Itallian Scientist - Vaccines make children gay

The word "scientist" here should be in air quotes. Rather large ones, at that. Perhaps in neon, and blinking.

1. Vaccines are almost certainly safe and save the lives of those who take them and perhaps many millions more by preventing the spread of disease. Opposing vaccination isn't just stupid and paranoid, it's downright immoral based on what we know of how diseases spread.

2. I'd sure like to know on what he bases his conclusion, seeing as how there is absolutely no sound evidence that supports that conclusion, and even if there was, it would prove nothing. No scientist worth his salt would say something like that with such certainty even if the evidence was in his favor. Were he a legitimate scientist, he would acknowledge that even the most strongly supported conclusions are not certainties, and this is pretty far from "strongly supported."

3. He's probably just mouthing off for attention. The fact that anyone's giving it to him is pathetic. This is a non-story and should never have been in the news.

This is more ridiculous than the "Vaccines cause Autism" things I've heard. I think the same as the above poster, the word "Scientist" should have air quotes.

"The vaccine is introduced into the child, the child then grows and tries to find its own personality, and if this is inhibited by mercury or other substances present in the vaccine which enter the brain, the child becomes gay," Vanoli said.

Click to expand...

...this guy is actually called a scientist?
A. No.

B. Last year 5 days to the date, the FDA admitted in court that vaccines still contain mercury. As much as that sounds to weaken my argument, you have to realize and appreciate that these vaccines are FDA approved. In other words, the amount of mercury in a vaccine shot is negligible. The only reason it's even present is to act as a stabilizing agent to decrease the chance that germs and microbes that already exist in our blood, could aid in the spread of the synthetic version of the disease in the vaccine. What I'm saying here is that the amount of mercury that is in the shot is too little to possibly cause any sort of mutation.

C. More to point B is the fact that vaccines are measured to the smallest unit for every component. That's why vaccines, unlike other shots, are not drawn out of a vile and then introduced into the blood stream. Instead, they come in enclosed and sealed packages approved by the FDA and deemed safe. That's also why when a doctor administers the vaccine, unlike other shots, he/she does not squirt anything out of it to make sure any air has been emptied out. This is because all the pressure control and vacuum standards in the shot have already been measured by the producer, and also because any more/less of the vaccine, even the slightest bit, could either render it useless or increase the chance of actual bodily harm.
Also, the human circulatory system is so fast and efficient that the mercury in the shot wouldn't have time to dissolve before reaching the brain. After the shot is given, 2/3 heartbeats away and the entire content of the shot has reached every cell in the body.
What I'm trying to say is that vaccines are so carefully made that if they caused homosexuality, 50% if not all of the people who have taken vaccines would be homosexuals.

This isn't really speculation and I'm not trying to sound like a smart-ass. All of this is just Bio 1, 2, and 3 from high school + my own vast interest in biology and chemistry.

In the same interview Vanoli admitted he drinks his own urine daily, "a glass every day," because he believes it is "great therapy" to reverse the effects of vaccination.

Click to expand...

Nice.

wakachamo said:

So... why are we still listening to this guy?

Click to expand...

I like to think it's so that we can make fun of him!

KingCharizard said:

Its far fetched but doesn't mean it is "crazy" Come on how can two guys together be natural? putting it in the poop shoot is natural? or let alone two women scissoring? vaccines are they natural? No they are man made.. Really thats how it was meant to be? .. Man and woman are a fit because they can reproduce keep the population growing. I am not denying that the same sex cant love each other, father n son, brother n brother, but its not homosexuality that is a disease, its sex... Sex is a problem, it can be an addiction, cause people to do some crazy things, rape for instance(not saying all rapist are sex addicts), sex is out of control in todays world, it went from private between two people to world news headlines..


All I'm saying if humanity was on the brink of extinction you wouldn't want the last few guys alive to be gay, and vice versa. Even if they could get it to work it wouldn't be very successful. It aint natural, and It could be very much possible that vaccines could be the cause..

not saying it is, just saying anything is possible.

