English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I guess if you are not attracted to the opposite sex than the probability of you having kids is less! What do you think? We are 6 + Billion and rising, and at the top of the food chain with no predators to worry about!

Or is it a SIN?

2007-08-06 13:14:03 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

SuperAtheist you answer seem logical.

2007-08-06 13:30:05 · update #1

I am not interested in biology, and I don't care about other peoples sexual preferences.

2007-08-06 13:35:02 · update #2

27 answers

It's quite plain that the genes that lead to gayness are not dying out. If they were not reproducing well, they would.

So how could that be? Well, let's say those genes, in men, express themselves by causing an attraction to men. But what about the women who inherit the same genes?

The simple solution is that those same genes, when expressed in women, cause an unusually *high* reproductive rate. There are many ways that this could happen - unusual fertility, high degree of health in children.

It seems most likely that the female expression of the 'gay gene' is women who are extraordinarily attractive and feminine. This would guarantee that the gene continues to spread, as it is doing.

CD

2007-08-06 13:23:00 · answer #1 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 1 0

For all the people that say its not a Pop. control mechanism you may be wrong. While it is not proved yet, studies have shown that in rat populations, when populations begin to outgrow their respective enclosure that the incidence of HS rats increases. This is also shown in that their are a higher percentage of gay men in cities. Chances are is that is a gene some people are born with and certain conditions activate it. As for the questioners query, your facts are wrong and any homosexual gene in us would have developped prehistorically and long before marriage was invented. People use technology to supercede genetics everyday. Do you spray tan?

2016-05-20 01:17:01 · answer #2 · answered by lorine 3 · 0 0

Natural selection doesn't work at a group (species) level. It works on the level of the individual.

That a side, you actually have a real good question, which is, how does homosexuality evolve. Here comes the answer that liberals dislike (i hate labels). It obviously has a nurture (environmental) factor.

I don't think it will control our populations, not enough of the population is gay.

2007-08-06 13:27:56 · answer #3 · answered by Quimby 3 · 0 1

It's not a sin; it's the way God creates some people, so He must have a reason. I'm convinced the reason is NOT to be mistreated, insulted, denigrated, reviled and murdered by non-gays.

What you suggest is a possibility. If you look at experiments where they use rats and steadily increase the number of rats in a cage, two things happen naturally: the rats become more aggressive and violent and the incidence of homosexuality increases.

2007-08-06 13:36:20 · answer #4 · answered by Michael B - Prop. 8 Repealed! 7 · 2 1

There are way more breeders than homosexuals. Look at Africa to see actual population control at work.

No, it's not a sin.

2007-08-06 13:52:07 · answer #5 · answered by John himself 6 · 0 0

Homosexuality is against nature. It is biologically unnatural, only seen in humans, usually due to some sort of traumatic event in the childhood of the afflicted person, ie: molestation, rape, etc. that results in a sexual abnormality in later life. I think it is a result of low self esteem and guilt, with a little anger thrown in for good measure. And anyone who says it is natural is saying..eewwwww, I'm not even gonna say it

2007-08-06 13:59:33 · answer #6 · answered by norcalislam 3 · 0 2

Sin is a religious term. It's not a sin. They were born that way. Homosexuals can be parents and many are.

atheist

2007-08-06 13:38:16 · answer #7 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 2 1

>>Can homosexuality be natures way of controlling a population of a species without any outside influence?...I am not interested in biology<<

So stop wasting our time.

2007-08-06 13:46:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Not really - 'nature' doesn't work like that. It *could* be that homosexuality has (or had) a certain evolutionary advantage, e.g. if non-breeding siblings support nephews and nieces and thereby help to propogate their own genes, but it may not have any evolutionary advantage at all.

2007-08-06 13:20:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Plain and simple it is a sin. But the evolution angle is interesting. If it is true and people are born gay, why is evolution and natural selection not marking for extinction those who reproduce? I mean, that is the way it works, no?

2007-08-06 13:30:29 · answer #10 · answered by RIFF 5 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers