What does "black violent criminals" and "homosexuality have in common???

[healthmyths]

Sociobiology: is a field of scientific study which is based on the assumption that social behavior has resulted from evolution and attempts to explain and examine social behavior within that context.

Premise:
Blacks with genetic slave status history are less intelligent and better physical specimens(therefore prone to more violent criminal behavior) were "BREED" by slave owners to be dumb but strong.
Like cattle slaves were picked in auctions and in a few cases "breed" like cattle for low intelligence (easier to control) and strength. As a result since slavery's abolishment this genetic pool while less directly continued (i.e. no more slave owners doing breeding..) for those characteristics the genetic pool is being reduced of those characteristics by behaviors.

Illustration:
Blacks have a higher percentage of abortions and as a result fewer births to lower genetic quality mothers.
Blacks have a higher percentage of murders of blacks by blacks..again reducing the pool.

So it appears that eventually we'll have more "Obamas" and less "Trayvons".

Premise:
Homosexual acceptance has increased more primarily due to behavior modification then genetic pool increasing.
In other words rather then more "gays" being born gay there has been more gays because their behavior,not because of genetics are accepted and with surrogate mothers gay propensity genetic pool (if exist!) is increasing.

Both societal groups i.e. "blacks" and "Gays" are as they have been always in transition.. one group declining, i.e. dumb but strong blacks.. (look at Obama as the smart but weak growing blacks!!!) and growing acceptance of gays to such a degree that anyone in some states attempting gay behavior modification techniques is committing an illegal act.

 

[healthmyths]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

 

[EriktheRed]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark here and guess you think that's a bad thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

So much for being "pro choice." How long until CA allows therapy to turn straight kids into queers?

 

[Katzndogz]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

fucking negged

what kind of hate filled pile of shit, links to groups he hates into one lump?

did you need another reason to prove you're a fucking tool?

Do you have hate gazems when you see black gays?

 

[auditor0007]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vS9H3vc49kY]We told Dads they're going to be Grandpas - YouTube[/ame]

Notice how these gay dads convinced their kid to become gay? Yea, thought not. Of course, it's just more proof that you can't make someone gay or that people do not choose to be gay. If it were a learned trait, then the vast majority of kids with gay parents would be gay, but they are not. Surprise! But hey, keep believing your stupid BS.

 

[Michelle420]

Sociobiology can be seen as the application of evolutionary theory to human behavior. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains adaptation, the functional ‘fit’ of organic form to its conditions of life, by linking differential adaptation to differential reproductive success. Traits less adapted to particular conditions of life will not persist in a population, because organisms with those traits will tend to have lower rates of survival and reproduction. Sociobiologists model the evolution of human behaviors in much the same way, using various ‘behavioral strategies’ as the relevant traits. However, in addition to the assumptions of standard evolutionary theory, sociobiology contributes several theoretical components of its own. For example, sociobiologists assume that humans, like other organisms, have behavioral control systems with particular functions whose evolutionary history can be individually traced. That assumption entails certain views about the modularity of cognitive, psychological, and neurophysiological systems. Other, more general commitments include the following:

Evolution encompasses not just genes and bodies, but also psychological, social, and cultural features.

When humans reproduce, offspring inherit the genes of their parents and, when the relevant genetic, developmental, physical, and social environments of parents and offspring are shared, offspring inherit the gene-effects of their parents.
Differential reproductive success is related in most cultures to differential wealth, social status, and power within that culture.

According to many critics of human sociobiology, standard sociobiological models are inadequate to account for human behavior, because they ignore the contributions of the mind and culture. A second criticism concerns genetic determinism, the view that many social behaviors are genetically fixed. Critics of sociobiology often complain that its reliance on genetic determinism, especially of human behavior, provides tacit approval of the status quo.

Sociobiology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Social constructionism is the belief that human nature does not matter or exist, and that most of what we believe about human nature is actually the product of human institutions and cultures, and therefore open to be changed. Sociobiology is the belief that human beings have real natures and natural purposes, but natures and purposes that are fully intelligible through evolution and not really different from those of the other animals. Biotechnology is not so much a belief but a project, which involves using our knowledge of human biology to improve human life and perhaps remake human nature. It thus presumes at least some measure of discontent with what we are now, as well as the existence of an objective biological nature (or “system&#8221 which it can reliably manipulate.

