the sex drive parts or the gender ID parts are forming, then it makes sense that this would make those parts female rather than male.

>>8415788
in a similar way couldnt you then also say that epigenetic changes are "traits" also have an environmental and genetic component

>>8415818
Yes, yes you could.

Though you don't wanna cast the net too wide, as suddenly you'd be saying drinking radioactive water was an epigenetic change. It generally refers to changes made in-utero, via hormones, or by retro-virus. (In regards to OP, the first two.)

>>8413570
Even schizophrenia is sometimes genetic. What are you even talking about all these 80 posts?

>>8415833
yeah thats what i mean in the womb and any selected epigenetic process would be a product both of genes and the environment of the mother during pregnancy right.

>>8415844
Yeah.

>>8415841
yesh , i think incidence of schizophrenia is thought of as being heavily contributed to by genetic variation.

the way i see it is that everything we do requires genetic information as a given, so unless there is very strong selective pressures, everything we do and are is going to be influenced to some extent by genetic variation though the proportion of this influence would be heavily determined by the contribution of environmental factors.

and ive thought that since sex and sexual behaviour are evolutionarily very old and ingrained in our genetics then genetic variation would be always be significant genetic contribution to whether we are homoosexual or not.

>>8415841
>schizophrenia
>>actual psychiatric disorder and disembalance of neurotransmitters

>homosexuality
>>not an actual psychiatric disorder (shut up about the DSM IV) with impaired neurotransmitters

To sum the thread up, I think of these theories:

>Homosexuality as a genetic predisposition
I don't think there's enough evidence to support this theory. What genes could be associated to the development of sexual arousal to the same sex? Are they beneficial in some way? Are those genes the by-product of a social or an environment factor?

>Homosexuality as a result of social interactions
I'm more inclined to support this as the main reason of gayness. Evidence shows that most (I don't have statistical data here atm, sorry) homosexual cases are started by either:
-A sexual experience with the same sex (let it be: raped at childhood, kids experimenting sexuality together).
-Exposition to the gay scene (gay parents or family members, gay friends, television, internet)
-Social over-interaction with the same sex OR the opposite sex (boys hang out with other boys, they develop a love/idolization link with their closest friends and see them as love/sexual partners. The same for girls. Or the other way around: boys hang out with girls and start to acquire their imposed social criteria of behavior, that is, mannerisms and sexual prospects)

>Homosexuality as an evolutionary trait
Let it be that reproduction is now being considered unnecessary or as an overpopulation brake. This seems logic but hardly can be studied.

>>8413570
Yeah it's not like there are people who are BISEXUAL so they can have an OFFSPRING but also like DICK.

>>8414287
>being gay would be detrimental to the species
Except you are completely backwards. Gays are individuals who produce work but don't produce offspring. By definition, they support society and intentionally produce more resources for fewer children. It's the same reason why we are a species where only half as many men reproduced as women for most of our genetic history. The men that don't reproduce still continue society and protect the group.

>>8415748
Stephen Colbert had was like the 11th or 13th child in his family. He had over 100% chance to be a rump-raging homolord according to most of the family models. Too bad.

File: bears.jpg (168KB, 690x1026px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 690x1026px

>>8415998
>Stephen Colbert
Well I rest my case...

(Although, seriously, are they all brothers?)

If there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, it would always be a recessed gebe at least through mothers.
>mom has homo gene
>is having sex normally, as cavemen and cave women do
>she has homo gene
>has four sons
>they now have homo genes
>one is gay, doesnt breed
>the other three breed with women
>their children have homo genes
>they have 2 daughters and a son
>one daughter is homo
>that daughter is raped
>has twins
>etc...

Same for baldness, predispossition for cancer, small dicks, major acne, IBS/Crohns, those weird crab hands, you name it.

>>8416050

it's retarded

>>8415962
Seems like the areas of the brain that tell someone what is or isnt attractive is the reason for homosexuality. Same thing with beastiality. Some cases, the person is psychologically damaged, so the strange attractions is not genetic. Sometimes, the person seems to be born with the attractions and is psychologically normal in every other way.

It could be that someone could be predispositioned for strange sexual attraction and some traumatic event changes their brain chemistry.

Its still being determined, we dont know shit about the link between genetics and behavior.

Look at it like this, modern science has only made it to chapter 2 or 3 of a 40 chapter book when it comes to genetics.