Click to expand...

As much as I admire your open minded post here, I just wanted to point out that the terms impossible and possible are extremely relative and subjective. What is impossible now might be possible in a hundred years and vice versa regarding what is thought possible, but proved impossible in light of new discoveries.
So yes, this might all be possible, but it's very improbable. (Reason above)

KingCharizard said:

I dont believe this and I have a few gay friends that would say the same..

Click to expand...

I just hope you aren't one of those people who think that what science tells us is a lie. Regardless, over a dozen experiments and tests have been done that do in fact show that there is a recessive gene present in 90% of homosexuals and only present under dominance in heterosexuals. So no, scientifically speaking, homosexuality is genetic but is also recessive. Which is why a homosexual father can have a straight son and vice versa.

I learned a reason why vaccines may contain mercury from one of my biochem profs. Mercury might be the only catalyst that exists for the only reaction that leads to the product. Having to purify the product of mercury to ppb concentrations is extremely difficult, and is also one of the reasons your prescription drugs are so expensive. So Big Pharm isn't completely evil XD

I just learned on wiki that mercury is added to vaccines as an anti-bacterial. So scratch out what I wrote about mercury's purpose in vaccines. Although I will leave it in because I don't think it's something that people realize - and chemists are trying very hard to develop new ways of conducting the same reaction without toxic reactants like mercury - it's called Green Chemistry, look it up all you science nerds as it's pretty cool and related to sustainability and environmental protection.

I just learned in biochem that toxins that kill bacteria by shutting down their ability to create proteins. They target bacteria because bacteria and humans have different machinery and the toxin only works on bacteria. And I just realized why that would be a bad idea - since bacteria can always develop resistance to antibiotics. But apparently mercury works in much the same way, preventing bacteria from reproducing and creating proteins. So I am thoroughly confused as to why mercury is used instead of an organic antibiotic.

But my conclusion is this: scientists should continue working on developing an antibiotic potent but safe for human use. I don't know how possible it would be, especially since antibiotics block fundamental processes for life.

BlahISuck said:

I learned a reason why vaccines may contain mercury from one of my biochem profs. Mercury might be the only catalyst that exists for the only reaction that leads to the product. Having to purify the product of mercury to ppb concentrations is extremely difficult, and is also one of the reasons your prescription drugs are so expensive. So Big Pharm isn't completely evil XD

I just learned on wiki that mercury is added to vaccines as an anti-bacterial. So scratch out what I wrote about mercury's purpose in vaccines. Although I will leave it in because I don't think it's something that people realize - and chemists are trying very hard to develop new ways of conducting the same reaction without toxic reactants like mercury - it's called Green Chemistry, look it up all you science nerds as it's pretty cool and related to sustainability and environmental protection.

I just learned in biochem that toxins that kill bacteria by shutting down their ability to create proteins. They target bacteria because bacteria and humans have different machinery and the toxin only works on bacteria. And I just realized why that would be a bad idea - since bacteria can always develop resistance to antibiotics. But apparently mercury works in much the same way, preventing bacteria from reproducing and creating proteins. So I am thoroughly confused as to why mercury is used instead of an organic antibiotic.

But my conclusion is this: scientists should continue working on developing an antibiotic potent but safe for human use. I don't know how possible it would be, especially since antibiotics block fundamental processes for life.

Click to expand...

I think it's because the synthetic virus in the vaccine is meant to cause a very small infection in order for it to take effect. That's why after taking a vaccine shot, a person would usually feel a little sick for a while but it would slowly fade away. I know I feel sick after one of those shots!

With an antibiotic, the effects would be minimal. With mercury, the effects would be just enough without actually killing the infectious virus before it got its job done. Or something to that extent.

