EPTim gay, really gay... two minutes in vent and you can feel the rainbows too gay
Gay StarCraft Players - Page 90
| Forum Index > TL Community |
Don't post in this thread to say "gay gamers are like everyone else, why do they have a special thread?" It is something that has been posted numerous times, and this isn't the place for that discussion. For regular posters, don't quote the trolls. | ||
|
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
im gay, really gay... two minutes in vent and you can feel the rainbows too gay | ||
|
Bengui
Canada775 Posts
On July 13 2011 06:09 drshdwpuppet wrote: There are a couple good ways to explain how this might be possible. My personal favorite is the "grandmother theory" that states that gay males increase kin selection (competitive selection of your family) by offering more adults to care for children. In a world where death came all too early, an extra adult increased the chances of living and taking care of the young. Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I meant. | ||
|
Savern101
United Kingdom859 Posts
On July 13 2011 06:09 drshdwpuppet wrote: There are a lot of ways that homosexuality might be advantageous, but those are all I remember because my biology tutor was too cute for me to focus. I'm not hugely convinced by those arguments. (I'm replying to your whole post btw, it was just pretty big) The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general). Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though. Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate. Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children. The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers. This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though. | ||
|
nemo14
United States425 Posts
On July 13 2011 02:06 userstupidname wrote: Same internet as everyone else, go to any chat room, destiny is streaming go to it. See all those writing shit? They are like what? 8 people total that is repeatingly saying that shit? Now compare to how many is actually there in the chat lobby not writing anything. Seen graffiti on the street? Just because its there doesn't mean it belongs there. Whole city might be filled with graffiti, doesn't mean that the city is meant for graffiti - most people don't want that shit there. With some exceptions time to time when its ''good graffiti  ''Stop listening to the loud minority like conformist zombies buddy  Now you're being condescending! I knew that we were all on the same internet. | ||
|
jarrydesque
584 Posts
On July 13 2011 06:13 drshdwpuppet wrote: also.... haiiiiii~~~~ im gay, really gay... two minutes in vent and you can feel the rainbows too gay No such thing as too gay! | ||
|
userstupidname
Sweden272 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:33 nemo14 wrote: Now you're being condescending! I knew that we were all on the same internet. No my argument is actually true, its just that when I said I was in the rational majority and not in the condescending minority ![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/126/055/lied.gif?1306191204) | ||
|
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On July 13 2011 06:52 Savern101 wrote: This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily. Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though. I of course agree with your analysis of the genes and how it would be impossible to actually pin down (at least right now) what genes control homosexuality. (I wouldnt want to, but that is a side point, being gay is awesome ^.^) And it would be even less feasible to determine if they also had benefits, everything I listed wasn't a Capital T "Theory" but an idea that unfortunately, is nearly impossible to test ( lowercase t "theory"). I have difficulty accepting that something like this doesnt have some sort of evolutionary advantage because of the prevalence and the fact that it sure doesn't seem to be dying out. I think the benefit of the "gay uncle" theory would be harder to discern than what could be seen just talking to some of the poor, rural african families and why they have so many children and there is no reason that adding more children /and/ having an extra, non child bearing, adult around is impossible. When you say that the purpose of evolution is to encourage reproduction, I think that is a little short sighted. Evolution encourages reproduction sure, but it also encompasses things like societal evolution and other factors that increase the longevity of societies, families and other things because for a child to survive, it doesnt take just sheer sex power, it takes a commitment of teaching the child to survive and protecting them. There are two ways to ensure offspring get to adulthood: have a couple hundred per batch, or have a much smaller number and raise/teach them so their survival rate is higher. Evolution would apply pressure to the factors that control the ability for a child to survive and I firmly believe that the grandmother theory takes that into account and provides a very feasible way of explaining homosexuality in populations. I was a medic, I am now on premedical track in undergrad (taking a year off due to uncontrollable circumstances) I really, really want to be a doctor and that has been my goal for several years now | ||
|
ShatterStorm
Australia146 Posts
