No On 8 / No On Religion

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#141
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#141
thatguy said:
i have nothing wrong with homosexuals at all. nothing wrong with love. society just seems to go really overboard with giving groups of people new rights and what not. i dont wanna see homosexual marriage stem into homosexual classes being taught in school where my kids go. furthermore, homosexuality is counterproductive to the whole reason we are here in the first place. which is to reproduce. like i said, children need to be protected above all through this because like thaG said, what we are here for is to make copies. also i believe, we are here to try and make our copies better than ourselves, so they can push society further and what not.
Click to expand...
Uggh no, you didn't understand it

We're not here "for that", we're not here for anything, it is just what we are programmed to do as a byproduct of billions of years of chemical evolution

homosexuality isn't counterproductive to anything, because their is no production goal set
 
Mr. Nice Guy

Mr. Nice Guy

Sicc OG
#144
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#144
ThaG said:
Uggh no, you didn't understand it

We're not here "for that", we're not here for anything, it is just what we are programmed to do as a byproduct of billions of years of chemical evolution

homosexuality isn't counterproductive to anything, because their is no production goal set
Click to expand...


There is a evoliutionary advantage to homosexuality, otherwise "the alleles influencing it should have dissappeared". We have just not yet been able to discover exactly what the benefit is.

A lot of evolutionary biologists have theorized, and gathered supporting evidence that homsexuality can actually be a reproductive advantage in the sense of kin selection, such that homosexual males/females provide a reproductive advantage to their brothers or sisters and therefore pass on their collective genes through such a more succesful brother or sister.

Study shows male homosexuality can be explained through a specific model of Darwinian evolution
Reporting in this week's PLoS ONE, an Italian research team, consisting of Andrea Camperio Ciani and Giovanni Zanzotto at the University of Padova and Paolo Cermelli at the University of Torino, found that the evolutionary origin and maintenance of male homosexuality in human populations could be explained by a model based around the idea of sexually antagonistic selection, in which genetic factors spread in the population by giving a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other.

Male homosexuality is thought to be influenced by psycho-social factors, as well as having a genetic component. This is suggested by the high concordance of sexual orientation in identical twins and the fact that homosexuality is more common in males belonging to the maternal line of male homosexuals. These effects have not been shown for female homosexuality, indicating that these two phenomena may have very different origins and dynamics.

Male homosexuality is difficult to explain under Darwinian evolutionary models, because carriers of genes predisposing towards male homosexuality would be likely to reproduce less than average, suggesting that alleles influencing homosexuality should progressively disappear from a population. This changed when previous work by Camperio Ciani and collaborators, published in 2004, showed that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than average.

Challenged by all these empirical data, the authors of the new study published in PLoS ONE considered a range of different hypotheses for the genetic diffusion of male homosexuality. These included: the genetic maternal effects on sons, the heterozygote advantage (as is found in malaria resistance), and "sexually antagonistic selection." The latter is a particular aspect of Darwinian evolution, in which genetic factors spread in the population by giving a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other. This type of evolution has been previously found in insects, birds, and some mammals, but never in humans.

To discover and clarify the dynamics of the genetic factors for homosexuality, the researchers had to screen a large set of models and exclude them one by one. They concluded that the only possible model was that of sexually antagonistic selection. The other models did not fit the empirical data, either implying that the alleles would become extinct too easily or invade the population, or failing to describe the distribution patterns of male homosexuality and female fecundity observed in the families of homosexuals. Only the model of sexually antagonistic selection involving at least two genes – at least one of which must be on the X chromosome (inherited in males only through their mother) – accounted for all the known data.

The results of this model show the interaction of male homosexuality with increased female fecundity within human populations, in a complex dynamic, resulting in the maintenance of male homosexuality at stable and relatively low frequencies, and highlighting the effects of heredity through the maternal line.

These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits, and which promotes female fecundity. This may well be the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in human beings.