Viruses and bacteria are not the same thing. Bacteria are life forms pretty similar to human beings when it comes down to their fundamental makeup and processes. Viruses are basically a protein shell with RNA and the most trippy-ass thing I learned so far - reverse transcriptases, which are enzymes that can convert RNA into DNA. This is how viruses infect - by converting their RNA genetic material to DNA, the cell ends up converting the inserted DNA into proteins, reproducing the virus so virulently until the cell dies and the virus spreads. I don't know this for sure and the information is out there, but I'll venture a guess that synthetic virus in a vaccine has had something done to its reverse transcriptase so it can't actually infect a cell.

You can't kill viruses because they don't breath. Bacteria, on the other hand do breathe, and are use sugars, fats and oxygen as energy just like we do. From what I read, antibodies and mercury used in such a role play the same function and shut down the same processes. I'm confused because if they do the same thing the same way then why not used the one that /doesn't/ cause permanent brain damage?

I also just learned that mercury is banned for most vaccines in Western Countries. And they are definitely banned for child vaccines. Because mercury causes brain damage. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.

BlahISuck said:

Viruses and bacteria are not the same thing. Bacteria are life forms pretty similar to human beings when it comes down to their fundamental makeup and processes. Viruses are basically a protein shell with RNA and the most trippy-ass thing I learned so far - reverse transcriptases, which are enzymes that can convert RNA into DNA. This is how viruses infect - by converting their RNA genetic material to DNA, the cell ends up converting the inserted DNA into proteins, reproducing the virus so virulently until the cell dies and the virus spreads. I don't know this for sure and the information is out there, but I'll venture a guess that synthetic virus in a vaccine has had something done to its reverse transcriptase so it can't actually infect a cell.

You can't kill viruses because they don't breath. Bacteria, on the other hand do breathe, and are use sugars, fats and oxygen as energy just like we do. From what I read, antibodies and mercury used in such a role play the same function and shut down the same processes. I'm confused because if they do the same thing the same way then why not used the one that /doesn't/ cause permanent brain damage?

I also just learned that mercury is banned for most vaccines in Western Countries. And they are definitely banned for child vaccines. Because mercury causes brain damage. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected o_o
Also, a quick question: We've established that both antibiotics and mercury can kill bacteria, but can mercury eliminate viruses seeing how they can't be "killed" per se?

PEDRO12 said:

I stand corrected o_o
Also, a quick question: We've established that both antibiotics and mercury can kill bacteria, but can mercury eliminate viruses seeing how they can't be "killed" per se?

Click to expand...

They're not "killed" because they were never alive. They never metabolised - broke down compounds to harness their chemical energy - like bacteria, humans, and other organisms do. They are "inactivated", by deactivating certain proteins that allow a virus to exploit a cell's machinery. So when they're deprived of this function, they're basically genetic material floating around in protein containers that our immune systems can tag and bag, literally.

Based on what I've read and learned, I do not believe that mercury does anything to the virus - the virus prep is done long before, and the mercury is to prevent you from getting injected with a petri dish, basically. One of the ways to "kill" or "inactivate" viruses would be to heat them, because proteins denature under heat, an example of this being the albumin hardening in a cooked egg. But then again, some viruses might be able to survive, and continue reproducing so the balance is justifying the cost between 99.9999% vs 99.99999% effectiveness.

I believe containing a virus infection is a battle of rates. An unharmed virus will continue reproducing at a speed that the immune system cannot contain. A sufficiently deactivated virus - maybe you treat it with heat and present it in a super-small dose - will still reproduce, but would reproduce at a rate your immune system can contain. In fact, I suppose it would even be possible to have an equilibrium between the rate of the virus population increasing and the rate of your immune system to kill the virus (I don't know how this works - maybe hardkilling by using some enzyme to rip protein and RNA of the virus apart) would negate each other, leading the population of virus in your body to remain constant and giving your body a copy of the virus for the rest of its life, thereby giving you immunity.

