• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AIDS is on the rise, no one could have predicted this

chromium said:
I highly doubt it since few people were having gay sex in the middle ages and especially not in rural areas to this day, and yet the % who are gay seems evenly distributed across the whole world. It's survived along with a sexual spectrum, because evolution has decided so. One theory out of the italian study is that mothers of gay kids tend to reproduce more overall, more than offsetting the likelihood that their gay kid(s) won't reproduce
Click to expand...

How do you know the number of men that were having sex with other men in the middle ages? Anyway, if gay children never reproduce then only the carriers take the gene forward, which in time will result in the gene being eliminated.
 
Henrin said:
How do you know the number of men that were having sex with other men in the middle ages? Anyway, if gay children never reproduce then only the carriers take the gene forward, which in time will result in the gene being eliminated.
Click to expand...

the carriers include heterosexuals, including twins of gay men...you really should go back to 10th grade biology
 
chromium said:
the carriers include heterosexuals, including twins of gay men...you really should go back to 10th grade biology
Click to expand...

None of this changes my argument. Women in my family almost always have blue eyes, while the men for some strange reason never do. What if the women in my family just stopped getting blue eyes? Do you think the gene would get weaker as generations passed?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
If gay children went on to only have sex with people of their own sex and didn't reproductive then the recessive gene would get weaker over time in straight individuals. In effect, the loss of the stigma towards being gay and the promotion of gay right could lead to it's own destruction. Of course, if current science is any indication this won't happen as gays will just use artificial means to reproduce with each other.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know a lot about genetics, do you?? If a gene like that which has a disadvantage in one area, it might persist if it has a benefit. For example, sickle cell anemia , although can cause a disease, protects against malaria. Apparently, in the case of homosexuality, one 'side benefit' of at least one set of genes for male homosexual is a higher level of fertility in women. A woman with this gene has more children, with a higher percentage of homosexual male offspring.
 
RAMOSS said:
You don't seem to know a lot about genetics, do you?? If a gene like that which has a disadvantage in one area, it might persist if it has a benefit. For example, sickle cell anemia , although can cause a disease, protects against malaria. Apparently, in the case of homosexuality, one 'side benefit' of at least one set of genes for male homosexual is a higher level of fertility in women. A woman with this gene has more children, with a higher percentage of homosexual male offspring.
Click to expand...

We don't even know if it has a benefit to the gene pool and the only theories out there on it refer to benefits that are no longer relevant in modern society. Also, male homosexuality doesn't cause higher fertility, but occurs more often in women with higher fertility. What this means is that women with higher fertility have a higher probability to produce gay sons.
 
Henrin said:
We don't even know if it has a benefit to the gene pool and the only theories out there on it refer to benefits that are no longer relevant in modern society. Also, male homosexuality doesn't cause higher fertility, but occurs more often in women with higher fertility. What this means is that women with higher fertility have a higher probability to produce gay sons.
Click to expand...

And, you don't think that is a link?? Oh my. Do think about it.
 
Henrin said:
If gay children went on to only have sex with people of their own sex and didn't reproductive then the recessive gene would get weaker over time in straight individuals. In effect, the loss of the stigma towards being gay and the promotion of gay right could lead to it's own destruction. Of course, if current science is any indication this won't happen as gays will just use artificial means to reproduce with each other.
Click to expand...

unless those genes happen to help wiht the chances for reproduction in heterosexuals
 
If this does take off again someone should let us know, but right now it is pretty much no change which is to say straight people who dont hang around druggies should be fine, and a lot of these people know it and dont pay any mind to the scare promoters.
 
phattonez said:
New U.S. HIV Cases Rise, Spark Yawns - ABC News

But the sexual degeneracy lobby will completely cover this up. Good job guys![/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
I don't see this as being all that surprising. Human nature is that human's (collectively) never seem to learn from history. As just one example, diseases like whooping cough and measles make a comeback because vaccines work so well that in just a couple generations people forget the seriousness of them. Why would AIDS be any different? It's a simple human condition that if the threat (any threat) isn't right there in our faces right now, we delude ourselves into thinking its been licked.
 
blarg said:
unless those genes happen to help wiht the chances for reproduction in heterosexuals
Click to expand...

I already went over that argument just a few posts before you posted.
 
Henrin said:
If gay children went on to only have sex with people of their own sex and didn't reproductive then the recessive gene would get weaker over time in straight individuals. In effect, the loss of the stigma towards being gay and the promotion of gay right could lead to it's own destruction. Of course, if current science is any indication this won't happen as gays will just use artificial means to reproduce with each other.
Click to expand...

That's assuming homosexuality isn't pleotropic.
 
Henrin said:
We don't even know if it has a benefit to the gene pool and the only theories out there on it refer to benefits that are no longer relevant in modern society. Also, male homosexuality doesn't cause higher fertility, but occurs more often in women with higher fertility. What this means is that women with higher fertility have a higher probability to produce gay sons.
Click to expand...

"relevant to modern society" has no bearing on a trait evolving

your denial of a causal claim is laughable, since there is no way to measure whether it's mere correlation or causation. But it wouldn't make ANY sense if it were just correlation. That would be like saying the gene(s) for homosexuality seeks out women who are very fertile for no reason
 
radcen said:
I don't see this as being all that surprising. Human nature is that human's (collectively) never seem to learn from history. As just one example, diseases like whooping cough and measles make a comeback because vaccines work so well that in just a couple generations people forget the seriousness of them. Why would AIDS be any different? It's a simple human condition that if the threat (any threat) isn't right there in our faces right now, we delude ourselves into thinking its been licked.
Click to expand...
You didn't even bother to read through the first few posts to realize...it is a 16yo article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom