Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

By that argument, then we should start a massive campaign of eugenics. Kill all gays, retards, sick, homeless, the old, the unemployed, and any other people that can't pass on their genes to the next generation. This includes infertile people, and post menopausal women.

The fact that we live in an unnatural environment where medicine allows individuals that would have died in the natural world to live, plus this environment we have built for ourselves favors the individual that reproduces the most not the most successful individual (the movie Idiocracy makes some points about this problem even if it is only a comedy). Also we don't live in that time of primitive might is right. I'd actually argue that homosexuality is quite possibly natural (I'm not gay), homosexuality occurs in the natural world all throughout the animal kingdom, for which offer no benefits to the goal that scientists have determined the only purpose of life: to preserve your genes for as long as possible.

I will give you the best answer I can give to why you should allow homosexuals to exist. Abe Lincoln said it best
When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy?
Basically we're all human, when one group is not allowed to exist then thats when your can't defend that any other group is allowed to exist.

Also I would like to say that in civilization, life isn't just about passing your genes down. There are countless stories of self sacrifice since history (Jesus is a big deal for some people, he apparently did not have kids and some people would be inclined to burn me at the stake if I were to say his life was pointless because of that). Many people have made sacrifices for their community or even nation, for which they eliminate their genes from the gene pool usually for what is considered the greater good at the time. Without sacrifice our world would be a lot different than what it is today, whether or not for the better is up to your interpretation I guess.

Us humans do a lot of things that seem to run counter to evolutionary benefit (see: war, monogamy, etc.). How is boning (or scissoring) somebody of the same sex any different?

1. the evolution theory is a "religion", because a religion is actually mankinds way of explaining the unknown. why do i know this? Because certain religions preached things unknown at the time, but explained now (that is different from what they say)

2. every animal (including us humans) have the urge to reproduce, to carry on their genes. the better your genes, the more attractive you are for females who have the same strong genes (in this way, the strong gene is ALWAYS carried on, because you have 50/50 % chance that you carry on the gene, if both are strong, than the chance is 100% that it is a strong gene), and vice versa. in this way, you get separate groups of people who are smart, strong etc. these groups are then used for the different needs of society.

hope this information helps in the discussion ;)

At 4/26/08 02:36 PM, kakaap wrote: 1. the evolution theory is a "religion", because a religion is actually mankinds way of explaining the unknown.

If so, then this is also true for every single explanation ever made. Congrats!

why do i know this? Because certain religions preached things unknown at the time, but explained now (that is different from what they say)

wut

At 4/26/08 01:16 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Us humans do a lot of things that seem to run counter to evolutionary benefit (see: war, monogamy, etc.). How is boning (or scissoring) somebody of the same sex any different?

yes.
war is the way to eliminate 1 group from the gene pool. in this way, there is more chance of your genes to be reproduced. also, the goal is to benefit from the results (to get richer) when your people gets richer, the people get a better life standard, giving you more chance of producing good offspring. also a better life standard stimulates evolution (with evolution i mean effectiveness in the way people think)

example: i see that the south-african people are very much behind in evolution: the farther you go north, the faster the evolution occured. why? because the more north, the fertiler and the more inhabitable the lands are (more money, better lifestandard). ofcourse this excludes the places too far north, where the climate gets too cold.

but too get back on the south-african people: they are as much developed as us in the time just Before the romans/greeks. this rule doesn't apply anymore, due to western colonosation. however, the way of thinking didn't change: little tribes (the "small" countries) consantly clashing. however, due to the western "pacifiers" the fear of starting a war is too big for those small countries.

Marroco, Iraq, Turkey, are now about at our crusader's/ inquisitor time. they now try to exterminate the western society because we think different. yes, not everybody there agrees to this way of thinking, but also in the crusader's time some people didn't agree with those thoughts.

I think america is a bit preud, just like West-Europa (Eastern europe is also very preud) a couple of years ago, but i don't really know if my theory is apliable here (yes! i am European! dutch to be precise^^)

At 4/26/08 01:16 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Us humans do a lot of things that seem to run counter to evolutionary benefit (see: war, monogamy, etc.). How is boning (or scissoring) somebody of the same sex any different?

about the monogamy: we search for the best partner we can find. at the moment we think that there is someone better, we break up with/ cheat on the current partner. if you think you have the perfect partner, you wouldn't go search for a new one.
we are not monogamous, and probably won't try to be, because you probably would have had several times sex before you settle. monogamy is also inspired by religion. at the moment that christianity began, BAM: monogamy

Yeah dude, this post is just disguised as a stupid gayness threrad when its jsut another ant religion thingy, evilution is a religion n so is atheism I guess, you can't hide from your faith hahahahaha!

yeah, but atheïsm has one major difference: it doesn't explain anything: it's a explanation of why the others are NOT right! the critic's religion ^^

THAT is soooooo fking true!!!!

wow kakaap so much bullshit in just few messages, i think you broke the record.