The Differences: Social Constructionist VS Sociobiologists

The social constructionists agree with the sociobiologists that we are fundamentally social beings; they disagree about how and why this is so. The sociobiologists say that our sociality is a natural or programmed trait; we are gregarious like the chimps are gregarious; everything about us can be explained through evolutionary biology. The “natural law,” in fact, is the same for all animals: We are born, spread our genes, raise our young, and die. The species that accomplish these goals flourish; those that fail by not adapting to their changing environment disappear. Contrary to our pretensions, there is no God or Nature that cares about particular human beings — or particular chimps or particular ants. Nature chooses for life, and in doing so chooses against each particular life. Nature wants each of us to be replaced by a new, better, or more adaptable being as soon as we have completed our simple and fundamentally physical tasks.

The social constructionists, by contrast, say that we create (or inherit) social and moral life according to our preferences (if we are strong) or slave-like condition (if we are weak). In either case, what we make of ourselves owes little or nothing to nature. There is no “natural law” worth heeding, because we alone among the species have a mysterious but real capability to be other than natural beings. Rather, we make ourselves into social or historical beings over time; everything distinctively human is the product of our free or unnatural social construction.

The New Atlantis » The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology

Sociobiology is becoming a more popular theory, still I lean more toward social construction

 

[healthmyths]

Sociobiology can be seen as the application of evolutionary theory to human behavior. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains adaptation, the functional ‘fit’ of organic form to its conditions of life, by linking differential adaptation to differential reproductive success. Traits less adapted to particular conditions of life will not persist in a population, because organisms with those traits will tend to have lower rates of survival and reproduction. Sociobiologists model the evolution of human behaviors in much the same way, using various ‘behavioral strategies’ as the relevant traits. However, in addition to the assumptions of standard evolutionary theory, sociobiology contributes several theoretical components of its own. For example, sociobiologists assume that humans, like other organisms, have behavioral control systems with particular functions whose evolutionary history can be individually traced. That assumption entails certain views about the modularity of cognitive, psychological, and neurophysiological systems. Other, more general commitments include the following:

Evolution encompasses not just genes and bodies, but also psychological, social, and cultural features.

When humans reproduce, offspring inherit the genes of their parents and, when the relevant genetic, developmental, physical, and social environments of parents and offspring are shared, offspring inherit the gene-effects of their parents.
Differential reproductive success is related in most cultures to differential wealth, social status, and power within that culture.

According to many critics of human sociobiology, standard sociobiological models are inadequate to account for human behavior, because they ignore the contributions of the mind and culture. A second criticism concerns genetic determinism, the view that many social behaviors are genetically fixed. Critics of sociobiology often complain that its reliance on genetic determinism, especially of human behavior, provides tacit approval of the status quo.

Sociobiology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Social constructionism is the belief that human nature does not matter or exist, and that most of what we believe about human nature is actually the product of human institutions and cultures, and therefore open to be changed. Sociobiology is the belief that human beings have real natures and natural purposes, but natures and purposes that are fully intelligible through evolution and not really different from those of the other animals. Biotechnology is not so much a belief but a project, which involves using our knowledge of human biology to improve human life and perhaps remake human nature. It thus presumes at least some measure of discontent with what we are now, as well as the existence of an objective biological nature (or “system”) which it can reliably manipulate.

The Differences: Social Constructionist VS Sociobiologists

The social constructionists agree with the sociobiologists that we are fundamentally social beings; they disagree about how and why this is so. The sociobiologists say that our sociality is a natural or programmed trait; we are gregarious like the chimps are gregarious; everything about us can be explained through evolutionary biology. The “natural law,” in fact, is the same for all animals: We are born, spread our genes, raise our young, and die. The species that accomplish these goals flourish; those that fail by not adapting to their changing environment disappear. Contrary to our pretensions, there is no God or Nature that cares about particular human beings — or particular chimps or particular ants. Nature chooses for life, and in doing so chooses against each particular life. Nature wants each of us to be replaced by a new, better, or more adaptable being as soon as we have completed our simple and fundamentally physical tasks.

The social constructionists, by contrast, say that we create (or inherit) social and moral life according to our preferences (if we are strong) or slave-like condition (if we are weak). In either case, what we make of ourselves owes little or nothing to nature. There is no “natural law” worth heeding, because we alone among the species have a mysterious but real capability to be other than natural beings. Rather, we make ourselves into social or historical beings over time; everything distinctively human is the product of our free or unnatural social construction.

The New Atlantis » The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology

Sociobiology is becoming a more popular theory, still I lean more toward social construction

FACT..

In 2009, a total of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, an estimated 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States.
If 35.4% were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks were killed by abortion as by all other causes.

