[News] Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

[Moontanman]

My gut feeling has to do with the impact of PC social engineering on science. This particular area of science seems off center, so we can all feel warm and fuzzy in science fiction. Let me ask a question. How many journals would dare publish negative reports on the matter? It is not like these angles don't exist out there. Who would dare fund them? One would get censored and boycotted, since balancing the warm fluffy with cold thorns might have an impact on PC science.

 

Your gut feeling is religious homophobia, the idea that genetic homosexuality is just PC is a total STRAWMAN, PC says homosexuality is not a metal illness, not too many years ago to be homosexual was to be mentally ill.

 

The idea of homosexuality is genetically linked is supported by evidence, not Political Correctness! PC does not figure into real evidence, you want homosexuality to be proved unnatural or at least a choice. Tell me HB, if you wok up tomorrow and the world was principally homosexual and heterosexuals were a small minority, hated, assumed to be child molesters, not allowed to participate in many of life's basic rights, forced to lie, and live a secrete life always in fear of being found out would you convert? Is heterosexuality just a choice for you?

 

I think it's also important to point out there are people who do indeed choose to try homosexuality, some people do indeed go both ways, sexuality is not a yes/no black/white thing sexuality is more like a rheostat. I know that upsets you to think of that way but just like people who are born physically sexually ambiguous some are born mentally sexually ambiguous too. The most telling thing is that men who go both ways are assumed to be "really homosexual" perverts, child molesters, out casts, but women who go both ways are sexually hot!

 

For example, most of the first hundred thousands victims of AIDS were gay men. But there is no correlation one could present. Instead we will get illogical back peddling trying to tell how this is not what we should be looking at. This data would not benefit the warm fuzzy and needs to be ignored, even if it is part the phenomena. Is this was not human but a tree, we would include it as part of the analysis.

 

Again, another total misrepresentation of reality, as I recall the idea that only gay men were involved was quite real and shouted from the roof tops until it was realized that anyone could get aids, not just homosexual men.

 

I see the same PC template having been tried with manmade global warming, since it seemed to have slide by with gay. The pretend science already had the answer it wanted to set up structural changes. The resources were then subjectively stacked and the opposition was censored and ridiculed. The consensus of science got it wrong, betting on what was suppose to be a fixed horse race. I have nothing against same sex attraction, but I don't science fixing the outcome. My gut tells me this is fixed like a vegas prize fight so the bookies win. The PC is the mob.

 

Again your gut is not science, the two have nothing in common, there are challenges to climate change and it's assertions, so far they all have been refuted. So far I have seen no assertions that homosexuality is not natural for those people who feel that that are backed up by anything but religion and homophobia. If you know of them I suggest you post them.

 

 

I used some of the gay arguments for alcoholism. I also used a selective advantage argument like this propaganda fluff piece. It does not sound so good when those who I was fluffing are not traditionally given the same level of PC warm fuzzy. Although PC did try to get science to make it a disease instead of a mind effect. If they had a better PC warm fuzzy, one would say that is a good argument and science would publish. Most of this is empirical which means, whatever is in vogue.

 

As I pointed out your use of PC is totally off base.

 

Here is another genetic argument that is not PC protected by science. If we look at nature, there are many animals that steal to survive, such as the hyena. Since there is a genetic basis for stealing among many animals, that means we should condone thieves since this is genetic. We can not expect them to control what they feel, being rooted in genetics and if we single them out it would hurt their feelings. This genetic animal argument does not carry the same weight since PC does not put them on the list. It would expect will power, environment and choice to weigh more than genetic arguments.

 

Stealing is not at issue here, people steal all the time, we all do selfish things. Your assertion has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

I have seen animals defend against other animals who try to hump them. Is this the genetic basis for what we call "homophobia" and does that make it a valid POV since this is genetic based? One can argue that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Mother animals protecting their young will often attack even if not intentionally provoked. They will set a perimeter of defense and will even attack an animal who means no harm in they invade that space. These two genetic arguments for homophobia are not PC condoned, so science will not stack the deck.

 

This is such bullshit, aggression, sexual or not is defended against, are you saying that homosexuality is the same as sexual aggression? Do homosexuals hump your leg when you go out?

 

These arguments are not my belief. I was showing how the deck is not consistent across the board. Science bends over for certain things and not for others.

 

Some scientists might bend over but real science is based on evidence which you bend over to ignore at every opportunity, be careful, no telling what might happen when you are bent over that far.

 

 

I also think the genetic card is overplayed. There is never any requirement of tangible proof with genes that show this cause and effect. What we can show are actors who can generate any behavior using only the brain. I am not saying any of this is an act, but rather showing can simulate the same things with only the brain. The root only has to come from an unconscious place and hook into the same places the actor uses, to a get a reality show. Why do you think acting is possible in the first place; the wiring are already there to create any special effect.

 

I see no reason that homosexuality has to be genetic, the evidence does strongly point that way but simple developmental problems could account for it completely. You seem to desperately need homosexuality to be wrong in some way, something to be stopped. I think human sexuality is fascination, a multifaceted thing that is suppressed by religion, shoe horned into a mold dictated by a god that has nothing to do with reality any more than the idea of one man one woman or any other combination of sexuality, I think polyamorus is more natural but i don't harp it's the only way and everyone else is wrong.

 

You need simple black and white things, your assertions and habit of totally ignoring anything that disagrees with you shows that very strongly.