Whole lotta people have an incredibly simplistic view of how genetics work... sad, but not entirely unexpected... whcih may be even more sad.

dude, go ahead and prove me wrong... this is an open discussion

I have yet to see a valid explanation of how homosexuality can become Genetic; Ever.

I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait; or how it could contribute to society in any way other than the ones that have been provided within the last say... 3000 years as a result of agriculture.

Which has no implications on homosexual animals.

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait

relieves sexual tension without the risk of creating more mouths to feed. strengthens bonds between individuals.
not sure what else.

At 4/26/08 04:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Yeah dude, this post is just disguised as a stupid gayness threrad when its jsut another ant religion thingy, evilution is a religion n so is atheism I guess, you can't hide from your faith hahahahaha!

Say what? Whats evilution? If you mean evolution then no its not, its not a religion in the same way as knowing how to change a flat tire is not a religion, or knowing that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.
Atheism is a religion? As in atheist: someone who lacks spiritual or religious belief either purposely or by ignorance (if no one tells you about religion then your also an atheist). Atheism is a lack of religion so how is it also a religion, if atheism is a religion then an atheist can't be an atheist as soon as they are an atheist is the moment they become a theist.

i wonder if anyones going to try and pull a " ha! you just admitted atheism is a belief!".

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait; or how it could contribute to society in any way other than the ones that have been provided within the last say... 3000 years as a result of agriculture.

Its advantageous for humans if it stops us from breeding to the point of destruction, which I think we are already at that point. Contribute to society? Theres no guarantee that a heterosexual person will contribute much to society either.

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have yet to see a valid explanation of how homosexuality can become Genetic; Ever.

Well what about low testosterone, and high estrogen count? that's one of the factors

At 4/26/08 05:29 PM, bobomajo wrote: Its advantageous for humans if it stops us from breeding to the point of destruction

I don't think Darwinian mechanisms could detect such advantages. If there was overpopulation, it's still just the homosexual individuals that are more likely to die without reproducing and disappear from the gene pool. Homosexuality doesn't therefore create any balance within the population, it's simply doomed to go extinct.

Since this obviously hasn't happened, there must be something else that keeps the homosexual phenotype in the population. For example, if the homosexuality is the side-effect of a gene, or genes, that produce something useful, then it would remain strong in the population, regardless of natural selection. On page 1, I posted a link to an article explaining that the male homosexuality genes may be linked with female fertility genes.

At 4/26/08 03:04 PM, kakaap wrote: about the monogamy: we search for the best partner we can find. at the moment we think that there is someone better, we break up with/ cheat on the current partner. if you think you have the perfect partner, you wouldn't go search for a new one.

No we don't. We don't find the mate with the strongest genes to contribute, we find them through fruity intangible concepts like "love" that don't exist in the animal kingdom.

we are not monogamous, and probably won't try to be, because you probably would have had several times sex before you settle. monogamy is also inspired by religion. at the moment that christianity began, BAM: monogamy

But you won't procreate during those times, so evolutionarily speaking, it's as if it never happened. And who cares what inspires it, it's still a behavior that runs counter to evolutionary advantage.

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have yet to see a valid explanation of how homosexuality can become Genetic; Ever.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17782 27
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod uct.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5957271
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab stract/284/5414/665

All of the genes listed there (I haven't read the papers so I don't know how biologically sound they are, but two are in Science, one of the biggest journals in the world, so I can assume they are accurate) can easily be present in a population by means listed earlier, most notably linkage to positive traits.

I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait; or how it could contribute to society in any way other than the ones that have been provided within the last say... 3000 years as a result of agriculture.

Which has no implications on homosexual animals.

Homosexuality itself may not be an advantage, but that trait in men may be beneficial in women and therefore remain present in the female line as it is overall a beneficial gene. It may also be very close to a beneficial gene on the chromosome, and therefore persist by genetic linkage. It doesn't need to be advantageous in itself to persist in a population, as is true with many other genes.

At 4/26/08 07:13 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

No we don't. We don't find the mate with the strongest genes to contribute, we find them through fruity intangible concepts like "love" that don't exist in the animal kingdom.

Who says they don't exist in the animal kingdom? They feel the same attractions towards the opposite sex as we do, they just don't have any means of openly expressing it like us. Other species don't know who the individual with the strongest genes is, or at least that isn't why they mate with them, they go for the individual that most attracts them. Humans work in much the same way, looking for attractive traits that in turn represent attractive genes, whether it be large size, or good health etc., and the pheromones etc produced are present throughout the natural world.

we are not monogamous, and probably won't try to be, because you probably would have had several times sex before you settle. monogamy is also inspired by religion. at the moment that christianity began, BAM: monogamy

But you won't procreate during those times, so evolutionarily speaking, it's as if it never happened. And who cares what inspires it, it's still a behavior that runs counter to evolutionary advantage.