The possible widespread occurrence of sexually antagonistic characteristics in evolutionary processes, which play their evolutionary game by giving a fecundity benefit to one sex while disadvantaging the other, has only recently begun to be appreciated. This is understood as a key mechanism through which high levels of genetic variation are maintained in biological populations. Male homosexuality is just the first example of an unknown number of sexually antagonistic traits, which contribute to the maintenance of the natural genetic variability of humans. The new perspectives opened by the models developed for sexually antagonistic selection may also contribute to a better understanding of most genetically-based sexual conflicts, which are, at present, poorly understood in humans.

An unexpected implication of the new models concerns the impact that the sexually antagonistic genetic factors for male homosexuality have on the overall fecundity of a population. The findings suggest that the proportion of male homosexuals may signal a corresponding proportion of females with higher fecundity. Consequently, these factors always contribute, all else being equal, a positive net increase of the fecundity of the whole population, when compared to populations in which such factors are lower or absent. This increase grows as the population baseline fecundity decreases; this means that the genes influencing male homosexuality end up playing the role of a buffer effect on any external factors lowering the overall fecundity of the whole population.
Click to expand...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/plos-ssm061608.php



This is a great article on The Selfless Gene and Kin Selection

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710/generosity-and-evolution
 
F

Foul Mouth

Sicc OG
#146
Apr 25, 2002
6,229
2,453
113
#146
thatguy said:
first of all, you were talking about prop 8 being that you openly stated in your introduction that this thread is for open minded people that thought for themselves. then expressed that those people were the ones voting no on prop 8, due to the fact that you seem to be under the impression most people vote yes because of some type of religious beliefs.


sterile people can adopt, and people not wanting children is a fairly new idea, because not too long ago, we didnt have all this technology and bullshit, so kids were used to work farms and other such things.

and about groups marrying, once that is excepted and cousins marrying is accepted, your kids will be taught to accept these types of ideas, at young ages which will have negative effects on them. they may even possibly take part in such things. lines have to be drawn somewhere, if just anyone can get married, if just anyone can do anything, there is chaos.
Click to expand...

your still using the marriage is to raise kids argument.and its still crap.........

as far as the cousins married and we have accept that and it will have negative effects, thats crap too. i grew up around negative shit. as a child i lived across the street from a dope dealer who got his head blown off in the front yard, i lived in a spot where i had to be careful of playin on the grass cus spooners would throw there syringes on the grass when the cops came, i've lived around the corner from the razor so when i'd go buy some candy at the store there'd be tricks pickin up hookers.i was pre-mature cus my dad beat me out of my mom and kept beating her till they divorced when i was 5. my dad used to force me to drink hard liquor in front of my uncles to prove how much of a man i was when i was a child.my moms second husband beat her till they divorced. trust me, i been around negative shit, alot
of negative shit, i dont have time to type all the other negative shit i was around growing up. i dont partake in none of that shit, but in your scenerio you believe different. your sayin cus i been thru it that i would partake in it.you sound like the type of person who thinks your child would turn gay because they learned about it in school.so yeah your right, we should ban everything we dont believe in............arent ciggerettes legal, why arent there waaaaaaaaaaay more ciggerette smokers?
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#147
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#147
California

Renewable-energy initiative (Proposition 7) — requires all utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.

Result: Defeated overwhelmingly

Alternative-fuel vehicle initiative (Proposition 10) — provides $5 billion in bond funding for natural gas and other alternative fuel vehicles, including research into renewable-energy technologies.

Result: Defeated overwhelmingly

Initiative to repeal same-sex marriage (Proposition 8) — Eliminates the right for same-sex couples to marry in the state.

Result: Passed narrowly
Click to expand...
both alternative energy propositions were defeated...
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#148
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#148
Mr. Nice Guy said:
There is a evoliutionary advantage to homosexuality, otherwise "the alleles influencing it should have dissappeared". We have just not yet been able to discover exactly what the benefit is.