Of course, virus doses must be at a much lower concentration than one that can establish an equilibrium, first of all because viruses mutate and so your immunity wouldn't last long anyways, and more importantly no two people's immune system are alike and what one person could recover from the other person will die. You can think of this concept like homework. Your teacher can be a good teacher and give you assignments a bit at a time, and you will learn more and grow. Or he can be an ass and give you a lot at once, and then you will die. Some people can deal with lots of homework, other people not so much. So we can be relieved at the miniscule amount of virus that are actually contained in a dose of vaccine.

KingCharizard said:

Its far fetched but doesn't mean it is "crazy" Come on how can two guys together be natural? putting it in the poop shoot is natural?

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, but the number of gays who engage in anal sex is almost the same as the percentage of straight couples who do the same, that being around 37%. My boyfriend and I are among that percentage. And to us, it is VERY natural. Did you know that the male G spot (the most sensitive erogenous zone in the human body) can be stimulated through the anus, and somewhat by massaging the perineum? For me, the idea of engaging in any form of sex with a female disgusting and I want to have no part of it. What is natural for you, may not be natural for others.

Human beings also are not the only species on this planet that engages in sex with same-sex partners. Over 1500 species have been noted to do the same. And the only reason their numbers are dwindling is because of the human race's interference with their natural habitat, not because of who they have sex with.

KingCharizard said:

Vaccines are they natural? No they are man made.. Really thats how it was meant to be?

Click to expand...

Vaccines, by and large, contain natural elements, so in that sense, yes, they are natural. What makes them effective for the prevention of diseases in humans, is how we've learned to combine these natural elements together to do the task required of them. Much the same as how we combine herbs and spices and oils to create dressings for our salads.

KingCharizard said:

.. Man and woman are a fit because they can reproduce keep the population growing.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality also plays a very important role in contributing to the growth of a family. You may not think so, but it is true. It is a completely natural sexual orientation that serves a vital role in the continuation of the human species.

KingCharizard said:

I am not denying that the same sex cant love each other, father n son, brother n brother, but its not homosexuality that is a disease

Click to expand...

Glad to hear you don't think that homosexuality was a sickness. I was beginning to wonder.

KingCharizard said:

its sex... Sex is a problem, it can be an addiction, cause people to do some crazy things, rape for instance(not saying all rapist are sex addicts), sex is out of control in todays world, it went from private between two people to world news headlines.

Click to expand...

Sex, like almost anything, can become quite the powerful addiction. Why? Because sex is pleasurable. There is one law of humanity, and that is that humans will do what pleases them most. People can get addicted to sex, drugs, alcohol, and also drinking pop, playing video games, and participating in sports. Almost anything we do that causes us pleasure can be addictive. The human race is one of the few species on Earth that engages in sex primarily for pleasure rather than for procreation (although procreation does occur, sometimes planned and sometimes not). Sex is also a vital part of our health and well being. The chemicals that are released into our systems while having sex actually helps to improve our immune systems, and even helps improve our state of mind. It works very much in the same way that laughter does, which also has some good health benefits.

Instead of thinking that sex is the problem, which it's not, you should be concerned more with people who use sex as a means of exerting power over someone. That is where the problem lies. Two people who care about each other very much and who have sex are not the problem. In fact, they're the ones who are helping society the most.

KingCharizard said:

All I'm saying if humanity was on the brink of extinction you wouldn't want the last few guys alive to be gay, and vice versa. Even if they could get it to work it wouldn't be very successful. It aint natural, and It could be very much possible that vaccines could be the cause..

not saying it is, just saying anything is possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's possible the Earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is the centre of the whole universe. Only it's not. And your points here demonstrate your lack of knowledge of what is and what isn't natural.

I am gay. So is my boyfriend. We knew we were gay from a very young age. It was not something we chose. The only choice for us was in deciding whether to accept what we felt. We chose to accept it, and we chose to accept that we loved each other, and the rest... well, that's led us to 4 very happy, fulfilling years together. Us being who we are is as natural as you being who you are. You cannot deny what comes naturally to me any more than I could deny what comes naturally to you. I would celebrate you for who you are, whereas you would denigrate us and consider us "damaged goods."

