If being gay inhibits the survival of our species, why isn't it widely considered a harmful genetic defect?
>it is genetic
The genes that cause predisposition to male homosexuality, also increase the fertility in the females.
The two effects counterbalance each other.
because anal pregnancy is a thing....
thats how liberals are concieved/born
>>72486684
>implying that r-strategists have the ability to determine existential threats and act appropriately to combat them
>>72486684
The answer to your question is it always was until sjw's
>>72486684
because there is no gay gene. it's caused by a complex of several genes, of which there likely many different varieties, along with hormonal exposure in utero, and social factors.
Do gays have a low sperm count or something?
Are lesbians barren?
>>72486684
A very small percentage of people are born gay. It was never an issue that needed much attention until gay became cool and now you have millions of people deciding to be gay when they are still attracted to other sex. Russia knows what's up
>>72486684
evolution is not about harmful or not, if a homo has sex with a woman and the woman gets pregnant those genes will pass
in other words forcing gays to marry and have children makes the gene pool gay
this is assuming that its genetic, which may or may not be
Xq28 gene. Surrogacy.
/thread
>>72486684
Because our species isn't endangered.
>>72486684
>gay uncle theory
Look it up
>>72487887
Shitskin spotted
>>72486684
Gays are beneficial to society. They have highe IQs, can do men's work, but don't demand a mans reward (pussy).
A tribe of 100 men where 20 of them were gay would have been a huge advantage over a 100% straight tribe.
Don't hate the gays who mind their own business.
>>72486684
The development of homosexuality has an evolutionary purpose. To have warrior/helper males be close and defend females without being direct competition. There is in fact a gay gene, it has a lot to do with estrogen exposure in the womb.
Is it true that gay men aren't sexually attracted to straight men?
>>72487973
ok but like y
Gay men evolved so that straight men could leave someone behind to protect their wives when they went out to hunt and battle in wars. They are helpful for the survival of the species.
>>72488194
>>72488194
no, but they probably try to suppress it because they know you're gonna ignore them (or worse)
its like when you see a 10/10 but you know you have such a little chance you dont give a shit
>>72488600
Can confirm. Damn it feels good to be bi.
gayness is more about working within society. gay soldiers were the most formidable in the world.
>>72486684
It occurs throughout nature in other species as well. I can tolerate it based on that fact.
>>72486684
Fun fact: Mentally retarded boys are more likely to be gay than straight
>>72488600
Fuck that. These straights are slowly coming out of the woodwork with their little interests and comments and it drives me to diamonds mode. Although I don't act on it because he has the cards
>>72486684
>If being gay inhibits the survival of our species, why isn't it widely considered a harmful genetic defect?
Doesn't really. You still have a person that can gather food, fight, and build things. It just won't be having any kids. I doubt that it really existed when we were cavemen though, must have started popping up once we already had civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egypt when we had enough people to sustain ourselves. Still curious on whether or not it's genetic or environmental, though I have a feeling it's a bit more genetic than environmental.
>Gay men are just as strong and intelligent on average, as the average straight male
>They don't place added burden on their tribe by creating more mouths to feed, and yet they still contribute to the survival of their group
Why would you consider this a "defect" in any way? Having roughly 10% of our population being non-reproducing workers is pretty advantageous.
>>72489075
fun fact, women don't do anything for men today and are completely demoralized creatures we can only advertise to
Come to my soft thread on /soc/
>>72489302
It's not advantageous at all. What a tribe needs most of all is more children. If you have twice as many children as the other tribe, in 18 years you'll have twice as many soldiers
>>72487472
hahahahaha
>>72486742
> kramer.jpg
> kramer
Kill yourself
>>72489739
lol buttmad poltard
Can someone please explain to me why in a society that regularly produces technological miracles that would have dumbfounded cavemen that /pol/ still views issues through an evolutionary/survivalist framework? Survival today means getting a job, not hunting/gathering/constructing/mating/etc, and without trying to sound socialist (on any other website I wouldn't have to clarify that) "the tribe" is not going to collapse because Stefan decided to skip leg day and go out for a drink.
>>72489641
>twice as many children
>gays being ten percent or less of a population
check your math
>What a tribe needs most of all is more children.
I think it would better to have:
a) those children survive
b) workers not burdened by raising children
>It's not advantageous at all.
Then explain all the different species of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.
>>72486684
>If being gay inhibits the survival of our species
being gay does not inhibit the survival of our species. your premise is wrong, and thus the conclusion you derive from it is wrong.
>>72486684
>7 BILLION PEOPLE in the world
> 3% of them are gay
if anything it's a good thing, overpopulation isnt a myth familia
>>72492787
Actually, it kinda is. It's fairly likely that we'll hit 8k and start going down again.
