Existence of gay people

>implying homosexuality is genetic and not choice

>>8413570
There's already a gay thread.
>>8420021
Proof that homosexuality is genetic is in that thread.

>>8420025
I just looked through the thread and found nothing proving that.

>>8420012
I'd argue that genes are no longer the major factor in survival of humans.

Assuming there was a gay gene, it could be entirely possible that it is preferable, as sexual reproduction is no longer needed to continue the human race.

The thing that 99% of shit posters here don't get is that evolution doesn't have a goal. It's merely just a descriptor we use in hindsight.

Our environment is changing so rapidly in so little time, that the slow clumsy process of trait inheritance is being outpaced. Who knows what selective pressures we will have in the near future,and forget about what will happen 1000, or 10,000 years from now.

Tldr: theory of evolution is shit because it fails one of the most important aspects of a scientific model;predictive power.

Btw, I'm not sjw or tranny or a fag or anything. I just don't see the significance of biological information when we now pass information trillions of times faster on a daily basis with even the most trivial of tasks.

File: 1455422335293.jpg (76KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 480x640px

homosexuality = mental illness
They won't / can't reproduce so that means the weak, mentally ill people will die and not spread their inferior genetics. Natural selection.

>>8420043
>Sexual reproduction is no longer needed to continue the human race
What?

Also, even if evolutoion dosen't have a goal, it does ensure that the genes that most helps someone reproduce is kept while those that are not just fades away. There is literally no way for homosexuals to pass on that gene.

>>8420068
>what is IVF

File: 1465360469401.jpg (32KB, 415x392px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 415x392px

>>8420077
hopefully they get aids and fucking die before they can get a test tube babby

>>8420080
How do you figure lesbians get aids though? It's literally a disease exclusive to niggers, faggots and heroin addicts

>>8420077
IVF is a new thing though. Also, ivf babies apparently have loads of different problems as well.

>>8420012
>Gay people have no way to pass on their genes since two guys can't make a baby.
huh? What does that matter? When homosexuality is frowned upon gay men take wives to "fit in."

File: 1431736768726.jpg (309KB, 750x496px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 750x496px

>>8420012
How can there even be people who die prepubescent from an evolutionary standpoint? People who die prepubescent have no way to pass on their genes since prepubescent can't make a baby. So how in the hell does it exist at all?

>>8420012
How can retards exist from an evolutionary standpoint?

Nobody knows, yet you exist OP.

>implying gays can't have heterosexual siblings who themselves have "gene(s)" to express homosexuality and pass off to future generations for them

I take it you're unfamiliar with how genetics in bees work right? Cause it's about the same thing.

Jeans don't make the baby.

>>8420247
....We are talking millions of years of evolution here. Sure, some gays might take wives to "fit in". Or their siblings might pass on the genes. But a few generations after it will have been completly erased since it in no way contributes to it's own existence and infact by it's very nature is detrimental to reproducing it's genes.

>>8420315
I take it you've never looked into genetics beyond the wiki intro?

Its still a thing. A gene doesn't have to be expressed dominantly for it to be passed down. You can even have it recessively included in a large portion of the population and only expressed in a small fraction, still ensuring that its included.

And a particular gene or expression doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial for the individual to be continued. If it can be beneficial for the population as a whole, then it can still be present regularly even if it isn't directly continued by those who express it.

Gays might not be able to continue their own lineage, but they can contribute to others or the population as a whole. Think about the kind of role young, strong men who didn't have children of their own could play in an early society.

If you've also looked into epigenetics at all, it could not be purely genetic, but how the enviornmeny and genetics interact, which is part of the reason that some people argue that gays are a response to a high population density.

>>8420076
Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they won't fuck a woman.

There's been cases of men that lived happily married, had kids and then turned out to be gay.

It' could be that are best for reproduction, but the ones that survive and manage to reproduce, it could be just luck or maybe they acquired other traits at the same time.
Besides it's not like there's been a lot of time for things to be weeded out anyway.

