A recent study by Camperio Ciani finally discovered the genetic advantage of genes related to homosexuality in males. Ciani demonstrated that women in a maternal line of homosexual men are on average more fertile than females who aren’t related to male homosexuals. As a result, these women pass on genetic material linked to homosexuality in males and hyper-fertility in females at higher rates.

This is an example of sexually antagonistic selection, which is a type of selection that gives a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other. Consequently, the genes related to homosexuality are not detrimental in terms of fertility, as they give a reproductive advantage to female carries. As of yet, homosexuality is the first example of sexually antagonistic selection in humans, but others are sure to be found.

Im a Bi-curious / Bi & curious and proud of it, any questions? 610 586 2375 call me

"CURIOSER AND CURIOSER!", exclaimed Alice.

I certainly hope you’re not trying to imply that homosexuality and fantasy-prone pedophilia go hand-in-hand, because that would impugn...well, I’m not sure which side it impugns more, but it’s obviously soooo wrong.

Wrong, I say!

Joseph wrote:
A recent study by Camperio Ciani finally discovered the genetic advantage of genes related to homosexuality in males. Ciani demonstrated that women in a maternal line of homosexual men are on average more fertile than females who aren’t related to male homosexuals. As a result, these women pass on genetic material linked to homosexuality in males and hyper-fertility in females at higher rates.

This is an example of sexually antagonistic selection, which is a type of selection that gives a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other. Consequently, the genes related to homosexuality are not detrimental in terms of fertility, as they give a reproductive advantage to female carries. As of yet, homosexuality is the first example of sexually antagonistic selection in humans, but others are sure to be found.

Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.

Its a choice.

Rick wrote:

Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.



Its a choice.

excellent, well-reasoned and enlightening argument.

Rick wrote:

Joseph wrote:

A recent study by Camperio Ciani finally discovered the genetic advantage of genes related to homosexuality in males. Ciani demonstrated that women in a maternal line of homosexual men are on average more fertile than females who aren’t related to male homosexuals. As a result, these women pass on genetic material linked to homosexuality in males and hyper-fertility in females at higher rates.



This is an example of sexually antagonistic selection, which is a type of selection that gives a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other. Consequently, the genes related to homosexuality are not detrimental in terms of fertility, as they give a reproductive advantage to female carries. As of yet, homosexuality is the first example of sexually antagonistic selection in humans, but others are sure to be found.

Where do you get your information from?

There’s this wonderful new invention called a "hyperlink". If you click on this "hyperlink", your browser will take you to where he got his information. [/sarcasm]

Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.

Where do you get your propaganda from?

Its a choice.

Not according to the evidence.

vandalhooch wrote:

Rick wrote:

Joseph wrote:


A recent study by Camperio Ciani finally discovered the genetic advantage of genes related to homosexuality in males. Ciani demonstrated that women in a maternal line of homosexual men are on average more fertile than females who aren’t related to male homosexuals. As a result, these women pass on genetic material linked to homosexuality in males and hyper-fertility in females at higher rates.





This is an example of sexually antagonistic selection, which is a type of selection that gives a reproductive advantage to one sex while disadvantaging the other. Consequently, the genes related to homosexuality are not detrimental in terms of fertility, as they give a reproductive advantage to female carries. As of yet, homosexuality is the first example of sexually antagonistic selection in humans, but others are sure to be found.

Where do you get your information from?

There’s this wonderful new invention called a "hyperlink". If you click on this "hyperlink", your browser will take you to where he got his information. [/sarcasm]

Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.

Where do you get your propaganda from?

Its a choice.

Not according to the evidence.

Oh come on Van, that was too awsome to be upset by. Joseph put up a study that shows a clear association between homosexuality and genetics along with a pretty interesting hypothesis about how something like homosexuality can actually exist in the presence of natural selection, and all this idoit does is shout out his unsubstanciated opinion that he probably got for some other idiot who turns a blind eye to research. This is like a cartoon

dan the buraku wrote:

Oh come on Van, that was too awsome to be upset by. Joseph put up a study that shows a clear association between homosexuality and genetics along with a pretty interesting hypothesis about how something like homosexuality can actually exist in the presence of natural selection, and all this idoit does is shout out his unsubstanciated opinion that he probably got for some other idiot who turns a blind eye to research. This is like a cartoon

I get your point. I dashed off a snarky response. However, upon further reflection I clearly should have just let his response stand on its own. Sometimes pure idiocy need not be pointed out.

