Some people just can't understand it and choose to hate it based off of that.

They don't see that the people they are judging are real people that, in many instances, are productive members of society.

Whom they bed with should not be the larger concern.

There's no genetic advantage for women to be even less attracted to other women, so this theory doesn't explain why whatever makes men not attracted to women wouldn't have disappeared through evolution.

I hope your attempt to understand why is part of the road to acceptance and not part of some final solution.

There's a huge genetic advantage to being a promiscuent woman

And I'm not sure I follow you with your second idea. Whatever makes men not attracted to women wouldn't have disappeared through evolution...?

I think every straight man is testament to that statement being erroneous, but maybe I am just not reading it right...?

This post was edited by piddywiffle on May 12 2012 12:50pm

I would say the 7 billion people is a testament to our virility myself.

That's exactly what it explains.

It says that the benefit that the "extremely attracted to men gene" provides in women offsets the genetic disadvantage it provides in men.

Yea you aren't reading it right (though admittedly it is a bit of a run-on sentence)
I'm saying that whatever makes men not attracted to women would have disappeared through evolution, and the explanation in the OP (if true) would make some men bisexual but not homosexual.



lol no
My personal view is that homosexual relations are wrong, but that the state has no business interfering since it doesn't bring harm to others.
Homosexual acts should only be criminal if, for instance, one person knowingly carries HIV and doesn't inform their partner beforehand, but that applies to heterosexuals as well.
I could compare it to having sinful thoughts. If you fantasize about doing evil things it's a sin, but if you don't act on any of them then you haven't committed a crime.
I believe the same about all sinful acts. If it causes no harm to others then it should be between the offender and God.
That doesn't exclude others from encouraging them to change, but taking any negative action against them (shaming/discrimination/etc) would be wrong.



But an "extremely attracted to men" gene isn't the same as a "not attracted to women" gene.

This post was edited by taekvideo on May 12 2012 12:55pm

That's a good point, but it wouldn't be as effective if the women with the gene were also attracted to women.

As I see it, the only way this theory could explain homosexuals (rather than bisexuals) is if a single gene caused men to be attracted to other men and caused men not to be attracted to women.. in which case the 2nd effect wouldn't be eliminated through natural selection since it's attached to the same gene... but that seems too perfectly convenient and contrived to be natural and I'd need a good deal of evidence to convince me of that.

Or perhaps all sexual behavior is really on a spectrum rather than a straight-up hetero/homo distinction, and the presence of this gene is powerful enough to far outshadow female attraction in male carriers.