In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million.
The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women.
The Case Against Abortion: Abortion and Race

It would appear then what you said: " In either case, what we make of ourselves owes little or nothing to nature. There is no “natural law” worth heeding, because we alone among the species have a mysterious but real capability to be other than natural beings."
is applying to black population aborting more then they are reproducing.

And since 73% of black kids are still surviving without wedlock, Blacks are continuing the ethnic genocidal activities, i.e. reducing the chances
of the most successful method of advancing a society, i.e marriage between man and woman and the two-parent protection of off-spring.
Blacks are self-destructing it appears and coincidently Planned Parenthood with 45% of revenue coming from tax dollars was started
by Sanger to reduce the black population.. which it appears to be done successfully!
In a 1926 speech at Vassar, Sanger said the nation needed to follow the "drastic immigration laws" of 1924 with methods "to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home. The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse--a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own elimination.

"http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt


Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Criminal Victimization in the United States -- Statistical Tables

 

[Michelle420]

Sociobiology can be seen as the application of evolutionary theory to human behavior. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains adaptation, the functional ‘fit’ of organic form to its conditions of life, by linking differential adaptation to differential reproductive success. Traits less adapted to particular conditions of life will not persist in a population, because organisms with those traits will tend to have lower rates of survival and reproduction. Sociobiologists model the evolution of human behaviors in much the same way, using various ‘behavioral strategies’ as the relevant traits. However, in addition to the assumptions of standard evolutionary theory, sociobiology contributes several theoretical components of its own. For example, sociobiologists assume that humans, like other organisms, have behavioral control systems with particular functions whose evolutionary history can be individually traced. That assumption entails certain views about the modularity of cognitive, psychological, and neurophysiological systems. Other, more general commitments include the following:

Evolution encompasses not just genes and bodies, but also psychological, social, and cultural features.

When humans reproduce, offspring inherit the genes of their parents and, when the relevant genetic, developmental, physical, and social environments of parents and offspring are shared, offspring inherit the gene-effects of their parents.
Differential reproductive success is related in most cultures to differential wealth, social status, and power within that culture.

Sociobiology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)






The Differences: Social Constructionist VS Sociobiologists

The social constructionists agree with the sociobiologists that we are fundamentally social beings; they disagree about how and why this is so. The sociobiologists say that our sociality is a natural or programmed trait; we are gregarious like the chimps are gregarious; everything about us can be explained through evolutionary biology. The “natural law,” in fact, is the same for all animals: We are born, spread our genes, raise our young, and die. The species that accomplish these goals flourish; those that fail by not adapting to their changing environment disappear. Contrary to our pretensions, there is no God or Nature that cares about particular human beings — or particular chimps or particular ants. Nature chooses for life, and in doing so chooses against each particular life. Nature wants each of us to be replaced by a new, better, or more adaptable being as soon as we have completed our simple and fundamentally physical tasks.

The social constructionists, by contrast, say that we create (or inherit) social and moral life according to our preferences (if we are strong) or slave-like condition (if we are weak). In either case, what we make of ourselves owes little or nothing to nature. There is no “natural law” worth heeding, because we alone among the species have a mysterious but real capability to be other than natural beings. Rather, we make ourselves into social or historical beings over time; everything distinctively human is the product of our free or unnatural social construction.

The New Atlantis » The Rise and Fall of Sociobiology

Sociobiology is becoming a more popular theory, still I lean more toward social construction

FACT..

In 2009, a total of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, an estimated 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States.
If 35.4% were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks were killed by abortion as by all other causes.

In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million.
The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women.
The Case Against Abortion: Abortion and Race

It would appear then what you said: " In either case, what we make of ourselves owes little or nothing to nature. There is no “natural law” worth heeding, because we alone among the species have a mysterious but real capability to be other than natural beings."
is applying to black population aborting more then they are reproducing.

And since 73% of black kids are still surviving without wedlock, Blacks are continuing the ethnic genocidal activities, i.e. reducing the chances
of the most successful method of advancing a society, i.e marriage between man and woman and the two-parent protection of off-spring.
Blacks are self-destructing it appears and coincidently Planned Parenthood with 45% of revenue coming from tax dollars was started
by Sanger to reduce the black population.. which it appears to be done successfully!
In a 1926 speech at Vassar, Sanger said the nation needed to follow the "drastic immigration laws" of 1924 with methods "to cut down on
the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home. The entire operation [Sanger's 1939 Negro Project] then was a ruse--a
manipulative attempt to get Blacks to cooperate in their own elimination.