Rick wrote:



Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.



Its a choice.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.









Seriously, Ill wait right here.

Apidae a écrit :

Rick wrote:






Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.





Its a choice.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.






Seriously, Ill wait right here.

We all are. *time is a tickin*

Apidae wrote:

Rick wrote:






Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.





Its a choice.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.



















Seriously, Ill wait right here.

Hey, I got an idea, let’s try to blame every person’s actions on their genes then. I smoke because of the smoking gene.

T.J. wrote:

Apidae wrote:

Rick wrote:









Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.







Its a choice.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.





























Seriously, Ill wait right here.

Hey, I got an idea, let’s try to blame every person’s actions on their genes then. I smoke because of the smoking gene.

You are right, if someones behavior can be dictated by their genes then people might start to blame their behavior on their genes. Since that sounds bad, let’s all cover our ears and hum christian rock songs to ourselves when ever those stupid scientists and stupid reaserchers try to corrupt us with their motherfucking science and research. If we don’t like it, it doesn’t have to be true, what the fuck, if I don’t like it its not true. Whats that? My eyes are brown because of my genes? Fuck you!!! Take your proof and shove it up your immoral ass

vandalhooch wrote:

dan the buraku wrote:



Oh come on Van, that was too awsome to be upset by. Joseph put up a study that shows a clear association between homosexuality and genetics along with a pretty interesting hypothesis about how something like homosexuality can actually exist in the presence of natural selection, and all this idoit does is shout out his unsubstanciated opinion that he probably got for some other idiot who turns a blind eye to research. This is like a cartoon

I get your point. I dashed off a snarky response. However, upon further reflection I clearly should have just let his response stand on its own. Sometimes pure idiocy need not be pointed out.

I don’t mean to censor you, I usually enjoy your snarky responces, but I was laughing so hard after reading that post, it never occured to me to be upset by it.

dan the buraku wrote:

T.J. wrote:

Apidae wrote:

Rick wrote:












Where do you get your information from? Homosexuality is NOT in the genes.









Its a choice.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.







































Seriously, Ill wait right here.

Hey, I got an idea, let’s try to blame every person’s actions on their genes then. I smoke because of the smoking gene.

You are right, if someones behavior can be dictated by their genes then people might start to blame their behavior on their genes. Since that sounds bad, let’s all cover our ears and hum christian rock songs to ourselves when ever those stupid scientists and stupid reaserchers try to corrupt us with their motherfucking science and research. If we don’t like it, it doesn’t have to be true, what the fuck, if I don’t like it its not true. Whats that? My eyes are brown because of my genes? Fuck you!!! Take your proof and shove it up your immoral ass

There is a difference between a physical action and physical traits. If you want to blame one choice of action on genes, blame them all, otherwise, shut up.

T.J. wrote:

There is a difference between a physical action and physical traits. If you want to blame one choice of action on genes, blame them all, otherwise, shut up.

Let me spell this out, humans are complex things. We have a lot of stuff going on, and a lot of that stuff is biochemical. Our emotions are effected by our biochemistry, our actions are sometimes guided by our emotions. Saying something like "If you want to blame one choice of action on genes, blame them all" does not make sense because it is too simplistic, our choices and our chemistry are not seperate and have a complex relationship which no one really understands fully. I blame my genes on why I chose to eat things with fats, salts, and sugars because my body responds well to these things, I do not blame my genes for preffering J.D. Salanger to Hemingway. When I see a pretty girl, I do not choose to feel the things I feel, my brain releases chemicals that make seeing a pretty girl a plesent experience, hormones are other chemicals are released that make me thing and feel things I don’t need to go into detail with. If another guy does not have these physical responces to girls but to guys, well its hard to say that his choice is not effected by his biochemistry especially after studied like the one brought up in this thread has given pretty convincing evidence that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. Now if you can tell my why homosexuality is a choice other than you don’t like the idea that there is a genetic link, we would all be very happy to hear it.