Are Gay People "Abnormal"?

mac said:

Heterosexuality is the main and normal orientation of the human species and has obvious benifits to our species.

Click to expand...

yet many heterosexuals choose not to breed-often the most prosperous and intelligent people which is bad for the species while those who breed the most are often people who spawn uncared for children with multiple partners leading to crime and poverty

mac said:

Heterosexuality is the main and normal orientation of the human species and has obvious benifits to our species.

Click to expand...

So do you think heterosexuals who are attracted to non-evolutionarily fit people choose their attraction?

theplaydrive said:

So do you think heterosexuals who are attracted to non-evolutionarily fit people choose their attraction?

Click to expand...

big tatas?

TurtleDude said:

big tatas?

Click to expand...

are a sign of evolutionary fitness i would assume.

theplaydrive said:

are a sign of evolutionary fitness i would assume.

Click to expand...

actually I once read an interesting study many years ago

sexually immature men and those with lower IQ's tend to go for women with big racks. more sophisticated and intellectual men prefer lithe figures. big boobed women tend to get strong but dumb men.

women built like ballerinas tend to get smart clever mates

TurtleDude said:

actually I once read an interesting study many years ago

sexually immature men and those with lower IQ's tend to go for women with big racks. more sophisticated and intellectual men prefer lithe figures. big boobed women tend to get strong but dumb men.

women built like ballerinas tend to get smart clever mates

Click to expand...

It would follow that a maturitaly (new word) stunted man would be more fixated on his infantile instinct to seek the breast, whereas a normal healthy adult of full maturation would look for a mate who could best bear children.

Jerry said:

It would follow that a maturitaly (new word) stunted man would be more fixated on his infantile instinct to seek the breast, whereas a normal healthy adult of full maturation would look for a mate who could best bear children.

Click to expand...

that was one of the theories of the study. also another study noted that people judged most "attractive" in terms of facial features were people who were "average" in terms of things like facial proportion, eye spacing nose size. one of the theories was that "average people" tend to be genetically the least likely to have issues.

all fascinating stuff.

when I was in HS charlie's angels was big. one survey had pictures of the three angels-one was their faces in what would be called photo shoot shots (ie if you were their agents and trying to get them work) and the other had each woman in a one piece tank suit (sort of like the famous red job FF was in)

they asked hundreds of men which girl they thought was most attractive

it was amazing, younger men, often without sexual experience and those with low rates of education invariably chose FF who had the biggest rack (both the head shot and the body shot). artsy guys often chose JS. the smartest guys tended to choose KJ when the pictures were shown

when they were shown in the tanksuits, JS was the biggest winner among the brightest guys

TurtleDude said:

yet many heterosexuals choose not to breed-often the most prosperous and intelligent people which is bad for the species while those who breed the most are often people who spawn uncared for children with multiple partners leading to crime and poverty

Click to expand...

Mainly because we have so impaired survival of the fittest.

theplaydrive said:

So do you think heterosexuals who are attracted to non-evolutionarily fit people choose their attraction?

Click to expand...

what are "non-evolutionarily fit" people in your eyes?

TurtleDude said:

that was one of the theories of the study. also another study noted that people judged most "attractive" in terms of facial features were people who were "average" in terms of things like facial proportion, eye spacing nose size. one of the theories was that "average people" tend to be genetically the least likely to have issues.

all fascinating stuff.

when I was in HS charlie's angels was big. one survey had pictures of the three angels-one was their faces in what would be called photo shoot shots (ie if you were their agents and trying to get them work) and the other had each woman in a one piece tank suit (sort of like the famous red job FF was in)

they asked hundreds of men which girl they thought was most attractive

it was amazing, younger men, often without sexual experience and those with low rates of education invariably chose FF who had the biggest rack (both the head shot and the body shot). artsy guys often chose JS. the smartest guys tended to choose KJ when the pictures were shown

when they were shown in the tanksuits, JS was the biggest winner among the brightest guys

Click to expand...

Interesting. I was always more of a JS guy.

LuckyDan said:

Interesting. I was always more of a JS guy.

Click to expand...

well when showed the faces I (17 at the time) chose KJ, when I saw the bodysuit pictures it was JS. she had a body to die for.

mac said:

Mainly because we have so impaired survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

How do you "impair" survival of the fittest? Humans may or may not be evolving, but not sure what you are trying to say, and the change to not evolving would be very recent(< 10k years ago).

Redress said:

How do you "impair" survival of the fittest? Humans may or may not be evolving, but not sure what you are trying to say, and the change to not evolving would be very recent(< 10k years ago).

Click to expand...

Modern society has negated survival of the fittest by artificially supporting the unfit in so many ways......welfare for example. There are a lot more examples that I know you understand and will pop into your head if you just roll your eyes back for a few seconds and think about it.

mac said:

Modern society has negated survival of the fittest by artificially supporting the unfit in so many ways......welfare for example. There are a lot more examples that I know you understand and will pop into your head if you just roll your eyes back for a few seconds and think about it.

Click to expand...

OK, you clearly do not understand evolution. Let's take this point by point:

1) survival of the fittest is something of a misnomer. What it actually refers to is passing on genes. A person who lives 20 years but has 5 kids was better "fit" from an evolutionary standpoint than some one who lived 50 years and had 1. Some one who lived 100 years and had no children would be a complete failure evolutionarily. This is an oversimplification that does not take into account outcomes for the children, nor "passing on" genes by supporting relatives, and many other factors, but is basically true.

2) Your example would only work if those currently on welfare would pass on genes at a lower rate if welfare did not exist.

