Can any Russian people present their opinions on this?

[Lt_Anders]

You clearly have no idea how evolution works.

Also, what do you think about sterile ants who only function as doors for their comrades? Is being a sterile door an evolutionary advantage? By your logic, no, it isn't. How come do they still exist, then, and keep on existing generation after generation? Indeed, since they are sterile, how do they keep existing since they can't pass on their own genes?

The answer to both this and "homosexuality not being an evolutionary advantage" are simple if you know how evolution works.

Sterile, until a queen dies. They are sterile due to a Hormone secreted by the queen that subdues reproductive capabilities.

I do know how evolution works. Small Adaptations between each successive generation. You can't HAVE successive generations with Homosexual tendencies.(Needs more research in this area, not enough information, nor cataloged species to determine whether wholly true or not)

 I Personally don't care about gay's one way or the other, but all this bullshit being spewed by people who feel they know a lot(and I know very little admittedly, so that data about animals was an interesting read)  and try to pass it off.

I know a few different species of insects that essentially clone themselves to reproduce.(I mean legit, straight copy not a "something similar" but a legitimate clone) This happens only under certain instances, though, similar to the effect of the ants.

[Xant]

No, that is still not how evolution works. It is so much more complex than just saying "small adaptations between each successive generation." And yes, you can have successive generations with homosexual tendencies, and you do. Individuals are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers.

[Lt_Anders]

No, that is still not how evolution works. It is so much more complex than just saying "small adaptations between each successive generation." And yes, you can have successive generations with homosexual tendencies, and you do. Individuals are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers.

evo·lu·tion
noun \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\

biology : a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time

: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time

: a process of slow change and development

I don't believe I was using it wrong.
In support of your statement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

So, while I do agree, it does seem that the "Gay Gene" or w/e we wish to call it, Increases fertility and birth rates amongst it's FEMALE counterpart. Still Requires(not required in the western world as much now) 2 opposite partners for this to actually be a benefit, but...

Also, for everyone: http://www.livescience.com/13409-myths-gay-people-debunked-sexual-orientation.html

Pretty much what we have argued more or less.(Only thing is the lack of Child bearing capability, but that is certain).

Here's a question: If two guys are gay, love each other, and then one turns female does that make them Heterosexual(Or in the reverse sense as well)?

[Xant]

You were not using "evolution" wrong, and it is indeed at its base level "small adaptations each successive generation"; but there is much more to it than that. Look up "inclusive fitness" for example. You cannot judge traits such as homosexuality as unnatural just because they don't seemingly offer any advantages to an individual.  Inclusive fitness may be the answer, or the answer may be what I quoted from the Wiki article: that the genes that make people homosexual are advantageous to heterosexuals when not emerging quite as strongly as in actual gay people. Or it may be a combination of both.

[Kafein]

You were not using "evolution" wrong, and it is indeed at its base level "small adaptations each successive generation"; but there is much more to it than that. Look up "inclusive fitness" for example. You cannot judge traits such as homosexuality as unnatural just because they don't seemingly offer any advantages to an individual.  Inclusive fitness may be the answer, or the answer may be what I quoted from the Wiki article: that the genes that make people homosexual are advantageous to heterosexuals when not emerging quite as strongly as in actual gay people. Or it may be a combination of both.

Or, put more simply, natural selection also happens between species and not only individuals. If an ant colony is much more likely to survive because there are sterile door ants in it than a colony where there are no sterile door ants, then those sterile door ants are an evolutionary advantage. This actually explains a lot of things like why is altruism an advantage.

[Barracuda]

I haven't done any scientific researches about whether being gay is inborn or obtained, but I'm pretty sure it only depends on upbringing. Please, don't get the word "upbringing" like parents telling the child "you be no gay!" or "you be gay!", I mean the widest meaning possible for this word - upbringing. Everything that a child experiences during his lifehood determines his personality and habbits, and being gay is no more than just a fucking habbit.

Nobody here even said sexual orientation was a choise. My point is that it's determined by childhood experience (which still doesn't make it a choice), not by genes, that's all.

Then again, looks like being ignorant is a choise!

[Macropus]

Then again, looks like being ignorant is a choise!

I might be ignorant or simply bad at english, that's true, but in any case it would be easier for me to reply and explain myself if you stated what exactly you find ignorant in my posts.

[Xant]

, our concept of what we find 'attractive' and what we look for in a potential partner is 100% based on childhood experience from the moment you open your eyes.

Hahaha.. no.

[Barracuda]

I might be ignorant or simply bad at english, that's true, but in any case it would be easier for me to reply and explain myself if you stated what exactly you find ignorant in my posts.

You base your beliefs on anecdotal evidence when there's actual scientific reasearch available that anyone can read. I call it ignorance.

There is no scientific evidence of upbringing or childhood experiences to cause homosexuality.

[Ikarus]

Not cool, Russia

When I was back in the military, I remember one of my comrades proudly talking about him and his 6 buddies chasing and beating one gay guy in the nighttime. How the fuck can you even call yourself MAN when you´re proud of kicking with 6 other assholes one guy?

These gay people in the videos are manlier than their tormentors, they stand to what they are. The tormentors themselfes are just a bunch of maggots, hiding behind a crowd, what a shame. They shouldn´t be allowed to be called "men".

"Unnatural"... there are plenty of same-gender relationships between animals, and I don´t mean buttfucking monkeys because of dominance.

Yeh, for some people it may be disgusting to see two grown men kissing, so what. Man up and be a little bit more tolerant.

As if you could choose to become gay or not.

Also, I like the conversation between xant and anders

The MSM is just trying to make Russia look bad.

That...that´s actually not even wrong Russia also tries to make America look bad, f.e. look at the "fuck the eu"-diplomat report about Victoria Nuland closely. Nobody would ever leak such a little, unimportant statement, unless there was a bigger reason behind it.
That´s just what I´ve realised so far, sorry if I´m wrong with something here

[enigmatic_stranger]

, our concept of what we find 'attractive' and what we look for in a potential partner is 100% based on childhood experience from the moment you open your eyes.

That's really strange to hear. I find my preferences in women constantly changing. For example some characteristics that in the past I could saw as unattractive now I find catching.

(click to show/hide)

slutty ladies ftw!

[Macropus]

You base your beliefs on anecdotal evidence when there's actual scientific reasearch available that anyone can read. I call it ignorance.

There is no scientific evidence of upbringing or childhood experiences to cause homosexuality.

Lol, I wonder how that would be even possible to get a scientific evidence of childhood experiences causing homosexuality. Whatever... You might be right.

Still, for some (strange) reason I don't want to get into situation when my (hypothetical) kids ask me "Daddy, why are those two men kissing?". I don't want to say "It's alright kids, you can do this too when you grow up". I must be too ignorant for that. 

[Torben]

On the "choice" of being gay:  unfortunately there is non,  which can be seen by statistical occurrence. 

(click to show/hide)

many physiological theories have been trying to explain these observations.  In my physiology textbook from 2007 (schmidt-thews,  physiologie des menschen (look xant im giving sources just for you)),  hormonal distress during the last weeks before delivery was mentioned as a factor.  Newer evolutionist theories explain that epi-marks (epigenetic controlling units that suppress certain genes functions),  sometimes get inherited to the offspring.  so basically the tendency of the mother to like men can be passed on to her son,  or the fathers tendency to like women to his daughter. (homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development, quarterly review of biology)

one of my best friends is a beautiful homosexual woman,  and she put it just right:  "I have liked men more then once,  but loved...  I can truly love only a woman.


on a side note:  my opinion on hate is that it is the strongest expression of weakness.   so man up,  haters.  get that sand out of your vaginas and get along with other humans.

[NuberT]

You might not believe it (google it), but gays have a much harder life in Jamaica for example.

[Miwiw]

one of my best friends is a beautiful homosexual woman,  and she put it just right:  "I have liked men more then once,  but loved...  I can truly love only a woman.

Don't we also say that in German; "Die beste Freundschaft ist immernoch zwischen Männern... eine echte Männerfreundschaft!" :p

Relationship with a woman, fine. But in the end you still have more fun with men who think as you do - and not the contrary!