Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 16:06     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.


Interesting theory. But why didn't evolution make it so the parents of the straight and gay children just had the straight child so more resources would be put toward raising that one child so it would survive and thrive, rather than split the resources among two children?
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 14:52     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Since when do sheriffs have a following 3000 miles away? Does Fox have a special advertising section for them and was it possibly called "closeted hunks of the right"
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 12:52     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.
Not to take the other side but now you have gone too far. You are ascribing a lot of attributes to gay people that are stereotypes. Being a gay uncle does not mean you have to be one of the ladies.

Alexander the Great was gay. We gave excellent gay soldiers. And men can parent without being feminized.


Sheriff Paul Babeu is clearly an effeminate gay, too, just like all of them.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=paul+babeu&pbx=1&oq=paul+babeu&aq=f&aqi=g-z1g3&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=1120l2774l0l3637l10l8l0l0l0l0l383l2380l2-5.3l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=239ed407df9948f7&biw=1024&bih=390
E


I was SO disappointed to learn he's gay. The man is HOT!
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 12:50     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Newton would would have thought of Einstein either.


That's an easy answer. Newton would have thought it was perhaps somewhat underrated, but still inferior to Walter Johnson.



Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:26     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:

I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Newton would would have thought of Einstein either.


That's an easy answer. Newton would have thought it was perhaps somewhat underrated, but still inferior to Walter Johnson.

Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:25     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.
Not to take the other side but now you have gone too far. You are ascribing a lot of attributes to gay people that are stereotypes. Being a gay uncle does not mean you have to be one of the ladies.

Alexander the Great was gay. We gave excellent gay soldiers. And men can parent without being feminized.


Sheriff Paul Babeu is clearly an effeminate gay, too, just like all of them.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=paul+babeu&pbx=1&oq=paul+babeu&aq=f&aqi=g-z1g3&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=1120l2774l0l3637l10l8l0l0l0l0l383l2380l2-5.3l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=239ed407df9948f7&biw=1024&bih=390

Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:21     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.
Not to take the other side but now you have gone too far. You are ascribing a lot of attributes to gay people that are stereotypes. Being a gay uncle does not mean you have to be one of the ladies.

Alexander the Great was gay. We gave excellent gay soldiers. And men can parent without being feminized.


Agree that gay men do not have to be feminized, but many are. Of course there are also extremely aggressive leaders who had homosexual relationships out of necessity during war campaigns etc., but I would argue that those men, i.e., Alexander, were not gay but bisexual. They had hetero relationships for child bearing, etc. It is a continuum, of course and gay women also eschewed more feminized roles and those that could might disguise themselves as men so he could fight in campaigns. No the gay uncle doesn't have to be one of the ladies, lol. But not everyone was Achilles and Patroclus, either!
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:12     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Some of the responses here are so far outside the norm and basic scientific understanding, that I have to wonder if they are written by a troll.

Homosexuality does run in families.
Homosexuals have a lower rate of pedophilia than the heterosexual population.
Gays and lesbians can be parents, too.
It's not a mental illness.


Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:10     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what Darwin would think? He thought that men should rule over women and that European colonization was a good thing even if it destroyed other societies. It's completely irrelevant to what is moral today.

I don't spend a lot of time wondering what Newton would would have thought of Einstein either.


+1
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:10     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.
Not to take the other side but now you have gone too far. You are ascribing a lot of attributes to gay people that are stereotypes. Being a gay uncle does not mean you have to be one of the ladies.

Alexander the Great was gay. We gave excellent gay soldiers. And men can parent without being feminized.
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 11:03     Subject: Re:Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Anonymous wrote:Being gay could actually be an evolutionary strategy.

I know of many a gay uncle who dote on their little nieces and nephews. That gives extra resources to the offspring of the hetero sibling. If the gay uncles had kids, their kids would be competing for resources with the niece. And the gay uncle's genetics are basically idential to his hetero brother. So he is doting on his own genes.


This. Sorry , but yes, this is what the "gay" gene is selected for and it is EXACTLY why homosexuality has survived, lo these millennia. It is distressing to me that rational, educated people cannot see this reality and accept it as a genetic advantage. Historically, the more aggressive hetero males would hunt and kill prey and fight off intruders--while the gay members of the tribe could help with child rearing, etc., and not be a threat to the available females. Homosexuals are here to bring beauty and stability to the human race. We would not have had the Greek and Roman Civilizations or the Renaissance period without them, just to name a few.
Anonymous
Post 02/26/2012 10:42     Subject: Gay, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would darwin think of gays
Republican, why is it not considered a mental illness, what would Darwin think of Republicans.