4 ms·
Indeed, but you left your point unstated. What if homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait that arises more frequently in the presence of environmental po
by ggferghghff 8y ago
Indeed, but you left your point unstated.
What if homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait that arises more frequently in the presence of environmental pollutants (say endocrine disruptors or whatever causes allergies)?
This is not implausible; in fact I’d be surprised if it weren’t probable (that enviromental pollutants affect human brain development and therefore sexuality)
What are the consequences or the course of action -if any - that should be taken?
- i_feel_great 8y agoYes, I did leave out my point. I have come across this before when I was a biologist many years ago. Homosexuality does not look like a genetic trait. It looks remarkably like a disease state - even an infectious one at that. But the first and last time I discussed this with other biology students, the reaction was very bad. Research like this may get interpreted politically, and therefore ignored or even suppressed and the researchers lose credibility. I do not know what you would interpret as natural, but homosexuality is detrimental for the persistence of a species. It is entirely a dead-end. The correct action to be taken is to prevent and/or counter the agent that causes this.
- sooheon 8y ago> homosexuality is detrimental for the persistence of a species. It is entirely a dead-end. How do you state this with such confidence? In an overpopulated world, homosexuality may be beneficial for the survival of our species. Homosexuals who do not reproduce potentially provide nanny-power to family units, or parenting power to orphans. It is in no way clear cut that "the correct action to be taken is to prevent and/or counter the agent that causes this." This is crazy talk.