Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: turnipsock on 02/06/2009 23:16:31
-
If two gay people can't actually have a baby you would think that the gay gene wouldn't get passed on and it would die out, if Darwin was to be believed.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.all3media.com%2Fimages%2Fprogrammes%2FNaked%25203_Gok_Wink.jpg&hash=164882864ba3c05acc4007dae45e703c)
A gay.
So, why does there seem to be more gays around these days?
-
lets leave the whole political and social correctness about your post alone and look at this logically.
Genetics have been used to be the 'cause' of many things.. and perhaps they are.. but I don't think there is conclusive evidence that 'gay' is genetic in its entirety. Perhaps you need more than just the 'gene', perhaps you also need some environmental occurrences as well.
If it is entirely genetic, then there would be a problem with continuing on with the trait unless it's a recessive gene that gets passed from parent to child and remains recessive unless there are two...
I'm not sure there are 'more' around these days.. what I do know is that people now have more freedom than ever before to express themselves sexually, emotionally and physically without fear of social retribution. While previous generations valued the heterosexual family unit (and this was reflected in acceptance in the work force and socially), the latest generations have more freedom to refute 'traditional' roles and 'be who they are'.
I usually steer clear of religious debates, but I'm afraid religion has played a huge role in the oppression of 'alternative' lifestyles.
-
So, why does there seem to be more gays around these days?
Being straight myself, I may not be a proper judge about this question. Nevertheless, I will offer an opinion.
Beyond the religious question, and change in the moral outlook today, I think there is developing a hesitation to commit oneself to responsibilities. In this case, the responsibility I speak of is the family unit. With the prospect of child raising, and the financial weight that comes with marriage, many are abandoning this institution. I personlly don't put much faith in the biological explanation for this phenomenon, in my opinion, it all boils down to individual choice.
-
I'd go along with JnA on the nature/nurture points.
As for 'more of them around', I agree that while in the past this was kept secret, in part due to the views of religion and the law of the land, there was a stigma attached to being gay, or 'queer', as it was better known then. These days we, well most of us anyway, are more understanding and tolerant, so there is no longer a need to keep the secret.
But I do think there appears to be an inordinate number of gays among the so-called 'celebrities'. Whether this is because being gay comes with being more extrovert and/or artistic, or simply a case of 'celebrities' seeing 'gay' as being good for publicity I don't know.
Personally, I think we should take a few steps back, no, not make homosexuality illegal, make bloody celebrities illegal.
-
Personally, I think we should take a few steps back, no, not make homosexuality illegal, make bloody celebrities illegal.
Bravo Don_1, that's an affirmative!!
-
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5429/803a
Makes an interesting read. Of course, these studies are correlative, so don't explain much. Just the beginnings of research yet to come [:)]
I was similarly skeptical about "gay genes", seemed to me that it was just way overexaggerated media hype over scientific research that found modest results.. which it is.. but they are still real results and must be taken into account as a possible contributary causative variable (try saying those last 4 words fast a few times in a row!)
Of course, both nurture and nature must nearly always be taken into account when explaining characteristic traits.
To the OP: http://www.topix.com/forum/au/brisbane/TB5F8HLRJA5JBVMP8 helps to answer your questions, I hope. [O8)]
Very funny OP.. I'd hate for GLAAD to see this [:D]
-
I heard on this morning's news that a new Big Brother starts tonight. Thank you, I wanted to know about that, so I can avoid the mind numbing crap.
Yet another bunch of exhibitionist, brainless burks who will be turned into 'celebrities' by the media. Doubtless with the PC recommended quantity of gays and 'ethnic minorities'.
What beats me is that there appears to be a vast number of the viewing public who still watch this total and utter bollocks.
GET A LIFE!!!!
-
We had a similar thread: Is there a "homosexual gene"?
(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19544.0)