"Each vaccination produces homosexuality, because it prevents the formation of one's personality."

So... just about everyone in the modern world is gay then?

Jay_37040 said:

Homosexuality also plays a very important role in contributing to the growth of a family. You may not think so, but it is true. It is a completely natural sexual orientation that serves a vital role in the continuation of the human species.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't make that claim myself. And you didn't give shred of evidence of why it would be true. My doubt of a "vital role" makes "completely natural" sound misleading. Homosexuals are a very small minority so even if their role us important it wouldn't be universal.



Posted from Pokecommunity.com App for Android

BlahISuck said:

I wouldn't make that claim myself. And you didn't give shred of evidence of why it would be true. My doubt of a "vital role" makes "completely natural" sound misleading. Homosexuals are a very small minority so even if their role us important it wouldn't be universal.



Posted from Pokecommunity.com App for Android

Click to expand...

The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.

E.O. Wilson: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

The theory is controversial, but to date, there has been no counter-theory made to refute the conclusions of E.O. Wilson. At least none that I'm aware of. I've read about theories that suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, and yet, these theories don't hold much water, as if that were true, homosexuality in humans would have disappeared a long time ago. Those traits would not have been passed on.

I read an article in the Toronto Star, not too long ago, that referred to this same theory, and it seemed apparent to me, that it is a theory that has begun to gain wider acceptance. It's also a theory I happen to believe is pretty close to the truth of what happens. Where I disagree, however, is that the theory should not be limited to homosexuals at all, but instead should be expanded to all relatives within a family.

So, when I say the existence of people who are gay have played a vital role, I don't exaggerate. I think we do play a very important role in helping our families to grow. But I don't believe we are the only ones. Like with any other group, it's a collective effort. Everyone within the family would like to see the family grow. It just so happens that gay men and women play a unique role in making that happen.

Jay_37040 said:

The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.

E.O. Wilson: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

The theory is controversial, but to date, there has been no counter-theory made to refute the conclusions of E.O. Wilson. At least none that I'm aware of. I've read about theories that suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, and yet, these theories don't hold much water, as if that were true, homosexuality in humans would have disappeared a long time ago. Those traits would not have been passed on.

I read an article in the Toronto Star, not too long ago, that referred to this same theory, and it seemed apparent to me, that it is a theory that has begun to gain wider acceptance. It's also a theory I happen to believe is pretty close to the truth of what happens. Where I disagree, however, is that the theory should not be limited to homosexuals at all, but instead should be expanded to all relatives within a family.

So, when I say the existence of people who are gay have played a vital role, I don't exaggerate. I think we do play a very important role in helping our families to grow. But I don't believe we are the only ones. Like with any other group, it's a collective effort. Everyone within the family would like to see the family grow. It just so happens that gay men and women play a unique role in making that happen.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes. I'm a bit familiar with this theory, but I'm not sure whether to interpret it from a pro-gay perspective or an evolutionary biology perspective. From reading his wiki page and some newspaper articles he believes in the idea both morally and scientifically. As for me, the evolutionary biology perspective is really intriguing because you would expect the homosexual gene(s) to die out due to it being evolutionarily fatal.

Scientifically, the theory is valid or else homosexuals would not exist XD There are more homosexuals than background mutation would suggest (essentially zero). That I agree with. I think the theory is basically that since homosexuals do not have children, they can pool all their resources into their nearest relations, whereas if that person was a heterosexual, they will likely have their own children and not pool resources. So imagine two scenarios. In the first one both of you children are heterosexual. They go on to have grandchildren who receive a share of resources provided to them by parents. In the second, one of your children is homosexual. You only get one set of grandchildren, but with double the resources. So the homosexual gene, provided it is unexpressed in the grandchildren has a 200% more resources and consequently better chance of survival in this instance.