We still have an useless organ for fucks sake.

>>8420012

i dont agree with the viewpoint necessarily but logically, some of a gay persons genes would still get past on if they had brothers or sisters that werent gay.

>>8420333
>>8420249

I'm gay and I''m still driven to pass on my genes. I still want to have kids of my own, enough that I'm willing to try awkward sex for hours with a woman, if that's what it takes. Not saying it'd be pleasant but in the context that you're suggesting, sex is logically supposed to be more for work than play anyway.

>>8420450
I've also learned that a hole is just a hole and frankly a nicely lubed asshole feels about the same as a pussy does. Once you do the hard part of getting a boner, once you're inside and doing the motion, it's pretty much just as satisfying a feeling.

Goddammit, /sci/. I leave for six months, and I see this shit still floating around. Motherfucker wat.

File: 94a0ae9c4b6704a83dffa88f273f95ad215ba9bdcd3ea3ab3b91695f63ba4822.jpg (19KB, 405x384px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 405x384px

>>8420454

>>8420012
>Gays can't pass on their genes.
Anon females can rape gay men.

>>8420012
Yea but having a fetish for one thing doesn't mean that there's something else attached to it that you therefore don't like. Gay people aren't attracted to women. It's just that they're wired differently, and yea it's the wrong way, but whatcha gonna do? Besides, there's lots of things that don't make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, or that don't make sense probably because you're looking at it the wrong way. Yes they wouldn't have kids if they were gay. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a learned thing. It just means that it's not hereditary (or not 100% hereditary). Take being left handed. It's a complex trait; you have a higher chance of being left handed if one or both of your parents are left handed, but if neither are left handed, there is still a chance that you can be left handed. One theory as to why this occurs is that there are 2 genes: a gene for right handedness, and a gene for random handedness. The gene for right handedness is more common, and most people will have it and therefore be right handed. The random gene, however, will give a 50% chance to either be right or left handed. Through natural selection, this gene is still selected for, because even at times when the better hand is your right, people can be right handed and have the random gene, which then carries left-handedness on with it. A similar theory could be used to describe homosexuality.

>>8420012
Here you go
>>8421067

>>8420043
OK so this is pretty much just wrong. I'm not going to touch on everything, but one thing you're forgetting about is sexual selection. Ever wonder why sex is so good? Well we're trained to like it because if we didn't, our race would die out. Similarly, have you ever wondered why certain things turn you on? Yes, people are complex and of course our kinks aren't purely evolutionary, but healthy people have always been attractive. Yes, there are many places/societies/regions in which fat people are considered more attractive, but if you think about it, being fat in a poor country means you have food and are therefore likely more healthy than other people. I could go on for hours. Natural selection is not purely survival of the strongest (although sexual selection would probably select for that). Anyways, that's one of the many processes that I could list for you that, if you thoroughly understood, would make it very clear that evolution is still very much alive among humans, it's just different, probably due to all of the reasons you would list to justify your disbelief in it.

Think about it like this.
The gay gene exists as a form of population control. When times are hard and over population exsist more gay people are born, and they contribute to a natural decline in population over time.

>>8420909
Well do you really think that enough gay guys are raped by women to pass on genes over thousands of years? I'm on your side, but this isn't a good argument.

>>8420333
>If it can be beneficial for the population as a whole, then it can still be present regularly even if it isn't directly continued by those who express it.
This isnt really true, but if im wrong by all means post examples.

Eusocial insects dont count thats a different thing

>>8420012
Probably a gene carried on the x-chromosome, likely passed down the female line. Basically: woman has the gay gene, but only has daughters, they've all had the gay gene passed down from their mothers, they all have daughters, and this repeats itself until a gay male is born to the family. They're evolutionary dead-ends but a gay male's sister will pass the dormant gene down the chain until another gay male pops out.