File: 7 (1).jpg (17KB, 439x326px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 439x326px

>>8414583
Never thought I'd see that again

>>8414183

Degenerate leftist retard pls go

>>8413570
Yes there is, but it's not exclusively genetic. Also there is no one single gene, but set of various genes.
If one of twins is gay, then the second one is likely to be gay as well, but it's not absolute. Also being gay is not binary, it's a spectrum, so it's hard to measure.

In any way, there are genetic basis for homosexuality, but culture and environment has large role it in as well.

Lawl

>>8415925

psychiatric disorder is just a social lable.

at the end of the day, any variation of human cognition from cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia to your sexual orientation to your iq is a product of your brain and neurobiological processes.

you can get a severe head injury that fucks up your ability to pay attention or concentrate.
you can also get head injuries that turn you gay.

>>8417665
how am I a leftist ?

>>8419221
You disagreed with him, that's all it takes for an idiot to lump you together with everyone who disagrees with them into a neat little category/conspiracy. Never mind if it actually makes sense, his brain doesn't have the processing power required to make an actual argument.

>>8414183
That's why I never fapped to straight porn in my life.
The guy disgusted me and I only cared about girl. When I was young I was fapping only to nudes, solos and lebians. When I discovered anime, I only enjoy yuri, tentacles and various other genres where there is no male. Romances doesn't bother me, but I can't stand a men in porn.

I wonder if there is someone more people like me.

>>8419793
Kind of.
I can't into bi/hetero porn cuz of vagoo and bobz.
I'm into guys, so I only partake in gay porn. I always wondered how some people like straight porn when there's dicks.

There must be some genetic composition. How are some Saudi people Gay? They have 0 social conditioning for such a thing. In fact, being gay there is an instant death sentence.

>>8415753
Yet he tends to show homosexual preferences in every other category of life besides sex partners.

So there is a gay gene, but it is not hereditary.
I have journal articles to back this up too.
will find them and brb to explain it properly

>>8420282
There is no gay gene.
There is multiple genes responsible for it, and environmental pays mayor role in it.

>>8419793
>disgusted by dicks
>is fine with tentacles
The reason why you've never fapped to straight porn isn't because you're not gay, it's because you're a closeted freak.

>>8413570
>Is there any credible evidence to support a genetic basis to Harlequin-type ichthyosis? Surely, to oversimplify, the Harlequin foetus gene would have wiped itself out from the gene pool if this was the case.

>>8420393
Tentacles doesn't bother be because it's not dicks that bother me.
The man in porn are ugly, noisy and there is too much focus on them. I only care about the girl and her pleasure.

>>8414995
I like this theory. Its probably not the right one since gayness increases with the amount of children you have, suggesting there might be something with the lower testesteron levels in the womb playing a factor. But a gene making girls super hot and girly producing lots of children that also causes the boys to sometimes turn girly appealed to me.

>>8413570
>Is there any credible evidence to support a genetic basis for the (recessive lethal) gene? Surely, to oversimplify, the (recessive lethal) gene would have wiped itself out from the gene pool if this was the case.
If the gay gene existed, not only would it be very likely to be recessive, increasing its likelihood of being passed down, but it also would not even reduce fitness. They can still donate sperm/eggs to a surrogate, and, in rarer cases, have children with someone of the opposite sex.
How exactly would it wipe itself out of the gene pool?

>>8414995
So what about gay women?

>>8420517
Homosexuality doesn't bother anyone.
Annoying exhibitionists on parades, adopting children by homo parents, forcing lgbt characters and ideology to media and schools, suing and firing people just because lgbt community doesn't like them and quotas are bothering people.

>>8413570
i just thought of this now and it might sound stupid but if being gay had genetic or epigenetic factors, would that necessarily mean that being gay and being lesbian were caused by the same factors?

>>8414995
maybe a womans male children would still be able to carry the same predisposing genes if that was the case.

File: recessive.png (71KB, 800x936px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x936px

>>8413570
the faggo gene could be recessive or just a common mutation, not necessarily passed down from gay father to gay son
it could be like turner syndrome or some shit, or tay-sachs
it's pretty hard to pass down tay-sachs when you die by the age of four

>>8415317
>>>8415312
>after googling "really fucking old tree" and being rewarded with geriatric porn, i've decided to leave you with a wikipedia page while i sanitize my mind

This doesn't contribute but I did laugh pretty hard at this.

>>8415353
I'm sure a twilight zone with a "don't play god" theme would disagree with you.