While I agree to that scientifically, I don't know how applicable it is in general terms. It would be nice to have a gay uncle or aunt as a friendly, surrogate parent, but my personal experience is that of an immigrant who only has my nuclear family as kin here. So that's why it's more difficult for me to perceive the utility of homosexuals as force multipliers XD. But I still have to disagree because families work differently in the United States. While this might work in more communitarian cultures like China or India or Latin America where people interact regularly with extended families, North American culture tends to focus on the nuclear or single-parent families. What this does mean is that conservative, community-oriented cultures - for example that of the deep south, would benefit more from homosexuality than the liberal, individually-oriented culture of the North + Urban population XD.

Jokes and intrigue aside, homosexuals are special in that they don't have children of their own to spend resources on. However, I perceive that most white American families don't have three generations in the same household or in regular contact so this point is rather irrelevant in today's society. But even then I'll say that Wilson's theory was to explain how homosexuality was an adaptable trait with respect to survival and biology, and not whether or not it is effective in modern society. So to conclude, yes in principle, not-so-sure to whether it can be applied today.

Jay_37040 said:

The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.

Click to expand...

I don't follow. What resources? Like... lodging? Money?

Yeah basically XD. I think it would make a lot more sense if we were all cavemen. But emotional support could be relevant today.

BlahISuck said:

Yeah basically XD

Click to expand...

Ah. Wouldn't that apply to everyone though? Everybody helps everybody out. o.o

Homosexuals have no children of their own, so all resources that they expend altruistically is directed to the children of their heterosexual kin, where heterosexual parents look after their kids first. But yeah, it's not so clear-cut nowadays, a very ugg-ugg no share food kind of thing.

BlahISuck said:

Ahh yes. I'm a bit familiar with this theory, but I'm not sure whether to interpret it from a pro-gay perspective or an evolutionary biology perspective. From reading his wiki page and some newspaper articles he believes in the idea both morally and scientifically. As for me, the evolutionary biology perspective is really intriguing because you would expect the homosexual gene(s) to die out due to it being evolutionarily fatal.

Scientifically, the theory is valid or else homosexuals would not exist XD There are more homosexuals than background mutation would suggest (essentially zero). That I agree with. I think the theory is basically that since homosexuals do not have children, they can pool all their resources into their nearest relations, whereas if that person was a heterosexual, they will likely have their own children and not pool resources. So imagine two scenarios. In the first one both of you children are heterosexual. They go on to have grandchildren who receive a share of resources provided to them by parents. In the second, one of your children is homosexual. You only get one set of grandchildren, but with double the resources. So the homosexual gene, provided it is unexpressed in the grandchildren has a 200% more resources and consequently better chance of survival in this instance.

Click to expand...

This is why, biologically, I do not believe that gene(s) alone determines a person's sexual orientation. I think a large part of it would be environmental factors within the womb. If it was solely genes that determines the sexual orientation of a person, you're right, the trait most likely would have disappeared ages ago. But it's still with us, so clearly, something else is influencing a person's sexual orientation.

BlahISuck said:

While I agree to that scientifically, I don't know how applicable it is in general terms. It would be nice to have a gay uncle or aunt as a friendly, surrogate parent, but my personal experience is that of an immigrant who only has my nuclear family as kin here. So that's why it's more difficult for me to perceive the utility of homosexuals as force multipliers XD.

Click to expand...

Each of us has our own unique experiences. My uncle is gay, but I've never met him, or his husband. Even though occasionally I see him on TV as he's The Globe and Mail's Chief political writer (John Ibbitson) and is interviewed regularly when something of interest occurs in Canadian Politics. It's funny, I've never met him, and yet he and I both share an interest in writing. We're both published authors, as is my mother.

BlahISuck said:

But I still have to disagree because families work differently in the United States

Click to expand...

You mean they actually work? I was always under the impression (and some of my American friends have even hinted that this was true) that parents in the U.S. consider their children property. :)

BlahISuck said:

While this might work in more communitarian cultures like China or India or Latin America where people interact regularly with extended families, North American culture tends to focus on the nuclear or single-parent families.

Click to expand...