Monogamy is a perfectly natural occurance as well, which is present in a huge number of species. the obvious benefit being that both parents are around to look after young, rather than just the mother. In fact I think bonobos are monogamous, the closest species in relation to us, and I'm willing to bet monogamy was a perfectly normal part of society long before christianity, probably throughout human history given the tribal nature of humans.

if homosexuality hasn't died out yet because of evolution...
then shouldn't that be proof that it's a CHOICE...?

double standards, much ppl.? lol.

I could not "choose" to be gay, nor could any other any other heterosexual male I know.
The average man is so repulsed by the idea of having sex with with another man that it has to be at the very least non-optional.

Genes may not directly cause homosexuality, but they may make one more likely to develop as one.

At 4/26/08 10:13 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I could not "choose" to be gay, nor could any other any other heterosexual male I know.
The average man is so repulsed by the idea of having sex with with another man that it has to be at the very least non-optional.

Genes may not directly cause homosexuality, but they may make one more likely to develop as one.

then why do homosexuals still try to recruit people? hm... if you've ever lived in a place with a high rate of homos, you would have at least witnessed this more than once... i think it's just an excuse, especially since people are required by law to be nice to them and not spurn their advances or otherwise be labeled as "intolerant". there are more reasons than "omg! it's against my religion!"...

for example, the elitism and militarism.

At 4/26/08 08:38 PM, qu3muchach0 wrote: if homosexuality hasn't died out yet because of evolution...
then shouldn't that be proof that it's a CHOICE...?

double standards, much ppl.? lol.

Please google Taysachs Syndrome.

Genetic disorder. Fucking KILLS you outright... not "reduces the probability of reproducing"... kills. Hasn't been removed from the genome... why should a "defect" that only renders a person less willing to perform the act of reproduction with someone of the opposite gender be any different?

Seriously... I don't have the time or inclination to hold a seminar on genetics in here. Please all of you study up on this stuff before you start spewing bullcrap.

At 4/26/08 07:13 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 4/26/08 03:04 PM, kakaap wrote: about the monogamy: we search for the best partner we can find. at the moment we think that there is someone better, we break up with/ cheat on the current partner. if you think you have the perfect partner, you wouldn't go search for a new one.

No we don't. We don't find the mate with the strongest genes to contribute, we find them through fruity intangible concepts like "love" that don't exist in the animal kingdom.

ah... love... Human's way of commiting to anyone, who is the best partner at that time (see my previous posts)

we are not monogamous, and probably won't try to be, because you probably would have had several times sex before you settle. monogamy is also inspired by religion. at the moment that christianity began, BAM: monogamy

But you won't procreate during those times, so evolutionarily speaking, it's as if it never happened. And who cares what inspires it, it's still a behavior that runs counter to evolutionary advantage.

No. that's because there is an urge to reproduce, but we know we don't want to make her pregnant because you haven't settled down, or it's an one-night stand... you want to get your children the most protection as possible, which raises the chance of survival. and the higher the chance of survival, the higher chance of keeping you're genes in the gene pool.

At 4/26/08 05:13 PM, bobomajo wrote:

At 4/26/08 04:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Yeah dude, this post is just disguised as a stupid gayness threrad when its jsut another ant religion thingy, evilution is a religion n so is atheism I guess, you can't hide from your faith hahahahaha!

Say what? Whats evilution? If you mean evolution then no its not, its not a religion in the same way as knowing how to change a flat tire is not a religion, or knowing that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.
Atheism is a religion? As in atheist: someone who lacks spiritual or religious belief either purposely or by ignorance (if no one tells you about religion then your also an atheist). Atheism is a lack of religion so how is it also a religion, if atheism is a religion then an atheist can't be an atheist as soon as they are an atheist is the moment they become a theist.

ah... as i said, religion is man's way to explain the unknown. in this way, darwinism is a religion.
Atheïsm is the explanation why the others are not true. so in fact, you could say it is not a religion.

At 4/26/08 05:29 PM, bobomajo wrote:

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait; or how it could contribute to society in any way other than the ones that have been provided within the last say... 3000 years as a result of agriculture.

Its advantageous for humans if it stops us from breeding to the point of destruction, which I think we are already at that point. Contribute to society? Theres no guarantee that a heterosexual person will contribute much to society either.

Stop thinking in terms of the 21st century PLEASE, i already said that. Homosexuality occurs in animals as well, and it has been recored to have existed for as long as human history has been kept in writing; therefore it is my theory that it has existed even in prehistoric times.

Secondly, biologically advantageous doesn't mean that it's good for the human specie, it means that it is something which is advantageous for the survival of that one particular individual.

At 4/26/08 10:22 PM, qu3muchach0 wrote: then why do homosexuals still try to recruit people?

Die plz.