A lot of evolutionary biologists have theorized, and gathered supporting evidence that homsexuality can actually be a reproductive advantage in the sense of kin selection, such that homosexual males/females provide a reproductive advantage to their brothers or sisters and therefore pass on their collective genes through such a more succesful brother or sister.



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/plos-ssm061608.php



This is a great article on The Selfless Gene and Kin Selection

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710/generosity-and-evolution
Click to expand...

that makes sense

but one should not fall in the adaptationism trap and think that there must be "genes for homosexuality" that are selected for and against

it might just be a byproduct of the evolution of brain wiring

I am not saying what it is, I just warn of the danger of trying to explain everything with adaption and forgetting about the role of drift
 
SFC I-Side

SFC I-Side

Sicc OG
#152
Dec 12, 2006
4,207
635
113
36
#152
well 99 percent reportn and Im happy, sorry gay guys, keep you filth out of the public eye, thanks, and if u could also if 70 percent of you could move out SF that would be great
 
T

thatguy

Sicc OG
#153
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
#153
Foul Mouth said:
your still using the marriage is to raise kids argument.and its still crap.........

as far as the cousins married and we have accept that and it will have negative effects, thats crap too. i grew up around negative shit. as a child i lived across the street from a dope dealer who got his head blown off in the front yard, i lived in a spot where i had to be careful of playin on the grass cus spooners would throw there syringes on the grass when the cops came, i've lived around the corner from the razor so when i'd go buy some candy at the store there'd be tricks pickin up hookers.i was pre-mature cus my dad beat me out of my mom and kept beating her till they divorced when i was 5. my dad used to force me to drink hard liquor in front of my uncles to prove how much of a man i was when i was a child.my moms second husband beat her till they divorced. trust me, i been around negative shit, alot
of negative shit, i dont have time to type all the other negative shit i was around growing up. i dont partake in none of that shit, but in your scenerio you believe different. your sayin cus i been thru it that i would partake in it.you sound like the type of person who thinks your child would turn gay because they learned about it in school.so yeah your right, we should ban everything we dont believe in............arent ciggerettes legal, why arent there waaaaaaaaaaay more ciggerette smokers?
Click to expand...
well none of those things were shown to you by a school, where other children are learning and some partaking in the negativity as if it is normal. all that negative shit, is not embraced by society, this would be something looked upon by the majority (if the prop didnt pass) and would be actually taught, instead of just shown to you. and it would come from someone children are taught to trust (a teacher) rather than the neighborhood crackhead or whatever from any of the examples you provided about how your life was negative.

and if my marriage idea is crap.... then what is marriage for? you cant just keep running your mouth about how my theory is crap without providing your own theory
 
T

thatguy

Sicc OG
#155
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
#155
ThaG said:
Uggh no, you didn't understand it

We're not here "for that", we're not here for anything, it is just what we are programmed to do as a byproduct of billions of years of chemical evolution

homosexuality isn't counterproductive to anything, because their is no production goal set
Click to expand...
it doesnt really matter that i worded it different than you, i do understand.

as far as the productivity goal, thats actually a good point.

what i was meaning was, they arent using sex for the only purpose it really serves. and therefor the way i see it, they are abnormal.
 
T

thatguy

Sicc OG
#156
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
#156
SeriouslyThug said:
so what is your goal in all of this? If you refer everything back to nature, that consciousness is really nothin, that theres no reason for existance, then why do your actions say that your motivation is one of the self and not of Nature?
Click to expand...
no disrespect, but im almost amused by you playing 20 questions with everyone. as long as we are all being enlightened thats all that matters though.
 
SeriouslyThug

SeriouslyThug

Sicc OG
#160
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#160
thatguy said:
no disrespect, but im almost amused by you playing 20 questions with everyone. as long as we are all being enlightened thats all that matters though.
Click to expand...
I am glad you are amused, but the thing is the best questions are those one asks himself. And im providing you guys with shit you should be asking yourselves, in order to help you see just how stable (or not) your beliefs really are.

feel free to do the same to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom