Michael-5 said:
Tom3k said:
Unbelievable... You obviously can't grasp the fact that homosexuals are as viable to reproduce as any other human being and that they as fact reproduce. Not just within human population, just to make things clear. "Gay" animals reproduce as well. What mechanism? It's obviously that homosexuals aren't going to reproduce with each other... Motivation? As long as society looks on homosexuality in same way as you do, many of homosexuals will have a damn good MOTIVATION to stay in their tiny little closets, with fake lives and reproduce. And what you seriously think that poeple simply because they are gay don't want to have offspring?
Actually as recent studies have shown that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.
"First of all errors in DNA replication are repairable" And you think I need to insult you? You do that just fine on your own... NOT ALL errors are repaired. What do you think how evolution works? You think that DNA Polymerase is flawless, or that DNA repairs are foolproof? Get real...
I claim? Read the things you write. Because you obviously don't read those that I write. You CLAIM that reason for homosexuality is a "random mutation" obviously of genom since it can't be of anything else. Since 5% of population is gay wouldn't it be logical that this "random" (whatever that means) mutations should be OBSERVED among all homosexuals? 5% of population is a huge chuck and those so called "random mutations" should be observed if they happened. I have a bit problem with "random" though... Because this is kinda untrue... Since we assume that all mutations in genom occur with equal probability. Which is btw plain wrong, since we know that some occur more than others because they are "favored" by low-level biochemical reactions.
I for one don't claim that things you attach with me... On other hand you do. Everytime you use "term" random mutations, you claim the existence of gay genes. Or do you really think that if 5% of population is gay, they all have "different" muations? Whish is btw surreal... But also following your logic, if reason behind being gay are those yours random mutations, than being gay would be inheritable. Since each time a gay person would reproduce (which once again they do) would pass on his "genetic mutation".
|
LOL I understand homosexuals can physically reproduce, but unless penis goes in vagina, no baby. If you're homosexual, fitness is reduced because homosexuals have sex with people of the same gender.
You're arguing that the fitness, the reproductive ability, of homosexuals is the same as heterosexuals. It's not, even if they performed heterosexual acts, they don't have any sex drive towards members of the oposite gender. So any reproduction will be forced, and it should be obvious that if penis isn't going into vagina anywhere nearly as frequently as it would in a heterosexual population, then the fitness of that population will be less.
Do you understand that if penis does not enter vagina then no baby is born? Do I need to explain to you why homosexuals either have no, or very minimal heterosexual encounters which could result in reproductive success? Do you now understand how homosexuals have a lower fitness then other populations, or do you still believe that gay people are just as likely to reproduce as children?
If you say you aren't arguing that homosexuals aren't as likely to reproduce, then
a) You have been clearly ignoring my arguement because fitness is the measure of reproductive success, and you have been arguing with me that homosexual behaviour does not prevent reproduction. Homosexuallity damages the fitness and it prevents people from repriducing had they been having heterosexual intercourse instead.
b) You didn't read my original point before you began to insult and critisize me. My original statement was "However from a genetics point of view, homosexuality is disfunctional. There is no arguement here, people are designed to reproduce sexually, if we were designed to be homosexuals, we would all have some sort of hermaphedite system in us." - People are designed to reproduce heterosexually. If we were designed to reproduce homosexually, then there would exist a mechanism to reproduce from same sex interations (I proposed hermaphedite sex organs)
c) You're silly
d) All of the above.
You: "First of all errors in DNA replication are repairable" And you think I need to insult you?
Tell me how Genetic Modification works then please. Tell me how advances in treatment of autistic and down syndrome children have happened without genetic modification. Is the goal not to fix these broken genes? I'm sorry, I just don't understand how genetic modification works without modifying genes. Please explain this to me.
-5% the population isn't gay, it's closer to 1%. Toronto has the highest % of Gay individuals in orth America, and we're at 3%.
You claimed 5% the population is gay, not me. I'm just calling you out on what you claim.
-Random: The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." This concept of randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.
Thes mutations do not pick and choose which population is gay, they occur randomly in the population, affecting anyone under the correct circumstances.
You: But also following your logic, if reason behind being gay are those yours random mutations, than being gay would be inheritable.
I specifically explained how random mutations would not be inheritable. You even insulted me for it when I explained to you the difference between a random mutation and a heritable gene. There is no gay gene, and I never claimed their was. I always mentioned that homosexuality was due to a random mutation, either in DNA replication, during pregnancy, or during some other biological event.
However I'll explain it to you again. There is no gay gene, you cannot inherit homosexuality. However if a mutation occurs to the individual at some point during development then the homosexuality disorder may develop. Genes do not develop, you cannot alter your genes once they have been copied. Errors in DNA replication are not heritable. Do you understand logic?
You're fun 
|
I'm not sure that you are aware of this... But humans don't reproduce because they are "in heat" or because they are driven to do so. They reproduce because they "choose so"... And 99% of the time penis goes into vagina because it "feels good", not to procreate.
And since your are arguing that fitness is reduced, I'll only point out to numerous contraception methods that heterosexuals use as well. From simple pill to vasectomy. And on top of everything you assume that all gay people are out and proud, and have intercourse only with same gender. While the truth is not that fabulous.
And the biggest misception that you make is a claim that "from genetic point of view homosexuality is disfunctional". Why? Because you assume again that only reason to have sex is to reproduce. News flash... It's not, it's because it feels good. Humans have sex, because it feels good. It's that simple.
Seriously? Please, make up your mind already... Is there or isn't there a "gay gene"? You are now comparing autism and homosexuality? Let's do a little search...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=autism and then http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?term=homosexuality . Do you see the difference or I really have to spell it for you? Just to make it simple. If we do a search for "genes" related with autism we get 409 hits, if we conduct the same search for homosexuality we get zero hits (actually we get one hit which was withdrawn from database). So it's kinda obvious that you can "treat" autism with gene theraphy since you know what to target, while at same time no genes related with homsexuality are this far recorded or known.
Some statistical data even suggest that every 5th person is gay. The general concensus is between 5-8% if I'm not mistaken. It's hard to tell exact numbers because many people for one or another reason are in closet.
The simple fact that high number of population is queer is proof enough that homosexuality is not as random as you think. The twins studies pretty heavily supported that statement as well. And the most recent epigenomic studies even heavily support that homosexuality can be inherited.
You haven't actually explained anything. You keep on going in ciricle while completly ignoring the things I'm trying to explain to you.
And I never "claimed" that there is a gay gene. it's not me who's "chainging" genes with mutations, it's you.
"Every variation in every organism is created by the development of a genetic mutation. If you're short, tall, dark-skinned, light-skinned, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, etc. it's because at some point in the history of your ancestral line, one of your ancestors developed a genetic mutation. Every gene in your body is technically a genetic mutation. So what's the difference between amutation and a defect?
A genetic defect is a disease or disorder that is inherited. The two most important parts of that definition (for our argument) are the terms disease and disorder. So what determines whether something is a disease or disorder or whether it's just a variation? I have blue eyes, caused by a genetic mutation. Most of my friends have brown eyes. Does this mean that I have a disease or disorder of the iris? Should I seek treatment to change my eye color, so I'll look more like my brown-eyed friends? No, because my blue eyes aren't a problem for me. They don't cause me harm, discomfort, or distress. I'm perfectly fine with having blue eyes. In fact, I like my blue-eyes mutation; it's one of my favorite genetic variations.
Let's say for the sake of our argument that homosexual behavior is caused by a genetic mutation. Does that mean that we should classify it as a genetic defect? If it doesn't cause homosexual individuals harm, discomfort, or distress, and it's not unwanted, then it's not a genetic defect, just a variation.
Natural selection dictates whether a mutation will continue in the species. A mutation that works against the survival of the species (such as an inability to breathe) eventually disappears because the last generation of animals with that mutation will die before they can reproduce. A mutation that helps the survival of the species (such as the ability to use tools) or makes no difference at all (such as my blue eyes) will probably continue because those with such beneficial or insignificant mutations will likely go on to have offspring who have the mutation as well. If homosexuality is a genetic variation, then it's up to natural selection to decide if it will continue or not."
