It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

homosexual consequences from population increase.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I hope this is in the right area, if not move it ?


I was talking to a friend about him being gay and i asked him that even though male and male relationships are accepted now, men cant reproduce without women so should that be a sign that being gay is not normal and he agreed.

but after abit more talking we came to a agreement that i could be normal now because of population.

We came up with the idea that could the rise in people being homosexual be apart of natural selection.

I dont know if i have natural selection fully coverd but i understand it as having a mutation in your gene which adapts you to being able to survive the environment, or having a mutation in your gene which hinders this survial and numbers of that species could drop.

so basically could we have a mutation in your genes from natural selection which decreases the population because of the population being so high ?




Now i know this could some how offend people if it does, dont think anything more of it, its just something me and my friend was talking about.

whats your ideas, do i have naturaul selection covered

Is this just utter crap logic or is it plausable ?

may friend says it could be plausalbe and if this was the case he feels people of his sexuality would be more wellcome in public ?

Thanks for reading Thecrow001




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Thats actually a very interesting theory.

I would of thought it plausible if I had thought homosexuality was on the rise, but I believe that there appears to be more gay people, because nowadays its more socially acceptable. People are less taboo about the whole subject and aren't ashamed of it.

But I do like the way you think there so S & F



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
thank you,

yeah i though about that being a argument about it just being easier to come out but no one knows for sure because of that fact on how many homosexuals there were, on a time line scale.

but thanks for reading and for the star and flag.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
OK, try a different logical approach, see if this makes any possible sense to you.

Every species needs procreation. We are always reliant on the next generation to take over from us. On a more human level, having a child is a wonderful, life enriching, beautiful thing.

But it takes over your life. From the moment that little life comes into the world, you as parents have taken on a responsibility and commitment to care for, provide for, educate, nuture, encourage, put up with during the hideous teenage years, hand out money like a charity, help to revise for exams, operate as a 24/7 taxi, the list goes on.

As most parents will tell you, it doesn't leave a lot of time, money, energy or will to do anything else you may have had on your list of things to do before you die.

When we look at some of the pivotal discoveries or advancements, literature, or culture that have come from homosexual members of society, can we draw a logical connection here? Does our nature, design, evolution, whatever, include a variable that determines our "breed instinct priority"?

Now I'm not saying that no big advancements have been made by heterosexuals, far from it. Nor am I saying that there's any kind of better or worse, normal or adnormal situation. I'm just wondering whether or not it's possible that by our design, a certain percentage of us will naturally be homosexual to ensure that a certain percentage of the population will be able to devote that same level of commitment that would have been spent on raising a child on other things. That amount of time, commitment, resources, if spent on pursuing a particular field, could give amazing results.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIrvy
 


very interesting agian it could be right maybe even a mix of both ideas.

I dont think its as simple as some people think though.

this could even lead to it being welcomed more if true or abit true dont you agree ?

[edit on 12-11-2009 by thecrow001]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
well i thought more people would be interested in this, or even some people some how getting offended.

I would like opinios from religious,hetrosexual and homosexual people.

would being gay be welcomed in religions is if was a gene mutation ? i wonder.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecrow001
would being gay be welcomed in religions is if was a gene mutation ? i wonder.


Thats a good question

I would assuming that many creationists or deeply religious people seem to think that homosexuality is a choice you make. Creationists would be more inclined to believe that as they dont believe in evolution I think



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
i guess they would welcomethem alot more though due to public and media pressure if it was proven, they would be agianst the norm now which would be a very big role reversal.



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 

I came across this topic in reading the Law of One. This is an interesting take:


Questioner: We have what seems to be an increasing number of entities incarnate here now who have what is called a homosexual orientation. Could you explain and expand upon that concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities of this condition experience a great deal of distortion due to the fact that they have experienced many incarnations as biological male and as biological female. This would not suggest what you call homosexuality in an active phase were it not for the difficult vibratory condition of your planetary sphere. There is what you may call great aura infringement among your crowded urban areas in your more populous countries, as you call portions of your planetary surface. Under these conditions the confusions will occur.


Questioner: Roughly how many previous incarnations would a male entity in this incarnation have had to have had in the past as a female to have a highly homosexual orientation in this incarnation?

Ra: I am Ra. If an entity has had roughly 65% of its incarnations in the sexual/biological body complex, the opposite polarity to its present body complex, this entity is vulnerable to infringement of your urban areas and may perhaps become of what you call an homosexual nature.

It is to be noted at this juncture that although it is much more difficult, it is possible in this type of association for an entity to be of great service to another in fidelity and sincere green ray love of a nonsexual nature thus adjusting or lessening the distortions of its sexual impairment.


Questioner: Is there an imprint occurring on the DNA coding of an entity so that sexual biases are imprinted due to early sexual experiences?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. Due to the nature of solitary sexual experiences, it is in most cases unlikely that what you call masturbation has an imprinting effect upon later experiences.

This is similarly true with some of the encounters which might be seen as homosexual among those of this age group. These are often, instead, innocent exercises in curiosity.

However, it is quite accurate that the first experience in which the mind/body/spirit complex is intensely involved will indeed imprint upon the entity for that life experience a set of preferences.
www.lawofone.info...