"http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/ppracism.txt


Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Criminal Victimization in the United States -- Statistical Tables

Reactions to abortion is socially constructed

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Regarding against the law to try behavior modification with gays...


Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery."
The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."


Read more: New California law to prohibit gay, lesbian rehabilitation therapy for minors

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vS9H3vc49kY]We told Dads they're going to be Grandpas - YouTube[/ame]

Notice how these gay dads convinced their kid to become gay? Yea, thought not. Of course, it's just more proof that you can't make someone gay or that people do not choose to be gay. If it were a learned trait, then the vast majority of kids with gay parents would be gay, but they are not. Surprise! But hey, keep believing your stupid BS.

Every single person on earth, gay or straight, was brought here by a heterosexual union. Did gay people learn how to be gay from their parents being straight?

Oh, that's right....they learned it at school, from a gay coach or teacher, or....wait, those people were born to straight parents, too! Damn!

 

[healthmyths]

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical.

[ame=http://youtu.be/vS9H3vc49kY]We told Dads they're going to be Grandpas - YouTube[/ame]

Notice how these gay dads convinced their kid to become gay? Yea, thought not. Of course, it's just more proof that you can't make someone gay or that people do not choose to be gay. If it were a learned trait, then the vast majority of kids with gay parents would be gay, but they are not. Surprise! But hey, keep believing your stupid BS.

Every single person on earth, gay or straight, was brought here by a heterosexual union. Did gay people learn how to be gay from their parents being straight?

Oh, that's right....they learned it at school, from a gay coach or teacher, or....wait, those people were born to straight parents, too! Damn!

So are you saying that being gay is genetic i.e. "I gotta be me"?
If so and gays don't reproduce why are there gays?

How did they become gay if they were born of straight parents???

Could it be "nature" i.e. genetic? But wait.. if it was then how did a gay get born?
Or could it be "nurture"... being told it's OK to have oral sex with other men because it is something that you can do with out getting a girl pregnant? Is that how the "gay" person Learned to be gay???

Please explain how other then "NURTURE" i.e. learning to be gay could exist with straight parents???

 

[Michelle420]

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Typical.

We told Dads they're going to be Grandpas - YouTube

Notice how these gay dads convinced their kid to become gay? Yea, thought not. Of course, it's just more proof that you can't make someone gay or that people do not choose to be gay. If it were a learned trait, then the vast majority of kids with gay parents would be gay, but they are not. Surprise! But hey, keep believing your stupid BS.

Every single person on earth, gay or straight, was brought here by a heterosexual union. Did gay people learn how to be gay from their parents being straight?

Oh, that's right....they learned it at school, from a gay coach or teacher, or....wait, those people were born to straight parents, too! Damn!

So are you saying that being gay is genetic i.e. "I gotta be me"?
If so and gays don't reproduce why are there gays?

How did they become gay if they were born of straight parents???

Could it be "nature" i.e. genetic? But wait.. if it was then how did a gay get born?
Or could it be "nurture"... being told it's OK to have oral sex with other men because it is something that you can do with out getting a girl pregnant? Is that how the "gay" person Learned to be gay???

Please explain how other then "NURTURE" i.e. learning to be gay could exist with straight parents???

Several sociobiological theories have tried to explain human homosexuality. Adaptationally orthodox theories view it as a specific instance of reproductive altruism, in which the homosexual orientation in combination with a cross-gender identity is the emotional motivator of a non reproductive role, leading to higher inclusive fitness for the individual displaying the trait in a particular environment. The non reproduction is typically assumed to be plete—a large reproductive sacrifice.

A new model is proposed in which human homosexuality remains a reproductively altruistic, trait, but in which the magnitude of the altruism is much reduced, and so presumably is more likely to result in a net increase in inclusive fitness. The theory applies to societies in which social pressures require marriage of essentially all reproductively able individuals, and does not require gender nonconformity. Hence, the new theoy fills some of the gaps left by the earlier orthodox theories, and in combination with them offers a consolidated set of hypothesis for testing.

Elsevier

 

[healthmyths]

Every single person on earth, gay or straight, was brought here by a heterosexual union. Did gay people learn how to be gay from their parents being straight?

Oh, that's right....they learned it at school, from a gay coach or teacher, or....wait, those people were born to straight parents, too! Damn!

So are you saying that being gay is genetic i.e. "I gotta be me"?
If so and gays don't reproduce why are there gays?

How did they become gay if they were born of straight parents???

