Ikku, you are the one who is not reading what I am saying. Bee hives and ant colonies all share extremely similar genetic code, therefore that sort of colony maintenance without sexual reproduction is very beneficial to genetic survival. Despite being social creatures, humanity in itself is not a beehive nor is it an ant colony, otherwise we would be perfectly communist and not rely on such selfish economic systems in our social order. The primary argument with homosexuality that you are referring to is that homosexuals pass on their genes through social influence than direct sexual methods*... and I have already addressed why I think this is false.
*
Because the number of the next generation is mostly insensitive to the number of males engaging directly in procreation in the current generation, males are in fact instinctually more free to dedicate time and energy to matters wholly divorced from their own direct procreative prospects. Males are simply under less evolutionary pressure to procreate successfully. A male is nearly as effective at propagating his genes indirectly, by attending to the logistical and strategic interests of his congenetic community, as by actually procreating directly. In some cases this may even be more effective than direct propagation. Upon close examination, it is my impression that male homosexuality is a bona fide physiological condition in most cases. This is quite congruous with the reduced evolutionary pressure on males to procreate directly. In fact, it can be argued that the incidence of male homosexuality is evidence of a selection for community members who contribute only indirectly to the evolving genetic corpus of the community.
http://www.mega.nu/gender.html
I never said anything anywhere ever about genes being altered by external influences or whatever magic hocus pocus you think I'm claiming.
Not necessarily altered, but obtained/passed on, and you did:
Just because they aren't passing on their genes per se, the evolution of homosexuality may indeed have benefits for mankind. They will use their fashionista skills to make us all look fabulous, increasing our reproductive chances, while their recessive genes slip on by into the next generation, especially from closet homosexuals, as they are necessary for building our society as it is! Not really true, but I mean, think of humanity as a bee hive, do a couple gay bees fuck the whole hive up or do they make it tidier?
Do you think homosexuality is a choice? It's not. Do you think it's caused by some kind of childhood trauma or has something to do with their upbringing? It doesn't. You can often tell a kid will be gay when he's like 5 years old. It's genetic, and some genes are even well documented with their correlation with homosexuality. Knowing that, the genes would have been obliterated from the human genome as soon as they arose, they never would have made it this widespread unless there is an advantage it gives the genome.
Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth and assume I believe homosexuality to be an environmental thing.I too have seen children who were quite obviously going to be gay. Maybe if you had read my post you would also have noticed that I had even brought up the 'homosexual' gene. Though a gene in itself may not be the only causation, some evidence points out a correlation between homosexuality and a sickness acquired by a pregnant mother during a certain stage in fetal developement (this was found through similar patterns in regards to fingerprints, brainstructure among other body parts and organ that developed within the particular stage) which may also lead to the altered testosterone levels which you mentioned. For this argument I was accused of being homophobic by some people I assumed were very open minded until I told them that the scientist who discovered this phenomenon was a homosexual himself, and was shocked at the discovery but nonetheless published it because science outrules any side of ethics or preferences one may have. I cannot provide the exact source because I no longer possess the psychology textbook where I first read it (Psychology in Modules by David Myers).
I don't believe every action undertaken by any animal is entirely for the sake of survival, but is based on whatever neurons are fired off at the time.* The firing off of these neurons of course, are based on evolutionary principles of surival but can be corrupted into firing off from stimuli that doesn't benefit survival. For example, I don't see how pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, and dare I say homosexuality benefit an organism genetically, but people's neurons get excited and they do these things. The sad part is that if pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest had the lobbying and social power of homosexuality**... there is no doubt in my mind that there would be some academic scholar writing theories on its evolutionary causation and purpose. And why not? Such behaviors are also widespread (granted, it doesn't seem as widespread as homosexuality, but homosexuality in itself was kept very much on the downlow until the sexual revolution) , so why wouldn't they have their own reasons?
*
http://www.petandwildlife.com/rats/rats ... obots.html
**
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108cWhen the going gets weird, the werid turn pro.
HOW CAN SO MANY YEARS COME TO PASS WITHOUT ANYONE TELLING ME I SPELLED WEIRD WRONG?
, if the purpose of human homosexuality is also to reduce the amount of "unnecessary" males in a given community then why aren't they just asexual as opposed to being sexually attracted to members of their own sex? Bear in mind that I referenced that link to show you that what I was referring to wasn't just "magic hocus pocus", but an actual scientific theory (or at least an academically backed belief/possibility) that I disagree with.