3) Welfare and such are such recent additions to the world that they have not had time to have an evolutionary impact.

Redress said:

OK, you clearly do not understand evolution. Let's take this point by point:

1) survival of the fittest is something of a misnomer. What it actually refers to is passing on genes. A person who lives 20 years but has 5 kids was better "fit" from an evolutionary standpoint than some one who lived 50 years and had 1. Some one who lived 100 years and had no children would be a complete failure evolutionarily. This is an oversimplification that does not take into account outcomes for the children, nor "passing on" genes by supporting relatives, and many other factors, but is basically true.

2) Your example would only work if those currently on welfare would pass on genes at a lower rate if welfare did not exist.

3) Welfare and such are such recent additions to the world that they have not had time to have an evolutionary impact.

Click to expand...

Oh no, no. Economic viability in modern society has taken on a major "fit" role. By artificially supporting those that can not provide for themselves, we've made them marginally acceptable for mating. These policies allow those that are incapable of self support and success to live far beyond what their own abilities would allow, therefore not only allowing the passing of "unfit" genes, but allowing it for a far greater length of time.

mac said:

Oh no, no. Economic viability in modern society has taken on a major "fit" role. By artificially supporting those that can not provide for themselves, we've made them marginally acceptable for mating. These policies allow those that are incapable of self support and success to live far beyond what their own abilities would allow, therefore not only allowing the passing of "unfit" genes, but allowing it for a far greater length of time.

Click to expand...

You do not understand evolution, but think you do. This makes it impossible to discuss the topic.

:sits back:

opcorn:

Redress said:

You do not understand evolution, but think you do. This makes it impossible to discuss the topic.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Please do school me then. First on evolution, then on survival of the fittest.

Market fundamentalism allowing unfettered evolution to occur in the human race?

Modern society has negated survival of the fittest by artificially supporting the unfit in so many ways......welfare for example. There are a lot more examples that I know you understand and will pop into your head if you just roll your eyes back for a few seconds and think about it.

Click to expand...

The implications of your statement when explored reveal....



The funniest part being you don't understand how.

:coffeepap:

SE102 said:

Market fundamentalism allowing unfettered evolution to occur in the human race?



The implications of your statement when explored reveal....

The funniest part being you don't understand how.

:coffeepap:

Click to expand...

You make a lot of assumptions. I'm not supporting a Eugenic approach, simply acknowledging a truth. Do something other than troll for a change.

mac said:

Hmm. Please do school me then. First on evolution, then on survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

Go back to my post with the three points. Read those three points. Understand them.

Redress said:

Go back to my post with the three points. Read those three points. Understand them.

Click to expand...

Get over yourself. Recognize that we have different views on the same facts. Prepare to support your views.

mac said:

Prepare to support your views.

Click to expand...

You actually make a very good point there. Some people just don't know how to handle themselves in a debate. So you win by default. But Redress's sloppy debate skills do not make your position correct.

mac said:

Hmm. Please do school me then. First on evolution, then on survival of the fittest.

Click to expand...

The thing you don't understand about survival of the fittest is what it means in terms of Darwinian theory. "Unfit" genes are the ones that don't get passed on. So, by definition, anybody passing on their genes is "fit." You're making the same mistake as the social darwinists, and that's the sort of ugly thinking that leads to eugenics. Social darwinism has been roundly debunked, and it is a superficial understanding of true evolutionary theory.

Guy Incognito said:

You actually make a very good point there. Some people just don't know how to handle themselves in a debate. So you win by default. But Redress's sloppy debate skills do not make your position correct.



The thing you don't understand about survival of the fittest is what it means in terms of Darwinian theory. "Unfit" genes are the ones that don't get passed on. So, by definition, anybody passing on their genes is "fit." You're making the same mistake as the social darwinists, and that's the sort of ugly thinking that leads to eugenics. Social darwinism has been roundly debunked, and it is a superficial understanding of true evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

You are slippery sloping his views. Yes, social darwinism was used to promote eugenics and other bad things, but that is not what he is trying to say and his position does not fall into a negative category other than wrong. The reason his idea is wrong is he makes some assumptions based on a misunderstanding of what "survival of the fittest" is(oh how I hate this term and how badly it leads to misunderstandings", and a failure to understand what is or is not a "survival" trait. I explained this fairly well actually.

For his concept to have any credence, then the rate of passing on genes among those now on welfare would have to be lower without welfare, and there is no evidence this would be the case. They might lead shorter, less fulfilling lives, but they also would be less likely to use birth control and as we can see, people on welfare tend to have more children. More children = more "fit" from an evolutionary standpoint.

He could very well be right about evolution no longer acting on humans, but his reasoning is entirely wrong. For evolution to work, the environment has to select genes. Humans change the environment by such things as building houses, wearing clothes, carrying umbrellas and dozens and dozens of other acts(note I am not talking global warming, but if you have a house with a furnace, winter is less dangerous to you). This could, potentially, stop or reduce evolutionary effects on humans. However, the short time scale involved since we were able to significantly effect our personal environment is too small to know for sure.

The choices here are too limited.

The answer depends on how were raised and was it in a Bible based Church.

I just heard a Sunday service based on how the Bible tells us that God created Marriage.

But then we have to look at what the Bible tells us about how Jesus tells us to deal with all kinds of situations.

I have a younger Brother who is Gay and dying of Aids. How can I hate him, or fault him.

What I will do is say that it's not for me.

I have made an error in the past for not making clear that I hate no one, but that doesn't keep me from hating what some people do.

This world would be a nearly perfect place if everyone would just obey the Golden Rules as I have seen it in 21 different Religions, in nearly the exact same words.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.