As a response to Krish....
I do believe in young love. Why not, right? As soon as you develop emotionally and mature enough, I don't see why not. I'm skeptical as to anyone who claims to be in love at a young age, but that's because you have to admit it is uncommon. There really isn't much to say unless someone comes up with an argument saying it isn't true. But no adults will read this, and kids usually don't think it's not real.....
And back to homosexuality. It is quite puzzling. I think it was nurture to some degree, because it obviously can't all be genetic (twin studies!). But... if you had to have, say, an arm removed at a young age because your mother beat you, does that mean it's your fault? No, in fact, most people would blame the mother. Now, I don't think we should go blame mothers bringing their children to Broadway (JK, just throwing in some stereotype humor) for making their little boy gay. There's no one to blame, because you can't blame a baby, and you can't blame a mom when there are no official guidelines saying: How NOT to make your baby gay. Wouldn't that be handy?
And again in response with Krish, even more argument against it being evolution: Evolution doesn't have a mind of its own. It can't say, WOAH, TOO MUCH POPULATION THERE, and cause gay people. It works so whatever makes the most babies sticks. Gayness should not spread if it's genetic, so obviously it's some dormant thing that becomes awakened by some......... idk. stuff.
I agree with your comments about love. Yesh... that is all :P
ReplyDeletei like how i literally just saw this. Actually most of our personality traits are genetic. They're wired into us and different things trigger them. Sexuality would obviously be one of those traits. Needing a reason for gayness is stupid anyway and the "how not to make your baby gay" thing is kind of disturbing. Also, if the growing population is becoming detrimental to our survival than our bodies would adjust to the changing environment and thats part of evolution. And gayness spreading? Like what the hell? How do you explain an intense dislike of chicken spreading? Like no, stupid, shut up.
ReplyDeleteI was jooooking about the how not to make your baby gay thing. Krish you're thinking of evolution as something that goes: the population might get too big soon, so let's make people gay. Evolution only works now depending on the reasons certain people are attracted to others (at least in America). People with gills and fins may be able to survive intense flooding, but who is going to want to produce with him? I'm not saying no one, but I'm saying we evolve only when something is literally killing EVERYTHING that doesn't have the useful trait. Having a gay gene from evolution isn't impossible, but it would mean a lot of death and a lot of luck on who reproduces with whom.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the last part. What I meant was not saying I think it shouldn't spread, but that if it was STRICTLY GENETIC, then because of what homosexuality means, it wouldn't be so widespread. It would continue somewhat with technology and other things, but aren't there a lot of couples who adopt or don't have children at all?
What I was saying about twin studies, is that identical twins can have a gay and straight pair. This means that it can't be strictly genetic. I honestly don't think it has to do that much with genes (to say it has nothing to do with them is just ignorant), but I think it's probably a defect of some sort... I gotta go but I WANNA CONTINUE ARGUING CUZ ITS FUN