This is a tricky concept. It'd be a defect to your average species, or if the human life revolved around repopulating, as many animals' do. But underpopulation isn't exactly a problem for us.
I'm not pro gay marriage or anything... but at this point in time, I don't think increasing the human population will benefit anyone. Adoption is an option and a good one at that... there are so many kids out there without parents, I'd rather have them find a home than have some straight couple fuck and put another one in foster care or some shit. Orphans need lovin too
Well i want people to know my stance. I'm indifferent about gay marriage, but I still see the benefits of what they're doing... as in you don't have to be gay or a supporter to see it.
I'm straight, and I only plan to adopt for the very reason that I don't want to help populate a world that already has so many kids in need of a home. In my mind, people like the Duggard parents are the ones who are defective (in the head).
I agree that homosexuality is unnatural when it comes to reproduction which is why a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. BUT being that we aren't the prey to another animal, perhaps homosexuality is a way of controlling the population, as people have stated above.
Semi-related: Could it be possible that all of the illnesses that we can't find a cure for exist to control our population?
The illness thing is an interesting thought, but how would it happen? There'd have to be a higher power giving humans these diseases, because diseases can't really have the intent of decreasing population.
Bears don't really have an intent of decreasing salmon population; they're just hungry. Perhaps it's kind of like that. The higher power is simply nature.
Everyone who NW'd doesn't understand evolution. Evolution tries to create a species that has the best chance of living and, well, you can't have a species if you can't repopulate.
Clearly we don't need to now, but evolution makes species develop that have the best chance of living, and to make as many of the species as possible! As CapedCrusader says, how could anyone who says no way even understand want evolution is?
If we continue to repopulate at the current rate our species won't have a good chance of surviving. Evolution is not all about everyone populating our species, its about having the right size population for our resources. Same goes for any other animal, too much of a species and they will over consume their resources and start to die off.
If you're talking about evolution there is a direct tie-in to ecology and carrying capacity. Example: you have an environment that can hold roughly 600 mice. Say their population skyockets to 800. The mice are forced to compete for resources and due to the shortage, 500 of them die out. Now you are left with only 300 mice. Evolution is not about the individual, it's about how a species and to a lesser extent population changes to increase reproductive success among its members. Going back to our population of mice, a population of 600 will have greater reproductive success than the population of 300, through population control, which in humans is caused by homosexuality, among other factors.
When people say "the purpose of life is to procreate" they are looking at it from a purely evolutionary standpoint. An animals mission is to pass on its genes, and we are nothing more than rational animals who have developed cognitive thought.
But the purpose is not to procreate, the purpose is to survive. Overpopulation counters that thus countering the idea that the whole purpose of life is to make babies.
It depends on what scale you're looking at it. For a population, they absolutely want to survive. But on an individual level, looking at just one animal, it's their mission to pass on their genes by procreation.
From the evolutionary point of view I get where you're coming from but you could've worded it in a way that didn't sound so rude. I mean "defect" isn't exactly a nice term.. But it shouldn't be considered a "defect" whether its from an evolutionary stand point or not. Technically they can still reproduce unless they're sterile or something.
Yeah, I think people who NW'd this aren't getting it. It's not saying homosexuality is morally wrong or anything, but scientifically speaking, it is a defect. The whole purpose of life is to keep on reproducing to help continue life. If some people don't want to reproduce (or physically can't, for that matter), then they're defective. Basically just reiterated what @capedcrusader said but oh well.
I understand. I took psychology by the way this would fall under evolutionary. Shitting indoors isn't natural but you probly do it right? Since they have that option now they worked around a problem. This goes for invitro and toliets.
So, there is obviously no problem with the population being to low. If gay people decide to have babies they can if they want. It's not a defect if there is a solution.
Well it's not as if there was always no problem of the population being to low. You don't understand the post. It's not a complaint about gay people not contributing to society, or something, via the fact that they can't have kids.
It's about the fact that even though gay people are completely okay in every way, they are defective because, as an individual, the mission of just one animal is to pass on their genes via procreation, even though that's not the goal of the species at this current time, due to the fact that we are overpopulated. Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex and so are far less likely to procreate. I mentioned animals in the post as well, and not all species of animals are overpopulated, so clearly that's a defection for them, too, if my explanation above doesn't help you.
Okay good. Finally there's someone I can debate with on here without them correcting my grammar or spelling and calling me stupid. That's when you know someone has run out of points, when they do that you know. I digress. I agree now.
yeah sometimes people need to explain further or everyone else thinks they are crazy/stupid. This happens to me a LOT. I agree that they can't populate naturally so in that regard they are defective just like old women and sterile people.
Yeah. I assumed that my post was understandable enough because I guessed that everyone would make the connection that humans haven't evolved since we weren't overpopulated. And also that people would make the connection between animals and bald eagles, tigers, etc.
Well... although in-vitro is an option, it is too recent to have olayed a role in the sustainability of the trait. It may, on the other hand, have an advantage due to kin selection.
I'm not saying it affected the trait I'm saying the trait can't be considered a problem in 'repopulating the earth' Because now there is a way for them to have babies. Also there are traits that exist so people won't mate to control the population. That means it's a good thing they can't screw and have babies that way.
This is a tricky concept. It'd be a defect to your average species, or if the human life revolved around repopulating, as many animals' do. But underpopulation isn't exactly a problem for us.
I'm not pro gay marriage or anything... but at this point in time, I don't think increasing the human population will benefit anyone. Adoption is an option and a good one at that... there are so many kids out there without parents, I'd rather have them find a home than have some straight couple fuck and put another one in foster care or some shit. Orphans need lovin too
Why even say "I'm not pro gay marriage or anything"?
Well i want people to know my stance. I'm indifferent about gay marriage, but I still see the benefits of what they're doing... as in you don't have to be gay or a supporter to see it.
I'm straight, and I only plan to adopt for the very reason that I don't want to help populate a world that already has so many kids in need of a home. In my mind, people like the Duggard parents are the ones who are defective (in the head).
I agree that homosexuality is unnatural when it comes to reproduction which is why a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. BUT being that we aren't the prey to another animal, perhaps homosexuality is a way of controlling the population, as people have stated above.
Semi-related: Could it be possible that all of the illnesses that we can't find a cure for exist to control our population?
http://amirite.net/597115/1310583
Very interesting!
Lol, I try to think of rational-scientific explanations for things! Your whole idea on illnesses without cures is also something to think about :o
It seems like for every cure we find, there's a new illness that comes along.
True that! Like the swine flu epidemic -.-
However, homosexuality has been observed in animals as well, ones which DO have predators.
I believe these animals are having sexual relations because it feels good.
Hasn't it been observed that only humans and dolphins have sexual relations for pleasure, or am I wrong?
The illness thing is an interesting thought, but how would it happen? There'd have to be a higher power giving humans these diseases, because diseases can't really have the intent of decreasing population.
Bears don't really have an intent of decreasing salmon population; they're just hungry. Perhaps it's kind of like that. The higher power is simply nature.
Everyone who NW'd doesn't understand evolution. Evolution tries to create a species that has the best chance of living and, well, you can't have a species if you can't repopulate.
We don't need to repopulate. We actually need to decrease the population.
So theoretically, evolutionairly, homosexuality should increase as a means of the survival of our species. Because with overpopulation, we won't last.
Exactly.
Clearly we don't need to now, but evolution makes species develop that have the best chance of living, and to make as many of the species as possible! As CapedCrusader says, how could anyone who says no way even understand want evolution is?
If we continue to repopulate at the current rate our species won't have a good chance of surviving. Evolution is not all about everyone populating our species, its about having the right size population for our resources. Same goes for any other animal, too much of a species and they will over consume their resources and start to die off.
If you're talking about evolution there is a direct tie-in to ecology and carrying capacity. Example: you have an environment that can hold roughly 600 mice. Say their population skyockets to 800. The mice are forced to compete for resources and due to the shortage, 500 of them die out. Now you are left with only 300 mice. Evolution is not about the individual, it's about how a species and to a lesser extent population changes to increase reproductive success among its members. Going back to our population of mice, a population of 600 will have greater reproductive success than the population of 300, through population control, which in humans is caused by homosexuality, among other factors.