Hmm, my own family encourages interaction with the broader family rather than just the nuclear family. Consequentially, my adoptive parents encouraged me to find out more about my biological parents, and when we did connect (some 33 years after my birth) I ended up with a much larger family. I now have two mothers and two fathers, both sets that I call mom and dad and consider my parents. I also discovered that I had two younger brothers and a sister, so you can imagine how my family has grown beyond just the basic nuclear family.

My adoptive parents are of French and Norwegian decent, while my biological parents are of English decent. I used to joke with my friends in school that I didn't know which I way I was going some times because my father is French, my mother is Norwegian, and I have an Irish last name.

My adoptive parents even encouraged me to consider their good friends as extensions of our family, so whenever I met one of their friends, either when we went to visit or we were visited by them, I had a constantly ended up with more aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces. I'm pretty sure I haven't met all of them even to this day.

BlahISuck said:

Jokes and intrigue aside, homosexuals are special in that they don't have children of their own to spend resources on.

Click to expand...

A lot do, though, either through surrogacy or from a previous relationship with someone of the opposite sex. And you know, if my boyfriend could get me pregnant, I would be very happy to have his child. Ah well, the trying is fun anyway.

BlahISuck said:

However, I perceive that most white American families don't have three generations in the same household or in regular contact so this point is rather irrelevant in today's society. But even then I'll say that Wilson's theory was to explain how homosexuality was an adaptable trait with respect to survival and biology, and not whether or not it is effective in modern society. So to conclude, yes in principle, not-so-sure to whether it can be applied today.

Click to expand...

Who knows. It really depends on the family. There are many people who have large extended families, so this theory could very well work out for them. That's what fascinates me so much about the human race. There are so many different ways that we make families work. There is a quote that says: "It takes a town to raise a child." Large families that are close could be considered a form of "town" and together they all pitch in to help raise the children in the family. And as the family grows, which they inevitably do, there are more and more people in that family to pitch in and help out. The gay uncles and the lesbian aunts especially will be contributing in that way, because as you pointed out, they're less likely to have children of their own, so more of their resources can be used to help the family out.

Jay_37040 said:

Each of us has our own unique experiences. My uncle is gay, but I've never met him, or his husband. Even though occasionally I see him on TV as he's The Globe and Mail's Chief political writer (John Ibbitson) and is interviewed regularly when something of interest occurs in Canadian Politics. It's funny, I've never met him, and yet he and I both share an interest in writing. We're both published authors, as is my mother.

Click to expand...

He's already out, is he? Congrats for having pro/famous uncle though. I don't have any famous relatives :(

Ahh yes. With adoption laws liberalizing and homosexuals integrating themselves into mainstream society <-- which is why I disagree with Gay Pride Parade, but I digress, the theory won't be relevant anymore because gay people are just as selfish as straight people.

BlahISuck said:

He's already out, is he? Congrats for having pro/famous uncle though. I don't have any famous relatives :(

Ahh yes. With adoption laws liberalizing and homosexuals integrating themselves into mainstream society <-- which is why I disagree with Gay Pride Parade, but I digress, the theory won't be relevant anymore because gay people are just as selfish as straight people.

Click to expand...

Would it surprise you to learn that more people who are straight, and gay supporters, attend gay pride parades and gay pride events than people who are gay? It's true. The thing is, the gay pride parade is not an expression of pride exactly as much as it's a political protest. The parade has always been a protest. Even in gay-friendly Canada, there is still lots of discrimination that we who are gay have to contend with, some of which is perpetrated by our own governments. For instance, me being a sexually active gay man in a monogamous relationship cannot donate blood or donate my organs should I pass away because of that fact. I am lumped in the same categories as prostitutes and drug users, who also are banned from giving blood or donating organs. It's pretty offensive.

And so Pride parades (protests) will continue, and I expect it to continue until all people all over the world are free from discrimination. The only people I know of who would want us to no longer march for equality are those people who would rather see us back in the closets where they believe we belong.