Frank Sidney Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You haven't presented any theories. jb Its a genetic flaw, homosexuality, that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Er, how are they not factual? Because nobody knows, they're just opinions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Its a genetic flaw, homosexuality, that is... You haven't established that it is a flaw. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Has there been an increase or has the proportion remained about the same ?Yes you would, so please provide some evidence, this is your point you are trying to make so back it up with some figures. Ok birth control pills were introduced in the sixties - yes they were. There is feminisation of some fish due to hormones leaching into the water - yes there is, it could just be a side effect of the general increase in the female population but we'll be generous and assume it's the birth control pills. Please provide some evidence that this has a link to an increase in people being homosexual, preferably after you've demonstrated there is an actual increase. You can't make statements like this without supporting evidence. This may be idle chatter for you, you may not be seeking to oppress or bully or deny gay people their rights. But these statements you make with no supporting evidence are visible to people who do seek to oppress, bully and deny gay people their rights. These people can then use this as ammunition saying "it's on the web, look it up", an argument I've seen many times on this forum, and the rumour mill runs riot and someone can get hurt, before people track these things down and find they are baseless and it all calms down again. So you may not be actively harming people, but by making these statements in a publication such as this forum, you are enabling those who do. They are not statements, have you some problem of understanding, you keep pulling me up, can you provide some evidence in my posts that could be construed as bullying, and don't tell me it's idle chatter there are plenty of discussions on the subjects. There is discussion out there on the web that the pill could also be a causal factor in the increase of prostate cancer, there is or seems to be no clear scientific evidence but it's being discussed. Things that were let out into the environment can have harmful effects on the future, who knows what damage it does to DNA. If there is supporting or denying evidence then look it up, don't get the monk on because I dont give you a link. I havn't as far as I know said that the pill is a cause of increasing homosexuality, but now you mention it do you have proof it doesn't link please. Is there an increase in homosexuality i've already said i don't know but suggest there may be research needed into it. Are you going to admonish the scientistts invovled in this, Fertility timebomb found in drinking water Excreted in women's urine and passing through sewage works, it is causing the fish to develop eggs in their testes and, in some cases, creating female reproductive ducts. Although scientists do not yet know whether this is affecting people, we do know that one-third of our drinking water comes from rivers - most of it from stretches situated below sewage works. And we also know that sperm counts have been dropping alarmingly. One study by the Medical Research Council found that Scottish men born since 1970 are 25 per cent less fertile than those born 20 years earlier - and that fertility is continuing to drop by two per cent a year. Of course, other chemicals may be responsible, for we are increasingly discovering that we are surrounded by 'gender-bending' substances. Many pesticides and plastics, for example, contain chemicals that disrupt the hormone system. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-105466/Fertility-timebomb-drinking-water.html#ixzz1qtS2FQn4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You haven't established that it is a flaw. jb You haven't established that it isnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You haven't established that it isnt... You are the one making the claim... jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 You haven't established that it isnt... How is it a flaw? Surely it's only a flaw if natural selection selects against it. And since I have a feeling your next point will be, its a flaw as homosexuals cannot reproduce, then it's worth bearing in mind that natural selection acts on populations as a whole not on individuals. Example sickle cell anemia, in most places this genetic "flaw" would be considered negative, but in West Africa the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is beneficial as it helps prevent malaria which is rife. So where in the rest of the world the mutation is considered bad, in Africa it's beneficial. It is the pressures of natural selection that dictate wether a mutation is a flaw or not. Not you. So with that in mind what natural selection pressures would lead to a homosexuality gene being a flaw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Because nobody knows, they're just opinions.... Theory ≠ Opinion. Are you new to this science lark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Personally, I see that natural selection producing a gay gene is twaddle really. It's more to do with personal development and rearing. Of the gay people I know, they are as varied as everybody else, same as the bisexuals I know. Next we'll be saying there is an evil gene. Being gay is about emotions, just like any other relationship, it's reward based and in reality pretty darn natural, be even odder if it didn't exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Personally, I see that natural selection producing a gay gene is twaddle really. It's more to do with personal development and rearing.[/Quote] Natural selection doesn't produce anything. Key is in the word selection. Gene mutation produces new variants, natural selection acts upon these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.