Comic 469 - SPFLSA probably won't catch on

26th Oct 2013, 4:21 AM
<<First Latest>>

Follow me on Twitter & Facebook. Then visit the all-new Store
Average Rating: 0 (0 votes)
Digg Stumble
<<First <Previous Next> Latest>>

Author Notes:

Be Sure to visit the all-new Store
26th Oct 2013, 4:21 AM
"Homophobia is only seen in humans" is a stupid argument; if you want to look to animals a source of how people should behave, I promise that we'll be going down quite a few pegs.

Argumentum ad Naturam


27th Oct 2013, 1:11 PM
As much as I am against homophobia, I must, in this case, yield to your logic. That is indeed a stupid argument.
4th Nov 2013, 12:22 PM
While I do agree with your logic, in point of fact, exclusive homosexuality is found in very few species. Primarily humans and domestic sheep.

In other species, bisexual is the best description. They primarily mate in a heterosexual manner, but with homosexual diversions, hypothesized to be for male bonding, greeting, or dominance displays, depending on the species.

As for the other list, I know only of the rape and murder aspect found in a lot of different species, so I really have no specific comment on the matter.
6th Nov 2013, 10:26 PM
As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is unnatural. It couldn't have been naturally selected for. It serves no evolutionary purpose that I can think of.

That being said, unnatural doesn't necessarily mean bad. Heterochromia (eyes of two different colours), an extra toe, and a wide variety of other things are also unnatural by the same definition. They're all just harmless anomalies of some kind. Just accept that it exists, acknowledge it, and move on with your life as if nothing's wrong, because nothing IS wrong.
6th Nov 2013, 10:31 PM
Student of Biology
Heterochromia and additional digits are genetic, but we don't actually have a nailed-down cause of homosexuality yet.

Best theories are hormonal. Adjusting hormonal levels in developing mice can cause the brains to develop abnormally, resulting in male mice with a female-like brain and vice versa.

But whether the hormonal changes in humans are a result of the child's genetics, or caused by abnormal hormone levels from the mother's isn't sure yet. If that even is the root cause.

Some synthetic chemicals can simulate estrogen or testosterone, particularly ones released from the chemical decay of plastics as just a big one, so there another possibility. It's all a big biological conundrum.

Interesting, but as homosexuality is harmless, I'm not sure it's worth the funds to study when we still have cancer and a number of other major diseases to concern ourselves with.
16th Nov 2013, 10:30 AM
I can't tell if you guys are bigoted bastards, or if you have a point...
16th Nov 2013, 1:47 PM
Sorry, but homosexuality totally does serve an evolutionary purpose. It works really well as a solution to overpopulation, for one thing.
20th Nov 2013, 12:43 PM
Student of Biology
Yeah, Researcher, that doesn't really work. Evolution is about reproductive success, and if you're choosing a partner that can't help you produce children, then your genes aren't getting passed on, so the trait that made you choose such a partner isn't passed on.

Now a days, with surrogacy, sperm banks, and such, it's not such a barrier, but in evolutionary history, that's not a case, and the passing of homosexuality, if it even is strictly genetic, is a mystery.
2nd Dec 2013, 7:43 PM
Student of biology, evolution is more complicated than that. It is about the probability of genes very much like your own being propagated. If it were just about the individual reproducing, there wouldn't be any such thing as a bee hive.

Having your niece/nephew thrive is also an evolutionary win. Having your clan or village survive is a smaller, but still important, win.

My guess is that the homosexual segment of a population makes the population as a whole more robust. If you think about it, there are a few ways that could work.