When people say "the purpose of life is to procreate" they are looking at it from a purely evolutionary standpoint. An animals mission is to pass on its genes, and we are nothing more than rational animals who have developed cognitive thought.
But the purpose is not to procreate, the purpose is to survive. Overpopulation counters that thus countering the idea that the whole purpose of life is to make babies.
It depends on what scale you're looking at it. For a population, they absolutely want to survive. But on an individual level, looking at just one animal, it's their mission to pass on their genes by procreation.
Your first paragraph is absolutely correct. That's the point, really, of evolution.
I dare you to walk up to someone's face and call them defective.
Blond hair is defective. =/
well. A mutation.
As are light-colored eyes.
i'm a monster ;n;
Defect =/= mutation. Like at all
Population control.
From the evolutionary point of view I get where you're coming from but you could've worded it in a way that didn't sound so rude. I mean "defect" isn't exactly a nice term.. But it shouldn't be considered a "defect" whether its from an evolutionary stand point or not. Technically they can still reproduce unless they're sterile or something.
Well they can reproduce, but since they're not attracted the opposite sex it is far less likely.
Yeah, I think people who NW'd this aren't getting it. It's not saying homosexuality is morally wrong or anything, but scientifically speaking, it is a defect. The whole purpose of life is to keep on reproducing to help continue life. If some people don't want to reproduce (or physically can't, for that matter), then they're defective. Basically just reiterated what @capedcrusader said but oh well.
The world does not need more humans or most animals now, if no one was gay we would have a much bigger overpopulation problem.
Lol you're gonna get ripped apart!!
They can adopt the ones in orphanages or have in vitro
I see your thought process but it's wrong. Adopting doesn't increase population.
They can have in vitro. Your logic seems to be conveniently forget a part my argument.
Not saying I agree with the post but it's saying homosexuality is a defect because they can't naturally repopulate the planet, in vitro isn't natural.
I understand. I took psychology by the way this would fall under evolutionary. Shitting indoors isn't natural but you probly do it right? Since they have that option now they worked around a problem. This goes for invitro and toliets.
That's a good point. I retract my original comment.
also notice javvie's comment under mine.
But vitro is not natural
There was homosexuality long before vitro was used.
So, there is obviously no problem with the population being to low. If gay people decide to have babies they can if they want. It's not a defect if there is a solution.
Well it's not as if there was always no problem of the population being to low. You don't understand the post. It's not a complaint about gay people not contributing to society, or something, via the fact that they can't have kids.
Oh then what is the post about?
It's about the fact that even though gay people are completely okay in every way, they are defective because, as an individual, the mission of just one animal is to pass on their genes via procreation, even though that's not the goal of the species at this current time, due to the fact that we are overpopulated. Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex and so are far less likely to procreate. I mentioned animals in the post as well, and not all species of animals are overpopulated, so clearly that's a defection for them, too, if my explanation above doesn't help you.
Okay good. Finally there's someone I can debate with on here without them correcting my grammar or spelling and calling me stupid. That's when you know someone has run out of points, when they do that you know. I digress. I agree now.
I agree with the failed people correcting grammar. And thanks for converting, haha.
yeah sometimes people need to explain further or everyone else thinks they are crazy/stupid. This happens to me a LOT. I agree that they can't populate naturally so in that regard they are defective just like old women and sterile people.
Yeah. I assumed that my post was understandable enough because I guessed that everyone would make the connection that humans haven't evolved since we weren't overpopulated. And also that people would make the connection between animals and bald eagles, tigers, etc.
Well... although in-vitro is an option, it is too recent to have olayed a role in the sustainability of the trait. It may, on the other hand, have an advantage due to kin selection.
I'm not saying it affected the trait I'm saying the trait can't be considered a problem in 'repopulating the earth' Because now there is a way for them to have babies. Also there are traits that exist so people won't mate to control the population. That means it's a good thing they can't screw and have babies that way.
yes, kin selection!
Okay I didn't know what kin selection was. I was referring to Darwinism.