I am no expert in the area, but this explanation makes sense to me.


[edit on 12-11-2009 by blujay]



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
to explain:

if homosexuality was in the genes, that means that it could be a trait that people can pass along without being gay. it could be hidden in the genes, while, for example a brother or sister is gay. THEY (the gay ones) don't have kids, but they help their family while alive, and their family has more kids than other families, because of the help. Their neices & nephews all would have that hidden gay-trait somewhere in their genes, which might stay hidden for generations.

and that's how & why homosexuality could be genetic, and still passed on.

haven't any of you studied anthropology, or archaeology, or evolution of man?



posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Bisexuality and homosexuality has been around for hundreds of years, if not longer. Alexander the Great and many of the Roman Emperors were bisexual, for example. The only reason it appears that there are more today is because it has become increasingly acceptable to be of a different sexual orientation other than heterosexual. Heck, we even have Metrosexuals now - even straight guys can be forgiven for being mistaken as bi/gay when in fact they're not. Homosexuality exists even in the animal kingdom - it's only recently that scientists are writing about it.

Although we live in a pretty open society today, it's by no means a Utopian society. You can still get harassed or even killed for coming out today just as much as you would have 200 years ago - the Matthew Sheppard case being an example. Not to mention the never-ending line of priests and politicians who have to deny who they really are and then apologise for it.

So in summary, I don't think it has anything to do with natural selection, though it is a good theory. I think it's more to do with a particular society's level of consciousness at a given moment in time.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 

As a gay man I'm quite open to such research, however considering the fast advances in bio-genetic technology many others are skeptical. The fear is that when a gay gene is isolated, it will cause medical egineering aginst this. In other words, no more Da Vinci or Michelangelo - no more style and Sistine Chapel. The talents of gay people may go with their attraction.
No matter what religious people say (they shouldn't speak on science anyway), studies done on twins by Simon LeVay (et al) have proven that some genetic componant is responsible for gay desire.
Also, the female womb develops an allergy to testosterone after the second male child - especially since many modern women aborted the first male child, this should also be considered. Well, the evidence is growing that gay children do not choose their sexuality, and really cannot help it.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 


I copied this from an old OP of mine, I thought you might find it relevant:

Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

June 18th 2008, a new paper has been published which attempts to reconcile the development of the "homosexual" gene when it seems to exist in opposition of Darwinian evolution:


... since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any ‘genes promoting homosexuality’ have died out of the population by now?


The foundation of this paper is:


Abstract
Several lines of evidence indicate the existence of genetic factors influencing male homosexuality and bisexuality. In spite of its relatively low frequency, the stable permanence in all human populations of this apparently detrimental trait constitutes a puzzling ‘Darwinian paradox’. Furthermore, several studies have pointed out relevant asymmetries in the distribution of both male homosexuality and of female fecundity in the parental lines of homosexual vs. heterosexual males. A number of hypotheses have attempted to give an evolutionary explanation for the long-standing persistence of this trait, and for its asymmetric distribution in family lines; however a satisfactory understanding of the population genetics of male homosexuality is lacking at present. We perform a systematic mathematical analysis of the propagation and equilibrium of the putative genetic factors for male homosexuality in the population, based on the selection equation for one or two diallelic loci and Bayesian statistics for pedigree investigation. We show that only the two-locus genetic model with at least one locus on the X chromosome, and in which gene expression is sexually antagonistic (increasing female fitness but decreasing male fitness), accounts for all known empirical data. Our results help clarify the basic evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality, establishing this as a clearly ascertained sexually antagonistic human trait.



The full version of the paper PLoSOne and: Study shows male homosexuality can be explained through a specific model of Darwinian evolution




[edit on 6 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
People put way too much emphasis on sexual orientation. If that's what you like, then that's what you like. I wonder why we don't see any threads on why some people like chocolate and others vanilla... or why some prefer one color over another. They are all simple attractions.

At the end of the day, sexual preference is just one from the myriad of things that make us human. Why center on one?

Whatever it is that makes gay people gay is cool by me. I have a few gay friends and I wouldn't change a thing about them.

IRM



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 

Dr. Norman Doidge has recently released a book titled...
'The Brain that changes itself'.

His premise is, 'what fires together wires together'.

That is, whatever you do becomes associated in the 'brain map'.

So if a males sexual pleasure becomes associated with a female...
...then 'the pleasure and the female' fire together in the neurones...
...and therefore wire together.

If a persons sexual pleasure becomes associated with an animal or a member of the same gender or some other deviation...
...then these two things 'fire together and wire together'.

The association can also be reversed or changed...
...nothing is fixed...it is just whether there is the will to change.

If true then it is nonsense to think anyone is 'born' gay...
...it then all comes back to early influences, decisions and associations.

Further reading...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 6/12/09 by troubleshooter]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
"so basically could we have a mutation in your genes from natural selection which decreases the population because of the population being so high?"

Yes. There can be a MUTATION or Glitch if you will in the GENE. Its called EPIGENETICS (influences on the GENOME from Environment, Toxins, Chemicals and Food--even SOCIAL MEDIA can influence GENES).
GAYism is just one of the ways that NATURE thins out the Herd.




top topics



 
4

log in

join