>>8419793
>fap to tentacles
>not analagous to monster bbc

youre gay dude

as someone with a big dick fetish i can tell you that tentacles are an analagous flavour of the same thing

if troll 10/10

>>8420761
More like large insertion fetish.
I don't really care if the tentacle/dildo/whatever is a penis or something else. Size is all that matters, but only in 2D. 3D large insertion is disgusting as fuck.

>>8413570
well if it's present in over 350 species of other animals, i'd say its existence is credible

Is the gay gene the same as "WE WUZ" or bane/toddposting on other boards?

Also, this thread gets posted everyday, why do you guys fall for it? It's probably some asshole with a bot who has it post the same topic daily.

>>8414923
>A repeated study with a strong correlation between homosexuality and a specific genetic factor and a large sample size of different races would be enough.
Correlation does not imply causation, and you can find correlation for whatever you want if you look hard enough

>>8421037
Take a statistics course. Don't talk about causation vs. correlation until you've taken a statistics course please.

>>8413570
> Surely, to oversimplify, the faggo gene would have wiped itself out
Not necessarily. Assume that you need a certain gene combination to be gay, and certain other related gene combination to be promiscous but straight, (similar to recessiveness), then a gay man would be more likely to have promiscous brothers and the 'gay gene' would be evolutionary successful.
There are examples of this happening with stuff like sickle cell anemia.

>>8420511
Lesbianism is a meme, you got t r i c k e d .

>>8415178

its not a conspiracy theory.

whites are the smallest global minority and if we want to not go extinct we need to create conditions leading to higher birthrates. that's all pure fact.

>>8415210

the value of intelligence isn't how you stack up against other people. its your objective capacity for manipulation of knowledge and information creatively. which is why nations with a 1 IQ point advantage over another nation experience 2-3% GDP advantage, and a single standard deviation (10 points) basically defines first world, developing world, and third world.

>>8420746

>i'm sure fictional scenarios could seem scary to you

like it or not we're going to be reproducing geniuses in cloning vats.

my hypothesis is that it took 1 genius per advance to get to the level of knowledge and ability we're at now; it will take 100 geniuses working together on the same problem to reach the next level, and 10,000 geniuses working together on the same problem for the level after that.

eventually we'll have entire galaxies turned into laboratories, with machinery the size of nebula - imagine a microscope the size of a star.

>>8421180
>conservationism
We don't do it with the vast majority of species why would we do it with whites?

>>8421199
>being this bad at futurism

>>8420511
For women, that's called being in college.

>>8421188
you cant say that dude, you ever heard of correlation not causation?

dumb fuck

Only good comments

>>8415009
>>8414990
>>8414220

If there's a genetic basis for depression and other conditions, then there's /potentially/ one for homosex.

Also, fuck off /pol/
>race and iq are genetic and stupid liberals deny it
>homosexuality definitely can't be because reasons

>>8413570

>tfw /lit/ fags dont know there is a genetic basis and subsequent genetic variation for every trait and its a matter of how much not if.

File: 1453432155643.png (28KB, 186x208px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 186x208px

>>8422251
So there are genes responsible for political views, preferable partner's hair color and favorite food?

>>8414718
You know... These people just dont get it.

I identify as homosexual. In all honesty, my interest is more like 90% same sex, 10% opposite sex. I do not identify as bisexual, as I would not actually act upon that 10% desire. Hell, I don't even act upon the 90% desire at this point. Point is, just because someone is 'gay' doesnt mean they won't reproduce. Whoever said 'he wouldnt be able to get hard' has no clue how 'it' works.

Most people are not 100% straight or 100% gay. I argue that the many people, if they just admit it to themselves (dont even have to admit it to others), are not 100% either way.

Also, it's amazing what people do (either 'straight' or 'gay') when they are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, whatever. All it would take is one 'gay' dude with his best girl [space] friend, getting drunk, and the next thing thats going on is male/female sex, and possibly conception. There, gay man has just reproduced.

Ah, the magic of humanity and reality.

>>8413570
Do you know what kin selection is?

>>8413570
Genes for eye color and hair are often times cited for being more complex then most would expect . Same thing vies for sexual orientation. It much more reasonable to say sexuality is primarily a choice influenced by your environment and genes .Seriously just scroll through 4Chan and you'll see stories of anon who were straight and overtime found themselves knee deep in gay porn .

>>8423969

I didnt subscribe to /blog/

>personal experience ~ actual science

This is why feminism exist.

>>8422782
> Not knowing Xq28 determines what flavours of ice cream you enjoy, and to what degree you enjoy them