Really, if you have an actual problem with gay people you should save some of the hate for straight people as well. Afterall, it is the straight people who are popping out most of the gay babies, so save some "blame" for them ! | ||
|
Aladdin
United Kingdom17 Posts
| ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On July 13 2011 15:56 Aladdin wrote: I thought they had cleared this up. Homosexuality isn't genetic but it is biological. Just from the top of my head and you can search the Internet if this interests you is that in the case of male homosexuality, its the mothers body that fights against male children in the womb and attempts to feminise them. The more males you give birth to, the better your body gets at this and the higher chances are of you being gay, so with every son you have, the chances of your next one being gay is consecutively higher. That sounds like bullshit... | ||
|
userstupidname
Sweden272 Posts
References are stated in the end, contact the universities for hands on reference and material. (Its not hard, just send a damn email or something) | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
'fraid not. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On July 13 2011 15:00 drshdwpuppet wrote: I of course agree with your analysis of the genes and how it would be impossible to actually pin down (at least right now) what genes control homosexuality. (I wouldnt want to, but that is a side point, being gay is awesome ^.^) And it would be even less feasible to determine if they also had benefits, everything I listed wasn't a Capital T "Theory" but an idea that unfortunately, is nearly impossible to test ( lowercase t "theory"). I have difficulty accepting that something like this doesnt have some sort of evolutionary advantage because of the prevalence and the fact that it sure doesn't seem to be dying out. I think the benefit of the "gay uncle" theory would be harder to discern than what could be seen just talking to some of the poor, rural african families and why they have so many children and there is no reason that adding more children /and/ having an extra, non child bearing, adult around is impossible. When you say that the purpose of evolution is to encourage reproduction, I think that is a little short sighted. Evolution encourages reproduction sure, but it also encompasses things like societal evolution and other factors that increase the longevity of societies, families and other things because for a child to survive, it doesnt take just sheer sex power, it takes a commitment of teaching the child to survive and protecting them. There are two ways to ensure offspring get to adulthood: have a couple hundred per batch, or have a much smaller number and raise/teach them so their survival rate is higher. Evolution would apply pressure to the factors that control the ability for a child to survive and I firmly believe that the grandmother theory takes that into account and provides a very feasible way of explaining homosexuality in populations. I was a medic, I am now on premedical track in undergrad (taking a year off due to uncontrollable circumstances) I really, really want to be a doctor and that has been my goal for several years now Savern did state he understood the social factors affecting sexuality, but the genetic theory regarding the presence of homosexuality has been largely a result of the normatization of heterosexuality by the biological and psychological communities since the 1920s. Remember sexuality wasn't a concept till the 1880s/1890s. It was when the self became more important for so many single people in places like New York in the 1920s that sexuality became separated from male/female relationships. Whether these men had homosexual relationships before they came to New York is unclear, but what is clear is that the gay community of New York came about as a direct result of lots of single men moving there. Previously, sexuality was associated with reproduction for a long time and before that in gentry societies a nobleman would get pleasured by peasants, regardless of gender. Reproduction in humans is cognitive, not impulsive. Desire is impulsive and I think in there lies the understanding of homosexuality for those idiots who decided heterosexuality was normative. "Christian fundamentalists always say sex should be between a man and a woman... Yea, on a slow night. You know what I'm talkin' about?" Auggie Smith, comedian | ||
|
tapijt
Belgium1 Post
| ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On July 13 2011 01:08 R1CH wrote: Every time this thread is bumped we get to ban more homophobic bigots, which I think is a good thing .I bump this thread because I'm still searching for my gay masters bff <3 come on there must be a masters player here... the thread is over 90 pages... On July 13 2011 17:34 tapijt wrote: i am gay me too! | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:35 adrenaLinG wrote: I bump this thread because I'm still searching for my gay masters bff <3 come on there must be a masters player here... the thread is over 90 pages... me too! Why do they have to be Masters? Are you a skill-ist? | ||
|
userstupidname
Sweden272 Posts
| ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On July 13 2011 17:37 slytown wrote: Why do they have to be Masters? Are you a skill-ist? No but we need to represent. And then get into GM. And then make it the gay masters league. :D | ||
|
Shangiv
Australia45 Posts
| ||
|
SwitchAUS
Australia106 Posts
| ||
| ||