Could it be "nature" i.e. genetic? But wait.. if it was then how did a gay get born?
Or could it be "nurture"... being told it's OK to have oral sex with other men because it is something that you can do with out getting a girl pregnant? Is that how the "gay" person Learned to be gay???

Please explain how other then "NURTURE" i.e. learning to be gay could exist with straight parents???

Several sociobiological theories have tried to explain human homosexuality. Adaptationally orthodox theories view it as a specific instance of reproductive altruism, in which the homosexual orientation in combination with a cross-gender identity is the emotional motivator of a non reproductive role, leading to higher inclusive fitness for the individual displaying the trait in a particular environment. The non reproduction is typically assumed to be plete—a large reproductive sacrifice.

A new model is proposed in which human homosexuality remains a reproductively altruistic, trait, but in which the magnitude of the altruism is much reduced, and so presumably is more likely to result in a net increase in inclusive fitness. The theory applies to societies in which social pressures require marriage of essentially all reproductively able individuals, and does not require gender nonconformity. Hence, the new theoy fills some of the gaps left by the earlier orthodox theories, and in combination with them offers a consolidated set of hypothesis for testing.

Elsevier

There has never been and never will be a "altruistic action".

Name one truly altruistic act please.
When someone lays down their life for someone else, there is a motive involved.
That motive may be love. May be duty. But there has never been an altruistic act.

 

[J.E.D]

What do "black violent criminals" and "homosexuality have in common???

Your fetish for getting ass-raped by 8 ft tall black men while they punch you in your face?

 

[Michelle420]

So are you saying that being gay is genetic i.e. "I gotta be me"?
If so and gays don't reproduce why are there gays?

How did they become gay if they were born of straight parents???

Could it be "nature" i.e. genetic? But wait.. if it was then how did a gay get born?
Or could it be "nurture"... being told it's OK to have oral sex with other men because it is something that you can do with out getting a girl pregnant? Is that how the "gay" person Learned to be gay???

Please explain how other then "NURTURE" i.e. learning to be gay could exist with straight parents???

Several sociobiological theories have tried to explain human homosexuality. Adaptationally orthodox theories view it as a specific instance of reproductive altruism, in which the homosexual orientation in combination with a cross-gender identity is the emotional motivator of a non reproductive role, leading to higher inclusive fitness for the individual displaying the trait in a particular environment. The non reproduction is typically assumed to be plete—a large reproductive sacrifice.

A new model is proposed in which human homosexuality remains a reproductively altruistic, trait, but in which the magnitude of the altruism is much reduced, and so presumably is more likely to result in a net increase in inclusive fitness. The theory applies to societies in which social pressures require marriage of essentially all reproductively able individuals, and does not require gender nonconformity. Hence, the new theoy fills some of the gaps left by the earlier orthodox theories, and in combination with them offers a consolidated set of hypothesis for testing.

Elsevier

There has never been and never will be a "altruistic action".

Name one truly altruistic act please.
When someone lays down their life for someone else, there is a motive involved.
That motive may be love. May be duty. But there has never been an altruistic act.

You started the thread with your premise on sociobiology, I have provided links for you to read on what sociobiologists theories are on this matter.

It's your turn to either agree or disagree with sociobiological theories, remember I lean more toward a social constructionist viewpoint rather then sociobiologist perspectives.

 

[healthmyths]

Elsevier

There has never been and never will be a "altruistic action".

Name one truly altruistic act please.
When someone lays down their life for someone else, there is a motive involved.
That motive may be love. May be duty. But there has never been an altruistic act.

You started the thread with your premise on sociobiology, I have provided links for you to read on what sociobiologists theories are on this matter.

It's your turn to either agree or disagree with sociobiological theories, remember I lean more toward a social constructionist viewpoint rather then sociobiologist perspectives.

and you stated "reproductively altruistic" and I'm asking for an altruistic act by a determinate being. Genetic selection is done AFTER
reproduction.. so how can there be a "I gotta be me gene" even if it was "altruistic"?
I think you are stating social biologically that "I gotta be me gene" will exist in growing numbers because of "altruism" on the part of the species to breed itself to extinction???

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

Who has done that?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Notice that it's perfectly legal for gays to separate a child from the normal herd and persuade them that being gay is much better for them.

Who has done that?

Shitspeeders and Katz =

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[jknowgood]

What do "black violent criminals" and "homosexuality have in common???

Your fetish for getting ass-raped by 8 ft tall black men while they punch you in your face?

It's not good to state your fantisies on a public forum.