Are neuters allowed in the ladies' room?

[Tamasin]

A well known example of another method of population control would be lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs. If they wouldn't periodically do that, their species would have become extinct due to overcrowding.

FYI they don't actually do this.

Well, they don't deliberately jump off cliffs with the sole purpose of dying, as suggested in some old Disney 'documentary'.
However, overpopulation triggers such a strong migratory response, that it will drive herds away from the overcrowded area, without any regard of dangerousness of the terrain crossed while migrating. Causing them to fall off cliffs, drown in rapids, and similar deaths that could be seen as suicidal.

I feel like you believed what you said the first time, and then looked up 'Lemmings' on Snopes when you found out you were wrong. You claimed to be a biologist to give your words in this thread weight, but you actually barely scraped through high school biology with a D, didn't you?

that particular point was also flawed because it would imply that homosexuality would increase as a population became overcrowded in order to decrease reproduction, which i have never heard of happening. I don't see any reason to go insulting martinuzz though, this isn't really the sort of thing someone with a degree in biology usually gets to learn a lot about.

but yeah, preventing overcrowding problems is not among the things i've seen scientists say may make homosexuality adaptive for animals.

[martinuzz]

that particular point was also flawed because it would imply that homosexuality would increase as a population became overcrowded in order to decrease reproduction, which i have never heard of happening. I don't see any reason to go insulting martinuzz though, this isn't really the sort of thing someone with a degree in biology usually gets to learn a lot about.

Evolution is not targeted. I does not automatically mean that, if homosexuality is a means of culling overpopulation, (and not nescessarily the only means), it will increase in any population that becomes more overcrowded.
It's the other way around. If a trait, like homosexuality, acquired through random mutation, happens to be benificial, (by lowering overall reproductive success, in an environment where exactly that would increase the fitness of the population as a whole) it has good odds of surviving the process of natural selection. In this case, the gene for it must be recessive, and not dominant, since the part of the population actually having the trait does not reproduce).

I feel like you believed what you said the first time, and then looked up 'Lemmings' on Snopes when you found out you were wrong. You claimed to be a biologist to give your words in this thread weight, but you actually barely scraped through high school biology with a D, didn't you?

TBH, When I finished my studies, in 2001, the cause of lemming population drops was still debated, and we actually were presented with the 'falling of cliffs while migrating' theory as being the most likely. I haven't really kept up with the suicidal lemming field of biology since.

[Inotdead]

Flawed argument. You're forgetting that in many of these places they still perform such acts as stoning people to death or of similar cruelty for such unforgivable sins. Intolerance of homosexuality may be high in Western countries, but I guarantee you in places like China, India and Islamic countries their intolerance and ignorance towards it is at a much higher rate. They are just less vocal and more action-oriented.

But it's part of their culture, by calling them ignorant and intolerant you are being intolerant and ignorant yourself, since you don't accept who they are while they just simply want to live their lives!

[Kaios]

But it's part of their culture, by calling them ignorant and intolerant you are being intolerant and ignorant yourself, since you don't accept who they are while they just simply want to live their lives!

Is this a serious reply

[Tamasin]

that particular point was also flawed because it would imply that homosexuality would increase as a population became overcrowded in order to decrease reproduction, which i have never heard of happening. I don't see any reason to go insulting martinuzz though, this isn't really the sort of thing someone with a degree in biology usually gets to learn a lot about.

Evolution is not targeted. I does not automatically mean that, if homosexuality is a means of culling overpopulation, (and not nescessarily the only means), it will increase in any population that becomes more overcrowded.
It's the other way around. If a trait, like homosexuality, acquired through random mutation, happens to be benificial, (by lowering overall reproductive success, in an environment where exactly that would increase the fitness of the population as a whole) it has good odds of surviving the process of natural selection. In this case, the gene for it must be recessive, and not dominant, since the part of the population actually having the trait does not reproduce).

The point is that if it it possessed an adaptive function of alleviating overcrowding, it would need to increase in times of overcrowding to have any effect, otherwise the reproductive rate would not be affected, thus it would have no such effect. Reproduction is expensive and species evolve towards optimal trade-offs. Species don't evolve to produce more offspring than is optimal. Reproductive traits aside, having a sub-set of the population not attempt to reproduce results in less variation than simply lowering the rate, and results in less fitness than simply having the general population produce less offspring. So, lower reproductive rate due to some individuals being exclusively **** is just not likely to be a good thing in any case. Also many species vary their reproductive rates as needed depending on environmental conditions. This is better than having a permanently lower rate due to homosex. There is a fair bit of literature on animal homosexuality already, and population control just isn't something suggested as one of the various potential benefits.

In species where some of the population actually doesn't reproduce due to being gay, in most of the examples i've seen it is either actually increasing the reproductive rate such as in black swans or it is a very small proportion, particularly in the case of lesbians. In the majority of cases where animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, those animals also typically reproduce sexually.

[Claeyt]

But it's part of their culture, by calling them ignorant and intolerant you are being intolerant and ignorant yourself, since you don't accept who they are while they just simply want to live their lives!

But you're trying to live your life without seeing or hearing from Homosexuals. Your rights do not trump their rights. They have the right to live openly as gay and say that they are gay. Western Society has determined that their rights and lives need protections from more extreme people that hold the same views as yours.

As for most of the biological questions, homosexuality has been proven to be a possible outcome from several recessive genes. It's a predilection towards homosexuality. There are no finite answers to which genes determine it but twin studies and adoptive studies have proven that it does exist. Most non-sexual and homosexual repressed birth rates in the animal kingdom don't have much to do with population control.

Scientists have theorized that homosexuality in many animals is an evolutionary result of creating a stable male/female ratio while letting only the strongest males reproduce. Male Homosexuality or Non-sexuality has been shown to be similar to human ratios of 2v1 in males to females in the population. Thus you can see the 5-8% male homosexuality to 2-4% female homosexuality in some of the ape species. Homosexuality in chimpanzees has been theorized by scientists to be seen as an advantage where non-breeding/non-sexually active male chimps are still there to protect the clan without creating sexual conflict with the breeding males.

Again it's a recessive grouping of genes that can be measured but can't be predictive.

[martinuzz]

But it's part of their culture, by calling them ignorant and intolerant you are being intolerant and ignorant yourself, since you don't accept who they are while they just simply want to live their lives!

Is this a serious reply

...looks at thread title...

In all seriousness, is this meant to be a serious thread?

[Kaios]

shut up martinuzz or I'll stone you to death. IT'S MY ***** RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL RIGHT!

[martinuzz]

It's my very basic biological right of self preservation then, to kill you before you stone me

[Cheena]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pTbtglGQ5Q