Actually, there is some reasonably good science which indicates that the same genes that result in male homosexuality also result in significantly increased fertility in female relatives. So male homosexuality is actually associated with an increase in human population!http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
This ‘toon is hilarious.And there’s plenty of science to explain why the percentage of gays in the population has been relatively stable for as long as we can measure it. There are evolutionary reasons, in fact; Alexander cited one; E. O. Wilson proposed one a while ago.This also ignores the fact that “gender” (the psychological definition as distinct from the physical “sex”) appears to be a spectrum, not a binary switch. It’s like handedness — most people are MOSTLY right-handed, but very few are TOTALLY right-handed. The median of the bell curve appears to be around “mostly heterosexual,” but in fact there is considerable range in sexual expression. Not a surprise to anyone who knows the field, or for that matter knows primate studies.As always, more research is indicated.
One of my least favorite examples of political correctness is when people started to call lunatics “conspiracy theorists” ! (Are people who think that they are Napoleon “conspiracy theorists” ?)
I’m kinda’ more that a little sick of all the LGBT issue, but mostly because it SHOULDN’T BE AN ISSUE! Paranoid phobias and bigotry, and cowardice of all kinds, as American as baseball, Mom, and apple pie.
You wrote: “My alternative idea is that homosexuality is natures way of combating human over population.”Actually, in at least some cases it may be exactly the opposite. E. O. Wilson proposed the example of the “bachelor bird,” where consistently one bird never mates, but helps bring food to the children of a mated sibling. The difference is substantial enough that three “parents” can successfully raise far more descendants than two or sometimes even two pair. So the genes of the “bachelor” get transmitted through the sibling.Wilson proposed something similar might be happening with human homosexuality; people not investing in their own children might be good uncles and aunts to their sibs’ kids, and improving their odds of surviving to reproduce themselves. Straight Darwinian evolution!
Mmmm…maybe. Actually, I think it is more of a double bell, or perhaps a bell with a lot of kurtosis. Seems like there is a smaller bell curve down at the “mostly homosexual” side of the spectrum. True bisexuals seem to be the rarest — or maybe they’re just harder to spot!
You know … this is just a snapshot of where we’re at right now. Ten years ago this would have been unthinkable. Ten years from now it will be unremarkable. Another state just legalized same-sex marriage? Page six.
American football has always been homosexual: bend over, let me reach between your legs for the pigskin, then we all slam together and pile on top of each other.
Alexander the Good Enough about 10 years ago
Actually, there is some reasonably good science which indicates that the same genes that result in male homosexuality also result in significantly increased fertility in female relatives. So male homosexuality is actually associated with an increase in human population!http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
Doughfoot about 10 years ago
It took guts and character for this guy to come out BEFORE he has signed an NFL contract.
cjr53 about 10 years ago
WOW, the ignorance and bigotry on display here is appalling.
Motivemagus about 10 years ago
This ‘toon is hilarious.And there’s plenty of science to explain why the percentage of gays in the population has been relatively stable for as long as we can measure it. There are evolutionary reasons, in fact; Alexander cited one; E. O. Wilson proposed one a while ago.This also ignores the fact that “gender” (the psychological definition as distinct from the physical “sex”) appears to be a spectrum, not a binary switch. It’s like handedness — most people are MOSTLY right-handed, but very few are TOTALLY right-handed. The median of the bell curve appears to be around “mostly heterosexual,” but in fact there is considerable range in sexual expression. Not a surprise to anyone who knows the field, or for that matter knows primate studies.As always, more research is indicated.
echoraven about 10 years ago
Funny toon. Good job.
Godfreydaniel about 10 years ago
One of my least favorite examples of political correctness is when people started to call lunatics “conspiracy theorists” ! (Are people who think that they are Napoleon “conspiracy theorists” ?)
chromosome Premium Member about 10 years ago
If I were your genetics teacher, I might mark that wrong but give you extra credit for creativity!
Dtroutma about 10 years ago
I’m kinda’ more that a little sick of all the LGBT issue, but mostly because it SHOULDN’T BE AN ISSUE! Paranoid phobias and bigotry, and cowardice of all kinds, as American as baseball, Mom, and apple pie.
Motivemagus about 10 years ago
You wrote: “My alternative idea is that homosexuality is natures way of combating human over population.”Actually, in at least some cases it may be exactly the opposite. E. O. Wilson proposed the example of the “bachelor bird,” where consistently one bird never mates, but helps bring food to the children of a mated sibling. The difference is substantial enough that three “parents” can successfully raise far more descendants than two or sometimes even two pair. So the genes of the “bachelor” get transmitted through the sibling.Wilson proposed something similar might be happening with human homosexuality; people not investing in their own children might be good uncles and aunts to their sibs’ kids, and improving their odds of surviving to reproduce themselves. Straight Darwinian evolution!
Motivemagus about 10 years ago
Mmmm…maybe. Actually, I think it is more of a double bell, or perhaps a bell with a lot of kurtosis. Seems like there is a smaller bell curve down at the “mostly homosexual” side of the spectrum. True bisexuals seem to be the rarest — or maybe they’re just harder to spot!
Jason Allen about 10 years ago
“Why do homo’s have to advertize it who the hell cares”Your comment suggests that you care. Otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered posting.
Motivemagus about 10 years ago
Yeah, I’d buy that!
krisjackson01 about 10 years ago
You know … this is just a snapshot of where we’re at right now. Ten years ago this would have been unthinkable. Ten years from now it will be unremarkable. Another state just legalized same-sex marriage? Page six.
BrianCrook about 10 years ago
American football has always been homosexual: bend over, let me reach between your legs for the pigskin, then we all slam together and pile on top of each other.